Skip to content
naulon

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 17, 2026.

Arpeggio: A Web Server for Calculating and Visualising Interatomic Interactions in Protein Structures

Harry C Jubb, Alicia P Higueruelo, Bernardo Ochoa-Montaño and 3 more

Journal of Molecular Biology · 2017 · CC BY

doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2016.12.004

Abstract

Interactions between proteins and their ligands, such as small molecules, other proteins, and DNA, depend on specific interatomic interactions that can be classified on the basis of atom type and distance and angle constraints. Visualisation of these interactions provides insights into the nature of molecular recognition events and has practical uses in guiding drug design and understanding the structural and functional impacts of mutations. We present Arpeggio, a web server for calculating interactions within and between proteins and protein, DNA, or small-molecule ligands, including van der Waals', ionic, carbonyl, metal, hydrophobic, and halogen bond contacts, and hydrogen bonds and specific atom-aromatic ring (cation-π, donor-π, halogen-π, and carbon-π) and aromatic ring-aromatic ring (π-π) interactions, within user-submitted macromolecule structures. PyMOL session files can be downloaded, allowing high-quality publication images of the interactions to be generated. Arpeggio is implemented in Python and available as a user-friendly web interface at http://structure.bioc.cam.ac.uk/arpeggio/ and as a downloadable package at https://bitbucket.org/harryjubb/arpeggio.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 17, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

Molecular recognition is driven in part by the favourable matching of chemistry between two or more molecules. Many known interactions in molecular recognition can be represented by pairwise contacts between atoms,,,,,,,. While interatomic, non-bonded interactions, such as hydrogen bonding and π-stacking interactions, are generally intuitively recognised by the trained observer, it is helpful to visualise them based on defined criteria. Definition and enumeration/visualisation of interactions as opposed to intuition help to ensure that we have a more rigorous, impartial, and complete understanding of the nature of molecular binding sites. This allows the systematic evaluation of the interactions made in, for example, protein–ligand interactions, thus ensuring that key interactions are not overlooked. Some tools are available that aid in this understanding, such as the Ligand Protein Contacts server and GIANT, and specific programs for calculating individual interaction types such as polar contacts in PyMOL and hydrogen bonds with Joy, REDUCE, HBPLUS, Bioptools, and LIGPLOT +. However, these tools use a limited set of interaction types and are confined to protein–ligand interactions for visualisation. FingerPrintLib and PyPLIF calculate multiple interaction types but are restricted to protein interactions with small organic molecule ligands only. PLIP recently expanded these interactions to look at all protein–ligand interactions, but like earlier methods is limited to binary interaction fingerprints in its output.

We have previously published databases of calculated interatomic interactions covering the Protein Data Bank (PDB ),,,,. We now present Arpeggio, a web server for calculating interatomic interactions of 15 subtypes based on atom type, distance and angle terms. Arpeggio can be applied not only to protein–ligand interactions but also to protein–protein, protein–nucleic acid, and nucleic acid–nucleic acid interactions. The server can accept user-submitted structures in addition to PDB accession codes and thus can be used to calculate interactions for non-PDB structures such as homology models or docking poses. The web server provides downloadable tabular data enumerating interactions between molecular entities of interest for further analysis, in addition to WebGL- and PyMOL session-based visualisation of all interactions present in an input structure. The Arpeggio Python program that calculates interactions is Open Source (available at https://bitbucket.org/harryjubb/arpeggio), has only Open Source dependencies, and can be installed and run on Linux and Mac OSX.

Arpeggio program implementation

Arpeggio is implemented in Python and uses BioPython and OpenBabel to process PDB structure files. OpenBabel is used to assign atom types to each atom in the structure via SMARTS (a molecular pattern-matching language) queries, and BioPython's KDTree implementation is used to extract nearest-neighbour atoms within a 5-Å radial cutoff. Each pairwise interatomic contact is given a structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt) using an expanded definition of the interaction types. The first five bits of this fingerprint are mutually exclusive, and denote whether the interaction is a steric clash, covalent bond, van der Waals’ clashing (overlapping van der Waals’ radii, which can be common in structural models derived from X-ray crystallography), van der Waals'’ or "proximal". The first four bits are set based on theoretical covalent and van der Waals' radii defined in OpenBabel; other interactions that are still within the 5-Å cutoff are “proximal” but may not represent a “meaningful” interaction. The remaining bits correspond to specific “feature” interactions: hydrogen bonds, weak hydrogen bonds, halogen bonds, and ionic, metal complex, aromatic, hydrophobe–hydrophobe, and carbonyl interactions. We also added “polar” and “weak polar” contact types, which correspond to hydrogen bond and weak hydrogen bond interactions without angle terms; these are less sensitive to hydrogen placement.

