Dissecting protein-RNA recognition sites

We analyze the protein–RNA interfaces in 81 transient binary complexes taken from the Protein Data Bank. Those with tRNA or duplex RNA are larger than with single-stranded RNA, and comparable in size to protein–DNA interfaces. The protein side bears a strong positive electrostatic potential and resembles protein–DNA interfaces in its amino acid composition. On the RNA side, the phosphate contributes less, and the sugar much more, to the interaction than in protein–DNA complexes. On average, protein–RNA interfaces contain 20 hydrogen bonds, 7 that involve the phosphates, 5 the sugar 2′OH, and 6 the bases, and 32 water molecules. The average H-bond density per unit buried surface area is less with tRNA or single-stranded RNA than with duplex RNA. The atomic packing is also less compact in interfaces with tRNA. On the protein side, the main chain NH and Arg/Lys side chains account for nearly half of all H-bonds to RNA; the main chain CO and side chain acceptor groups, for a quarter. The 2′OH is a major player in protein–RNA recognition, and shape complementarity an important determinant, whereas electrostatics and direct base–protein interactions play a lesser part than in protein–DNA recognition.     

Hydration of protein–RNA recognition sites

We investigate the role of water molecules in 89 protein–RNA complexes taken from the Protein Data Bank. Those with tRNA and single-stranded RNA are less hydrated than with duplex or ribosomal proteins. Protein–RNA interfaces are hydrated less than protein–DNA interfaces, but more than protein–protein interfaces. Majority of the waters at protein–RNA interfaces makes multiple H-bonds; however, a fraction do not make any. Those making H-bonds have preferences for the polar groups of RNA than its partner protein. The spatial distribution of waters makes interfaces with ribosomal proteins and single-stranded RNA relatively ‘dry’ than interfaces with tRNA and duplex RNA. In contrast to protein–DNA interfaces, mainly due to the presence of the 2′OH, the ribose in protein–RNA interfaces is hydrated more than the phosphate or the bases. The minor groove in protein–RNA interfaces is hydrated more than the major groove, while in protein–DNA interfaces it is reverse. The strands make the highest number of water-mediated H-bonds per unit interface area followed by the helices and the non-regular structures. The preserved waters at protein–RNA interfaces make higher number of H-bonds than the other waters. Preserved waters contribute toward the affinity in protein–RNA recognition and should be carefully treated while engineering protein–RNA interfaces.     

Assessment of the optimization of affinity and specificity at protein–DNA interfaces

The biological functions of DNA-binding proteins often require that they interact with their targets with high affinity and/or high specificity. Here, we describe a computational method that estimates the extent of optimization for affinity and specificity of amino acids at a protein–DNA interface based on the crystal structure of the complex, by modeling the changes in binding-free energy associated with all individual amino acid and base substitutions at the interface. The extent to which residues are predicted to be optimal for specificity versus affinity varies within a given protein–DNA interface and between different complexes, and in many cases recapitulates previous experimental observations. The approach provides a complement to traditional methods of mutational analysis, and should be useful for rapidly formulating hypotheses about the roles of amino acid residues in protein–DNA interfaces.     

Cavities and Atomic Packing in Protein Structures and Interfaces

A comparative analysis of cavities enclosed in a tertiary structure of proteins and interfaces formed by the interaction of two protein subunits in obligate and non-obligate categories (represented by homodimeric molecules and heterocomplexes, respectively) is presented. The total volume of cavities increases with the size of the protein (or the interface), though the exact relationship may vary in different cases. Likewise, for individual cavities also there is quantitative dependence of the volume on the number of atoms (or residues) lining the cavity. The larger cavities tend to be less spherical, solvated, and the interfaces are enriched in these. On average 15 ų of cavity volume is found to accommodate single water, with another 40–45 ų needed for each additional solvent molecule. Polar atoms/residues have a higher propensity to line solvated cavities. Relative to the frequency of occurrence in the whole structure (or interface), residues in β-strands are found more often lining the cavities, and those in turn and loop the least. Any depression in one chain not complemented by a protrusion in the other results in a cavity in the protein–protein interface. Through the use of the Voronoi volume, the packing of residues involved in protein–protein interaction has been compared to that in the protein interior. For a comparable number of atoms the interface has about twice the number of cavities relative to the tertiary structure.     

