Distinct roles of overlapping and non-overlapping regions of hub protein interfaces in recognition of multiple partners

Cellular functions of an organism are maintained by protein-protein interactions. Those proteins that bind multiple partners asynchronously (date hub proteins) are important to make the interaction network coordinated. It is known that many date hub proteins bind different partners at overlapping (OV) interfaces. To understand how OV interfaces of date hub proteins can recognize multiple partners, we analyzed the difference between OV and non-overlapping (Non-OV) regions of interfaces involved in the binding of different partners. By using the structures of 16 date hub proteins with various interaction partners (ranging from 5 to 33), we compared buried surface area, compositions of amino acid residues and secondary structures, and side-chain orientations. It was found that buried interface residues are important for recognizing multiple partners, while exposed interface residues are important for determining specificity to a particular ligand. In addition, our analyses reveal that residue compositions in OV and Non-OV regions are different and that residues in OV region show diverse side-chain torsion angles to accommodate binding to multiple targets.     

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.     

Dissecting subunit interfaces in homodimeric proteins

The subunit interfaces of 122 homodimers of known three-dimensional structure are analyzed and dissected into sets of surface patches by clustering atoms at the interface; 70 interfaces are single-patch, the others have up to six patches, often contributed by different structural domains. The average interface buries 1,940 A2 of the surface of each monomer, contains one or two patches burying 600-1,600 A2, is 65% nonpolar and includes 18 hydrogen bonds. However, the range of size and of hydrophobicity is wide among the 122 interfaces. Each interface has a core made of residues with atoms buried in the dimer, surrounded by a rim of residues with atoms that remain accessible to solvent. The core, which constitutes 77% of the interface on average, has an amino acid composition that resembles the protein interior except for the presence of arginine residues, whereas the rim is more like the protein surface. These properties of the interfaces in homodimers, which are permanent assemblies, are compared to those of protein-protein complexes where the components associate after they have independently folded. On average, subunit interfaces in homodimers are twice larger than in complexes, and much less polar due to the large fraction belonging to the core, although the amino acid compositions of the cores are similar in the two types of interfaces.     

Protein–protein interactions leave evolutionary footprints: High molecular coevolution at the core of interfaces

Protein–protein interactions are essential to all aspects of life. Specific interactions result from evolutionary pressure at the interacting interfaces of partner proteins. However, evolutionary pressure is not homogeneous within the interface: for instance, each residue does not contribute equally to the binding energy of the complex. To understand functional differences between residues within the interface, we analyzed their properties in the core and rim regions. Here, we characterized protein interfaces with two evolutionary measures, conservation and coevolution, using a comprehensive dataset of 896 protein complexes. These scores can detect different selection pressures at a given position in a multiple sequence alignment. We also analyzed how the number of interactions in which a residue is involved influences those evolutionary signals. We found that the coevolutionary signal is higher in the interface core than in the interface rim region. Additionally, the difference in coevolution between core and rim regions is comparable to the known difference in conservation between those regions. Considering proteins with multiple interactions, we found that conservation and coevolution increase with the number of different interfaces in which a residue is involved, suggesting that more constraints (i.e., a residue that must satisfy a greater number of interactions) allow fewer sequence changes at those positions, resulting in higher conservation and coevolution values. These findings shed light on the evolution of protein interfaces and provide information useful for identifying protein interfaces and predicting protein–protein interactions.     

Evolvability of yeast protein-protein interaction interfaces

The functional importance of protein-protein interactions indicates that there should be strong evolutionary constraint on their interaction interfaces. However, binding interfaces are frequently affected by amino acid replacements. Change due to coevolution within interfaces can contribute to variability but is not ubiquitous. An alternative explanation for the ability of surfaces to accept replacements may be that many residues can be changed without affecting the interaction. Candidates for these types of residues are those that make interchain interaction only through the protein main chain, β-carbon, or associated hydrogen atoms. Since almost all residues have these atoms, we hypothesize that this subset of interface residues may be more easily substituted than those that make interactions through other atoms. We term such interactions "residue type independent." Investigating this hypothesis, we find that nearly a quarter of residues in protein interaction interfaces make exclusively interchain residue-type-independent contacts. These residues are less structurally constrained and less conserved than residues making residue-type-specific interactions. We propose that residue-type-independent interactions allow substitutions in binding interfaces while the specificity of binding is maintained.     

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.     

