A dissection of specific and non-specific protein-protein interfaces

We compare the geometric and physical-chemical properties of interfaces involved in specific and non-specific protein-protein interactions in crystal structures reported in the Protein Data Bank. Specific interactions are illustrated by 70 protein-protein complexes and by subunit contacts in 122 homodimeric proteins; non-specific interactions are illustrated by 188 pairs of monomeric proteins making crystal-packing contacts selected to bury more than 800 A2 of protein surface. A majority of these pairs have 2-fold symmetry and form "crystal dimers" that cannot be distinguished from real dimers on the basis of the interface size or symmetry. The chemical and amino acid compositions of the large crystal-packing interfaces resemble the protein solvent-accessible surface. These interfaces are less hydrophobic than in homodimers and contain much fewer fully buried atoms. We develop a residue propensity score and a hydrophobic interaction score to assess preferences seen in the chemical and amino acid compositions of the different types of interfaces, and we derive indexes to evaluate the atomic packing, which we find to be less compact at non-specific than at specific interfaces. We test the capacity of these parameters to identify homodimeric proteins in crystal structures, and show that a simple combination of the non-polar interface area and the fraction of buried interface atoms assigns the quaternary structure of 88% of the homodimers and 77% of the monomers in our data set correctly. These success rates increase to 93-95% when the residue propensity score of the interfaces is taken into consideration.     

A novel method for protein-protein interaction site prediction using phylogenetic substitution models

Protein-protein binding events mediate many critical biological functions in the cell. Typically, functionally important sites in proteins can be well identified by considering sequence conservation. However, protein-protein interaction sites exhibit higher sequence variation than other functional regions, such as catalytic sites of enzymes. Consequently, the mutational behavior leading to weak sequence conservation poses significant challenges to the protein-protein interaction site prediction. Here, we present a phylogenetic framework to capture critical sequence variations that favor the selection of residues essential for protein-protein binding. Through the comprehensive analysis of diverse protein families, we show that protein binding interfaces exhibit distinct amino acid substitution as compared with other surface residues. On the basis of this analysis, we have developed a novel method, BindML, which utilizes the substitution models to predict protein-protein binding sites of protein with unknown interacting partners. BindML estimates the likelihood that a phylogenetic tree of a local surface region in a query protein structure follows the substitution patterns of protein binding interface and nonbinding surfaces. BindML is shown to perform well compared to alternative methods for protein binding interface prediction. The methodology developed in this study is very versatile in the sense that it can be generally applied for predicting other types of functional sites, such as DNA, RNA, and membrane binding sites in proteins.     

A holistic molecular docking approach for predicting protein-protein complex structure

A holistic protein-protein molecular docking approach, HoDock, was established, composed of such steps as binding site prediction, initial complex structure sampling, refined complex structure sampling, structure clustering, scoring and final structure selection. This article explains the detailed steps and applications for CAPRI Target 39. The CAPRI result showed that three predicted binding site residues, A191HIS, B512ARG and B531ARG, were correct, and there were five submitted structures with a high fraction of correct receptor-ligand interface residues, indicating that this docking approach may improve prediction accuracy for protein-protein complex structures.     

Inferring protein-protein interacting sites using residue conservation and evolutionary information

This paper proposes a novel method using protein residue conservation and evolution information, i.e., spatial sequence profile, sequence information entropy and evolution rate, to infer protein binding sites. Some predictors based on support vector machines (SVMs) algorithm are constructed to predict the role of surface residues in protein-protein interface. By combining protein residue characters, the prediction performance can be improved obviously. We then made use of the predicted labels of neighbor residues to improve the performance of the predictors. The efficiency and the effectiveness of our proposed approach are verified by its better prediction performance based on a non-redundant data set of heterodimers.     

