Membrane Insertion of Marginally Hydrophobic Transmembrane Helices Depends on Sequence Context

In mammalian cells, most integral membrane proteins are initially inserted into the endoplasmic reticulum membrane by the so-called Sec61 translocon. However, recent predictions suggest that many transmembrane helices (TMHs) in multispanning membrane proteins are not sufficiently hydrophobic to be recognized as such by the translocon. In this study, we have screened 16 marginally hydrophobic TMHs from membrane proteins of known three-dimensional structure. Indeed, most of these TMHs do not insert efficiently into the endoplasmic reticulum membrane by themselves. To test if loops or TMHs immediately upstream or downstream of a marginally hydrophobic helix might influence the insertion efficiency, insertion of marginally hydrophobic helices was also studied in the presence of their neighboring loops and helices. The results show that flanking loops and nearest-neighbor TMHs are sufficient to ensure the insertion of many marginally hydrophobic helices. However, for at least two of the marginally hydrophobic helices, the local interactions are not enough, indicating that post-insertional rearrangements are involved in the folding of these proteins.     

The Positive Inside Rule Is Stronger When Followed by a Transmembrane Helix

The translocon recognizes transmembrane helices with sufficient level of hydrophobicity and inserts them into the membrane. However, sometimes less hydrophobic helices are also recognized. Positive inside rule, orientational preferences of and specific interactions with neighboring helices have been shown to aid in the recognition of these helices, at least in artificial systems. To better understand how the translocon inserts marginally hydrophobic helices, we studied three naturally occurring marginally hydrophobic helices, which were previously shown to require the subsequent helix for efficient translocon recognition. We find no evidence for specific interactions when we scan all residues in the subsequent helices. Instead, we identify arginines located at the N-terminal part of the subsequent helices that are crucial for the recognition of the marginally hydrophobic transmembrane helices, indicating that the positive inside rule is important. However, in two of the constructs, these arginines do not aid in the recognition without the rest of the subsequent helix; that is, the positive inside rule alone is not sufficient. Instead, the improved recognition of marginally hydrophobic helices can here be explained as follows: the positive inside rule provides an orientational preference of the subsequent helix, which in turn allows the marginally hydrophobic helix to be inserted; that is, the effect of the positive inside rule is stronger if positively charged residues are followed by a transmembrane helix. Such a mechanism obviously cannot aid C-terminal helices, and consequently, we find that the terminal helices in multi-spanning membrane proteins are more hydrophobic than internal helices.     

Asn- and Asp-mediated interactions between transmembrane helices during translocon-mediated membrane protein assembly

Inter-helix hydrogen bonding involving asparagine (Asn, N), glutamine (Gln, Q), aspartic acid (Asp, D) or glutamic acid (Glu, E) can drive efficient di- or trimerization of transmembrane helices in detergent micelles and lipid bilayers. Likewise, Asn-Asn and Asp-Asp pairs can promote the formation of helical hairpins during translocon-mediated membrane protein assembly in the endoplasmic reticulum. By in vitro translation of model integral membrane protein constructs in the presence of rough microsomes, we show that Asn- or Asp-mediated interactions with a neighbouring transmembrane helix can enhance the membrane insertion efficiency of a marginally hydrophobic transmembrane segment. Our observations suggest that inter-helix hydrogen bonds can form during Sec61 translocon-assisted insertion and thus could be important for membrane protein assembly.     

Marginally hydrophobic transmembrane α‐helices shaping membrane protein folding

Cells have developed an incredible machinery to facilitate the insertion of membrane proteins into the membrane. While we have a fairly good understanding of the mechanism and determinants of membrane integration, more data is needed to understand the insertion of membrane proteins with more complex insertion and folding pathways. This review will focus on marginally hydrophobic transmembrane helices and their influence on membrane protein folding. These weakly hydrophobic transmembrane segments are by themselves not recognized by the translocon and therefore rely on local sequence context for membrane integration. How can such segments reside within the membrane? We will discuss this in the light of features found in the protein itself as well as the environment it resides in. Several characteristics in proteins have been described to influence the insertion of marginally hydrophobic helices. Additionally, the influence of biological membranes is significant. To begin with, the actual cost for having polar groups within the membrane may not be as high as expected; the presence of proteins in the membrane as well as characteristics of some amino acids may enable a transmembrane helix to harbor a charged residue. The lipid environment has also been shown to directly influence the topology as well as membrane boundaries of transmembrane helices—implying a dynamic relationship between membrane proteins and their environment.     