Residue conservation in viral capsid assembly

To evaluate the evolutionary constraints placed on viral proteins by the structure and assembly of the capsid, we calculate Shannon entropies in the aligned sequences of 45 polypeptide chains in 32 icosahedral viruses, and relate these entropies to the residue location in the three-dimensional structure of the capsids. Three categories of residues have entropies lower than the chain average implying that they are better conserved than average: residues that are buried within a subunit (the protein core), residues that contain atoms buried at an interface between subunits (the interface core), and residues that contribute to several such interfaces. The interface core is also conserved in homomeric proteins and in transient protein-protein complexes, which have only one interface whereas capsids have many. In capsids, the subunit interfaces implicate most of the polypeptide chain: on average, 66% of the capsid residues are at an interface, 34% at more than one, and 47% at the interface core. Nevertheless, we observe that the degree of residue conservation can vary widely between interfaces within a capsid and between regions within an interface. The interfaces and regions of interfaces that show a low sequence variability are likely to play major roles in the self-assembly of the capsid, with implications on its mechanism that we discuss taking adeno-associated virus as an example.     

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.     

Tolerance to the substitution of buried apolar residues by charged residues in the homologous protein structures

Occurrence and accommodation of charged amino acid residues in proteins that are structurally equivalent to buried non-polar residues in homologues have been investigated. Using a dataset of 1,852 homologous pairs of crystal structures of proteins available at 2A or better resolution, 14,024 examples of apolar residues in the structurally conserved regions replaced by charged residues in homologues have been identified. Out of 2,530 cases of buried apolar residues, 1,677 of the equivalent charged residues in homologues are exposed and the rest of the charged residues are buried. These drastic substitutions are most often observed in homologous protein pairs with low sequence identity (<30%) and in large protein domains (>300 residues). Such buried charged residues in the large proteins are often located in the interface of sub-domains or in the interface of structural repeats, Beyond 7A of residue depth of buried apolar residues, or less than 4% of solvent accessibility, almost all the substituting charged residues are buried. It is also observed that acidic sidechains have higher preference to get buried than the positively charged residues. There is a preference for buried charged residues to get accommodated in the interior by forming hydrogen bonds with another sidechain than the main chain. The sidechains interacting with a buried charged residue are most often located in the structurally conserved regions of the alignment. About 50% of the observations involving hydrogen bond between buried charged sidechain and another sidechain correspond to salt bridges. Among the buried charged residues interacting with the main chain, positively charged sidechains form hydrogen bonds commonly with main chain carbonyls while the negatively charged residues are accommodated by hydrogen bonding with the main chain amides. These carbonyls and amides are usually located in the loops that are structurally variable among homologous proteins.     

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.     

Amino acid substitutions at protein–protein interfaces that modulate the oligomeric state

Despite similarities in their sequence and structure, there are a number of homologous proteins that adopt various oligomeric states. Comparisons of these homologous protein pairs, in terms of residue substitutions at the protein–protein interfaces, have provided fundamental characteristics that describe how proteins interact with each other. We have prepared a dataset composed of pairs of related proteins with different homo‐oligomeric states. Using the protein complexes, the interface residues were identified, and using structural alignments, the shadow‐interface residues have been defined as the surface residues that align with the interface residues. Subsequently, we investigated residue substitutions between the interfaces and the shadow interfaces. Based on the degree of the contributions to the interactions, the aligned sites of the interfaces and shadow interfaces were divided into primary and secondary sites; the primary sites are the focus of this work. The primary sites were further classified into two groups (i.e. exposed and buried) based on the degree to which the residue is buried within the shadow interfaces. Using these classifications, two simple mechanisms that mediate the oligomeric states were identified. In the primary‐exposed sites, the residues on the shadow interfaces are replaced by more hydrophobic or aromatic residues, which are physicochemically favored at protein–protein interfaces. In the primary‐buried sites, the residues on the shadow interfaces are replaced by larger residues that protrude into other proteins. These simple rules are satisfied in 23 out of 25 Structural Classification of Proteins (SCOP) families with a different‐oligomeric‐state pair, and thus represent a basic strategy for modulating protein associations and dissociations. Proteins 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Exploring the capacity of minimalist protein interfaces: interface energetics and affinity maturation to picomolar KD of a single-domain antibody with a flat paratope

