Beauty Is in the Eye of the Beholder: Proteins Can Recognize Binding Sites of Homologous Proteins in More than One Way

Understanding the mechanisms of protein–protein interaction is a fundamental problem with many practical applications. The fact that different proteins can bind similar partners suggests that convergently evolved binding interfaces are reused in different complexes. A set of protein complexes composed of non-homologous domains interacting with homologous partners at equivalent binding sites was collected in 2006, offering an opportunity to investigate this point. We considered 433 pairs of protein–protein complexes from the ABAC database (AB and AC binary protein complexes sharing a homologous partner A) and analyzed the extent of physico-chemical similarity at the atomic and residue level at the protein–protein interface. Homologous partners of the complexes were superimposed using Multiprot, and similar atoms at the interface were quantified using a five class grouping scheme and a distance cut-off. We found that the number of interfacial atoms with similar properties is systematically lower in the non-homologous proteins than in the homologous ones. We assessed the significance of the similarity by bootstrapping the atomic properties at the interfaces. We found that the similarity of binding sites is very significant between homologous proteins, as expected, but generally insignificant between the non-homologous proteins that bind to homologous partners. Furthermore, evolutionarily conserved residues are not colocalized within the binding sites of non-homologous proteins. We could only identify a limited number of cases of structural mimicry at the interface, suggesting that this property is less generic than previously thought. Our results support the hypothesis that different proteins can interact with similar partners using alternate strategies, but do not support convergent evolution.     

Identifying Protein-protein Interaction Sites Using Peptide Arrays

Protein-protein interactions mediate most of the processes in the living cell and control homeostasis of the organism. Impaired protein interactions may result in disease, making protein interactions important drug targets. It is thus highly important to understand these interactions at the molecular level. Protein interactions are studied using a variety of techniques ranging from cellular and biochemical assays to quantitative biophysical assays, and these may be performed either with full-length proteins, with protein domains or with peptides. Peptides serve as excellent tools to study protein interactions since peptides can be easily synthesized and allow the focusing on specific interaction sites. Peptide arrays enable the identification of the interaction sites between two proteins as well as screening for peptides that bind the target protein for therapeutic purposes. They also allow high throughput SAR studies. For identification of binding sites, a typical peptide array usually contains partly overlapping 10-20 residues peptides derived from the full sequences of one or more partner proteins of the desired target protein. Screening the array for binding the target protein reveals the binding peptides, corresponding to the binding sites in the partner proteins, in an easy and fast method using only small amount of protein.In this article we describe a protocol for screening peptide arrays for mapping the interaction sites between a target protein and its partners. The peptide array is designed based on the sequences of the partner proteins taking into account their secondary structures. The arrays used in this protocol were Celluspots arrays prepared by INTAVIS Bioanalytical Instruments. The array is blocked to prevent unspecific binding and then incubated with the studied protein. Detection using an antibody reveals the binding peptides corresponding to the specific interaction sites between the proteins.     

Highly conserved amino acids in Pax and Ets proteins are required for DNA binding and ternary complex assembly

Combinatorial association of DNA-binding proteins on composite binding sites enhances their nucleotide sequence specificity and functional synergy. As a paradigm for these interactions, Pax-5 (BSAP) assembles ternary complexes with Ets proteins on the B cell-specific mb-1 promoter through interactions between their respective DNA-binding domains. Pax-5 recruits Ets-1 to bind the promoter, but not the closely related Ets protein SAP1a. Here we show that, while several different mutations increase binding of SAP1a to an optimized Ets binding site, only conversion of Val68 to an acidic amino acid facilitates ternary complex assembly with Pax-5 on the mb-1 promoter. This suggests that enhanced DNA binding by SAP1a is not sufficient for recruitment by Pax-5, but instead involves protein–protein interactions mediated by the acidic side chain. Recruitment of Ets proteins by Pax-5 requires Gln22 within the N-terminal β-hairpin motif of its paired domain. The β-hairpin also participates in recognition of a subset of Pax-5-binding sites. Thus, Pax-5 incorporates protein–protein interaction and DNA recognition functions in a single motif. The Caenorhabditis elegans Pax protein EGL-38 also binds specifically to the mb-1 promoter and recruits murine Ets-1 or the C.elegans Ets protein T08H4.3, but not the related LIN-1 protein. Together, our results define specific amino acid requirements for Pax–Ets ternary complex assembly and show that the mechanism is conserved between evolutionarily related proteins of diverse animal species. Moreover, the data suggest that interactions between Pax and Ets proteins are an important mechanism that regulates fundamental biological processes in worms and humans.     