Protein-protein interactions: hot spots and structurally conserved residues often locate in complemented pockets that pre-organized in the unbound states: implications for docking

Energetic hot spots account for a significant portion of the total binding free energy and correlate with structurally conserved interface residues. Here, we map experimentally determined hot spots and structurally conserved residues to investigate their geometrical organization. Unfilled pockets are pockets that remain unfilled after protein-protein complexation, while complemented pockets are pockets that disappear upon binding, representing tightly fit regions. We find that structurally conserved residues and energetic hot spots are strongly favored to be located in complemented pockets, and are disfavored in unfilled pockets. For the three available protein-protein complexes with complemented pockets where both members of the complex were alanine-scanned, 62% of all hot spots (DeltaDeltaG>2kcal/mol) are within these pockets, and 60% of the residues in the complemented pockets are hot spots. 93% of all red-hot residues (DeltaDeltaG>/=4kcal/mol) either protrude into or are located in complemented pockets. The occurrence of hot spots and conserved residues in complemented pockets highlights the role of local tight packing in protein associations, and rationalizes their energetic contribution and conservation. Complemented pockets and their corresponding protruding residues emerge among the most important geometric features in protein-protein interactions. By screening the solvent, this organization shields backbone hydrogen bonds and charge-charge interactions. Complemented pockets often pre-exist binding. For 18 protein-protein complexes with complemented pockets whose unbound structures are available, in 16 the pockets are identified to pre-exist in the unbound structures. The root-mean-squared deviations of the atoms lining the pockets between the bound and unbound states is as small as 0.9A, suggesting that such pockets constitute features of the populated native state that may be used in docking.     

ProMate: a structure based prediction program to identify the location of protein-protein binding sites

Is the whole protein surface available for interaction with other proteins, or are specific sites pre-assigned according to their biophysical and structural character? And if so, is it possible to predict the location of the binding site from the surface properties? These questions are answered quantitatively by probing the surfaces of proteins using spheres of radius of 10 A on a database (DB) of 57 unique, non-homologous proteins involved in heteromeric, transient protein-protein interactions for which the structures of both the unbound and bound states were determined. In structural terms, we found the binding site to have a preference for beta-sheets and for relatively long non-structured chains, but not for alpha-helices. Chemically, aromatic side-chains show a clear preference for binding sites. While the hydrophobic and polar content of the interface is similar to the rest of the surface, hydrophobic and polar residues tend to cluster in interfaces. In the crystal, the binding site has more bound water molecules surrounding it, and a lower B-factor already in the unbound protein. The same biophysical properties were found to hold for the unbound and bound DBs. All the significant interface properties were combined into ProMate, an interface prediction program. This was followed by an optimization step to choose the best combination of properties, as many of them are correlated. During optimization and prediction, the tested proteins were not used for data collection, to avoid over-fitting. The prediction algorithm is fully automated, and is used to predict the location of potential binding sites on unbound proteins with known structures. The algorithm is able to successfully predict the location of the interface for about 70% of the proteins. The success rate of the predictor was equal whether applied on the unbound DB or on the disjoint bound DB. A prediction is assumed correct if over half of the predicted continuous interface patch is indeed interface. The ability to predict the location of protein-protein interfaces has far reaching implications both towards our understanding of specificity and kinetics of binding, as well as in assisting in the analysis of the proteome.     

Comparison of protein-protein interactions in serine protease-inhibitor and antibody-antigen complexes: implications for the protein docking problem

