Interaction interfaces of protein domains are not topologically equivalent across families within superfamilies: Implications for metabolic and signaling pathways

Using a data set of aligned protein domain superfamilies of known three-dimensional structure, we compared the location of interdomain interfaces on the tertiary folds between members of distantly related protein domain superfamilies. The data set analyzed is comprised of interdomain interfaces, with domains occurring within a polypeptide chain and those between two polypeptide chains. We observe that, in general, the interfaces between protein domains are formed entirely in different locations on the tertiary folds in such pairs. This variation in the location of interface happens in protein domains involved in a wide range of functions, such as enzymes, adapters, and domains that bind protein ligands, or cofactors. While basic biochemical functionality is preserved at the domain superfamily level, the effect of biochemical function on protein assemblies is different in these protein domains related by superfamily. The divergence between proteins, in most cases, is coupled with domain recruitment, with different modes of interaction with the recruited domain. This is in complete contrast to the observation that in closely related homologous protein domains, almost always the interaction interfaces are topologically equivalent. In a small subset of interacting domains within proteins related by remote homology, we observe that the relative positioning of domains with respect to one another is preserved. Based on the analysis of multidomain proteins of known or unknown structure, we suggest that variation in protein-protein interactions in members within a superfamily could serve as diverging points in otherwise parallel metabolic or signaling pathways. We discuss a few representative cases of diverging pathways involving domains in a superfamily.     

Exploring dynamics of protein structure determination and homology-based prediction to estimate the number of superfamilies and folds

Background

As tertiary structure is currently available only for a fraction of known protein families, it is important to assess what parts of sequence space have been structurally characterized. We consider protein domains whose structure can be predicted by sequence similarity to proteins with solved structure and address the following questions. Do these domains represent an unbiased random sample of all sequence families? Do targets solved by structural genomic initiatives (SGI) provide such a sample? What are approximate total numbers of structure-based superfamilies and folds among soluble globular domains?

Results

To make these assessments, we combine two approaches: (i) sequence analysis and homology-based structure prediction for proteins from complete genomes; and (ii) monitoring dynamics of the assigned structure set in time, with the accumulation of experimentally solved structures. In the Clusters of Orthologous Groups (COG) database, we map the growing population of structurally characterized domain families onto the network of sequence-based connections between domains. This mapping reveals a systematic bias suggesting that target families for structure determination tend to be located in highly populated areas of sequence space. In contrast, the subset of domains whose structure is initially inferred by SGI is similar to a random sample from the whole population. To accommodate for the observed bias, we propose a new non-parametric approach to the estimation of the total numbers of structural superfamilies and folds, which does not rely on a specific model of the sampling process. Based on dynamics of robust distribution-based parameters in the growing set of structure predictions, we estimate the total numbers of superfamilies and folds among soluble globular proteins in the COG database.

Conclusion

The set of currently solved protein structures allows for structure prediction in approximately a third of sequence-based domain families. The choice of targets for structure determination is biased towards domains with many sequence-based homologs. The growing SGI output in the future should further contribute to the reduction of this bias. The total number of structural superfamilies and folds in the COG database are estimated as ~4000 and ~1700. These numbers are respectively four and three times higher than the numbers of superfamilies and folds that can currently be assigned to COG proteins.     

Are viruses a source of new protein folds for organisms? – Virosphere structure space and evolution

A crucially important part of the biosphere - the virosphere - is too often overlooked. Inclusion of the virosphere into the global picture of protein structure space reveals that 63 protein domain superfamilies in viruses do not have any structural and evolutionary relatives in modern cellular organisms. More than half of these have functions which are not virus-specific and thus might be a source of new folds and functions for cellular life. The number of viruses on the planet exceeds that of cells by an order of magnitude and viruses evolve up to six orders of magnitude faster. As a result, cellular species are subject to a constitutive 'flow-through' of new viral genetic material. Due to this and the relaxed evolutionary constraints in viruses, the transfer of domains between host-to-virus could be a mechanism for accelerated protein evolution. The virosphere could be an engine for the genesis of protein structures, and may even have been so before the last universal common ancestor of cellular life.     

