Dissection, residue conservation, and structural classification of protein-DNA interfaces

The basic DNA-binding modules of 128 protein-DNA interfaces have been analyzed. Although these are less planar, like the protein-protein interfaces, the protein-DNA interfaces can also be dissected into core regions in which all the fully-buried atoms are located, and rim regions having atoms with residual accessibilities. The sequence entropy of the core residues is smaller than those in the rim, indicating that the former are better conserved and possibly contribute more towards the binding free energy, as has been implicated in protein-protein interactions. On the protein side, 1014 A(2) of the surface is buried of which 63% belong to the core. There are some differences in the propensities of residues to occur in the core and the rim. In the DNA strands, the nucleotide(s) containing fully-buried atoms in all three components usually occupy central positions of the binding region. A new classification scheme for the interfaces has been introduced based on the composition of secondary structural elements of residues and the results compared with the conventional classification of DNA-binding proteins, as well as the protein class of the molecule. It appears that a common framework may be developed to understand both protein-protein and protein-DNA interactions.     

Charged residues at protein interaction interfaces: unexpected conservation and orchestrated divergence

Protein-protein interactions play an essential role in the functioning of cell. The importance of charged residues and their diverse role in protein-protein interactions have been well studied using experimental and computational methods. Often, charged residues located in protein interaction interfaces are conserved across the families of homologous proteins and protein complexes. However, on a large scale, it has been recently shown that charged residues are significantly less conserved than other residue types in protein interaction interfaces. The goal of this work is to understand the role of charged residues in the protein interaction interfaces through their conservation patterns. Here, we propose a simple approach where the structural conservation of the charged residue pairs is analyzed among the pairs of homologous binary complexes. Specifically, we determine a large set of homologous interactions using an interaction interface similarity measure and catalog the basic types of conservation patterns among the charged residue pairs. We find an unexpected conservation pattern, which we call the correlated reappearance, occurring among the pairs of homologous interfaces more frequently than the fully conserved pairs of charged residues. Furthermore, the analysis of the conservation patterns across different superkingdoms as well as structural classes of proteins has revealed that the correlated reappearance of charged residues is by far the most prevalent conservation pattern, often occurring more frequently than the unconserved charged residues. We discuss a possible role that the new conservation pattern may play in the long-range electrostatic steering effect.     

On the Importance of Polar Interactions for Complexes Containing Intrinsically Disordered Proteins

There is a growing recognition for the importance of proteins with large intrinsically disordered (ID) segments in cell signaling and regulation. ID segments in these proteins often harbor regions that mediate molecular recognition. Coupled folding and binding of the recognition regions has been proposed to confer high specificity to interactions involving ID segments. However, researchers recently questioned the origin of the interaction specificity of ID proteins because of the overrepresentation of hydrophobic residues in their interaction interfaces. Here, we focused on the role of polar and charged residues in interactions mediated by ID segments. Making use of the extended nature of most ID segments when in complex with globular proteins, we first identified large numbers of complexes between globular proteins and ID segments by using radius-of-gyration-based selection criteria. Consistent with previous studies, we found the interfaces of these complexes to be enriched in hydrophobic residues, and that these residues contribute significantly to the stability of the interaction interface. However, our analyses also show that polar interactions play a larger role in these complexes than in structured protein complexes. Computational alanine scanning and salt-bridge analysis indicate that interfaces in ID complexes are highly complementary with respect to electrostatics, more so than interfaces of globular proteins. Follow-up calculations of the electrostatic contributions to the free energy of binding uncovered significantly stronger Coulombic interactions in complexes harbouring ID segments than in structured protein complexes. However, they are counter-balanced by even higher polar-desolvation penalties. We propose that polar interactions are a key contributing factor to the observed high specificity of ID segment-mediated interactions.     