Achieving Peptide Binding Specificity and Promiscuity by Loops: Case of the Forkhead-Associated Domain

The regulation of a series of cellular events requires specific protein–protein interactions, which are usually mediated by modular domains to precisely select a particular sequence from diverse partners. However, most signaling domains can bind to more than one peptide sequence. How do proteins create promiscuity from precision? Moreover, these complex interactions typically occur at the interface of a well-defined secondary structure, α helix and β sheet. However, the molecular recognition primarily controlled by loop architecture is not fully understood. To gain a deep understanding of binding selectivity and promiscuity by the conformation of loops, we chose the forkhead-associated (FHA) domain as our model system. The domain can bind to diverse peptides via various loops but only interact with sequences containing phosphothreonine (pThr). We applied molecular dynamics (MD) simulations for multiple free and bound FHA domains to study the changes in conformations and dynamics. Generally, FHA domains share a similar folding structure whereby the backbone holds the overall geometry and the variety of sidechain atoms of multiple loops creates a binding surface to target a specific partner. FHA domains determine the specificity of pThr by well-organized binding loops, which are rigid to define a phospho recognition site. The broad range of peptide recognition can be attributed to different arrangements of the loop interaction network. The moderate flexibility of the loop conformation can help access or exclude binding partners. Our work provides insights into molecular recognition in terms of binding specificity and promiscuity and helpful clues for further peptide design.     

Directed co-evolution of interacting protein–peptide pairs by compartmentalized two-hybrid replication (C2HR)

Directed evolution methodologies benefit from read-outs quantitatively linking genotype to phenotype. We therefore devised a method that couples protein–peptide interactions to the dynamic read-out provided by an engineered DNA polymerase. Fusion of a processivity clamp protein to a thermostable nucleic acid polymerase enables polymerase activity and DNA amplification in otherwise prohibitive high-salt buffers. Here, we recapitulate this phenotype by indirectly coupling the Sso7d processivity clamp to Taq DNA polymerase via respective fusion to a high affinity and thermostable interacting protein–peptide pair. Escherichia coli cells co-expressing protein–peptide pairs can directly be used in polymerase chain reactions to determine relative interaction strengths by the measurement of amplicon yields. Conditional polymerase activity is further used to link genotype to phenotype of interacting protein–peptide pairs co-expressed in E. coli using the compartmentalized self-replication directed evolution platform. We validate this approach, termed compartmentalized two-hybrid replication, by selecting for high-affinity peptides that bind two model protein partners: SpyCatcher and the large fragment of NanoLuc luciferase. We further demonstrate directed co-evolution by randomizing both protein and peptide components of the SpyCatcher–SpyTag pair and co-selecting for functionally interacting variants.     

Flexible Structure of Peptide-Bound Filamin A Mechanosensor Domain Pair 20–21

Filamins (FLNs) are large, multidomain actin cross-linking proteins with diverse functions. Besides regulating the actin cytoskeleton, they serve as important links between the extracellular matrix and the cytoskeleton by binding cell surface receptors, functioning as scaffolds for signaling proteins, and binding several other cytoskeletal proteins that regulate cell adhesion dynamics. Structurally, FLNs are formed of an amino terminal actin-binding domain followed by 24 immunoglobulin-like domains (IgFLNs). Recent studies have demonstrated that myosin-mediated contractile forces can reveal hidden protein binding sites in the domain pairs IgFLNa18–19 and 20–21, enabling FLNs to transduce mechanical signals in cells. The atomic structures of these mechanosensor domain pairs in the resting state are known, as well as the structures of individual IgFLN21 with ligand peptides. However, little experimental data is available on how interacting protein binding deforms the domain pair structures. Here, using small-angle x-ray scattering-based modelling, x-ray crystallography, and NMR, we show that the adaptor protein migfilin-derived peptide-bound structure of IgFLNa20–21 is flexible and adopts distinctive conformations depending on the presence or absence of the interacting peptide. The conformational changes reported here may be common for all peptides and may play a role in the mechanosensor function of the site.     