Comparative genomics and structural biology of the molecular innovations of eukaryotes

Eukaryotes encode numerous proteins that either have no detectable homologs in prokaryotes or have only distant homologs. These molecular innovations of eukaryotes may be classified into three categories: proteins and domains inherited from prokaryotic precursors without drastic changes in biochemical function, but often recruited for novel roles in eukaryotes; new superfamilies or distinct biochemical functions emerging within pre-existing protein folds; and domains with genuinely new folds, apparently 'invented' at the outset of eukaryotic evolution. Most new folds emerging in eukaryotes are either alpha-helical or stabilized by metal chelation. Comparative genomics analyses point to an early phase of rapid evolution, and dramatic changes between the origin of the eukaryotic cell and the advent of the last common ancestor of extant eukaryotes. Extensive duplication of numerous genes, with subsequent functional diversification, is a distinctive feature of this turbulent era. Evolutionary analysis of ancient eukaryotic proteins is generally compatible with a two-symbiont scenario for eukaryotic origin, involving an alpha-proteobacterium (the ancestor of the mitochondria) and an archaeon, as well as key contributions from their selfish elements.     

Evolution of protein superfamilies and bacterial genome size

We present the structural annotation of 56 different bacterial species based on the assignment of genes to 816 evolutionary superfamilies in the CATH domain structure database. These assignments have enabled us to analyse the recurrence of specific superfamilies within and across the genomes. We have selected the superfamilies that have a very broad representation and therefore appear to be universally distributed in a significant number of bacterial lineages. Occurrence profiles of these universally distributed superfamilies are compared with genome size in order to estimate the correlation between superfamily duplication and the increase in proteome size. This distinguishes between those size-dependent superfamilies where frequency of occurrence is highly correlated with increase in genome size, and size-independent superfamilies where no correlation is observed. Consideration of the size correlation and the ratio between the mean and the standard deviations for all the superfamily profiles allows more detailed subdivisions and classification of superfamilies. For example, within the size-independent superfamilies, we distinguished a group that are distributed evenly amongst all the genomes. Within the size-dependent superfamilies we differentiated two groups: linearly distributed and non-linearly distributed. Functional annotation using the COG database was performed for all superfamilies in each of these groups, and this revealed significant differences amongst the three sets of superfamilies. Evenly distributed, size-independent domains are shown to be involved primarily in protein translation and biosynthesis. For the size-dependent superfamilies, linearly distributed superfamilies are involved mainly in metabolism, and non-linearly distributed superfamily domains are involved principally in gene regulation.     

Evolution of enzyme superfamilies

Enzyme evolution is often constrained by aspects of catalysis. Sets of homologous proteins that catalyze different overall reactions but share an aspect of catalysis, such as a common partial reaction, are called mechanistically diverse superfamilies. The common mechanistic steps and structural characteristics of several of these superfamilies, including the enolase, Nudix, amidohydrolase, and haloacid dehalogenase superfamilies have been characterized. In addition, studies of mechanistically diverse superfamilies are helping to elucidate mechanisms of functional diversification, such as catalytic promiscuity. Understanding how enzyme superfamilies evolve is vital for accurate genome annotation, predicting protein functions, and protein engineering.     

Evolutionarily conserved substrate substructures for automated annotation of enzyme superfamilies

The evolution of enzymes affects how well a species can adapt to new environmental conditions. During enzyme evolution, certain aspects of molecular function are conserved while other aspects can vary. Aspects of function that are more difficult to change or that need to be reused in multiple contexts are often conserved, while those that vary may indicate functions that are more easily changed or that are no longer required. In analogy to the study of conservation patterns in enzyme sequences and structures, we have examined the patterns of conservation and variation in enzyme function by analyzing graph isomorphisms among enzyme substrates of a large number of enzyme superfamilies. This systematic analysis of substrate substructures establishes the conservation patterns that typify individual superfamilies. Specifically, we determined the chemical substructures that are conserved among all known substrates of a superfamily and the substructures that are reacting in these substrates and then examined the relationship between the two. Across the 42 superfamilies that were analyzed, substantial variation was found in how much of the conserved substructure is reacting, suggesting that superfamilies may not be easily grouped into discrete and separable categories. Instead, our results suggest that many superfamilies may need to be treated individually for analyses of evolution, function prediction, and guiding enzyme engineering strategies. Annotating superfamilies with these conserved and reacting substructure patterns provides information that is orthogonal to information provided by studies of conservation in superfamily sequences and structures, thereby improving the precision with which we can predict the functions of enzymes of unknown function and direct studies in enzyme engineering. Because the method is automated, it is suitable for large-scale characterization and comparison of fundamental functional capabilities of both characterized and uncharacterized enzyme superfamilies.     