A major architectural class in engineered binding proteins ("antibody mimics") involves the presentation of recognition loops off a single-domain scaffold. This class of binding proteins, both natural and synthetic, has a strong tendency to bind a preformed cleft using a convex binding interface (paratope). To explore their capacity to produce high-affinity interfaces with diverse shape and topography, we examined the interface energetics and explored the affinity limit achievable with a flat paratope. We chose a minimalist paratope limited to two loops found in a natural camelid heavy-chain antibody (VHH) that binds to ribonuclease A. Ala scanning of the VHH revealed only three "hot spot" side chains and additional four residues important for supporting backbone-mediated interactions. The small number of critical residues suggested that this is not an optimized paratope. Using selection from synthetic combinatorial libraries, we enhanced its affinity by >100-fold, resulting in variants with Kd as low as 180 pM with no detectable loss of binding specificity. High-resolution crystal structures revealed that the mutations induced only subtle structural changes but extended the network of interactions. This resulted in an expanded hot spot region including four additional residues located at the periphery of the paratope with a concomitant loss of the so-called "O-ring" arrangement of energetically inert residues. These results suggest that this class of simple, single-domain scaffolds is capable of generating high-performance binding interfaces with diverse shape. More generally, they suggest that highly functional interfaces can be designed without closely mimicking natural interfaces.     

Dissecting the molecular mechanism of drosophila odorant receptors through activity modeling and comparative analysis

To gain insight into the molecular mechanism of odorant receptors (ORs) in Drosophila species, we developed a Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) model that predicts experimentally measured electrophysiological activities between 24 D. melanogaster ORs and 108 odorants. Although the model is limited by the tested odorants,analyzing the model allowed dissection of specific topological and chemical properties necessary for an odorant to elicit excitatory or inhibitory receptor response. Linear odorants with five to eight nonhydrogen atoms at the main chain and hydrogen‐bond acceptor and/or hydrogen‐bond donor at its ends were found to stimulate strong excitatory response. A comparative sequence analysis of 90 ORs in 15 orthologous groups identified 15 putative specificity‐determining residues (SDRs) and 15 globally conserved residues that we postulate as functionally key residues. Mapping to a model of secondary structure resulted in 14 out of 30 key residues locating to the transmembrane (TM) domains. Twelve residues, including six SDRs and six conserved residues, are located at the extracellular halves of the TM domains. Combining the evidence from the QSAR modeling and the comparative sequence analysis, we hypothesize that the Drosophila ORs accept odorants into a binding pocket located on the extracellular halves of its TM domains. The QSAR modeling suggests that the binding pocket is around 15 Å in depth and about 6 Å in width. Twelve mainly polar or charged key residues, both SDRs and conserved, are located inthis pocket and postulated to distinguish docked odorants via primarily geometry fitting and hydrogen‐bond interaction. Proteins 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Structure of D-allose binding protein from Escherichia coli bound to D-allose at 1.8 A resolution

ABC transport systems for import or export of nutrients and other substances across the cell membrane are widely distributed in nature. In most bacterial systems, a periplasmic component is the primary determinant of specificity of the transport complex as a whole. We report here the crystal structure of the periplasmic binding protein for the allose system (ALBP) from Escherichia coli, solved at 1.8 A resolution using the molecular replacement method. As in the other members of the family (especially the ribose binding protein, RBP, with which it shares 35 % sequence homology), this structure consists of two similar domains joined by a three-stranded hinge region. The protein is believed to exist in a dynamic equilibrium of closed and open conformations in solution which is an important part of its function. In the closed ligand-bound form observed here, D-allose is buried at the domain interface. Only the beta-anomer of allopyranose is seen in the crystal structure, although the alpha-anomer can potentially bind with a similar affinity. Details of the ligand-binding cleft reveal the features that determine substrate specificity. Extensive hydrogen bonding as well as hydrophobic interactions are found to be important. Altogether ten residues from both the domains form 14 hydrogen bonds with the sugar. In addition, three aromatic rings, one from each domain with faces parallel to the plane of the sugar ring and a third perpendicular, make up a hydrophobic stacking surface for the ring hydrogen atoms. Our results indicate that the aromatic rings forming the sugar binding cleft can sterically block the binding of any hexose epimer except D-allose, 6-deoxy-allose or 3-deoxy-glucose; the latter two are expected to bind with reduced affinity, due to the loss of some hydrogen bonds. The pyranose form of the pentose, D-ribose, can also fit into the ALBP binding cleft, although with lower binding affinity. Thus, ALBP can function as a low affinity transporter for D-ribose. The significance of these results is discussed in the context of the function of allose and ribose transport systems.     