Overall, the SIFt typifies the interactions made between a given atom pair and can be enumerated for groups of atoms, for example, a small-molecule ligand. Aromatic rings are also perceived using OpenBabel, and aromatic–aromatic ring (π–π) and atom ring (cation–π, donor–π, halogen–π, and carbon–π) interactions are recorded.

Atomic-resolution SIFts are enumerated for residues and are stored as binary and integer (counts of atoms making given contacts) fingerprints per residue. Aromatic–aromatic ring (π–π) and atom ring (cation–π, donor–π, halogen–π, and carbon–π) interactions are stored in the residue-level SIFts.

Improvements to definitions of interatomic contacts

Arpeggio builds on the SMARTS-based atom-typing and distance/angle-based contact definitions,. We reviewed the SMARTS-based atom typing in CREDO and improved upon them. In some cases, we have modified the definitions themselves; for example, in the SMARTS queries for hydrogen bond acceptors, where the original CREDO SMARTS ruled out acceptors for carboxyl groups, we replaced these definitions with more lenient terms, allowing any covalently bound oxygen atom to be an acceptor. The SMARTS-based atom-typing definitions used in Arpeggio and built on from CREDO are available in the Arpeggio program configuration files, distributed with the source code, and are presented in Supplementary Data.

In other cases, CREDO's atom-typing SMARTS were sufficient; however, errors in protein structures due to poor resolution can cause incorrect atom typing. For example, where protomer termini do not have all atoms of the amino or carboxyl groups modelled due to comparatively flexible termini, atoms can be mislabelled. For example, a terminal carboxyl group missing an oxygen atom could be identified as a hydroxyl, and therefore, the lone oxygen atom would be typed as being a hydrogen bond donor in spite of not being covalently bound to a hydrogen atom. For protein termini and other polypeptide residues, this limitation was fixable by identifying the terminal residues of polypeptides using BioPython and by assigning the main-chain atom types from a dictionary of protein atom types, including distinction of hydroxyls and carboxyls from protein atom names. Combined with SMARTS-based atom typing, this feature gives Arpeggio a key advantage because of its ability to type atoms where protein atoms are missing and for modified residues and small-molecule ligands. In the Arpeggio program, a command-line option can be set to enable these definitions to be lenient with respect to tautomerism or other ambiguities, for example, the flipping of histidines.

Additional interatomic interaction types in Arpeggio

We added interaction types to Arpeggio that included group interactions between amide groups and other π systems, including other amides and aromatic rings, which are well documented. We also added interactions between methionine sulphur atoms and aromatic rings that have been shown to be recurrent in protein structures,,.

Arpeggio web server implementation

The web implementation of Arpeggio allows the user to upload a structure or to select a file from the PDB (Fig. 1). The user can calculate interactions for a particular heteroatom group and its binding site, such as for a small-molecule ligand or interactions between chains (i.e., protein–protein and protein–DNA interactions). The user can also make a custom selection for calculation of binding-site interactions using a simple selection syntax. On completion, the user is presented with a summary of the interactions made by the entity of interest (Fig. 2a), interactive, and WebGL-based visualisation of the calculated interatomic interactions (Fig. 2b).

Additionally, the user can download a PyMOL session file containing the submitted protein structure and visualisations of the calculated interactions (Fig. 3), and tab-separated output files enumerating the calculated atom–atom contacts and aromatic ring interactions. Different types of interactions and distances are represented by connecting lines of various colours and styles, which can be enabled or disabled at the user's convenience. Examples of the representation are shown in Fig. 3.

Discussion and Conclusions

Knowledge of the specific interactions made in macromolecular binding sites can provide insights into understanding molecular recognition, for example, in target–ligand interactions in drug development. We present Arpeggio, a freely available tool to calculate, visualise, and understand these interactions. We have found that analysis of interactions using Arpeggio, a powerful tool, has shed light on the role of mutations in genetic diseases and drug resistance,,,,,,,. Arpeggio joins a range of publicly available software for understanding interatomic interactions. In developing Arpeggio, we have improved on atom typing and interatomic contact definitions of previous methods and have added more known interatomic interaction types than have been previously supported. Arpeggio builds on published methods for calculating interatomic interactions because of the wide range of contact types that it offers, and it stands out in having the ability to calculate interactions between any molecular entities of interest, including protein–protein and protein–nucleic acid interactions, and in visualising these both in a web interface through a state-of-the-art WebGL-based protein structure viewer and as a downloadable, stand-alone PyMOL session.

