Exposing the co-adaptive potential of protein-protein interfaces through computational sequence design

MOTIVATION In nature, protein-protein interactions are constantly evolving under various selective pressures. Nonetheless, it is expected that crucial interactions are maintained through compensatory mutations between interacting proteins. Thus, many studies have used evolutionary sequence data to extract such occurrences of correlated mutation. However, this research is confounded by other evolutionary pressures that contribute to sequence covariance, such as common ancestry. RESULTS Here, we focus exclusively on the compensatory mutations deriving from physical protein interactions, by performing large-scale computational mutagenesis experiments for >260 protein-protein interfaces. We investigate the potential for co-adaptability present in protein pairs that are always found together in nature (obligate) and those that are occasionally in complex (transient). By modeling each complex both in bound and unbound forms, we find that naturally transient complexes possess greater relative capacity for correlated mutation than obligate complexes, even when differences in interface size are taken into account.

[1]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Prediction of protein-protein interactions by docking methods. , 2002, Current opinion in structural biology.

[2]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Correlated mutations: Advances and limitations. A study on fusion proteins and on the Cohesin‐Dockerin families , 2006, Proteins.

[3]  Eric J. Deeds,et al.  Robust protein–protein interactions in crowded cellular environments , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  David L. Robertson,et al.  Specificity in protein interactions and its relationship with sequence diversity and coevolution , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  Menachem Fromer,et al.  Tradeoff Between Stability and Multispecificity in the Design of Promiscuous Proteins , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[6]  Z. Weng,et al.  Atomic contact vectors in protein‐protein recognition , 2003, Proteins.

[7]  Menachem Fromer,et al.  Accurate prediction for atomic‐level protein design and its application in diversifying the near‐optimal sequence space , 2009, Proteins.

[8]  Dongsup Kim,et al.  A new method for revealing correlated mutations under the structural and functional constraints in proteins , 2009, Bioinform..

[9]  A. Valencia,et al.  Correlated mutations contain information about protein-protein interaction. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[10]  Sam Ansari,et al.  Statistical analysis of predominantly transient protein–protein interfaces , 2005, Proteins.

[11]  Mona Singh,et al.  Characterization and prediction of residues determining protein functional specificity , 2008, Bioinform..

[12]  D. Baker,et al.  Native protein sequences are close to optimal for their structures. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  Anna R Panchenko,et al.  Exploring functional roles of multibinding protein interfaces , 2009, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[14]  Tord Snäll,et al.  Reassessing a sparse energetic network within a single protein domain , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  E I Shakhnovich,et al.  Structural similarity enhances interaction propensity of proteins. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[16]  David Haussler,et al.  Detecting Coevolution in and among Protein Domains , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[17]  Sarah A Teichmann,et al.  Evolution of protein complexes by duplication of homomeric interactions , 2007, Genome Biology.

[18]  Gregory B. Gloor,et al.  Mutual information without the influence of phylogeny or entropy dramatically improves residue contact prediction , 2008, Bioinform..

[19]  Alfonso Valencia,et al.  Protein co-evolution, co-adaptation and interactions , 2008, The EMBO journal.

[20]  Menachem Fromer,et al.  A computational framework to empower probabilistic protein design , 2008, ISMB.

[21]  Chris Bailey-Kellogg,et al.  Graphical models of protein–protein interaction specificity from correlated mutations and interaction data , 2009, Proteins.

[22]  Igor N. Berezovsky,et al.  Positive and Negative Design in Stability and Thermal Adaptation of Natural Proteins , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[23]  Roland L. Dunbrack,et al.  Backbone-dependent rotamer library for proteins. Application to side-chain prediction. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[24]  B. Rost,et al.  Analysing six types of protein-protein interfaces. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[25]  Tanja Kortemme,et al.  Design of Multi-Specificity in Protein Interfaces , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[26]  Kevin Karplus,et al.  Contact prediction using mutual information and neural nets , 2007, Proteins.

[27]  E. Alexov,et al.  Optimization of electrostatic interactions in protein-protein complexes. , 2007, Biophysical journal.

[28]  P Fariselli,et al.  Progress in predicting inter‐residue contacts of proteins with neural networks and correlated mutations , 2001, Proteins.

[29]  D. Livingston,et al.  Structure of the 53BP1 BRCT region bound to p53 and its comparison to the Brca1 BRCT structure. , 2002, Genes & development.

[30]  Benjamin A. Shoemaker,et al.  Correlated evolution of interacting proteins: looking behind the mirrortree. , 2009, Journal of molecular biology.

[31]  Raphaël Guerois,et al.  Coevolution at protein complex interfaces can be detected by the complementarity trace with important impact for predictive docking , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[32]  T. Hwa,et al.  Identification of direct residue contacts in protein–protein interaction by message passing , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[33]  Tanja Kortemme,et al.  Backbone flexibility in computational protein design. , 2009, Current opinion in biotechnology.

[34]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Energetic determinants of protein binding specificity: Insights into protein interaction networks , 2009, Proteomics.

[35]  G Vriend,et al.  Correlated Mutation Analyses on Very Large Sequence Families , 2002, Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology.

[36]  Raja Jothi,et al.  Co-evolutionary analysis of domains in interacting proteins reveals insights into domain-domain interactions mediating protein-protein interactions. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[37]  Z. Weng,et al.  Integrating statistical pair potentials into protein complex prediction , 2007, Proteins.

[38]  Gert Vriend,et al.  Correlated mutation analyses on super‐family alignments reveal functionally important residues , 2009, Proteins.

[39]  J. Thornton,et al.  Discriminating between homodimeric and monomeric proteins in the crystalline state , 2000, Proteins.

[40]  Emil Alexov,et al.  Predicting residue contacts using pragmatic correlated mutations method: reducing the false positives , 2006, BMC Bioinformatics.

[41]  Z. Weng,et al.  Structure, function, and evolution of transient and obligate protein-protein interactions. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[42]  C. Yanover,et al.  Design of multispecific protein sequences using probabilistic graphical modeling , 2010, Proteins.