The protein-protein interaction energy of 12 nonhomologous serine protease-inhibitor and 15 antibody-antigen complexes is calculated using a molecular mechanics formalism and dissected in terms of the main-chain vs. side-chain contribution, nonrotameric side-chain contributions, and amino acid residue type involvement in the interface interaction. There are major differences in the interactions of the two types of protein-protein complex. Protease-inhibitor complexes interact predominantly through a main-chain-main-chain mechanism while antibody-antigen complexes interact predominantly through a side-chain-side-chain or a side-chain-main-chain mechanism. However, there is no simple correlation between the main-chain-main-chain interaction energy and the percentage of main-chain surface area buried on binding. The interaction energy is equally effected by the presence of nonrotameric side-chain conformations, which constitute approximately 20% of the interaction energy. The ability to reproduce the interface interaction energy of the crystal structure if original side-chain conformations are removed from the calculation is much greater in the protease-inhibitor complexes than the antibody-antigen complexes. The success of a rotameric model for protein-protein docking appears dependent on the extent of the main-chain-main-chain contribution to binding. Analysis of (1) residue type and (2) residue pair interactions at the interface show that antibody-antigen interactions are very restricted with over 70% of the antibody energy attributable to just six residue types (Tyr > Asp > Asn > Ser > Glu > Trp) in agreement with previous studies on residue propensity. However, it is found here that 50% of the antigen energy is attributable to just four residue types (Arg = Lys > Asn > Asp). On average just 12 residue pair interactions (6%) contribute over 40% of the favorable interaction energy in the antibody-antigen complexes, with charge-charge and charge/polar-tyrosine interactions being prominent. In contrast protease inhibitors use a diverse set of residue types and residue pair interactions.     

Insights from the structural analysis of protein heterodimer interfaces

Protein heterodimer complexes are often involved in catalysis, regulation, assembly, immunity and inhibition. This involves the formation of stable interfaces between the interacting partners. Hence, it is of interest to describe heterodimer interfaces using known structural complexes. We use a non-redundant dataset of 192 heterodimer complex structures from the protein databank (PDB) to identify interface residues and describe their interfaces using amino-acids residue property preference. Analysis of the dataset shows that the heterodimer interfaces are often abundant in polar residues. The analysis also shows the presence of two classes of interfaces in heterodimer complexes. The first class of interfaces (class A) with more polar residues than core but less than surface is known. These interfaces are more hydrophobic than surfaces, where protein-protein binding is largely hydrophobic. The second class of interfaces (class B) with more polar residues than core and surface is shown. These interfaces are more polar than surfaces, where binding is mainly polar. Thus, these findings provide insights to the understanding of protein-protein interactions.     

Distinct roles of overlapping and non-overlapping regions of hub protein interfaces in recognition of multiple partners

Cellular functions of an organism are maintained by protein-protein interactions. Those proteins that bind multiple partners asynchronously (date hub proteins) are important to make the interaction network coordinated. It is known that many date hub proteins bind different partners at overlapping (OV) interfaces. To understand how OV interfaces of date hub proteins can recognize multiple partners, we analyzed the difference between OV and non-overlapping (Non-OV) regions of interfaces involved in the binding of different partners. By using the structures of 16 date hub proteins with various interaction partners (ranging from 5 to 33), we compared buried surface area, compositions of amino acid residues and secondary structures, and side-chain orientations. It was found that buried interface residues are important for recognizing multiple partners, while exposed interface residues are important for determining specificity to a particular ligand. In addition, our analyses reveal that residue compositions in OV and Non-OV regions are different and that residues in OV region show diverse side-chain torsion angles to accommodate binding to multiple targets.     

Protein-protein interaction site prediction based on conditional random fields

MOTIVATION: We are motivated by the fast-growing number of protein structures in the Protein Data Bank with necessary information for prediction of protein-protein interaction sites to develop methods for identification of residues participating in protein-protein interactions. We would like to compare conditional random fields (CRFs)-based method with conventional classification-based methods that omit the relation between two labels of neighboring residues to show the advantages of CRFs-based method in predicting protein-protein interaction sites. RESULTS: The prediction of protein-protein interaction sites is solved as a sequential labeling problem by applying CRFs with features including protein sequence profile and residue accessible surface area. The CRFs-based method can achieve a comparable performance with state-of-the-art methods, when 1276 nonredundant hetero-complex protein chains are used as training and test set. Experimental result shows that CRFs-based method is a powerful and robust protein-protein interaction site prediction method and can be used to guide biologists to make specific experiments on proteins. AVAILABILITY: http://www.insun.hit.edu.cn/~mhli/site_CRFs/index.html. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.     

Studies of protein-protein interfaces: a statistical analysis of the hydrophobic effect.