Structural determinants outside the PXDLS sequence affect the interaction of adenovirus E1A, C-terminal interacting protein and Drosophila repressors with C-terminal binding protein

C-Terminal binding protein (CtBP) interacts with a highly conserved amino acid motif (PXDLS) at the C terminus of adenovirus early region 1A (AdE1A) protein. This amino acid sequence has recently been demonstrated in the mammalian protein C-terminal interacting protein (CtIP) and a number of Drosophila repressors including Snail, Knirps and Hairy. In the study described here we have examined the structures of synthetic peptides identical to the CtBP binding sites on these proteins using NMR spectroscopy. It has been shown that peptides identical to the CtBP binding site in CtIP and at the N terminus of Snail form a series of beta-turns similar to those seen in AdE1A. The PXDLS motif towards the C terminus of Snail forms an alpha-helix. However, the motifs in Knirps and Hairy did not adopt well-defined structures in TFE/water mixtures as shown by the absence of medium range NOEs and a high proportion of signal overlap. The affinities of peptides for Drosophila and mammalian CtBP were compared using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. CtIP, Snail (N-terminal peptide) and Knirps peptides all bind to mammalian CtBP with high affinity (K(i) of 1.04, 1.34 and 0.52 microM, respectively). However, different effects were observed with dCtBP, most notably the affinity for the Snail (N-terminal peptide) and Knirps peptides were markedly reduced (K(i) of 332 and 56 microM, respectively) whilst the Hairy peptide bound much more strongly (K(i) for dCtBP of 6.22 compared to 133 microM for hCtBP). In addition we have shown that peptides containing identical PXDLS motifs but with different N and C terminal sequences have appreciably different affinities for mammalian CtBP and different structures in solution. We conclude that the factors governing the interactions of CtBPs with partner proteins are more complex than simple possession of the PXDLS motif. In particular the overall secondary structures and amino acid side chains in the binding sites of partner proteins are of importance as well as possible global structural effects in both members of the complex. These data are considered evidence for a multiplicity of CtBPs and partner proteins in the cell.     

The SAF-box domain of chromatin protein DEK

DEK is an abundant chromatin protein in metazoans reaching copy numbers of several millions/nucleus. Previous work has shown that human DEK, a protein of 375 amino acids, has two functional DNA-binding domains, of which one resides in a central part of the molecule and contains sequences corresponding to the scaffold attachment factor-box (SAF-box) domain as found in a growing number of nuclear proteins. Isolated SAF-box peptides (amino acids 137–187) bind weakly to DNA in solution, but when many SAF-box peptides are brought into close proximity on the surface of Sephadex beads, cooperative effects lead to a high affinity to DNA. Furthermore, a peptide (amino acids 87–187) that includes a sequence on the N-terminal side of the SAF-box binds efficiently to DNA. This peptide prefers four-way junction DNA over straight DNA and induces supercoils in relaxed circular DNA just like the full-length DEK. Interestingly, however, the 87–187 amino acid peptide introduces negative supercoils in contrast to the full-length DEK, which is known to introduce positive supercoils. We found that two adjacent regions (amino acids 68–87 and 187–250) are necessary for the formation of positive supercoils. Our data contribute to the ongoing characterization of the abundant and ubiquitous DEK chromatin protein.     

Protein-RNA interactions: a structural analysis

A detailed computational analysis of 32 protein–RNA complexes is presented. A number of physical and chemical properties of the intermolecular interfaces are calculated and compared with those observed in protein–double-stranded DNA and protein–single-stranded DNA complexes. The interface properties of the protein–RNA complexes reveal the diverse nature of the binding sites. van der Waals contacts played a more prevalent role than hydrogen bond contacts, and preferential binding to guanine and uracil was observed. The positively charged residue, arginine, and the single aromatic residues, phenylalanine and tyrosine, all played key roles in the RNA binding sites. A comparison between protein–RNA and protein–DNA complexes showed that whilst base and backbone contacts (both hydrogen bonding and van der Waals) were observed with equal frequency in the protein–RNA complexes, backbone contacts were more dominant in the protein–DNA complexes. Although similar modes of secondary structure interactions have been observed in RNA and DNA binding proteins, the current analysis emphasises the differences that exist between the two types of nucleic acid binding protein at the atomic contact level.     

