How do disordered regions achieve comparable functions to structured domains?

The traditional structure to function paradigm conceives of a protein''s function as emerging from its structure. In recent years, it has been established that unstructured, intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) in proteins are equally crucial elements for protein function, regulation and homeostasis. In this review, we provide a brief overview of how IDRs can perform similar functions to structured proteins, focusing especially on the formation of protein complexes and assemblies and the mediation of regulated conformational changes. In addition to highlighting instances of such functional equivalence, we explain how differences in the biological and physicochemical properties of IDRs allow them to expand the functional and regulatory repertoire of proteins. We also discuss studies that provide insights into how mutations within functional regions of IDRs can lead to human diseases.     

On the Potential of Machine Learning to Examine the Relationship Between Sequence,Structure, Dynamics and Function of Intrinsically Disordered Proteins

Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) constitute a broad set of proteins with few uniting and many diverging properties. IDPs—and intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) interspersed between folded domains—are generally characterized as having no persistent tertiary structure; instead they interconvert between a large number of different and often expanded structures. IDPs and IDRs are involved in an enormously wide range of biological functions and reveal novel mechanisms of interactions, and while they defy the common structure-function paradigm of folded proteins, their structural preferences and dynamics are important for their function. We here discuss open questions in the field of IDPs and IDRs, focusing on areas where machine learning and other computational methods play a role. We discuss computational methods aimed to predict transiently formed local and long-range structure, including methods for integrative structural biology. We discuss the many different ways in which IDPs and IDRs can bind to other molecules, both via short linear motifs, as well as in the formation of larger dynamic complexes such as biomolecular condensates. We discuss how experiments are providing insight into such complexes and may enable more accurate predictions. Finally, we discuss the role of IDPs in disease and how new methods are needed to interpret the mechanistic effects of genomic variants in IDPs.     

NMR illuminates intrinsic disorder

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) has long been instrumental in the characterization of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) and intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs). This method continues to offer rich insights into the nature of IDPs in solution, especially in combination with other biophysical methods such as small-angle scattering, single-molecule fluorescence, electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR), and mass spectrometry. Substantial advances have been made in recent years in studies of proteins containing both ordered and disordered domains and in the characterization of problematic sequences containing repeated tracts of a single or a few amino acids. These sequences are relevant to disease states such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Huntington's diseases, where disordered proteins misfold into harmful amyloid. Innovative applications of NMR are providing novel insights into mechanisms of protein aggregation and the complexity of IDP interactions with their targets. As a basis for understanding the solution structural ensembles, dynamic behavior, and functional mechanisms of IDPs and IDRs, NMR continues to prove invaluable.     

Exploring disorder in the human charged biased proteins

A considerable interest has been put in the identification of biased regions in proteins. These regions are frequently associated with a structural role in the cell and particularly with protein disorder. Here, we have investigated the intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) in the human charged biased proteins identified in our earlier work. We found that 65% of charged biased proteins contained significant IDRs involved particularly in DNA and RNA binding. Also, we have observed that these proteins are well conserved in metazoans and more particularly in mammalian. In addition, the IDRs are located largely in N-terminal, C-terminal sequence flanking the functional domains (FD) and slightly less in (FD) itself. Our work also supports the association between protein disorder and protein–protein/DNA interaction. An example will be described.     

Predicting Protein–Protein Interfaces that Bind Intrinsically Disordered Protein Regions

A long-standing goal in biology is the complete annotation of function and structure on all protein–protein interactions, a large fraction of which is mediated by intrinsically disordered protein regions (IDRs). However, knowledge derived from experimental structures of such protein complexes is disproportionately small due, in part, to challenges in studying interactions of IDRs. Here, we introduce IDRBind, a computational method that by combining gradient boosted trees and conditional random field models predicts binding sites of IDRs with performance approaching state-of-the-art globular interface predictions, making it suitable for proteome-wide applications. Although designed and trained with a focus on molecular recognition features, which are long interaction-mediating-elements in IDRs, IDRBind also predicts the binding sites of short peptides more accurately than existing specialized predictors. Consistent with IDRBind's specificity, a comparison of protein interface categories uncovered uniform trends in multiple physicochemical properties, positioning molecular recognition feature interfaces between peptide and globular interfaces.     

Protein misfolding in Dictyostelium: Using a freak of nature to gain insight into a universal problem

Prion-like proteins can undergo conformational rearrangements from an intrinsically disordered to a highly ordered amyloid state. This ability to change conformation is encoded in distinctive domains, termed prion domains (PrDs). Previous work suggests that PrDs change conformation to affect protein function and create phenotypic diversity. More recent work shows that PrDs can also undergo many weak interactions when disordered, allowing them to organize the intracellular space into dynamic compartments. However, mutations within PrDs and altered aggregation properties have also been linked to age-related diseases in humans. Thus, the physiological role of prion-like proteins, the mechanisms regulating their conformational promiscuity and the links to disease are still unclear. Here, we summarize recent work with prion-like proteins in Dictyostelium discoideum. This work was motivated by the finding that D. discoideum has the highest content of prion-like proteins of all organisms investigated to date. Surprisingly, we find that endogenous and exogenous prion-like proteins remain soluble in D. discoideum and do not misfold and aggregate. We provide evidence that this is due to specific adaptations in the protein quality control machinery, which may allow D. discoideum to tolerate its highly aggregation-prone proteome. We predict that D. discoideum will be an important model to study the function of prion-like proteins and their mechanistic links to disease.KEYWORDS: amyloid, Hsp104, prion, molecular chaperone, phase separation, protein aggregate, protein misfolding, ubiquitin/proteasome system     