UPA, a universal protein array system for quantitative detection of protein–protein, protein–DNA, protein–RNA and protein–ligand interactions

Protein–protein interactions have been widely used to study gene expression pathways and may be considered as a new approach to drug discovery. Here I report the development of a universal protein array (UPA) system that provides a sensitive, quantitative, multi-purpose, effective and easy technology to determine not only specific protein–protein interactions, but also specific interactions of proteins with DNA, RNA, ligands and other small chemicals. (i) Since purified proteins are used, the results can be easily interpreted. (ii) UPA can be used multiple times for different targets, making it economically affordable for most laboratories, hospitals and biotechnology companies. (iii) Unlike DNA chips or DNA microarrays, no additional instrumentation is required. (iv) Since the UPA uses active proteins (without denaturation and renaturation), it is more sensitive compared with most existing methods. (v) Because the UPA can analyze hundreds (even thousands on a protein microarray) of proteins in a single experiment, it is a very effective method to screen proteins as drug targets in cancer and other human diseases.     

Structural motifs in protein cores and at protein–protein interfaces are different

Structures of proteins and protein–protein complexes are determined by the same physical principles and thus share a number of similarities. At the same time, there could be differences because in order to function, proteins interact with other molecules, undergo conformations changes, and so forth, which might impose different restraints on the tertiary versus quaternary structures. This study focuses on structural properties of protein–protein interfaces in comparison with the protein core, based on the wealth of currently available structural data and new structure‐based approaches. The results showed that physicochemical characteristics, such as amino acid composition, residue–residue contact preferences, and hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity distributions, are similar in protein core and protein–protein interfaces. On the other hand, characteristics that reflect the evolutionary pressure, such as structural composition and packing, are largely different. The results provide important insight into fundamental properties of protein structure and function. At the same time, the results contribute to better understanding of the ways to dock proteins. Recent progress in predicting structures of individual proteins follows the advancement of deep learning techniques and new approaches to residue coevolution data. Protein core could potentially provide large amounts of data for application of the deep learning to docking. However, our results showed that the core motifs are significantly different from those at protein–protein interfaces, and thus may not be directly useful for docking. At the same time, such difference may help to overcome a major obstacle in application of the coevolutionary data to docking—discrimination of the intramolecular information not directly relevant to docking.     

Amino acid–base interactions: a three-dimensional analysis of protein–DNA interactions at an atomic level

To assess whether there are universal rules that govern amino acid–base recognition, we investigate hydrogen bonds, van der Waals contacts and water-mediated bonds in 129 protein–DNA complex structures. DNA–backbone interactions are the most numerous, providing stability rather than specificity. For base interactions, there are significant base–amino acid type correlations, which can be rationalised by considering the stereochemistry of protein side chains and the base edges exposed in the DNA structure. Nearly two-thirds of the direct read-out of DNA sequences involves complex networks of hydrogen bonds, which enhance specificity. Two-thirds of all protein–DNA interactions comprise van der Waals contacts, compared to about one-sixth each of hydrogen and water-mediated bonds. This highlights the central importance of these contacts for complex formation, which have previously been relegated to a secondary role. Although common, water-mediated bonds are usually non-specific, acting as space-fillers at the protein–DNA interface. In conclusion, the majority of amino acid–base interactions observed follow general principles that apply across all protein–DNA complexes, although there are individual exceptions. Therefore, we distinguish between interactions whose specificities are ‘universal’ and ‘context-dependent’. An interactive Web-based atlas of side chain–base contacts provides access to the collected data, including analyses and visualisation of the three-dimensional geometry of the interactions.     

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.     

A new hydrogen-bonding potential for the design of protein-RNA interactions predicts specific contacts and discriminates decoys

RNA-binding proteins play many essential roles in the regulation of gene expression in the cell. Despite the significant increase in the number of structures for RNA–protein complexes in the last few years, the molecular basis of specificity remains unclear even for the best-studied protein families. We have developed a distance and orientation-dependent hydrogen-bonding potential based on the statistical analysis of hydrogen-bonding geometries that are observed in high-resolution crystal structures of protein–DNA and protein–RNA complexes. We observe very strong geometrical preferences that reflect significant energetic constraints on the relative placement of hydrogen-bonding atom pairs at protein–nucleic acid interfaces. A scoring function based on the hydrogen-bonding potential discriminates native protein–RNA structures from incorrectly docked decoys with remarkable predictive power. By incorporating the new hydrogen-bonding potential into a physical model of protein–RNA interfaces with full atom representation, we were able to recover native amino acids at protein–RNA interfaces.     