Protein-protein interaction hotspots carved into sequences

Protein-protein interactions, a key to almost any biological process, are mediated by molecular mechanisms that are not entirely clear. The study of these mechanisms often focuses on all residues at protein-protein interfaces. However, only a small subset of all interface residues is actually essential for recognition or binding. Commonly referred to as "hotspots," these essential residues are defined as residues that impede protein-protein interactions if mutated. While no in silico tool identifies hotspots in unbound chains, numerous prediction methods were designed to identify all the residues in a protein that are likely to be a part of protein-protein interfaces. These methods typically identify successfully only a small fraction of all interface residues. Here, we analyzed the hypothesis that the two subsets correspond (i.e., that in silico methods may predict few residues because they preferentially predict hotspots). We demonstrate that this is indeed the case and that we can therefore predict directly from the sequence of a single protein which residues are interaction hotspots (without knowledge of the interaction partner). Our results suggested that most protein complexes are stabilized by similar basic principles. The ability to accurately and efficiently identify hotspots from sequence enables the annotation and analysis of protein-protein interaction hotspots in entire organisms and thus may benefit function prediction and drug development. The server for prediction is available at http://www.rostlab.org/services/isis.     

Predicting where Small Molecules Bind at Protein-Protein Interfaces

Small molecules that bind at protein-protein interfaces may either block or stabilize protein-protein interactions in cells. Thus, some of these binding interfaces may turn into prospective targets for drug design. Here, we collected 175 pairs of protein-protein (PP) complexes and protein-ligand (PL) complexes with known three-dimensional structures for which (1) one protein from the PP complex shares at least 40% sequence identity with the protein from the PL complex, and (2) the interface regions of these proteins overlap at least partially with each other. We found that those residues of the interfaces that may bind the other protein as well as the small molecule are evolutionary more conserved on average, have a higher tendency of being located in pockets and expose a smaller fraction of their surface area to the solvent than the remaining protein-protein interface region. Based on these findings we derived a statistical classifier that predicts patches at binding interfaces that have a higher tendency to bind small molecules. We applied this new prediction method to more than 10 000 interfaces from the protein data bank. For several complexes related to apoptosis the predicted binding patches were in direct contact to co-crystallized small molecules.     

Evolution of specific protein-protein interaction sites following gene duplication

Gene duplication is a common evolutionary process that leads to the expansion and functional diversification of protein subfamilies. The evolutionary events that cause paralogous proteins to bind different protein ligands (functionally diverged interfaces) are investigated and compared to paralogous proteins that bind the same protein ligand (functionally preserved interfaces). We find that functionally diverged interfaces possess more subfamily-specific residues than functionally preserved interfaces. These subfamily-specific residues are usually partially buried at the interface rim and achieve specific binding through optimized hydrogen bond geometries. In addition to optimized hydrogen bond geometries, side-chain modeling experiments suggest that steric effects are also important for binding specificity. Residues that are completely buried at the interface hub are also less conserved in functionally diverged interfaces than in functionally preserved interfaces. Consistent with this finding, hub residues contribute less to free energy of binding in functionally diverged interfaces than in functionally preserved interfaces. Therefore, we propose that protein binding is a delicate balance between binding affinity that primarily occurs at the interface hub and binding specificity that primarily occurs at the interface rim.     

Local and global anatomy of antibody‐protein antigen recognition

Deciphering antibody‐protein antigen recognition is of fundamental and practical significance. We constructed an antibody structural dataset, partitioned it into human and murine subgroups, and compared it with nonantibody protein‐protein complexes. We investigated the physicochemical properties of regions on and away from the antibody‐antigen interfaces, including net charge, overall antibody charge distributions, and their potential role in antigen interaction. We observed that amino acid preference in antibody‐protein antigen recognition is entropy driven, with residues having low side‐chain entropy appearing to compensate for the high backbone entropy in interaction with protein antigens. Antibodies prefer charged and polar antigen residues and bridging water molecules. They also prefer positive net charge, presumably to promote interaction with negatively charged protein antigens, which are common in proteomes. Antibody‐antigen interfaces have large percentages of Tyr, Ser, and Asp, but little Lys. Electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions in the Ag binding sites might be coupled with Fab domains through organized charge and residue distributions away from the binding interfaces. Here we describe some features of antibody‐antigen interfaces and of Fab domains as compared with nonantibody protein‐protein interactions. The distributions of interface residues in human and murine antibodies do not differ significantly. Overall, our results provide not only a local but also a global anatomy of antibody structures.     

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.     