Insights into Positive and Negative Requirements for Protein-Protein Interactions by Crystallographic Analysis of the β-Lactamase Inhibitory Proteins BLIP, BLIP-I, and BLP

β-Lactamase inhibitory protein (BLIP) binds a variety of β-lactamase enzymes with wide-ranging specificity. Its binding mechanism and interface interactions are a well-established model system for the characterization of protein-protein interactions. Published studies have examined the binding of BLIP to diverse target β-lactamases (e.g., TEM-1, SME-1, and SHV-1). However, apart from point mutations of amino acid residues, variability on the inhibitor side of this enzyme-inhibitor interface has remained unexplored. Thus, we present crystal structures of two likely BLIP relatives: (1) BLIP-I (solved alone and in complex with TEM-1), which has β-lactamase inhibitory activity very similar to that of BLIP; and (2) β-lactamase-inhibitory-protein-like protein (BLP) (in two apo forms, including an ultra-high-resolution structure), which is unable to inhibit any tested β-lactamase. Despite categorical differences in species of origin and function, BLIP-I and BLP share nearly identical backbone conformations, even at loop regions differing in BLIP.We describe interacting residues and provide a comparative structural analysis of the interactions formed at the interface of BLIP-I·TEM-1 versus those formed at the interface of BLIP·TEM-1. Along with initial attempts to functionally characterize BLP, we examine its amino acid residues that structurally correspond to BLIP/BLIP-I binding hotspots to explain its inability to bind and inhibit TEM-1. We conclude that the BLIP family fold is a robust and flexible scaffold that permits the formation of high-affinity protein-protein interactions while remaining highly selective. Comparison of the two naturally occurring, distinct binding interfaces built upon this scaffold (BLIP and BLIP-I) shows that there is substantial variation possible in the subnanomolar binding interaction with TEM-1. The corresponding (non-TEM-1-binding) BLP surface shows that numerous favorable backbone-backbone/backbone-side-chain interactions with a protein partner can be negated by the presence of a few, strongly unfavorable interactions, especially electrostatic repulsions.     

Complementation of buried lysine and surface polar residues in a designed heterodimeric coiled coil

The coiled coil is an attractive target for protein design. The helices of coiled coils are characterized by a heptad repeat of residues denoted a to g. Residues at positions a and d form the interhelical interface and are usually hydrophobic. An established strategy to confer structural uniqueness to two-stranded coiled coils is the use of buried polar Asn residues at position a, which imparts dimerization and conformational specificity at the expense of stability. Here we show that polar interactions involving buried position-a Lys residues that can interact favorably only with surface e' or g' Glu residues also impart structural uniqueness to a designed heterodimeric coiled coil with the nativelike properties of sigmoidal thermal and urea-induced unfolding transitions, slow hydrogen exchange and lack of ANS binding. The position-a Lys residues do not, however, confer a single preference for helix orientation, likely reflecting the ability of Lys at position a to from favorable interactions with g' or e' Glu residues in the parallel and antiparallel orientations, respectively. The Lys-Glu polar interaction is less destabilizing than the Asn-Asn a-->a' interaction, presumably reflecting a higher desolvation penalty associated with the completely buried polar position-a groups. Our results extend the range of approaches for two-stranded coiled-coil design and illustrate the role of complementing polar groups associated with buried and surface positions of proteins in protein folding and design.     

A dominant conformational role for amino acid diversity in minimalist protein-protein interfaces

Recent studies have shown that highly simplified interaction surfaces consisting of combinations of just two amino acids, Tyr and Ser, exhibit high affinity and specificity. The high functional levels of such minimalist interfaces might thus indicate small contributions of greater amino acid diversity seen in natural interfaces. Toward addressing this issue, we have produced a pair of binding proteins built on the fibronectin type III scaffold, termed “monobodies.” One monobody contains the Tyr/Ser binary-code interface (termed YS) and the other contains an expanded amino acid diversity interface (YSX), but both bind to an identical target, maltose-binding protein. The YSX monobody bound with higher affinity, a slower off rate and a more favorable enthalpic contribution than the YS monobody. High-resolution X-ray crystal structures revealed that both proteins bound to an essentially identical epitope, providing a unique opportunity to directly investigate the role of amino acid diversity in a protein interaction interface. Surprisingly, Tyr still dominates the YSX paratope and the additional amino acid types are primarily used to conformationally optimize contacts made by tyrosines. Scanning mutagenesis showed that while all contacting Tyr side chains are essential in the YS monobody, the YSX interface was more tolerant to mutations. These results suggest that the conformational, not chemical, diversity of additional types of amino acids provided higher functionality and evolutionary robustness, supporting the dominant role of Tyr and the importance of conformational diversity in forming protein interaction interfaces.     