Two distinct classes of cochaperones compete for the EEVD motif in heat shock protein 70 to tune its chaperone activities

Chaperones of the heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70) family engage in protein–protein interactions with many cochaperones. One “hotspot” for cochaperone binding is the EEVD motif, found at the extreme C terminus of cytoplasmic Hsp70s. This motif is known to bind tetratricopeptide repeat domain cochaperones, such as the E3 ubiquitin ligase CHIP. In addition, the EEVD motif also interacts with a structurally distinct domain that is present in class B J-domain proteins, such as DnaJB4. These observations suggest that CHIP and DnaJB4 might compete for binding to Hsp70’s EEVD motif; however, the molecular determinants of such competition are not clear. Using a collection of EEVD-derived peptides, including mutations and truncations, we explored which residues are critical for binding to both CHIP and DnaJB4. These results revealed that some features, such as the C-terminal carboxylate, are important for both interactions. However, CHIP and DnaJB4 also had unique preferences, especially at the isoleucine position immediately adjacent to the EEVD. Finally, we show that competition between these cochaperones is important in vitro, as DnaJB4 limits the ubiquitination activity of the Hsp70–CHIP complex, whereas CHIP suppresses the client refolding activity of the Hsp70–DnaJB4 complex. Together, these data suggest that the EEVD motif has evolved to support diverse protein–protein interactions, such that competition between cochaperones may help guide whether Hsp70-bound proteins are folded or degraded.     

Match_Motif: A rapid computational tool to assist in protein–protein interaction design

In order to generate protein assemblies with a desired function, the rational design of protein–protein binding interfaces is of significant interest. Approaches based on random mutagenesis or directed evolution may involve complex experimental selection procedures. Also, molecular modeling approaches to design entirely new proteins and interactions with partner molecules can involve large computational efforts and screening steps. In order to simplify at least the initial effort for designing a putative binding interface between two proteins the Match_Motif approach has been developed. It employs the large collection of known protein–protein complex structures to suggest interface modifications that may lead to improved binding for a desired input interaction geometry. The approach extracts interaction motifs based on the backbone structure of short (four residues) segments and the relative arrangement with respect to short segments on the partner protein. The interaction geometry is used to search through a database of such motifs in known stable bound complexes. All matches are rapidly identified (within a few seconds) and collected and can be used to guide changes in the interface that may lead to improved binding. In the output, an alternative interface structure is also proposed based on the frequency of occurrence of side chains at a given interface position in all matches and based on sterical considerations. Applications of the procedure to known complex structures and alternative arrangements are presented and discussed. The program, data files, and example applications can be downloaded from https://www.groups.ph.tum.de/t38/downloads/.     

Translational control by RGS2

The regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins are a family of guanosine triphosphatase (GTPase)–accelerating proteins. We have discovered a novel function for RGS2 in the control of protein synthesis. RGS2 was found to bind to eIF2Bϵ (eukaryotic initiation factor 2B ϵ subunit) and inhibit the translation of messenger RNA (mRNA) into new protein. This effect was not observed for other RGS proteins tested. This novel function of RGS2 is distinct from its ability to regulate G protein–mediated signals and maps to a stretch of 37 amino acid residues within its conserved RGS domain. Moreover, RGS2 was capable of interfering with the eIF2–eIF2B GTPase cycle, which is a requisite step for the initiation of mRNA translation. Collectively, this study has identified a novel role for RGS2 in the control of protein synthesis that is independent of its established RGS domain function.     