Exploring the evolution of novel enzyme functions within structurally defined protein superfamilies

In order to understand the evolution of enzyme reactions and to gain an overview of biological catalysis we have combined sequence and structural data to generate phylogenetic trees in an analysis of 276 structurally defined enzyme superfamilies, and used these to study how enzyme functions have evolved. We describe in detail the analysis of two superfamilies to illustrate different paradigms of enzyme evolution. Gathering together data from all the superfamilies supports and develops the observation that they have all evolved to act on a diverse set of substrates, whilst the evolution of new chemistry is much less common. Despite that, by bringing together so much data, we can provide a comprehensive overview of the most common and rare types of changes in function. Our analysis demonstrates on a larger scale than previously studied, that modifications in overall chemistry still occur, with all possible changes at the primary level of the Enzyme Commission (E.C.) classification observed to a greater or lesser extent. The phylogenetic trees map out the evolutionary route taken within a superfamily, as well as all the possible changes within a superfamily. This has been used to generate a matrix of observed exchanges from one enzyme function to another, revealing the scale and nature of enzyme evolution and that some types of exchanges between and within E.C. classes are more prevalent than others. Surprisingly a large proportion (71%) of all known enzyme functions are performed by this relatively small set of 276 superfamilies. This reinforces the hypothesis that relatively few ancient enzymatic domain superfamilies were progenitors for most of the chemistry required for life.     

A galaxy of folds

Many protein classification systems capture homologous relationships by grouping domains into families and superfamilies on the basis of sequence similarity. Superfamilies with similar 3D structures are further grouped into folds. In the absence of discernable sequence similarity, these structural similarities were long thought to have originated independently, by convergent evolution. However, the growth of databases and advances in sequence comparison methods have led to the discovery of many distant evolutionary relationships that transcend the boundaries of superfamilies and folds. To investigate the contributions of convergent versus divergent evolution in the origin of protein folds, we clustered representative domains of known structure by their sequence similarity, treating them as point masses in a virtual 2D space which attract or repel each other depending on their pairwise sequence similarities. As expected, families in the same superfamily form tight clusters. But often, superfamilies of the same fold are linked with each other, suggesting that the entire fold evolved from an ancient prototype. Strikingly, some links connect superfamilies with different folds. They arise from modular peptide fragments of between 20 and 40 residues that co‐occur in the connected folds in disparate structural contexts. These may be descendants of an ancestral pool of peptide modules that evolved as cofactors in the RNA world and from which the first folded proteins arose by amplification and recombination. Our galaxy of folds summarizes, in a single image, most known and many yet undescribed homologous relationships between protein superfamilies, providing new insights into the evolution of protein domains.     

A common mechanism for ATP hydrolysis in ABC transporter and helicase superfamilies

ABC (ATP-binding cassette) transporters and helicases are large superfamilies of seemingly unrelated proteins, whose functions depend on the energy provided by ATP hydrolysis. Comparison of the 3D structures of their nucleotide-binding domains reveals that, besides two well-characterized ATP-binding signatures, the folds of their nucleotide-binding sites are similar. Furthermore, there are striking similarities in the positioning of residues thought to be important for ATP binding or hydrolysis. Interestingly, structures have recently been obtained for two ABC proteins that are not involved in transport activities, but that have a function related to DNA modification. These ABC proteins, which contain a nucleotide-binding site akin to those of typical ABC transporters, might constitute the missing link between the two superfamilies.     

Scalable remote homology detection and fold recognition in massive protein networks

The global connectivities in very large protein similarity networks contain traces of evolution among the proteins for detecting protein remote evolutionary relations or structural similarities. To investigate how well a protein network captures the evolutionary information, a key limitation is the intensive computation of pairwise sequence similarities needed to construct very large protein networks. In this article, we introduce label propagation on low-rank kernel approximation (LP-LOKA) for searching massively large protein networks. LP-LOKA propagates initial protein similarities in a low-rank graph by Nyström approximation without computing all pairwise similarities. With scalable parallel implementations based on distributed-memory using message-passing interface and Apache-Hadoop/Spark on cloud, LP-LOKA can search protein networks with one million proteins or more. In the experiments on Swiss-Prot/ADDA/CASP data, LP-LOKA significantly improved protein ranking over the widely used HMM-HMM or profile-sequence alignment methods utilizing large protein networks. It was observed that the larger the protein similarity network, the better the performance, especially on relatively small protein superfamilies and folds. The results suggest that computing massively large protein network is necessary to meet the growing need of annotating proteins from newly sequenced species and LP-LOKA is both scalable and accurate for searching massively large protein networks.     

