Elusive affinities

The affinity of two molecules for each other and its temperature dependence are determined by the change in enthalpy, free enthalpy, entropy, and heat capacity upon dissociation. As we know the forces that stabilize-protein–protein or protein–DNA association and the three-dimensional structures of the complex, we can in principle derive values for each one of these parameters. The calculation is done first in gas phase by molecular mechanics, then in solution with the help of hydration parameters calibrated on small molecules. However, estimates of enthalpy and entropy changes in gas phase have excessively large error bars even under the approximation that the components of the complex associate as rigid bodies. No reliable result can be expected at the end. The fit to experimental values derived from binding and calorimetric measurements is poor, except for the dissociation heat capacity. This parameter can be attributed mostly to the hydration step and it correlates with the size of the interface. Many protein–protein complexes have interface areas in the range 1200–2000 Ų and only small conformation changes, so the rigid body approximation applies. It is less generally valid in protein–DNA complexes, which have interfaces covering 2200–3100 Ų, large dissociation heat capacities, and affect both the conformation and the dynamics of their components. © 1995 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Accuracy modulating mutations of the ribosomal protein S4-S5 interface do not necessarily destabilize the rps4-rps5 protein–protein interaction

During the process of translation, an aminoacyl tRNA is selected in the A site of the decoding center of the small subunit based on the correct codon–anticodon base pairing. Though selection is usually accurate, mutations in the ribosomal RNA and proteins and the presence of some antibiotics like streptomycin alter translational accuracy. Recent crystallographic structures of the ribosome suggest that cognate tRNAs induce a “closed conformation” of the small subunit that stabilizes the codon–anticodon interactions at the A site. During formation of the closed conformation, the protein interface between rpS4 and rpS5 is broken while new contacts form with rpS12. Mutations in rpS12 confer streptomycin resistance or dependence and show a hyperaccurate phenotype. Mutations reversing streptomycin dependence affect rpS4 and rpS5. The canonical rpS4 and rpS5 streptomycin independent mutations increase translational errors and were called ribosomal ambiguity mutations (ram). The mutations in these proteins are proposed to affect formation of the closed complex by breaking the rpS4-rpS5 interface, which reduces the cost of domain closure and thus increases translational errors. We used a yeast two-hybrid system to study the interactions between the small subunit ribosomal proteins rpS4 and rpS5 and to test the effect of ram mutations on the stability of the interface. We found no correlation between ram phenotype and disruption of the interface.