The spontaneous insertion of proteins into and across membranes: The helical hairpin hypothesis

We propose that the initial event in the secretion of proteins across membranes and their insertion into membranes is the spontaneous penetration of the hydrophobic portion of the bilayer by a helical hairpin. Energetic considerations of polypeptide structures in a nonpolar, lipid environment compared with an aqueous environment suggest that only α and 3₁₀ helices will be observed in the hydrophobic interior of membranes. Insertion of a polypeptide is accomplished by a hairpin structure composed of two helices, which will partition into membranes if the free energy arising from burying hydrophobic helical surfaces exceeds the free energy “cost” of burying potentially charged and hydrogen-bonding groups. We suggest, for example, that the hydrophobic leader peptide found in secreted proteins and in many membrane proteins forms one of these helices and is oriented in the membrane with its N terminus inside. In secreted proteins, the leader functions by pulling polar portions of a protein into the membrane as the second helix of the hairpin. The occurrence of all categories of membrane proteins can be rationalized by the hydrophobic or hydrophilic character of the two helices of the inserted hairpin and, for some integral membrane proteins, by events in which a single terminal helix is inserted. We propose that, because of the distribution of polar and nonpolar sequences in the polypeptide sequence, secretion and the insertion of membrane proteins are spontaneous processes that do not require the participation of additional specific membrane receptors or transport proteins.     

Folding of Aquaporin 1: Multiple evidence that helix 3 can shift out of the membrane core

The folding of most integral membrane proteins follows a two‐step process: initially, individual transmembrane helices are inserted into the membrane by the Sec translocon. Thereafter, these helices fold to shape the final conformation of the protein. However, for some proteins, including Aquaporin 1 (AQP1), the folding appears to follow a more complicated path. AQP1 has been reported to first insert as a four‐helical intermediate, where helix 2 and 4 are not inserted into the membrane. In a second step, this intermediate is folded into a six‐helical topology. During this process, the orientation of the third helix is inverted. Here, we propose a mechanism for how this reorientation could be initiated: first, helix 3 slides out from the membrane core resulting in that the preceding loop enters the membrane. The final conformation could then be formed as helix 2, 3, and 4 are inserted into the membrane and the reentrant regions come together. We find support for the first step in this process by showing that the loop preceding helix 3 can insert into the membrane. Further, hydrophobicity curves, experimentally measured insertion efficiencies and MD‐simulations suggest that the barrier between these two hydrophobic regions is relatively low, supporting the idea that helix 3 can slide out of the membrane core, initiating the rearrangement process.     

UMARS: Un-MAppable Reads Solution

Background

Few high-resolution structures of integral membranes proteins are available, as crystallization of such proteins needs yet to overcome too many technical limitations. Nevertheless, prediction of their transmembrane (TM) structure by bioinformatics tools provides interesting insights on the topology of these proteins.

Methods

We describe here how to extract new information from the analysis of hydrophobicity variations or hydrophobic pulses (HPulses) in the sequence of integral membrane proteins using the Hydrophobic Pulse Predictor, a new tool we developed for this purpose. To analyze the primary sequence of 70 integral membrane proteins we defined two levels of analysis: G1-HPulses for sliding windows of n = 2 to 6 and G2-HPulses for sliding windows of n = 12 to 16.

Results

The G2-HPulse analysis of 541 transmembrane helices allowed the definition of the new concept of transmembrane unit (TMU) that groups together transmembrane helices and segments with potential adjacent structures. In addition, the G1-HPulse analysis identified helix irregularities that corresponded to kinks, partial helices or unannotated structural events. These irregularities could represent key dynamic elements that are alternatively activated depending on the channel status as illustrated by the crystal structures of the lactose permease in different conformations.

Conclusions

Our results open a new way in the understanding of transmembrane secondary structures: hydrophobicity through hydrophobic pulses strongly impacts on such embedded structures and is not confined to define the transmembrane status of amino acids.     

Membrane topology of the STT3 subunit of the oligosaccharyl transferase complex

The highly conserved membrane protein STT3 is part of the oligosaccharyl transferase complex in the endoplasmic reticulum of eukaryotic cells. Various experimental observations strongly suggest that STT3 contains the active site of the complex. Here, we report a detailed topology study of STT3 from two different organisms, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and mouse, using in vivo and in vitro topology mapping assays. Our results suggest that STT3 has 11 transmembrane helices and an overall N(cyt)-C(lum) orientation.     