Connecting the protein structure universe by using sparse recurring fragments

The quest to order and classify protein structures has lead to various classification schemes, focusing mostly on hierarchical relationships between structural domains. At the coarsest classification level, such schemes typically identify hundreds of types of fundamental units called folds. As a result, we picture protein structure space as a collection of isolated fold islands. It is obvious, however, that many protein folds share structural and functional commonalities. Locating those commonalities is important for our understanding of protein structure, function, and evolution. Here, we present an alternative view of the protein fold space, based on an interfold similarity measure that is related to the frequency of fragments shared between folds. In this view, protein structures form a complicated, crossconnected network with very interesting topology. We show that interfold similarity based on sequence/structure fragments correlates well with similarities of functions between protein populations in different folds.     

Functional site plasticity in domain superfamilies

We present, to our knowledge, the first quantitative analysis of functional site diversity in homologous domain superfamilies. Different types of functional sites are considered separately. Our results show that most diverse superfamilies are very plastic in terms of the spatial location of their functional sites. This is especially true for protein–protein interfaces. In contrast, we confirm that catalytic sites typically occupy only a very small number of topological locations. Small-ligand binding sites are more diverse than expected, although in a more limited manner than protein–protein interfaces. In spite of the observed diversity, our results also confirm the previously reported preferential location of functional sites. We identify a subset of homologous domain superfamilies where diversity is particularly extreme, and discuss possible reasons for such plasticity, i.e. structural diversity. Our results do not contradict previous reports of preferential co-location of sites among homologues, but rather point at the importance of not ignoring other sites, especially in large and diverse superfamilies. Data on sites exploited by different relatives, within each well annotated domain superfamily, has been made accessible from the CATH website in order to highlight versatile superfamilies or superfamilies with highly preferential sites. This information is valuable for system biology and knowledge of any constraints on protein interactions could help in understanding the dynamic control of networks in which these proteins participate. The novelty of our work lies in the comprehensive nature of the analysis – we have used a significantly larger dataset than previous studies – and the fact that in many superfamilies we show that different parts of the domain surface are exploited by different relatives for ligand/protein interactions, particularly in superfamilies which are diverse in sequence and structure, an observation not previously reported on such a large scale. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: The emerging dynamic view of proteins: Protein plasticity in allostery, evolution and self-assembly.     

Structural trees for protein superfamilies

Structural trees for large protein superfamilies, such as β proteins with the aligned β sheet packing, β proteins with the orthogonal packing of α helices, two-layer and three-layer α/β proteins, have been constructed. The structural motifs having unique overall folds and a unique handedness are taken as root structures of the trees. The larger protein structures of each superfamily are obtained by a stepwise addition of α helices and/or β strands to the corresponding root motif, taking into account a restricted set of rules inferred from known principles of the protein structure. Among these rules, prohibition of crossing connections, attention to handedness and compactness, and a requirement for α helices to be packed in α-helical layers and β strands in β layers are the most important. Proteins and domains whose structures can be obtained by stepwise addition of α helices and/or β strands to the same root motif can be grouped into one structural class or a superfamily. Proteins and domains found within branches of a structural tree can be grouped into subclasses or subfamilies. Levels of structural similarity between different proteins can easily be observed by visual inspection. Within one branch, protein structures having a higher position in the tree include the structures located lower. Proteins and domains of different branches have the structure located in the branching point as the common fold. Proteins 28:241–260, 1997. © 1997 Wiley-Liss Inc.     

indel-Seq-Gen: a new protein family simulator incorporating domains, motifs, and indels

Reconstructing the evolutionary history of protein sequences will provide a better understanding of divergence mechanisms of protein superfamilies and their functions. Long-term protein evolution often includes dynamic changes such as insertion, deletion, and domain shuffling. Such dynamic changes make reconstructing protein sequence evolution difficult and affect the accuracy of molecular evolutionary methods, such as multiple alignments and phylogenetic methods. Unfortunately, currently available simulation methods are not sufficiently flexible and do not allow biologically realistic dynamic protein sequence evolution. We introduce a new method, indel-Seq-Gen (iSG), that can simulate realistic evolutionary processes of protein sequences with insertions and deletions (indels). Unlike other simulation methods, iSG allows the user to simulate multiple subsequences according to different evolutionary parameters, which is necessary for generating realistic protein families with multiple domains. iSG tracks all evolutionary events including indels and outputs the "true" multiple alignment of the simulated sequences. iSG can also generate a larger sequence space by allowing the use of multiple related root sequences. With all these functions, iSG can be used to test the accuracy of, for example, multiple alignment methods, phylogenetic methods, evolutionary hypotheses, ancestral protein reconstruction methods, and protein family classification methods. We empirically evaluated the performance of iSG against currently available methods by simulating the evolution of the G protein-coupled receptor and lipocalin protein families. We examined their true multiple alignments, reconstruction of the transmembrane regions and beta-strands, and the results of similarity search against a protein database using the simulated sequences. We also presented an example of using iSG for examining how phylogenetic reconstruction is affected by high indel rates.     

