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.     

Protein–DNA binding: complexities and multi-protein codes

Binding of proteins to particular DNA sites across the genome is a primary determinant of specificity in genome maintenance and gene regulation. DNA-binding specificity is encoded at multiple levels, from the detailed biophysical interactions between proteins and DNA, to the assembly of multi-protein complexes. At each level, variation in the mechanisms used to achieve specificity has led to difficulties in constructing and applying simple models of DNA binding. We review the complexities in protein–DNA binding found at multiple levels and discuss how they confound the idea of simple recognition codes. We discuss the impact of new high-throughput technologies for the characterization of protein–DNA binding, and how these technologies are uncovering new complexities in protein–DNA recognition. Finally, we review the concept of multi-protein recognition codes in which new DNA-binding specificities are achieved by the assembly of multi-protein complexes.     

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.     

A rapid and sensitive high-throughput screening method to identify compounds targeting protein–nucleic acids interactions

DNA-binding and RNA-binding proteins are usually considered ‘undruggable’ partly due to the lack of an efficient method to identify inhibitors from existing small molecule repositories. Here we report a rapid and sensitive high-throughput screening approach to identify compounds targeting protein–nucleic acids interactions based on protein–DNA or protein–RNA interaction enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (PDI-ELISA or PRI-ELISA). We validated the PDI-ELISA method using the mammalian high-mobility-group protein AT-hook 2 (HMGA2) as the protein of interest and netropsin as the inhibitor of HMGA2–DNA interactions. With this method we successfully identified several inhibitors and an activator for HMGA2–DNA interactions from a collection of 29 DNA-binding compounds. Guided by this screening excise, we showed that netropsin, the specific inhibitor of HMGA2–DNA interactions, strongly inhibited the differentiation of the mouse pre-adipocyte 3T3-L1 cells into adipocytes, most likely through a mechanism by which the inhibition is through preventing the binding of HMGA2 to the target DNA sequences. This method should be broadly applicable to identify compounds or proteins modulating many DNA-binding or RNA-binding proteins.     

The molecular mechanism of DNA damage recognition by MutS homologs and its consequences for cell death response

We determined the molecular mechanism of cell death response by MutS homologs in distinction to the repair event. Key protein–DNA contacts differ in the interaction of MutS homologs with cisplatinated versus mismatched DNA. Mutational analyses of protein–DNA contacts, which were predicted by molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, were performed. Mutations in suggested interaction sites can affect repair and cell death response independently, and to different extents. A glutamate residue is identified as the key contact with cisplatin-DNA. Mutation of the residue increases cisplatin resistance due to increased non-specific DNA binding. In contrast, the conserved phenylalanine that is instrumental and indispensable for mismatch recognition during repair is not required for cisplatin cytotoxicity. These differences in protein–DNA interactions are translated into localized conformational changes that affect nucleotide requirements and inter-subunit interactions. Specifically, the ability for ATP binding/hydrolysis has little consequence for the MMR-dependent damage response. As a consequence, intersubunit contacts are altered that most likely affect the interaction with downstream proteins. We here describe the interaction of MutS homologs with DNA damage, as it differs from the interaction with a mismatch, and its structural translation into all other functional regions of the protein as a mechanism to initiate cell death response and concomitantly inhibit repair.     

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.     

Benchmarking AlphaFold for protein complex modeling reveals accuracy determinants

High‐resolution experimental structural determination of protein–protein interactions has led to valuable mechanistic insights, yet due to the massive number of interactions and experimental limitations there is a need for computational methods that can accurately model their structures. Here we explore the use of the recently developed deep learning method, AlphaFold, to predict structures of protein complexes from sequence. With a benchmark of 152 diverse heterodimeric protein complexes, multiple implementations and parameters of AlphaFold were tested for accuracy. Remarkably, many cases (43%) had near‐native models (medium or high critical assessment of predicted interactions accuracy) generated as top‐ranked predictions by AlphaFold, greatly surpassing the performance of unbound protein–protein docking (9% success rate for near‐native top‐ranked models), however AlphaFold modeling of antibody–antigen complexes within our set was unsuccessful. We identified sequence and structural features associated with lack of AlphaFold success, and we also investigated the impact of multiple sequence alignment input. Benchmarking of a multimer‐optimized version of AlphaFold (AlphaFold‐Multimer) with a set of recently released antibody–antigen structures confirmed a low rate of success for antibody–antigen complexes (11% success), and we found that T cell receptor–antigen complexes are likewise not accurately modeled by that algorithm, showing that adaptive immune recognition poses a challenge for the current AlphaFold algorithm and model. Overall, our study demonstrates that end‐to‐end deep learning can accurately model many transient protein complexes, and highlights areas of improvement for future developments to reliably model any protein–protein interaction of interest.     

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.     

Inferring primase-DNA specific recognition using a data driven approach

DNA–protein interactions play essential roles in all living cells. Understanding of how features embedded in the DNA sequence affect specific interactions with proteins is both challenging and important, since it may contribute to finding the means to regulate metabolic pathways involving DNA–protein interactions. Using a massive experimental benchmark dataset of binding scores for DNA sequences and a machine learning workflow, we describe the binding to DNA of T7 primase, as a model system for specific DNA–protein interactions. Effective binding of T7 primase to its specific DNA recognition sequences triggers the formation of RNA primers that serve as Okazaki fragment start sites during DNA replication.