Sequence and conformational preferences at termini of α‐helices in membrane proteins: Role of the helix environment

α‐helices are amongst the most common secondary structural elements seen in membrane proteins and are packed in the form of helix bundles. These α‐helices encounter varying external environments (hydrophobic, hydrophilic) that may influence the sequence preferences at their N and C‐termini. The role of the external environment in stabilization of the helix termini in membrane proteins is still unknown. Here we analyze α‐helices in a high‐resolution dataset of integral α‐helical membrane proteins and establish that their sequence and conformational preferences differ from those in globular proteins. We specifically examine these preferences at the N and C‐termini in helices initiating/terminating inside the membrane core as well as in linkers connecting these transmembrane helices. We find that the sequence preferences and structural motifs at capping (Ncap and Ccap) and near‐helical (N' and C') positions are influenced by a combination of features including the membrane environment and the innate helix initiation and termination property of residues forming structural motifs. We also find that a large number of helix termini which do not form any particular capping motif are stabilized by formation of hydrogen bonds and hydrophobic interactions contributed from the neighboring helices in the membrane protein. We further validate the sequence preferences obtained from our analysis with data from an ultradeep sequencing study that identifies evolutionarily conserved amino acids in the rat neurotensin receptor. The results from our analysis provide insights for the secondary structure prediction, modeling and design of membrane proteins. Proteins 2014; 82:3420–3436. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Are membrane proteins "inside-out" proteins?

One of the central paradigms of structural biology is that membrane proteins are "inside-out" proteins, in that they have a core of polar residues surrounded by apolar residues. This is the reverse of the characteristics found in water-soluble proteins. We have decided to test this paradigm, now that sufficient numbers of transmembrane alpha-helical structures are accessible to statistical analysis. We have analyzed the correlation between accessibility and hydrophobicity of both individual residues and complete helices. Our analyses reveal that hydrophobicity of residues in a transmembrane helical bundle does not correlate with any preferred location and that the hydrophilic vector of a helix is a poor indicator of the solvent exposed face of a helix. Neither polar nor hydrophobic residues show any bias for the exterior or the interior of a transmembrane domain. As a control, analysis of water-soluble helical bundles performed in a similar manner has yielded clear correlations between hydrophobicity and accessibility. We therefore conclude that, based on the data set used, membrane proteins as "inside-out" proteins is an unfounded notion, suggesting that packing of alpha-helices in membranes is better understood by maximization of van der Waal's forces, rather than by a general segregation of hydrophobicities driven by lipid exclusion.     

Structures of membrane proteins

Summary The possible conformations of integral membrane proteins are restricted by the nature of their environment. In order to satisfy the requirement of maximum hydrogen bonding, those protions of the polypeptide chain which are in contact with lipid hydrocarbon must be organized into regions of regular secondary structure. As possible models of the intramembranous regions of integral membrane proteins, three types of regular structues are discussed. Two, the alpha helix and the beta-pleated sheet, are regularly occurring structural features of soluble proteins. The third is a newly proposed class of conformations called beta helices. These helices have unique features which make them particularly well-suited to the lipid bilayer environment. The central segment of the membrane-spanning protein glycophorin can be arranged into a beta helix with a hydrophobic exterior and a polar interior containing charged amino-acid side chains. Such structures could function as transmembrane ion channels. A model of the activation process based on a hypothetical equilibrium between alpha and beta helical forms of a transmembrane protein is presented. The model can accurately reproduce the kinetics and voltage dependence of the channels in nerve.     

Membrane-integration Characteristics of Two ABC Transporters, CFTR and P-glycoprotein

To what extent do corresponding transmembrane helices in related integral membrane proteins have different membrane-insertion characteristics? Here, we compare, side-by-side, the membrane insertion characteristics of the 12 transmembrane helices in the adenosine triphosphate-binding cassette (ABC) transporters, P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR). Our results show that 10 of the 12 CFTR transmembrane segments can insert independently into the ER membrane. In contrast, only three of the P-gp transmembrane segments are independently stable in the membrane, while the majority depend on the presence of neighboring loops and/or transmembrane segments for efficient insertion. Membrane-insertion characteristics can thus vary widely between related proteins.     

Why is the biological hydrophobicity scale more accurate than earlier experimental hydrophobicity scales?

