Smoothing molecular interactions: the "kinetic buffer" effect of intrinsically disordered proteins

Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) widely participate in molecular recognition and signaling processes in cells by interacting with other molecules. Compared with ordered proteins, IDPs usually possess stronger intermolecular interactions in binding. As a result, the interface structure of IDPs in complexes is distinct from that of ordered-protein complexes, and this difference may have essential effect on the response to various perturbations in a cell. In this study, we examined the perturbations of intermolecular interactions and temperature on the coupled folding and binding processes of pKID to KIX domains by performing molecular dynamics simulations. By comparing a series of virtual pKID systems with various degree of disorder, we found that the complex stability and the binding kinetics of the disordered systems were less sensitive to the perturbations than the ordered systems. The origin of the lower response sensitivity of IDPs was attributed to their higher flexibility in the complex interface, which was further supported by an analysis on protein complex structures. On the basis of our simulations and results from the literature, we speculate IDPs may not only interact with their biological partners with high specificity and low affinity but also may be resistant to the perturbations in the environment and transmit signals fast and smooth. We proposed to name it the "kinetic buffer" effect.     

Exploring the binding diversity of intrinsically disordered proteins involved in one‐to‐many binding

Molecular recognition features (MoRFs) are intrinsically disordered protein regions that bind to partners via disorder‐to‐order transitions. In one‐to‐many binding, a single MoRF binds to two or more different partners individually. MoRF‐based one‐to‐many protein–protein interaction (PPI) examples were collected from the Protein Data Bank, yielding 23 MoRFs bound to 2–9 partners, with all pairs of same‐MoRF partners having less than 25% sequence identity. Of these, 8 MoRFs were bound to 2–9 partners having completely different folds, whereas 15 MoRFs were bound to 2–5 partners having the same folds but with low sequence identities. For both types of partner variation, backbone and side chain torsion angle rotations were used to bring about the conformational changes needed to enable close fits between a single MoRF and distinct partners. Alternative splicing events (ASEs) and posttranslational modifications (PTMs) were also found to contribute to distinct partner binding. Because ASEs and PTMs both commonly occur in disordered regions, and because both ASEs and PTMs are often tissue‐specific, these data suggest that MoRFs, ASEs, and PTMs may collaborate to alter PPI networks in different cell types. These data enlarge the set of carefully studied MoRFs that use inherent flexibility and that also use ASE‐based and/or PTM‐based surface modifications to enable the same disordered segment to selectively associate with two or more partners. The small number of residues involved in MoRFs and in their modifications by ASEs or PTMs may simplify the evolvability of signaling network diversity.     

Beta turn propensity and a model polymer scaling exponent identify intrinsically disordered phase-separating proteins

The complex cellular milieu can spontaneously demix, or phase separate, in a process controlled in part by intrinsically disordered (ID) proteins. A protein''s propensity to phase separate is thought to be driven by a preference for protein–protein over protein–solvent interactions. The hydrodynamic size of monomeric proteins, as quantified by the polymer scaling exponent (v), is driven by a similar balance. We hypothesized that mean v, as predicted by protein sequence, would be smaller for proteins with a strong propensity to phase separate. To test this hypothesis, we analyzed protein databases containing subsets of proteins that are folded, disordered, or disordered and known to spontaneously phase separate. We find that the phase-separating disordered proteins, on average, had lower calculated values of v compared with their non-phase-separating counterparts. Moreover, these proteins had a higher sequence-predicted propensity for β-turns. Using a simple, surface area-based model, we propose a physical mechanism for this difference: transient β-turn structures reduce the desolvation penalty of forming a protein-rich phase and increase exposure of atoms involved in π/sp² valence electron interactions. By this mechanism, β-turns could act as energetically favored nucleation points, which may explain the increased propensity for turns in ID regions (IDRs) utilized biologically for phase separation. Phase-separating IDRs, non-phase-separating IDRs, and folded regions could be distinguished by combining v and β-turn propensity. Finally, we propose a new algorithm, ParSe (partition sequence), for predicting phase-separating protein regions, and which is able to accurately identify folded, disordered, and phase-separating protein regions based on the primary sequence.     

