The multiple‐specificity landscape of modular peptide recognition domains |
| |
Authors: | Frank Butty Marta Wierzbicka Erik Verschueren Peter Vanhee Haiming Huang Andreas Ernst Nisa Dar Igor Stagljar Luis Serrano Sachdev S Sidhu Gary D Bader Philip M Kim |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Banting and Best Department of Medical Research, The Donnelly Centre, University of Toronto, , Toronto, Ontario, Canada;2. Department of Biochemistry, University of Toronto, , Toronto, Ontario, Canada;3. EMBL‐CRG Systems Biology Unit, CRG‐Centre de Regulacio Genomica, , Barcelona, Spain;4. Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto, , Toronto, Ontario, Canada;5. Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, , Toronto, Ontario, Canada;6. Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, , Toronto, Ontario, Canada |
| |
Abstract: | Modular protein interaction domains form the building blocks of eukaryotic signaling pathways. Many of them, known as peptide recognition domains, mediate protein interactions by recognizing short, linear amino acid stretches on the surface of their cognate partners with high specificity. Residues in these stretches are usually assumed to contribute independently to binding, which has led to a simplified understanding of protein interactions. Conversely, we observe in large binding peptide data sets that different residue positions display highly significant correlations for many domains in three distinct families (PDZ, SH3 and WW). These correlation patterns reveal a widespread occurrence of multiple binding specificities and give novel structural insights into protein interactions. For example, we predict a new binding mode of PDZ domains and structurally rationalize it for DLG1 PDZ1. We show that multiple specificity more accurately predicts protein interactions and experimentally validate some of the predictions for the human proteins DLG1 and SCRIB. Overall, our results reveal a rich specificity landscape in peptide recognition domains, suggesting new ways of encoding specificity in protein interaction networks. |
| |
Keywords: | |
|
|