The origin and evolution of protein superfamilies.

The organization of proteins into superfamilies based primarily on their sequences is introduced: examples are given of the methods used to cluster the related sequences and to elucidate the evolutionary history of the corresponding genes within each superfamily. Within the framework of this organization, the amount of sequence information currently and potentially available in all living forms can be discussed. The 116 superfamilies already sampled reflect possibly 10% of the total number. There are related proteins from many species in all of these superfamilies, suggesting that the origin of a new superfamily is rare indeed. The proteins so far sequenced are so rigorously conserved by the evolutionary process that we would expect to recognize as related descendants of any protein found in the ancestral vertebrate. The evolutionary history of the thyrotropin-gonadotropin beta chain superfamily is discussed in detail as an example. Some proteins are so constrained in structure that related forms can be recognized in prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Evolution in these superfamilies can be traced back close to the origin of life itself. From the evolutionary tree of the c-type cytochromes the identity of the prokaryote types involved in the symbiotic origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts begins to emerge.     

Evolution of function in protein superfamilies, from a structural perspective

The recent growth in protein databases has revealed the functional diversity of many protein superfamilies. We have assessed the functional variation of homologous enzyme superfamilies containing two or more enzymes, as defined by the CATH protein structure classification, by way of the Enzyme Commission (EC) scheme. Combining sequence and structure information to identify relatives, the majority of superfamilies display variation in enzyme function, with 25 % of superfamilies in the PDB having members of different enzyme types. We determined the extent of functional similarity at different levels of sequence identity for 486,000 homologous pairs (enzyme/enzyme and enzyme/non-enzyme), with structural and sequence relatives included. For single and multi-domain proteins, variation in EC number is rare above 40 % sequence identity, and above 30 %, the first three digits may be predicted with an accuracy of at least 90 %. For more distantly related proteins sharing less than 30 % sequence identity, functional variation is significant, and below this threshold, structural data are essential for understanding the molecular basis of observed functional differences. To explore the mechanisms for generating functional diversity during evolution, we have studied in detail 31 diverse structural enzyme superfamilies for which structural data are available. A large number of variations and peculiarities are observed, at the atomic level through to gross structural rearrangements. Almost all superfamilies exhibit functional diversity generated by local sequence variation and domain shuffling. Commonly, substrate specificity is diverse across a superfamily, whilst the reaction chemistry is maintained. In many superfamilies, the position of catalytic residues may vary despite playing equivalent functional roles in related proteins. The implications of functional diversity within supefamilies for the structural genomics projects are discussed. More detailed information on these superfamilies is available at http://www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/bsm/FAM-EC/.     

Structural motif of phosphate-binding site common to various protein superfamilies: all-against-all structural comparison of protein-mononucleotide complexes

In order to search for a common structural motif in the phosphate-binding sites of protein-mononucleotide complexes, we investigated the structural variety of phosphate-binding schemes by an all-against-all comparison of 491 binding sites found in the Protein Data Bank. We found four frequently occurring structural motifs composed of protein atoms interacting with phosphate groups, each of which appears in different protein superfamilies with different folds. The most frequently occurring motif, which we call the structural P-loop, is shared by 13 superfamilies and is characterized by a four-residue fragment, GXXX, interacting with a phosphate group through the backbone atoms. Various sequence motifs, including Walker's A motif or the P-loop, turn out to be a structural P-loop found in a few specific superfamilies. The other three motifs are found in pairs of superfamilies: protein kinase and glutathione synthetase ATPase domain like, actin-like ATPase domain and nucleotidyltransferase, and FMN-linked oxidoreductase and PRTase.     

Diversity of functions of proteins with internal symmetry in spatial arrangement of secondary structural elements.

We carry out a systematic analysis of the correlation between similarity of protein three-dimensional structures and their evolutionary relationships. The structural similarity is quantitatively identified by an all-against-all comparison of the spatial arrangement of secondary structural elements in nonredundant 967 representative proteins, and the evolutionary relationship is judged according to the definition of superfamily in the SCOP database. We find the following symmetry rule: a protein pair that has similar folds but belong to different superfamilies has (with a very rare exception) certain internal symmetry in its common similar folds. Possible reasons behind the symmetry rule are discussed.