Systematic analysis of tropomodulin/tropomyosin interactions uncovers fine-tuned binding specificity of intrinsically disordered proteins

An intriguing regulatory mechanism is the ability of some proteins to recognize their binding partners in an isoform‐specific manner. In this study we undertook a systematic analysis of the specificity of the tropomodulin (Tmod) interaction with tropomyosin (TM) to show that affinities of different Tmod isoforms to TM are isoform‐dependent. Intrinsic disorder predictions, alignment of sequences, and circular dichroism were utilized to establish a structural basis for these isoform‐specific interactions. The affinity of model peptides derived from the N‐terminus of different TM isoforms to protein fragments that correspond to the two TM‐binding sites of different Tmod isoforms were analyzed. Several residues were determined to be responsible for the isoform‐dependent differences in affinity. We suggest that changing a set of residues rather than a single residue is needed to alter the binding affinity of one isoform to mimic the affinity of another isoform. The general intrinsic disorder predictor, PONDR® VLXT, was shown to be a useful tool for analyzing regions involved in isoform‐specific binding and for predicting the residues important for isoform differences in binding. Knowing the residues responsible for isoform‐specific affinity creates a tool suitable for studying the influence of Tmod/TM interactions on sarcomere assembly in muscle cells or actin dynamics in non‐muscle cells. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Features of molecular recognition of intrinsically disordered proteins via coupled folding and binding

The sequence–structure–function paradigm of proteins has been revolutionized by the discovery of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) or intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs). In contrast to traditional ordered proteins, IDPs/IDRs are unstructured under physiological conditions. The absence of well‐defined three‐dimensional structures in the free state of IDPs/IDRs is fundamental to their function. Folding upon binding is an important mode of molecular recognition for IDPs/IDRs. While great efforts have been devoted to investigating the complex structures and binding kinetics and affinities, our knowledge on the binding mechanisms of IDPs/IDRs remains very limited. Here, we review recent advances on the binding mechanisms of IDPs/IDRs. The structures and kinetic parameters of IDPs/IDRs can vary greatly, and the binding mechanisms can be highly dependent on the structural properties of IDPs/IDRs. IDPs/IDRs can employ various combinations of conformational selection and induced fit in a binding process, which can be templated by the target and/or encoded by the IDP/IDR. Further studies should provide deeper insights into the molecular recognition of IDPs/IDRs and enable the rational design of IDP/IDR binding mechanisms in the future.     

Interplay between binding affinity and kinetics in protein–protein interactions

To clarify the interplay between the binding affinity and kinetics of protein–protein interactions, and the possible role of intrinsically disordered proteins in such interactions, molecular simulations were carried out on 20 protein complexes. With bias potential and reweighting techniques, the free energy profiles were obtained under physiological affinities, which showed that the bound‐state valley is deep with a barrier height of 12 ? 33 RT. From the dependence of the affinity on interface interactions, the entropic contribution to the binding affinity is approximated to be proportional to the interface area. The extracted dissociation rates based on the Arrhenius law correlate reasonably well with the experimental values (Pearson correlation coefficient R = 0.79). For each protein complex, a linear free energy relationship between binding affinity and the dissociation rate was confirmed, but the distribution of the slopes for intrinsically disordered proteins showed no essential difference with that observed for ordered proteins. A comparison with protein folding was also performed. Proteins 2016; 84:920–933. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Mapping the transition state for a binding reaction between ancient intrinsically disordered proteins

Intrinsically disordered protein domains often have multiple binding partners. It is plausible that the strength of pairing with specific partners evolves from an initial low affinity to a higher affinity. However, little is known about the molecular changes in the binding mechanism that would facilitate such a transition. We previously showed that the interaction between two intrinsically disordered domains, NCBD and CID, likely emerged in an ancestral deuterostome organism as a low-affinity interaction that subsequently evolved into a higher-affinity interaction before the radiation of modern vertebrate groups. Here we map native contacts in the transition states of the low-affinity ancestral and high-affinity human NCBD/CID interactions. We show that the coupled binding and folding mechanism is overall similar but with a higher degree of native hydrophobic contact formation in the transition state of the ancestral complex and more heterogeneous transient interactions, including electrostatic pairings, and an increased disorder for the human complex. Adaptation to new binding partners may be facilitated by this ability to exploit multiple alternative transient interactions while retaining the overall binding and folding pathway.     