The recognition of transmembrane helices by the translocon is primarily guided by the average hydrophobicity of the potential transmembrane helix. However, the exact hydrophobicity of each amino acid can be identified in several different ways. The free energy of transfer for amino acid analogues between a hydrophobic media, for example, octanol and water can be measured or obtained from simulations, the hydrophobicity can also be estimated by statistical properties from known transmembrane segments and finally the contribution of each amino acid type for the probability of translocon recognition has recently been measured directly. Although these scales correlate quite well, there are clear differences between them and it is not well understood which scale represents neither the biology best nor what the differences are. Here, we try to provide some answers to this by studying the ability of different scales to recognize transmembrane helices and predict the topology of transmembrane proteins. From this analysis it is clear that the biological hydrophobicity scale as well scales created from statistical analysis of membrane helices perform better than earlier experimental scales that are mainly based on measurements of amino acid analogs and not directly on transmembrane helix recognition. Using these results we identified the properties of the scales that perform better than other scales. We find, for instance, that the better performing scales consider proline more hydrophilic. This shows that transmembrane recognition is not only governed by pure hydrophobicity but also by the helix preferences for amino acids, as proline is a strong helix breaker. Proteins 2014; 82:2190–2198. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Computational differentiation of N-terminal signal peptides and transmembrane helices

Signal peptides and transmembrane helices both contain a stretch of hydrophobic amino acids. This common feature makes it difficult for signal peptide and transmembrane helix predictors to correctly assign identity to stretches of hydrophobic residues near the N-terminal methionine of a protein sequence. The inability to reliably distinguish between N-terminal transmembrane helix and signal peptide is an error with serious consequences for the prediction of protein secretory status or transmembrane topology. In this study, we report a new method for differentiating protein N-terminal signal peptides and transmembrane helices. Based on the sequence features extracted from hydrophobic regions (amino acid frequency, hydrophobicity, and the start position), we set up discriminant functions and examined them on non-redundant datasets with jackknife tests. This method can incorporate other signal peptide prediction methods and achieve higher prediction accuracy. For Gram-negative bacterial proteins, 95.7% of N-terminal signal peptides and transmembrane helices can be correctly predicted (coefficient 0.90). Given a sensitivity of 90%, transmembrane helices can be identified from signal peptides with a precision of 99% (coefficient 0.92). For eukaryotic proteins, 94.2% of N-terminal signal peptides and transmembrane helices can be correctly predicted with coefficient 0.83. Given a sensitivity of 90%, transmembrane helices can be identified from signal peptides with a precision of 87% (coefficient 0.85). The method can be used to complement current transmembrane protein prediction and signal peptide prediction methods to improve their prediction accuracies.     

The energetics of transmembrane helix insertion into a lipid bilayer

Free energy profiles for insertion of a hydrophobic transmembrane protein α-helix (M2 from CFTR) into a lipid bilayer have been calculated using coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations and umbrella sampling to yield potentials of mean force along a reaction path corresponding to translation of a helix across a lipid bilayer. The calculated free energy of insertion is smaller when a bilayer with a thinner hydrophobic region is used. The free energies of insertion from the potentials of mean force are compared with those derived from a number of hydrophobicity scales and with those derived from translocon-mediated insertion. This comparison supports recent models of translocon-mediated insertion and in particular suggests that: 1), helices in an about-to-be-inserted state may be located in a hydrophobic region somewhat thinner than the core of a lipid bilayer; and/or 2), helices in a not-to-be-inserted state may experience an environment more akin (e.g., in polarity/hydrophobicity) to the bilayer/water interface than to bulk water.     

Conformational analysis of lipid-associating proteins in a lipid environment

Two major types of helical structures have been identified in lipid-associating proteins, being either amphipathic or transmembrane domains. A conformational analysis was carried out to characterize some of the properties of these helices. These calculations were performed both on isolated helices and in a lipid environment. According to the results of this analysis, the orientation of the line joining the hydrophobic and hydrophilic centers of the helix seems to determine the orientation of the helix at the lipid/water interface. The calculation of this parameter should be useful to discriminate between an amphipathic helix, parallel to the interface and a transmembrane helix orientated perpendicularly. The membrane-spanning helices are completely immersed in the phospholipid bilayer and their length corresponds to about the thickness of the hydrophobic core of the DPPC bilayer. The energy of interaction, expressed per phospholipid is significantly higher for the transmembrane compared to the amphipathic helices. For the membrane-spanning helices the mean energy of interaction is higher than the interaction energy between two phospholipids, while it is lower for most amphipathic helices. This might account for the stability of these protein-anchoring domains. This computer modeling approach should usefully complement the statistical analysis carried out on these helices, based on their hydrophobicity and hydrophobic moment. It represents a more refined analysis of the domains identified by the prediction techniques and stress the functional character of lipid-associating domains in membrane proteins as well as in soluble plasma lipoproteins.     