An ultra‐high affinity protein–protein interface displaying sequence‐robustness

Protein–protein interactions are crucial in biology and play roles in for example, the immune system, signaling pathways, and enzyme regulation. Ultra‐high affinity interactions (K _d <0.1 nM) occur in these systems, however, structures and energetics behind stability of ultra‐high affinity protein–protein complexes are not well understood. Regulation of the starch debranching barley limit dextrinase (LD) and its endogenous cereal type inhibitor (LDI) exemplifies an ultra‐high affinity complex (K _d of 42 pM). In this study the LD–LDI complex is investigated to unveil how robust the ultra‐high affinity is to LDI sequence variation at the protein–protein interface and whether alternative sequences can retain the ultra‐high binding affinity. The interface of LD–LDI was engineered using computational protein redesign aiming at identifying LDI variants predicted to retain ultra‐high binding affinity. These variants present a very diverse set of mutations going beyond conservative and alanine substitutions typically used to probe interfaces. Surface plasmon resonance analysis of the LDI variants revealed that high affinity of LD–LDI requires interactions of several residues at the rim of the protein interface, unlike the classical hotspot arrangement where key residues are found at the center of the interface. Notably, substitution of interface residues in LDI, including amino acids with functional groups different from the wild‐type, could occur without loss of affinity. This demonstrates that ultra‐high binding affinity can be conferred without hotspot residues, thus making complexes more robust to mutational drift in evolution. The present mutational analysis also demonstrates how energetic coupling can emerge between residues at large distances at the interface.     

Short, synthetic and selectively 13C-labeled RNA sequences for the NMR structure determination of protein–RNA complexes

We report an optimized synthesis of all canonical 2′-O-TOM protected ribonucleoside phosphoramidites and solid supports containing [¹³C₅]-labeled ribose moieties, their sequence-specific introduction into very short RNA sequences and their use for the structure determination of two protein–RNA complexes. These specifically labeled sequences facilitate RNA resonance assignments and are essential to assign a high number of sugar–sugar and intermolecular NOEs, which ultimately improve the precision and accuracy of the resulting structures. This labeling strategy is particularly useful for the study of protein–RNA complexes with single-stranded RNA in solution, which is rapidly an increasingly relevant research area in biology.     

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.     

Purification of MAP–kinase protein complexes and identification of candidate components by XL–TAP–MS

The purification of low-abundance protein complexes and detection of in vivo protein–protein interactions in complex biological samples remains a challenging task. Here, we devised crosslinking and tandem affinity purification coupled to mass spectrometry (XL–TAP–MS), a quantitative proteomics approach for analyzing tandem affinity-purified, crosslinked protein complexes from plant tissues. We exemplarily applied XL–TAP–MS to study the MKK2–Mitogen-activated protein kinase (MPK4) signaling module in Arabidopsis thaliana. A tandem affinity tag consisting of an in vivo-biotinylated protein domain flanked by two hexahistidine sequences was adopted to allow for the affinity-based isolation of formaldehyde–crosslinked protein complexes under fully denaturing conditions. Combined with ¹⁵N stable isotopic labeling and tandem MS we captured and identified a total of 107 MKK2–MPK4 module-interacting proteins. Consistent with the role of the MPK signaling module in plant immunity, many of the module-interacting proteins are involved in the biotic and abiotic stress response of Arabidopsis. Validation of binary protein–protein interactions by in planta split-luciferase assays and in vitro kinase assays disclosed several direct phosphorylation targets of MPK4. Together, the XL–TAP–MS approach purifies low abundance protein complexes from biological samples and discovers previously unknown protein–protein interactions.

XL–TAP–MS: a novel technique that allows purification of crosslinked, low abundant protein complexes from plant tissues under denatured conditions and detection of in vivo protein–protein interactions.     