Comparison of helix interactions in membrane and soluble alpha-bundle proteins

Helix-helix interactions are important for the folding, stability, and function of membrane proteins. Here, two independent and complementary methods are used to investigate the nature and distribution of amino acids that mediate helix-helix interactions in membrane and soluble alpha-bundle proteins. The first method characterizes the packing density of individual amino acids in helical proteins based on the van der Waals surface area occluded by surrounding atoms. We have recently used this method to show that transmembrane helices pack more tightly, on average, than helices in soluble proteins. These studies are extended here to characterize the packing of interfacial and noninterfacial amino acids and the packing of amino acids in the interfaces of helices that have either right- or left-handed crossing angles, and either parallel or antiparallel orientations. We show that the most abundant tightly packed interfacial residues in membrane proteins are Gly, Ala, and Ser, and that helices with left-handed crossing angles are more tightly packed on average than helices with right-handed crossing angles. The second method used to characterize helix-helix interactions involves the use of helix contact plots. We find that helices in membrane proteins exhibit a broader distribution of interhelical contacts than helices in soluble proteins. Both helical membrane and soluble proteins make use of a general motif for helix interactions that relies mainly on four residues (Leu, Ala, Ile, Val) to mediate helix interactions in a fashion characteristic of left-handed helical coiled coils. However, a second motif for mediating helix interactions is revealed by the high occurrence and high average packing values of small and polar residues (Ala, Gly, Ser, Thr) in the helix interfaces of membrane proteins. Finally, we show that there is a strong linear correlation between the occurrence of residues in helix-helix interfaces and their packing values, and discuss these results with respect to membrane protein structure prediction and membrane protein stability.     

Design of multi-specificity in protein interfaces

Interactions in protein networks may place constraints on protein interface sequences to maintain correct and avoid unwanted interactions. Here we describe a “multi-constraint” protein design protocol to predict sequences optimized for multiple criteria, such as maintaining sets of interactions, and apply it to characterize the mechanism and extent to which 20 multi-specific proteins are constrained by binding to multiple partners. We find that multi-specific binding is accommodated by at least two distinct patterns. In the simplest case, all partners share key interactions, and sequences optimized for binding to either single or multiple partners recover only a subset of native amino acid residues as optimal. More interestingly, for signaling interfaces functioning as network “hubs,” we identify a different, “multi-faceted” mode, where each binding partner prefers its own subset of wild-type residues within the promiscuous binding site. Here, integration of preferences across all partners results in sequences much more “native-like” than seen in optimization for any single binding partner alone, suggesting these interfaces are substantially optimized for multi-specificity. The two strategies make distinct predictions for interface evolution and design. Shared interfaces may be better small molecule targets, whereas multi-faceted interactions may be more “designable” for altered specificity patterns. The computational methodology presented here is generalizable for examining how naturally occurring protein sequences have been selected to satisfy a variety of positive and negative constraints, as well as for rationally designing proteins to have desired patterns of altered specificity.     

Cavities in protein–DNA and protein–RNA interfaces

An analysis of cavities present in protein–DNA and protein–RNA complexes is presented. In terms of the number of cavities and their total volume, the interfaces formed in these complexes are akin to those in transient protein–protein heterocomplexes. With homodimeric proteins protein–DNA interfaces may contain cavities involving both the protein subunits and DNA, and these are more than twice as large as cavities involving a single protein subunit and DNA. A parameter, cavity index, measuring the degree of surface complementarity, indicates that the packing of atoms in protein–protein/DNA/RNA is very similar, but it is about two times less efficient in the permanent interfaces formed between subunits in homodimers. As within the tertiary structure and protein–protein interfaces, protein–DNA interfaces have a higher inclination to be lined by β-sheet residues; from the DNA side, base atoms, in particular those in minor grooves, have a higher tendency to be located in cavities. The larger cavities tend to be less spherical and solvated. A small fraction of water molecules are found to mediate hydrogen-bond interactions with both the components, suggesting their primary role is to fill in the void left due to the local non-complementary nature of the surface patches.     

How similar are protein folding and protein binding nuclei? Examination of vibrational motions of energy hot spots and conserved residues

The underlying physico-chemical principles of the interactions between domains in protein folding are similar to those between protein molecules in binding. Here we show that conserved residues and experimental hot spots at intermolecular binding interfaces overlap residues that vibrate with high frequencies. Similarly, conserved residues and hot spots are found in protein cores and are also observed to vibrate with high frequencies. In both cases, these residues contribute significantly to the stability. Hence, these observations validate the proposition that binding and folding are similar processes. In both packing plays a critical role, rationalizing the residue conservation and the experimental alanine scanning hot spots. We further show that high-frequency vibrating residues distinguish between protein binding sites and the remainder of the protein surface.     