Interhelical hydrogen bonding drives strong interactions in membrane proteins

Polar residues in transmembrane alpha-helices may strongly influence the folding or association of integral membrane proteins. To test whether a motif that promotes helix association in a soluble protein could do the same within a membrane, we designed a model transmembrane helix based on the GCN4 leucine zipper. We found in both detergent micelles and biological membranes that helix association is driven strongly by asparagine, independent of the rest of the hydrophobic leucine and/or valine sequence. Hydrogen bonding between membrane helices gives stronger associations than the packing of surfaces in glycophorin A helices, creating an opportunity to stabilize structures, but also implying a danger that non-specific interactions might occur. Thus, membrane proteins may fold to avoid exposure of strongly hydrogen bonding groups at their lipid exposed surfaces.     

Transmembrane helix predictions revisited

Methods that predict membrane helices have become increasingly useful in the context of analyzing entire proteomes, as well as in everyday sequence analysis. Here, we analyzed 27 advanced and simple methods in detail. To resolve contradictions in previous works and to reevaluate transmembrane helix prediction algorithms, we introduced an analysis that distinguished between performance on redundancy-reduced high- and low-resolution data sets, established thresholds for significant differences in performance, and implemented both per-segment and per-residue analysis of membrane helix predictions. Although some of the advanced methods performed better than others, we showed in a thorough bootstrapping experiment based on various measures of accuracy that no method performed consistently best. In contrast, most simple hydrophobicity scale-based methods were significantly less accurate than any advanced method as they overpredicted membrane helices and confused membrane helices with hydrophobic regions outside of membranes. In contrast, the advanced methods usually distinguished correctly between membrane-helical and other proteins. Nonetheless, few methods reliably distinguished between signal peptides and membrane helices. We could not verify a significant difference in performance between eukaryotic and prokaryotic proteins. Surprisingly, we found that proteins with more than five helices were predicted at a significantly lower accuracy than proteins with five or fewer. The important implication is that structurally unsolved multispanning membrane proteins, which are often important drug targets, will remain problematic for transmembrane helix prediction algorithms. Overall, by establishing a standardized methodology for transmembrane helix prediction evaluation, we have resolved differences among previous works and presented novel trends that may impact the analysis of entire proteomes.     

Peptide mimics of the M13 coat protein transmembrane segment. Retention of helix-helix interaction motifs

Sequence-specific noncovalent helix-helix interactions between transmembrane (TM) segments in proteins are investigated by incorporating selected TM sequences into synthetic peptides using the construct CKKK-TM-KKK. The peptides are of suitable hydrophobicity for spontaneous membrane insertion, whereas formation of an N-terminal S-S bond can bring pairs of TM helices into proximity and promote their parallel orientation. Using the propensity of the protein to undergo thermally induced alpha-helix --> beta-sheet transitions as a parameter for helix stability, we compared the wild type and mutant (V29A and V31A) bacteriophage M13 coat proteins with their corresponding TM peptide constructs (M13 residues 24-42). Our results demonstrated that the relevant helix-helix tertiary contacts found in the intact proteins persist in the peptide mimics. Molecular dynamics simulations support the tight "two in-two out" dimerization motif for V31A consistent with mutagenesis data. The overall results reinforce the notion of TM segments as autonomous folding domains and suggest that the generic peptide construct provides a viable reductionist system for membrane protein structural and computational analysis.     

Membrane topology of the human seipin protein

The Berardinelli-Seip congenital lipodystrophy type 2 (BSCL2) gene encodes an integral membrane protein, called seipin, of unknown function localized to the endoplasmic reticulum of eukaryotic cells. Seipin is associated with the heterogeneous genetic disease BSCL2, and mutations in an N-glycosylation motif links the protein to two other disorders, autosomal-dominant distal hereditary motor neuropathy type V and Silver syndrome. Here, we report a topological study of seipin using an in vitro topology mapping assay. Our results suggest that the predominant form of seipin is 462 residues long and has an N(cyt)-C(cyt) orientation with a long luminal loop between the two transmembrane helices.