Direct measurement of protein–protein interactions by FLIM-FRET at UV laser-induced DNA damage sites in living cells

Protein–protein interactions are essential to ensure timely and precise recruitment of chromatin remodellers and repair factors to DNA damage sites. Conventional analyses of protein–protein interactions at a population level may mask the complexity of interaction dynamics, highlighting the need for a method that enables quantification of DNA damage-dependent interactions at a single-cell level. To this end, we integrated a pulsed UV laser on a confocal fluorescence lifetime imaging (FLIM) microscope to induce localized DNA damage. To quantify protein–protein interactions in live cells, we measured Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET) between mEGFP- and mCherry-tagged proteins, based on the fluorescence lifetime reduction of the mEGFP donor protein. The UV-FLIM-FRET system offers a unique combination of real-time and single-cell quantification of DNA damage-dependent interactions, and can distinguish between direct protein–protein interactions, as opposed to those mediated by chromatin proximity. Using the UV-FLIM-FRET system, we show the dynamic changes in the interaction between poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1, amplified in liver cancer 1, X-ray repair cross-complementing protein 1 and tripartite motif containing 33 after DNA damage. This new set-up complements the toolset for studying DNA damage response by providing single-cell quantitative and dynamic information about protein–protein interactions at DNA damage sites.     

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.     

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.     

Combining chromatin immunoprecipitation and DNA footprinting: a novel method to analyze protein–DNA interactions in vivo

A variety of methods are available to analyze protein–DNA interactions in vivo. Two of the most prominent of these methods are chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) and in vivo footprinting. Both of these procedures have specific limitations. For example, the ChIP assay fails to document where exactly a protein binds in vivo. The precipitation of a specific segment of DNA with antibodies directed against DNA-binding proteins does not necessarily indicate that the protein directly interacts with a sequence in the precipitate but could rather reflect protein–protein interactions. Furthermore, the results of in vivo footprinting studies are inconclusive if a DNA sequence is analyzed that is bound by a specific protein in only a certain fraction of cells. Finally, in vivo footprinting does not indicate which protein is bound at a specific site. We have developed a new procedure that combines the ChIP assay and DMS footprinting techniques. Using this method we show here that antibodies specific for USF1 and NF-E2 precipitate the murine β-globin promoter in MEL cells. DMS footprinting analysis of the DNA precipitated with NF-E2 antibodies revealed a protection over a partial NF-E2-binding site in the β-globin downstream promoter region. We believe that this novel method will generally benefit investigators interested in analyzing protein–DNA interactions in vivo.     

Mutual interactions between subunits of the human RNase MRP ribonucleoprotein complex

The eukaryotic ribonuclease for mitochondrial RNA processing (RNase MRP) is mainly located in the nucleoli and belongs to the small nucleolar ribonucleoprotein (snoRNP) particles. RNase MRP is involved in the processing of pre-rRNA and the generation of RNA primers for mitochondrial DNA replication. A closely related snoRNP, which shares protein subunits with RNase MRP and contains a structurally related RNA subunit, is the pre-tRNA processing factor RNase P. Up to now, 10 protein subunits of these complexes have been described, designated hPop1, hPop4, hPop5, Rpp14, Rpp20, Rpp21, Rpp25, Rpp30, Rpp38 and Rpp40. To get more insight into the assembly of the human RNase MRP complex we studied protein–protein and protein–RNA interactions by means of GST pull-down experiments. A total of 19 direct protein–protein and six direct protein–RNA interactions were observed. The analysis of mutant RNase MRP RNAs showed that distinct regions are involved in the direct interaction with protein subunits. The results provide insight into the way the protein and RNA subunits assemble into a ribonucleoprotein particle. Based upon these data a new model for the architecture of the human RNase MRP complex was generated.     

Mass spectrometry‐based protein–protein interaction networks for the study of human diseases

A better understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying disease is key for expediting the development of novel therapeutic interventions. Disease mechanisms are often mediated by interactions between proteins. Insights into the physical rewiring of protein–protein interactions in response to mutations, pathological conditions, or pathogen infection can advance our understanding of disease etiology, progression, and pathogenesis and can lead to the identification of potential druggable targets. Advances in quantitative mass spectrometry (MS)‐based approaches have allowed unbiased mapping of these disease‐mediated changes in protein–protein interactions on a global scale. Here, we review MS techniques that have been instrumental for the identification of protein–protein interactions at a system‐level, and we discuss the challenges associated with these methodologies as well as novel MS advancements that aim to address these challenges. An overview of examples from diverse disease contexts illustrates the potential of MS‐based protein–protein interaction mapping approaches for revealing disease mechanisms, pinpointing new therapeutic targets, and eventually moving toward personalized applications.     

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/.