Studies of protein-protein interfaces: a statistical analysis of the hydrophobic effect.

Data sets of 362 structurally nonredundant protein-protein interfaces and of 57 symmetry-related oligomeric interfaces have been used to explore whether the hydrophobic effect that guides protein folding is also the main driving force for protein-protein associations. The buried nonpolar surface area has been used to measure the hydrophobic effect. Our analysis indicates that, although the hydrophobic effect plays a dominant role in protein-protein binding, it is not as strong as that observed in the interior of protein monomers. Comparison of interiors of the monomers with those of the interfaces reveals that, in general, the hydrophobic amino acids are more frequent in the interior of the monomers than in the interior of the protein-protein interfaces. On the other hand, a higher proportion of charged and polar residues are buried at the interfaces, suggesting that hydrogen bonds and ion pairs contribute more to the stability of protein binding than to that of protein folding. Moreover, comparison of the interior of the interfaces to protein surfaces indicates that the interfaces are poorer in polar/charged than the surfaces and are richer in hydrophobic residues. The interior of the interfaces appears to constitute a compromise between the stabilization contributed by the hydrophobic effect on the one hand and avoiding patches on the protein surfaces that are too hydrophobic on the other. Such patches would be unfavorable for the unassociated monomers in solution. We conclude that, although the types of interactions are similar between protein-protein interfaces and single-chain proteins overall, the contribution of the hydrophobic effect to protein-protein associations is not as strong as to protein folding. This implies that packing patterns and interatom, or interresidue, pairwise potential functions, derived from monomers, are not ideally suited to predicting and assessing ligand associations or design. These would perform adequately only in cases where the hydrophobic effect at the binding site is substantial.     

Acidic groups docked to well defined wetted pockets at the core of the binding interface: a tale of scoring and missing protein interactions in CAPRI

Some challenging targets in CAPRI (T24/25 and T26) involve binding solvent accessible acidic residues at the core of the binding interface, where they are always found immersed in crystal waters. In fact, Asp and Glu residues are more likely to form part of the hydrogen bond network of their surrounding crystal water molecules than to form a buried salt bridge. Interestingly, many of the crystal waters mediating the intermolecular interactions of the acidic groups are already present in the unbound structure, reinforcing the notion that some water molecules behave as an extension of the protein structure. This is in contrast to acidic groups found in the periphery of the binding interface that form ubiquitous salt bridges that cement the high affinity complex, while at the same time they are exposed to rapidly exchanging water molecules. Because of this, dichotomy implicit solvent scoring functions fail to properly rank these complexes by prioritizing salt bridges rather than water mediated contacts. A detailed analysis of Target 24, for which our group predicted two out of the four successful homology model complex structures, and Target 26 reveal how crystal waters shape the binding cavities of acidic groups prior to binding, in agreement with the theory of anchor residues as mediators of protein recognition.     

The roles of contact residue disorder and domain composition in characterizing protein-ligand binding specificity and promiscuity

Most protein chains interact with only one ligand but a small number of protein chains can bind several ligands, and many examples are available in the protein-ligand complex database of PDB. Among these proteins, some show preferences for the ligands or types of ligands they bind; however, so far we have only poor understanding of what determines protein-ligand binding and its specificity. Here we investigate the structural and functional properties of proteins in protein-ligand complexes. Analysis of the protein-ligand complex dataset from the PDB structure database reveals that proteins with more interactions have more disordered contact residues. Those proteins containing few disordered contact residues that bind multiple ligands have a tendency to consist of several domains. Analysis of physicochemical properties of hub contact residues binding multiple ligands indicates that they are enriched for hydrophilic, charged, polar and His-Asp catalytic triad residues. Finally, in order to differentiate proteins binding different classes of ligands, we mapped the three most prominent classes of ligands onto different superfamily domains. Our results demonstrate that contact residue disorder and ordered multiple domains are complementary factors that play a crucial role in determining ligand binding specificity and promiscuity.