Evaluation of the protein interfaces that form an intermolecular four-helix bundle as studied by computer simulation

Rational design of protein surface is important for creating higher order protein structures, but it is still challenging. In this study, we designed in silico the several binding interfaces on protein surfaces that allow a de novo protein–protein interaction to be formed. We used a computer simulation technique to find appropriate amino acid arrangements for the binding interface. The protein–protein interaction can be made by forming an intermolecular four-helix bundle structure, which is often found in naturally occurring protein subunit interfaces. As a model protein, we used a helical protein, YciF. Molecular dynamics simulation showed that a new protein–protein interaction is formed depending on the number of hydrophobic and charged amino acid residues present in the binding surfaces. However, too many hydrophobic amino acid residues present in the interface negatively affected on the binding. Finally, we found an appropriate arrangement of hydrophobic and charged amino acid residues that induces a protein–protein interaction through an intermolecular four-helix bundle formation.     

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.     

Specificity of molecular interactions in transient protein-protein interaction interfaces

In this study, we investigate what types of interactions are specific to their biological function, and what types of interactions are persistent regardless of their functional category in transient protein-protein heterocomplexes. This is the first approach to analyze protein-protein interfaces systematically at the molecular interaction level in the context of protein functions. We perform systematic analysis at the molecular interaction level using classification and feature subset selection technique prevalent in the field of pattern recognition. To represent the physicochemical properties of protein-protein interfaces, we design 18 molecular interaction types using canonical and noncanonical interactions. Then, we construct input vector using the frequency of each interaction type in protein-protein interface. We analyze the 131 interfaces of transient protein-protein heterocomplexes in PDB: 33 protease-inhibitors, 52 antibody-antigens, 46 signaling proteins including 4 cyclin dependent kinase and 26 G-protein. Using kNN classification and feature subset selection technique, we show that there are specific interaction types based on their functional category, and such interaction types are conserved through the common binding mechanism, rather than through the sequence or structure conservation. The extracted interaction types are C(alpha)-- H...O==C interaction, cation...anion interaction, amine...amine interaction, and amine...cation interaction. With these four interaction types, we achieve the classification success rate up to 83.2% with leave-one-out cross-validation at k = 15. Of these four interaction types, C(alpha)--H...O==C shows binding specificity for protease-inhibitor complexes, while cation-anion interaction is predominant in signaling complexes. The amine ... amine and amine...cation interaction give a minor contribution to the classification accuracy. When combined with these two interactions, they increase the accuracy by 3.8%. In the case of antibody-antigen complexes, the sign is somewhat ambiguous. From the evolutionary perspective, while protease-inhibitors and sig-naling proteins have optimized their interfaces to suit their biological functions, antibody-antigen interactions are the happenstance, implying that antibody-antigen complexes do not show distinctive interaction types. Persistent interaction types such as pi...pi, amide-carbonyl, and hydroxyl-carbonyl interaction, are also investigated. Analyzing the structural orientations of the pi...pi stacking interactions, we find that herringbone shape is a major configuration in transient protein-protein interfaces. This result is different from that of protein core, where parallel-displaced configurations are the major configuration. We also analyze overall trend of amide-carbonyl and hydroxyl-carbonyl interactions. It is noticeable that nearly 82% of the interfaces have at least one hydroxyl-carbonyl interactions.     

Interaction geometry involving planar groups in protein-protein interfaces

The geometry of interactions of planar residues is nonrandom in protein tertiary structures and gives rise to conventional, as well as nonconventional (X--H...pi, X--H...O, where X = C, N, or O) hydrogen bonds. Whether a similar geometry is maintained when the interaction is across the protein-protein interface is addressed here. The relative geometries of interactions involving planar residues, and the percentage of contacts giving rise to different types of hydrogen bonds are quite similar in protein structures and the biological interfaces formed by protein chains in homodimers and protein-protein heterocomplexes--thus pointing to the similarity of chemical interactions that occurs during protein folding and binding. However, the percentage is considerably smaller in the nonspecific and nonphysiological interfaces that are formed in crystal lattices of monomeric proteins. The C--H...O interaction linking the aromatic and the peptide groups is quite common in protein structures as well as the three types of interfaces. However, as the interfaces formed by crystal contacts are depleted in aromatic residues, the weaker hydrogen bond interactions would contribute less toward their stability.     

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.