Data sets of 362 structurally nonredundant protein-protein interfaces and of 57 symmetry-related oligomeric interfaces have been used to explore whether the hydrophobic effect that guides protein folding is also the main driving force for protein-protein associations. The buried nonpolar surface area has been used to measure the hydrophobic effect. Our analysis indicates that, although the hydrophobic effect plays a dominant role in protein-protein binding, it is not as strong as that observed in the interior of protein monomers. Comparison of interiors of the monomers with those of the interfaces reveals that, in general, the hydrophobic amino acids are more frequent in the interior of the monomers than in the interior of the protein-protein interfaces. On the other hand, a higher proportion of charged and polar residues are buried at the interfaces, suggesting that hydrogen bonds and ion pairs contribute more to the stability of protein binding than to that of protein folding. Moreover, comparison of the interior of the interfaces to protein surfaces indicates that the interfaces are poorer in polar/charged than the surfaces and are richer in hydrophobic residues. The interior of the interfaces appears to constitute a compromise between the stabilization contributed by the hydrophobic effect on the one hand and avoiding patches on the protein surfaces that are too hydrophobic on the other. Such patches would be unfavorable for the unassociated monomers in solution. We conclude that, although the types of interactions are similar between protein-protein interfaces and single-chain proteins overall, the contribution of the hydrophobic effect to protein-protein associations is not as strong as to protein folding. This implies that packing patterns and interatom, or interresidue, pairwise potential functions, derived from monomers, are not ideally suited to predicting and assessing ligand associations or design. These would perform adequately only in cases where the hydrophobic effect at the binding site is substantial.     

Intramolecular surface contacts contain information about protein-protein interface regions

MOTIVATION: Some amino acids clearly show preferences over others in protein-protein interfaces. These preferences, or so-called interface propensities can be used for a priori interface prediction. We investigated whether the prediction accuracy could be improved by considering not single but pairs of residues in an interface. Here we present the first systematic analysis of intramolecular surface contacts in interface prediction. RESULTS: We show that preferences do exist for contacts within and around an interface region within one molecule: specific pairs of amino acids are more often occurring than others. Using intramolecular contact propensities in a blind test, higher average scores were assigned to interface residues than to non-interface residues. This effect persisted as small but significant when the contact propensities were corrected to eliminate the influence of single amino acid interface propensity. This indicates that intramolecular contact propensities may replace interface propensities in protein-protein interface prediction. AVAILABILITY: The source code is available on request from the authors.     

Parameterization and classification of the protein universe via geometric techniques

We present a scheme for the classification of 3487 non-redundant protein structures into 1207 non-hierarchical clusters by using recurring structural patterns of three to six amino acids as keys of classification. This results in several signature patterns, which seem to decide membership of a protein in a functional category. The patterns provide clues to the key residues involved in functional sites as well as in protein-protein interaction. The discovered patterns include a "glutamate double bridge" of superoxide dismutase, the functional interface of the serine protease and inhibitor, interface of homo/hetero dimers, and functional sites of several enzyme families. We use geometric invariants to decide superimposability of structural patterns. This allows the parameterization of patterns and discovery of recurring patterns via clustering. The geometric invariant-based approach eliminates the computationally explosive step of pair-wise comparison of structures. The results provide a vast resource for the biologists for experimental validation of the proposed functional sites, and for the design of synthetic enzymes, inhibitors and drugs.     

Protein-protein crystal-packing contacts.

Protein-protein contacts in monomeric protein crystal structures have been analyzed and compared to the physiological protein-protein contacts in oligomerization. A number of features differentiate the crystal-packing contacts from the natural contacts occurring in multimeric proteins. The area of the protein surface patches involved in packing contacts is generally smaller and its amino acid composition is indistinguishable from that of the protein surface accessible to the solvent. The fraction of protein surface in crystal contacts is very variable and independent of the number of packing contacts. The thermal motion at the crystal packing interface and that of the protein core, even for large packing interfaces, though the tendency is to be closer to that of the core. These results suggest that protein crystallization depends on random protein-protein interactions, which have little in common with physiological protein-protein recognition processes, and that the possibility of engineering macromolecular crystallization to improve crystal quality could be widened.     