Membraneless organelles: P granules in Caenorhabditis elegans

Membraneless organelles are distinct compartments within a cell that are not enclosed by a traditional lipid membrane and instead form through a process called liquid‐liquid phase separation. Examples of these non‐membrane‐bound organelles include nucleoli, stress granules, P bodies, pericentriolar material and germ granules. Many recent studies have used Caenorhabditis elegans germ granules, known as P granules, to expand our understanding of the formation of these unique cellular compartments. From this work, we know that proteins with intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) play a critical role in the process of phase separation. IDR phase separation is further tuned through their interactions with RNA and through protein modifications such as phosphorylation and methylation. These findings from C elegans, combined with work done in other model organisms, continue to provide insight into the formation of membraneless organelles and the important role they play in compartmentalizing cellular processes.     

Protein misfolding in Dictyostelium: Using a freak of nature to gain insight into a universal problem

Abstract

Prion-like proteins can undergo conformational rearrangements from an intrinsically disordered to a highly ordered amyloid state. This ability to change conformation is encoded in distinctive domains, termed prion domains (PrDs). Previous work suggests that PrDs change conformation to affect protein function and create phenotypic diversity. More recent work shows that PrDs can also undergo many weak interactions when disordered, allowing them to organize the intracellular space into dynamic compartments. However, mutations within PrDs and altered aggregation properties have also been linked to age-related diseases in humans. Thus, the physiological role of prion-like proteins, the mechanisms regulating their conformational promiscuity and the links to disease are still unclear. Here, we summarize recent work with prion-like proteins in Dictyostelium discoideum. This work was motivated by the finding that D. discoideum has the highest content of prion-like proteins of all organisms investigated to date. Surprisingly, we find that endogenous and exogenous prion-like proteins remain soluble in D. discoideum and do not misfold and aggregate. We provide evidence that this is due to specific adaptations in the protein quality control machinery, which may allow D. discoideum to tolerate its highly aggregation-prone proteome. We predict that D. discoideum will be an important model to study the function of prion-like proteins and their mechanistic links to disease.     

Characterization of intrinsically disordered regions in proteins informed by human genetic diversity

All proteomes contain both proteins and polypeptide segments that don’t form a defined three-dimensional structure yet are biologically active—called intrinsically disordered proteins and regions (IDPs and IDRs). Most of these IDPs/IDRs lack useful functional annotation limiting our understanding of their importance for organism fitness. Here we characterized IDRs using protein sequence annotations of functional sites and regions available in the UniProt knowledgebase (“UniProt features”: active site, ligand-binding pocket, regions mediating protein-protein interactions, etc.). By measuring the statistical enrichment of twenty-five UniProt features in 981 IDRs of 561 human proteins, we identified eight features that are commonly located in IDRs. We then collected the genetic variant data from the general population and patient-based databases and evaluated the prevalence of population and pathogenic variations in IDPs/IDRs. We observed that some IDRs tolerate 2 to 12-times more single amino acid-substituting missense mutations than synonymous changes in the general population. However, we also found that 37% of all germline pathogenic mutations are located in disordered regions of 96 proteins. Based on the observed-to-expected frequency of mutations, we categorized 34 IDRs in 20 proteins (DDX3X, KIT, RB1, etc.) as intolerant to mutation. Finally, using statistical analysis and a machine learning approach, we demonstrate that mutation-intolerant IDRs carry a distinct signature of functional features. Our study presents a novel approach to assign functional importance to IDRs by leveraging the wealth of available genetic data, which will aid in a deeper understating of the role of IDRs in biological processes and disease mechanisms.     

Features of molecular recognition of intrinsically disordered proteins via coupled folding and binding

The sequence–structure–function paradigm of proteins has been revolutionized by the discovery of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) or intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs). In contrast to traditional ordered proteins, IDPs/IDRs are unstructured under physiological conditions. The absence of well‐defined three‐dimensional structures in the free state of IDPs/IDRs is fundamental to their function. Folding upon binding is an important mode of molecular recognition for IDPs/IDRs. While great efforts have been devoted to investigating the complex structures and binding kinetics and affinities, our knowledge on the binding mechanisms of IDPs/IDRs remains very limited. Here, we review recent advances on the binding mechanisms of IDPs/IDRs. The structures and kinetic parameters of IDPs/IDRs can vary greatly, and the binding mechanisms can be highly dependent on the structural properties of IDPs/IDRs. IDPs/IDRs can employ various combinations of conformational selection and induced fit in a binding process, which can be templated by the target and/or encoded by the IDP/IDR. Further studies should provide deeper insights into the molecular recognition of IDPs/IDRs and enable the rational design of IDP/IDR binding mechanisms in the future.     