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, we thank Adrian Schreyer; without his pioneering work on CREDO, Arpeggio would not have been possible. We are grateful to Douglas Pires for helpful discussions. H.C.J. was supported by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and UCB [BB/J500574/1]. B.O.-M. was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. D.B.A. is the recipient of a C. J. Martin Research Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (APP1072476) and is funded by the Jack Brockhoff Foundation (JBF 4186, 2016) and a Wellcome Trust Programme Grant to TLB (093167/Z/10/Z). D.B.A. and T.L.B. are funded by a Newton Fund RCUK-CONFAP Grant awarded by The Medical Research Council and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (MR/M026302/1). T.L.B. wishes to acknowledge the University of Cambridge and The Wellcome Trust for facilities and support. This work builds on work funded by the Wellcome Trust.

Competing financial interests: The authors have no competing financial interests to declare.

References 38

  1. 1.

    Allen F.H., Baalham C.A., Lommerse J.P.M., Raithby P.R. Carbonyl–carbonyl interactions can be competitive with hydrogen bonds. Acta Crystallogr. B. 1998;54:320-329.

    Not in our library

  2. 2.

    Chakrabarti P., Bhattacharyya R. Geometry of nonbonded interactions involving planar groups in proteins. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 2007;95:83-137.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2007.03.016

  3. 3.

    Lu Y., Shi T., Wang Y., Yang H., Yan X., Luo X. Halogen bonding—a novel interaction for rational drug design? J. Med. Chem. 2009;52:2854-2862.

    Not in our library10.1021/jm9000133

  4. 4.

    Ma J.C., Dougherty D.A. The cation–pi interaction. Chem. Rev. 1997;97:1303-1324.

    Not in our library10.1021/cr9603744

  5. 5.

    McDonald I.K., Thornton J.M. Satisfying hydrogen bonding potential in proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 1994;238:777-793.

    Not in our library10.1006/jmbi.1994.1334

  6. 6.

    McGaughey G.B., Gagne M., Rappe A.K. Pi-stacking interactions. Alive and well in proteins. J. Biol. Chem. 1998;273:15,458-15,463.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.273.25.15458

  7. 7.

    Baker E.N., Hubbard R.E. Hydrogen bonding in globular proteins. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 1984;44:97-179.

    Not in our library10.1016/0079-6107(84)90007-5

  8. 8.
  9. 9.

    Kasahara K., Kinoshita K. GIANT: pattern analysis of molecular interactions in 3D structures of protein-small ligand complexes. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014;15:12.

    Not in our library10.1186/1471-2105-15-12

  10. 10.

    Sobolev V., Sorokine A., Prilusky J., Abola E.E., Edelman M. Automated analysis of interatomic contacts in proteins. Bioinformatics. 1999;15:327-332.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/15.4.327

  11. 11.

    Mizuguchi K., Deane C.M., Blundell T.L., Johnson M.S., Overington J.P. JOY: protein sequence-structure representation and analysis. Bioinformatics. 1998;14:617-623.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/14.7.617

  12. 12.

    Word J.M., Lovell S.C., Richardson J.S., Richardson D.C. Asparagine and glutamine: using hydrogen atom contacts in the choice of side-chain amide orientation. J. Mol. Biol. 1999;285:1735-1747.

    Not in our library10.1006/jmbi.1998.2401

  13. 13.

    Porter C.T., Martin A.C. BiopLib and BiopTools—a C programming library and toolset for manipulating protein structure. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:4017-4019.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btv482

  14. 14.

    Laskowski R.A., Swindells M.B. LigPlot +: multiple ligand–protein interaction diagrams for drug discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2011;51:2778-2786.

    Not in our library10.1021/ci200227u

  15. 15.

    Marcou G., Rognan D. Optimizing fragment and scaffold docking by use of molecular interaction fingerprints. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007;47:195-207.

    Not in our library10.1021/ci600342e

  16. 16.

    Radifar M., Yuniarti N., Istyastono E.P. PyPLIF: python-based protein-ligand interaction fingerprinting. Bioinformation. 2013;9:325-328.

    Not in our library10.6026/97320630009325

  17. 17.
  18. 18.

    Berman H., Henrick K., Nakamura H., Markley J.L. The worldwide Protein Data Bank (wwPDB): ensuring a single, uniform archive of PDB data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35:D301-D303.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkl971

  19. 19.

    Schreyer A., Blundell T. CREDO: a protein–ligand interaction database for drug discovery. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 2009;73:157-167.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1747-0285.2008.00762.x

  20. 20.
  21. 21.