Self-assembling systems comprising intrinsically disordered protein polymers like elastin-like recombinamers

Despite lacking cooperatively folded structures under native conditions, numerous intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) nevertheless have great functional importance. These IDPs are hybrids containing both ordered and intrinsically disordered protein regions (IDPRs), the structure of which is highly flexible in this unfolded state. The conformational flexibility of these disordered systems favors transitions between disordered and ordered states triggered by intrinsic and extrinsic factors, folding into different dynamic molecular assemblies to enable proper protein functions. Indeed, prokaryotic enzymes present less disorder than eukaryotic enzymes, thus showing that this disorder is related to functional and structural complexity. Protein-based polymers that mimic these IDPs include the so-called elastin-like polypeptides (ELPs), which are inspired by the composition of natural elastin. Elastin-like recombinamers (ELRs) are ELPs produced using recombinant techniques and which can therefore be tailored for a specific application. One of the most widely used and studied characteristic structures in this field is the pentapeptide (VPGXG)_n. The structural disorder in ELRs probably arises due to the high content of proline and glycine in the ELR backbone, because both these amino acids help to keep the polypeptide structure of elastomers disordered and hydrated. Moreover, the recombinant nature of these systems means that different sequences can be designed, including bioactive domains, to obtain specific structures for each application. Some of these structures, along with their applications as IDPs that self-assemble into functional vesicles or micelles from diblock copolymer ELRs, will be studied in the following sections. The incorporation of additional order- and disorder-promoting peptide/protein domains, such as α-helical coils or β-strands, in the ELR sequence, and their influence on self-assembly, will also be reviewed. In addition, chemically cross-linked systems with controllable order–disorder balance, and their role in biomineralization, will be discussed. Finally, we will review different multivalent IDPs-based coatings and films for different biomedical applications, such as spatially controlled cell adhesion, osseointegration, or biomaterial-associated infection (BAI).     

An N-terminal, 830 residues intrinsically disordered region of the cytoskeleton-regulatory protein supervillin contains Myosin II- and F-actin-binding sites

Supervillin, the largest member of the villin/gelsolin family, is a cytoskeleton regulating, peripheral membrane protein. Supervillin increases cell motility and promotes invasive activity in tumors. Major cytoskeletal interactors, including filamentous actin and myosin II, bind within the unique supervillin amino terminus, amino acids 1–830. The structural features of this key region of the supervillin polypeptide are unknown. Here, we utilize circular dichroism and bioinformatics sequence analysis to demonstrate that the N-terminal part of supervillin forms an extended intrinsically disordered region (IDR). Our combined data indicate that the N-terminus of human and bovine supervillin sequences (positions 1–830) represents an IDR, which is the largest IDR known to date in the villin/gelsolin family. Moreover, this result suggests a potentially novel mechanism of regulation of myosin II and F-actin via the intrinsically disordered N-terminal region of hub protein supervillin.     

Mechanism and rate constants of the Cdc42 GTPase binding with intrinsically disordered effectors

Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) are often involved in signaling and regulatory functions, through binding to cellular targets. Many IDPs undergo disorder‐to‐order transitions upon binding. Both the binding mechanisms and the magnitudes of the binding rate constants can have functional importance. Previously we have found that the coupled binding and folding of any IDP generally follows a sequential mechanism that we term dock‐and‐coalesce, whereby one segment of the IDP first docks to its subsite on the target surface and the remaining segments subsequently coalesce around their respective subsites. Here we applied our TransComp method within the framework of the dock‐and‐coalesce mechanism to dissect the binding kinetics of two Rho‐family GTPases, Cdc42 and TC10, with two intrinsically disordered effectors, WASP and Pak1. TransComp calculations identified the basic regions preceding the GTPase binding domains (GBDs) of the effectors as the docking segment. For Cdc42 binding with both WASP and Pak1, the calculated docking rate constants are close to the observed overall binding rate constants, suggesting that basic‐region docking is the rate‐limiting step and subsequent conformational coalescence of the GBDs on the Cdc42 surface is fast. The possibility that conformational coalescence of the WASP GBD on the TC10 surface is slow warrants further experimental investigation. The account for the differences in binding rate constants among the three GTPase‐effector systems and mutational effects therein yields deep physical and mechanistic insight into the binding processes. Our approach may guide the selection of mutations that lead to redesigned binding pathways. Proteins 2016; 84:674–685. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Previously uncharacterized interactions between the folded and intrinsically disordered domains impart asymmetric effects on UBQLN2 phase separation