Advantages of proteins being disordered

The past decade has witnessed great advances in our understanding of protein structure‐function relationships in terms of the ubiquitous existence of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) and intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs). The structural disorder of IDPs/IDRs enables them to play essential functions that are complementary to those of ordered proteins. In addition, IDPs/IDRs are persistent in evolution. Therefore, they are expected to possess some advantages over ordered proteins. In this review, we summarize and survey nine possible advantages of IDPs/IDRs: economizing genome/protein resources, overcoming steric restrictions in binding, achieving high specificity with low affinity, increasing binding rate, facilitating posttranslational modifications, enabling flexible linkers, preventing aggregation, providing resistance to non‐native conditions, and allowing compatibility with more available sequences. Some potential advantages of IDPs/IDRs are not well understood and require both experimental and theoretical approaches to decipher. The connection with protein design is also briefly discussed.     

An assignment of intrinsically disordered regions of proteins based on NMR structures

Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) do not adopt stable three-dimensional structures in physiological conditions, yet these proteins play crucial roles in biological phenomena. In most cases, intrinsic disorder manifests itself in segments or domains of an IDP, called intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs), but fully disordered IDPs also exist. Although IDRs can be detected as missing residues in protein structures determined by X-ray crystallography, no protocol has been developed to identify IDRs from structures obtained by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR). Here, we propose a computational method to assign IDRs based on NMR structures. We compared missing residues of X-ray structures with residue-wise deviations of NMR structures for identical proteins, and derived a threshold deviation that gives the best correlation of ordered and disordered regions of both structures. The obtained threshold of 3.2 Å was applied to proteins whose structures were only determined by NMR, and the resulting IDRs were analyzed and compared to those of X-ray structures with no NMR counterpart in terms of sequence length, IDR fraction, protein function, cellular location, and amino acid composition, all of which suggest distinct characteristics. The structural knowledge of IDPs is still inadequate compared with that of structured proteins. Our method can collect and utilize IDRs from structures determined by NMR, potentially enhancing the understanding of IDPs.     

A Conserved Deubiquitinating Enzyme Uses Intrinsically Disordered Regions to Scaffold Multiple Protein Interaction Sites

In the canonical view of protein function, it is generally accepted that the three-dimensional structure of a protein determines its function. However, the past decade has seen a dramatic growth in the identification of proteins with extensive intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs), which are conformationally plastic and do not appear to adopt single three-dimensional structures. One current paradigm for IDR function is that disorder enables IDRs to adopt multiple conformations, expanding the ability of a protein to interact with a wide variety of disparate proteins. The capacity for many interactions is an important feature of proteins that occupy the hubs of protein networks, in particular protein-modifying enzymes that usually have a broad spectrum of substrates. One such protein modification is ubiquitination, where ubiquitin is attached to proteins through ubiquitin ligases (E3s) and removed through deubiquitinating enzymes. Numerous proteomic studies have found that thousands of proteins are dynamically regulated by cycles of ubiquitination and deubiquitination. Thus, how these enzymes target their wide array of substrates is of considerable importance for understanding the function of the cell''s diverse ubiquitination networks. Here, we characterize a yeast deubiquitinating enzyme, Ubp10, that possesses IDRs flanking its catalytic protease domain. We show that Ubp10 possesses multiple, distinct binding modules within its IDRs that are necessary and sufficient for directing protein interactions important for Ubp10''s known roles in gene silencing and ribosome biogenesis. The human homolog of Ubp10, USP36, also has IDRs flanking its catalytic domain, and these IDRs similarly contain binding modules important for protein interactions. This work highlights the significant protein interaction scaffolding abilities of IDRs in the regulation of dynamic protein ubiquitination.     

AlphaFold and Implications for Intrinsically Disordered Proteins

Accurate predictions of the three-dimensional structures of proteins from their amino acid sequences have come of age. AlphaFold, a deep learning-based approach to protein structure prediction, shows remarkable success in independent assessments of prediction accuracy. A significant epoch in structural bioinformatics was the structural annotation of over 98% of protein sequences in the human proteome. Interestingly, many predictions feature regions of very low confidence, and these regions largely overlap with intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs). That over 30% of regions within the proteome are disordered is congruent with estimates that have been made over the past two decades, as intense efforts have been undertaken to generalize the structure–function paradigm to include the importance of conformational heterogeneity and dynamics. With structural annotations from AlphaFold in hand, there is the temptation to draw inferences regarding the “structures” of IDRs and their interactomes. Here, we offer a cautionary note regarding the misinterpretations that might ensue and highlight efforts that provide concrete understanding of sequence-ensemble-function relationships of IDRs. This perspective is intended to emphasize the importance of IDRs in sequence-function relationships (SERs) and to highlight how one might go about extracting quantitative SERs to make sense of how IDRs function.