    Higueruelo A.P., Schreyer A., Bickerton G.R., Pitt W.R., Groom C.R., Blundell T.L. Atomic interactions and profile of small molecules disrupting protein–protein interfaces: the TIMBAL database. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 2009;74:457-467.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1747-0285.2009.00889.x

  22. 22.

    Lee S., Blundell T.L. BIPA: a database for protein-nucleic acid interaction in 3D structures. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:1559-1560.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btp243

  23. 23.

    Schreyer A.M., Blundell T.L. CREDO: a structural interactomics database for drug discovery. Database (Oxford). 2013;2013:bat049.

    Not in our library10.1093/database/bat049

  24. 24.

    Cock P.J., Antao T., Chang J.T., Chapman B.A., Cox C.J., Dalke A. Biopython: freely available python tools for computational molecular biology and bioinformatics. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:1422-1423.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btp163

  25. 25.
  26. 26.

    Deng Z., Chuaqui C., Singh J. Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein–ligand binding interactions. J. Med. Chem. 2004;47:337-344.

    Not in our library10.1021/jm030331x

  27. 27.

    Burley S.K., Petsko G.A. Amino-aromatic interactions in proteins. FEBS Lett. 1986;203:139-143.

    Not in our library10.1016/0014-5793(86)80730-x

  28. 28.

    Zhou P., Tian F., Lv F., Shang Z. Geometric characteristics of hydrogen bonds involving sulfur atoms in proteins. Proteins. 2009;76:151-163.

    Not in our library10.1002/prot.22327

  29. 29.

    Valley C.C., Cembran A., Perlmutter J.D., Lewis A.K., Labello N.P., Gao J. The methionine-aromatic motif plays a unique role in stabilizing protein structure. J. Biol. Chem. 2012;287:34,979-34,991.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m112.374504

  30. 30.

    Biswal H.S., Gloaguen E., Loquais Y., Tardivel B., Mons M. Strength of NH...S hydrogen bonds in methionine residues revealed by gas-phase IR/UV spectroscopy. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2012;3:755-759.

    Not in our library10.1021/jz300207k

  31. 31.

    Pires D.E., Chen J., Blundell T.L., Ascher D.B. In silico functional dissection of saturation mutagenesis: interpreting the relationship between phenotypes and changes in protein stability, interactions and activity. Sci. Rep. 2016;6:19,848.

    Not in our library10.1038/srep19848

  32. 32.

    Nemethova M., Radvanszky J., Kadasi L., Ascher D.B., Pires D.E., Blundell T.L. Twelve novel HGD gene variants identified in 99 alkaptonuria patients: focus on ‘black bone disease’ in Italy. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2016;24:66-72.

    Not in our library10.1038/ejhg.2015.60

  33. 33.

    Jafri M., Wake N.C., Ascher D.B., Pires D.E., Gentle D., Morris M.R. Germline mutations in the CDKN2B tumor suppressor gene predispose to renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Discov. 2015;5:723-729.

    Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-14-1096

  34. 34.

    Usher J.L., Ascher D.B., Pires D.E., Milan A.M., Blundell T.L., Ranganath L.R. Analysis of HGD Gene mutations in patients with alkaptonuria from the United Kingdom: identification of novel mutations. JIMD Rep. 2015;24:3-11.

    Not in our library10.1007/8904_2014_380

  35. 35.

    Pires D.E., Blundell T.L., Ascher D.B. Platinum: a database of experimentally measured effects of mutations on structurally defined protein–ligand complexes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43:D387-D391.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gku966

  36. 36.

    Phelan J., Coll F., McNerney R., Ascher D.B., Pires D.E., Furnham N. Mycobacterium tuberculosis whole genome sequencing and protein structure modelling provides insights into anti-tuberculosis drug resistance. BMC Med. 2016;14:31.

    Not in our library10.1186/s12916-016-0575-9

  37. 37.

    Park Y., Pacitto A., Bayliss T., Cleghorn L.A.T., Wang Z., Hartman T. Essential but not vulnerable: indazole sulfonamides targeting inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase as potential leads against Mycobacterium tuberculosis. ACS Infect. Dis. 2016 (Epub ahead of print).

    Not in our library10.1021/acsinfecdis.6b00103

  38. 38.

    Singh V., Donini S., Pacitto A., Sala C., Hartkoorn R.C., Dhar N. The inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase, GuaB2, is a vulnerable new bactericidal drug target for tuberculosis. ACS Infect. Dis. 2016 (Epub ahead of print).

    Not in our library10.1021/acsinfecdis.6b00102

Cited by papers we hold 15

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.