Shuttle protein UBQLN2 functions in protein quality control (PQC) by binding to proteasomal receptors and ubiquitinated substrates via its N‐terminal ubiquitin‐like (UBL) and C‐terminal ubiquitin‐associated (UBA) domains, respectively. Between these two folded domains are low‐complexity STI1‐I and STI1‐II regions, connected by disordered linkers. The STI1 regions bind other components, such as HSP70, that are important to the PQC functions of UBQLN2. We recently determined that the STI1‐II region enables UBQLN2 to undergo liquid–liquid phase separation (LLPS) to form liquid droplets in vitro and biomolecular condensates in cells. However, how the interplay between the folded (UBL/UBA) domains and the intrinsically disordered regions mediates phase separation is largely unknown. Using engineered domain deletion constructs, we found that removing the UBA domain inhibits UBQLN2 LLPS while removing the UBL domain enhances LLPS, suggesting that UBA and UBL domains contribute asymmetrically in modulating UBQLN2 LLPS. To explain these differential effects, we interrogated the interactions that involve the UBA and UBL domains across the entire UBQLN2 molecule using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. To our surprise, aside from well‐studied canonical UBL:UBA interactions, there also exist moderate interactions between the UBL and several disordered regions, including STI1‐I and residues 555–570, the latter of which is a known contributor to UBQLN2 LLPS. Our findings are essential for the understanding of both the molecular driving forces of UBQLN2 LLPS and the effects of ligand binding to UBL, UBA, or disordered regions on the phase behavior and physiological functions of UBQLN2.     

Close encounters of the third kind: disordered domains and the interactions of proteins

Protein–protein interactions are thought to be mediated by domains, which are autonomous folding units of proteins. Recently, a second type of interaction has been suggested, mediated by short segments termed linear motifs, which are related to recognition elements of intrinsically disordered regions. Here, we propose a third kind of protein–protein recognition mechanism, mediated by disordered regions longer than 20–30 residues. Bioinformatics predictions and well‐characterized examples, such as the kinase‐inhibitory domain of Cdk inhibitors and the Wiskott–Aldrich syndrome protein (WASP)‐homology domain 2 of actin‐binding proteins, show that these disordered regions conform to the definition of domains rather than motifs, i.e., they represent functional, evolutionary, and structural units. Their functions are distinct from those of short motifs and ordered domains, and establish a third kind of interaction principle. With these points, we argue that these long disordered regions should be recognized as a distinct class of biologically functional protein domains.     

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance study of protein–protein interactions involving apoptosis regulator Diva (Boo) and the BH3 domain of proapoptotic Bcl‐2 members

According to biochemical assays, the Bcl‐2 protein Diva from mouse regulates programmed cell death by heterodimerizing with other members of the family and by interacting with the apoptotic protease‐activating factor Apaf‐1. In typical Bcl‐2 heterodimers, peptide fragments comprising the Bcl‐2 homology domain 3 (BH3 domain) of proapoptotic members are capable of forming functional complexes with prosurvival proteins. High‐resolution structural studies have revealed that the BH3 peptide forms an α‐helix positioned in a canonical hydrophobic cleft of the antiapoptotic protein. Because Diva shows mutations in conserved residues within this area, it has been proposed to have a different interacting surface. However, we showed previously that Diva binds through the canonical groove the BH3 peptide of the human Bcl‐2 killing member Harakiri. To further test Diva's binding capabilities, here we show Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) data, indicating that Diva binds peptides derived from the BH3 domain of several other proapoptotic Bcl‐2 proteins, including mouse Harakiri, Bid, Bak and Bmf. We have measured the binding affinities of the heterodimers, which show significant variability. Structural models of the protein–peptide complexes based on NMR chemical shift perturbation data indicate that the binding surface is analogous. These models do not rely on NMR NOE (Nuclear Overhauser Effect) data, and thus our results can only suggest that the complexes share similar intermolecular interactions. However, the observed affinity differences correlate with the α‐helical population of the BH3‐peptides obtained from circular dichroism experiments, which highlights a role of conformational selection in the binding mechanism. Altogether, our results shed light on important factors governing Diva‐BH3 peptide molecular recognition mode. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Complementary strategies for directing in vivo transcription factor binding through DNA binding domains and intrinsically disordered regions