Are protein–protein interfaces more conserved in sequence than the rest of the protein surface?

Protein interfaces are thought to be distinguishable from the rest of the protein surface by their greater degree of residue conservation. We test the validity of this approach on an expanded set of 64 protein-protein interfaces using conservation scores derived from two multiple sequence alignment types, one of close homologs/orthologs and one of diverse homologs/paralogs. Overall, we find that the interface is slightly more conserved than the rest of the protein surface when using either alignment type, with alignments of diverse homologs showing marginally better discrimination. However, using a novel surface-patch definition, we find that the interface is rarely significantly more conserved than other surface patches when using either alignment type. When an interface is among the most conserved surface patches, it tends to be part of an enzyme active site. The most conserved surface patch overlaps with 39% (+/- 28%) and 36% (+/- 28%) of the actual interface for diverse and close homologs, respectively. Contrary to results obtained from smaller data sets, this work indicates that residue conservation is rarely sufficient for complete and accurate prediction of protein interfaces. Finally, we find that obligate interfaces differ from transient interfaces in that the former have significantly fewer alignment gaps at the interface than the rest of the protein surface, as well as having buried interface residues that are more conserved than partially buried interface residues.     

Residue centrality, functionally important residues, and active site shape: analysis of enzyme and non-enzyme families

The representation of protein structures as small-world networks facilitates the search for topological determinants, which may relate to functionally important residues. Here, we aimed to investigate the performance of residue centrality, viewed as a family fold characteristic, in identifying functionally important residues in protein families. Our study is based on 46 families, including 29 enzyme and 17 non-enzyme families. A total of 80% of these central positions corresponded to active site residues or residues in direct contact with these sites. For enzyme families, this percentage increased to 91%, while for non-enzyme families the percentage decreased substantially to 48%. A total of 70% of these central positions are located in catalytic sites in the enzyme families, 64% are in hetero-atom binding sites in those families binding hetero-atoms, and only 16% belong to protein-protein interfaces in families with protein-protein interaction data. These differences reflect the active site shape: enzyme active sites locate in surface clefts, hetero-atom binding residues are in deep cavities, while protein-protein interactions involve a more planar configuration. On the other hand, not all surface cavities or clefts are comprised of central residues. Thus, closeness centrality identifies functionally important residues in enzymes. While here we focus on binding sites, we expect to identify key residues for the integration and transmission of the information to the rest of the protein, reflecting the relationship between fold and function. Residue centrality is more conserved than the protein sequence, emphasizing the robustness of protein structures.     

Prediction of quaternary structure by analysis of hot spot residues in protein-protein interfaces: the case of anthranilate phosphoribosyltransferases

It is an important goal of computational biology to correctly predict the association state of a protein based on its amino acid sequence and the structures of known homologues. We have pursued this goal on the example of anthranilate phosphoribosyltransferase (AnPRT), an enzyme that is involved in the biosynthesis of the amino acid tryptophan. Firstly, known crystal structures of naturally occurring homodimeric AnPRTs were analyzed using the Protein Interfaces, Surfaces, and Assemblies (PISA) service of the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI). This led to the identification of two hydrophobic “hot spot” amino acids in the protein-protein interface that were predicted to be essential for self-association. Next, in a comprehensive multiple sequence alignment (MSA), naturally occurring AnPRT variants with hydrophilic or charged amino acids in place of hydrophobic residues in the two hot spot positions were identified. Representative variants were characterized in terms of thermal stability, enzymatic activity, and quaternary structure. We found that AnPRT variants with charged residues in both hot spot positions exist exclusively as monomers in solution. Variants with hydrophilic amino acids in one hot spot position occur in both forms, monomer and dimer. The results of the present study provide a detailed characterization of the determinants of the AnPRT monomer-dimer equilibrium and show that analysis of hot spots in combination with MSAs can be a valuable tool in prediction of protein quaternary structures.