Intrinsically disordered proteins display no preference for chaperone binding in vivo

Intrinsically disordered/unstructured proteins (IDPs) are extremely sensitive to proteolysis in vitro, but show no enhanced degradation rates in vivo. Their existence and functioning may be explained if IDPs are preferentially associated with chaperones in the cell, which may offer protection against degradation by proteases. To test this inference, we took pairwise interaction data from high-throughput interaction studies and analyzed to see if predicted disorder correlates with the tendency of chaperone binding by proteins. Our major finding is that disorder predicted by the IUPred algorithm actually shows negative correlation with chaperone binding in E. coli, S. cerevisiae, and metazoa species. Since predicted disorder positively correlates with the tendency of partner binding in the interactome, the difference between the disorder of chaperone-binding and non-binding proteins is even more pronounced if normalized to their overall tendency to be involved in pairwise protein–protein interactions. We argue that chaperone binding is primarily required for folding of globular proteins, as reflected in an increased preference for chaperones of proteins in which at least one Pfam domain exists. In terms of the functional consequences of chaperone binding of mostly disordered proteins, we suggest that its primary reason is not the assistance of folding, but promotion of assembly with partners. In support of this conclusion, we show that IDPs that bind chaperones also tend to bind other proteins.     

Using genome-wide measurements for computational prediction of SH2–peptide interactions

Peptide-recognition modules (PRMs) are used throughout biology to mediate protein–protein interactions, and many PRMs are members of large protein domain families. Recent genome-wide measurements describe networks of peptide–PRM interactions. In these networks, very similar PRMs recognize distinct sets of peptides, raising the question of how peptide-recognition specificity is achieved using similar protein domains. The analysis of individual protein complex structures often gives answers that are not easily applicable to other members of the same PRM family. Bioinformatics-based approaches, one the other hand, may be difficult to interpret physically. Here we integrate structural information with a large, quantitative data set of SH2 domain–peptide interactions to study the physical origin of domain–peptide specificity. We develop an energy model, inspired by protein folding, based on interactions between the amino-acid positions in the domain and peptide. We use this model to successfully predict which SH2 domains and peptides interact and uncover the positions in each that are important for specificity. The energy model is general enough that it can be applied to other members of the SH2 family or to new peptides, and the cross-validation results suggest that these energy calculations will be useful for predicting binding interactions. It can also be adapted to study other PRM families, predict optimal peptides for a given SH2 domain, or study other biological interactions, e.g. protein–DNA interactions.     

Probing binding hot spots at protein–RNA recognition sites

We use evolutionary conservation derived from structure alignment of polypeptide sequences along with structural and physicochemical attributes of protein–RNA interfaces to probe the binding hot spots at protein–RNA recognition sites. We find that the degree of conservation varies across the RNA binding proteins; some evolve rapidly compared to others. Additionally, irrespective of the structural class of the complexes, residues at the RNA binding sites are evolutionary better conserved than those at the solvent exposed surfaces. For recognitions involving duplex RNA, residues interacting with the major groove are better conserved than those interacting with the minor groove. We identify multi-interface residues participating simultaneously in protein–protein and protein–RNA interfaces in complexes where more than one polypeptide is involved in RNA recognition, and show that they are better conserved compared to any other RNA binding residues. We find that the residues at water preservation site are better conserved than those at hydrated or at dehydrated sites. Finally, we develop a Random Forests model using structural and physicochemical attributes for predicting binding hot spots. The model accurately predicts 80% of the instances of experimental ΔΔG values in a particular class, and provides a stepping-stone towards the engineering of protein–RNA recognition sites with desired affinity.     

DISPLAR: an accurate method for predicting DNA-binding sites on protein surfaces

Structural and physical properties of DNA provide important constraints on the binding sites formed on surfaces of DNA-targeting proteins. Characteristics of such binding sites may form the basis for predicting DNA-binding sites from the structures of proteins alone. Such an approach has been successfully developed for predicting protein–protein interface. Here this approach is adapted for predicting DNA-binding sites. We used a representative set of 264 protein–DNA complexes from the Protein Data Bank to analyze characteristics and to train and test a neural network predictor of DNA-binding sites. The input to the predictor consisted of PSI-blast sequence profiles and solvent accessibilities of each surface residue and 14 of its closest neighboring residues. Predicted DNA-contacting residues cover 60% of actual DNA-contacting residues and have an accuracy of 76%. This method significantly outperforms previous attempts of DNA-binding site predictions. Its application to the prion protein yielded a DNA-binding site that is consistent with recent NMR chemical shift perturbation data, suggesting that it can complement experimental techniques in characterizing protein–DNA interfaces.     