1. Download : Download high-res image (160KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Sequence characteristics responsible for protein-protein interactions in the intrinsically disordered regions of caseins,amelogenins, and small heat-shock proteins

Milk caseins and dental amelogenins are intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) that associate with themselves and others. Paradoxically, they are also described as hydrophobic proteins, which is difficult to reconcile with a solvent-exposed conformation. We attempt to resolve this paradox. We show that caseins and amelogenins are not hydrophobic proteins but they are more hydrophobic than most IDPs. Remarkably, uncharged residues from different regions of these mature proteins have a nearly constant average hydropathy but these regions exhibit different charged residue frequencies. A novel sequence analysis method was developed to identify hydrophobic and order-promoting regions that would favor conformational collapse. We found that such regions were uncommon; most hydrophobic and order-promoting residues were adjacent to hydrophilic or disorder-promoting residues. A further reason why caseins and amelogenins do not collapse is their high proportion of disorder-promoting proline residues. We conclude that in these proteins the hydrophobic effect is not large enough to cause conformational collapse but it can contribute, along with polar interactions, to protein-protein interactions. This behaviour is similar to the interaction of the disordered N-terminal region of small heat-shock proteins with either themselves during oligomer formation or other, unfolding, proteins during chaperone action.     

A decade and a half of protein intrinsic disorder: Biology still waits for physics

The abundant existence of proteins and regions that possess specific functions without being uniquely folded into unique 3D structures has become accepted by a significant number of protein scientists. Sequences of these intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) and IDP regions (IDPRs) are characterized by a number of specific features, such as low overall hydrophobicity and high net charge which makes these proteins predictable. IDPs/IDPRs possess large hydrodynamic volumes, low contents of ordered secondary structure, and are characterized by high structural heterogeneity. They are very flexible, but some may undergo disorder to order transitions in the presence of natural ligands. The degree of these structural rearrangements varies over a very wide range. IDPs/IDPRs are tightly controlled under the normal conditions and have numerous specific functions that complement functions of ordered proteins and domains. When lacking proper control, they have multiple roles in pathogenesis of various human diseases. Gaining structural and functional information about these proteins is a challenge, since they do not typically “freeze” while their “pictures are taken.” However, despite or perhaps because of the experimental challenges, these fuzzy objects with fuzzy structures and fuzzy functions are among the most interesting targets for modern protein research. This review briefly summarizes some of the recent advances in this exciting field and considers some of the basic lessons learned from the analysis of physics, chemistry, and biology of IDPs.     

The influence of intrinsic folding mechanism of an unfolded protein on the coupled folding-binding process during target recognition

Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) are extensively involved in dynamic signaling processes which require a high association rate and a high dissociation rate for rapid binding/unbinding events and at the same time a sufficient high affinity for specific recognition. Although the coupled folding-binding processes of IDPs have been extensively studied, it is still impossible to predict whether an unfolded protein is suitable for molecular signaling via coupled folding-binding. In this work, we studied the interplay between intrinsic folding mechanisms and coupled folding-binding process for unfolded proteins through molecular dynamics simulations. We first studied the folding process of three representative IDPs with different folded structures, that is, c-Myb, AF9, and E3 rRNase. We found the folding free energy landscapes of IDPs are downhill or show low barriers. To further study the influence of intrinsic folding mechanism on the binding process, we modulated the folding mechanism of barnase via circular permutation and simulated the coupled folding-binding process between unfolded barnase permutant and folded barstar. Although folding of barnase was coupled to target binding, the binding kinetics was significantly affected by the intrinsic folding free energy barrier, where reducing the folding free energy barrier enhances binding rate up to two orders of magnitude. This accelerating effect is different from previous results which reflect the effect of structure flexibility on binding kinetics. Our results suggest that coupling the folding of an unfolded protein with no/low folding free energy barrier with its target binding may provide a way to achieve high specificity and rapid binding/unbinding kinetics simultaneously.