In situ artificial contact sites (ISACS) between synthetic and endogenous organelle membranes allow for quantification of protein-tethering activities

Membrane contact sites are specialized areas where the membranes of two distinct organelles are physically connected and allow for the exchange of molecules and for signaling processes. Understanding the mechanisms whereby proteins localize to and function in these structures is of special interest; however, methods allowing for reconstitution of these contact sites are few and only based on synthetic membranes and recombinant proteins. Here, we devised a strategy to create in situ artificial contact sites between synthetic and endogenous organelle membranes. Liposomes functionalized with a peptide containing a two phenylalanines in an acidic tract (FFAT) motif were added to adherent cells whose plasma membrane was perforated. Confocal and super-resolution microscopy revealed that these liposomes associated with the endoplasmic reticulum via the specific interaction of the FFAT motif with endoplasmic reticulum–resident vesicle-associated membrane protein–associated proteins. This approach allowed for quantification of the attachment properties of peptides corresponding to FFAT motifs derived from distinct proteins and of a protein construct derived from steroidogenic acute regulatory protein–related lipid transfer domain-3. Collectively, these data indicate that the creation of in situ artificial contact sites represents an efficient approach for studying the membrane-tethering activity of proteins and for designing membrane contact site reconstitution assays in cellular contexts.     

Discarding functional residues from the substitution table improves predictions of active sites within three-dimensional structures

Substitutions of individual amino acids in proteins may be under very different evolutionary restraints depending on their structural and functional roles. The Environment Specific Substitution Table (ESST) describes the pattern of substitutions in terms of amino acid location within elements of secondary structure, solvent accessibility, and the existence of hydrogen bonds between side chains and neighbouring amino acid residues. Clearly amino acids that have very different local environments in their functional state compared to those in the protein analysed will give rise to inconsistencies in the calculation of amino acid substitution tables. Here, we describe how the calculation of ESSTs can be improved by discarding the functional residues from the calculation of substitution tables. Four categories of functions are examined in this study: protein–protein interactions, protein–nucleic acid interactions, protein–ligand interactions, and catalytic activity of enzymes. Their contributions to residue conservation are measured and investigated. We test our new ESSTs using the program CRESCENDO, designed to predict functional residues by exploiting knowledge of amino acid substitutions, and compare the benchmark results with proteins whose functions have been defined experimentally. The new methodology increases the Z-score by 98% at the active site residues and finds 16% more active sites compared with the old ESST. We also find that discarding amino acids responsible for protein–protein interactions helps in the prediction of those residues although they are not as conserved as the residues of active sites. Our methodology can make the substitution tables better reflect and describe the substitution patterns of amino acids that are under structural restraints only.     

Identification of Xin-repeat proteins as novel ligands of the SH3 domains of nebulin and nebulette and analysis of their interaction during myofibril formation and remodeling

The Xin actin-binding repeat–containing proteins Xin and XIRP2 are exclusively expressed in striated muscle cells, where they are believed to play an important role in development. In adult muscle, both proteins are concentrated at attachment sites of myofibrils to the membrane. In contrast, during development they are localized to immature myofibrils together with their binding partner, filamin C, indicating an involvement of both proteins in myofibril assembly. We identify the SH3 domains of nebulin and nebulette as novel ligands of proline-rich regions of Xin and XIRP2. Precise binding motifs are mapped and shown to bind both SH3 domains with micromolar affinity. Cocrystallization of the nebulette SH3 domain with the interacting XIRP2 peptide PPPTLPKPKLPKH reveals selective interactions that conform to class II SH3 domain–binding peptides. Bimolecular fluorescence complementation experiments in cultured muscle cells indicate a temporally restricted interaction of Xin-repeat proteins with nebulin/nebulette during early stages of myofibril development that is lost upon further maturation. In mature myofibrils, this interaction is limited to longitudinally oriented structures associated with myofibril development and remodeling. These data provide new insights into the role of Xin actin-binding repeat–containing proteins (together with their interaction partners) in myofibril assembly and after muscle damage.