Conservation and relative importance of residues across protein-protein interfaces

A core region surrounded by a rim characterizes biological interfaces. We ascertain the importance of the core by showing the sequence entropies of the residues comprising the core to be smaller than those in the rim. Such a distinction is not seen in the 2-fold-related, nonphysiological interfaces formed in crystal lattices of monomeric proteins, thereby providing a procedure for characterizing the oligomeric state from crystal structures of protein molecules. This method is better than those that rely on the comparison of the sequence entropies in the interface and the rest of the protein surface, especially in cases where the surface harbors additional binding sites. To a good approximation there is a correlation between the accessible surface area lost because of complexation and ΔΔG values obtained through alanine-scanning mutagenesis (26-38 cal per Å2 of the surface buried) for residues located in the core, a relationship that is not discernable for rim residues. If, however, a residue participates in hydrogen bonding across the interface, the extent of stabilization is 52 cal/mol per 1 Å2 of the nonpolar surface area buried by the residue. As opposed to an amino acid classification used earlier, an environment-based grouping of residues yields a better discrimination in the sequence entropy between the core and the rim.

[1]  B. Lee,et al.  The interpretation of protein structures: estimation of static accessibility. , 1971, Journal of molecular biology.

[2]  C. Chothia,et al.  Hydrophobic bonding and accessible surface area in proteins , 1974, Nature.

[3]  C. Sander,et al.  Database of homology‐derived protein structures and the structural meaning of sequence alignment , 1991, Proteins.

[4]  K. Sharp,et al.  Protein folding and association: Insights from the interfacial and thermodynamic properties of hydrocarbons , 1991, Proteins.

[5]  J. Janin,et al.  Crystal packing in six crystal forms of pancreatic ribonuclease. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  D. Covell,et al.  A role for surface hydrophobicity in protein‐protein recognition , 1994, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[7]  T. Clackson,et al.  A hot spot of binding energy in a hormone-receptor interface , 1995, Science.

[8]  F. Cohen,et al.  An evolutionary trace method defines binding surfaces common to protein families. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[9]  F. Eisenhaber Hydrophobic regions on protein surfaces. Derivation of the solvation energy from their area distribution in crystallographic protein structures , 1996, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[10]  S H Bryant,et al.  Extent and nature of contacts between protein molecules in crystal lattices and between subunits of protein oligomers , 1997, Proteins.

[11]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Studies of protein‐protein interfaces: A statistical analysis of the hydrophobic effect , 1997, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[12]  P Argos,et al.  Hydrophobic patches on protein subunit interfaces: Characteristics and prediction , 1997, Proteins.

[13]  A. Bogan,et al.  Anatomy of hot spots in protein interfaces. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[14]  R. Varadarajan,et al.  Residue depth: a novel parameter for the analysis of protein structure and stability. , 1999, Structure.

[15]  O. Ptitsyn,et al.  Non-functional conserved residues in globins and their possible role as a folding nucleus. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[16]  L. Mirny,et al.  Universally conserved positions in protein folds: reading evolutionary signals about stability, folding kinetics and function. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[17]  C. Chothia,et al.  The atomic structure of protein-protein recognition sites. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[18]  W. Delano,et al.  Convergent solutions to binding at a protein-protein interface. , 2000, Science.

[19]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[21]  A. Elcock,et al.  Identification of protein oligomerization states by analysis of interface conservation , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  J M Thornton,et al.  Conservation helps to identify biologically relevant crystal contacts. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[23]  J. Thornton,et al.  Protein–protein interfaces: Analysis of amino acid conservation in homodimers , 2001, Proteins.

[24]  Kurt S. Thorn,et al.  ASEdb: a database of alanine mutations and their effects on the free energy of binding in protein interactions , 2001, Bioinform..

[25]  D. Baker,et al.  A simple physical model for binding energy hot spots in protein–protein complexes , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  O. Lichtarge,et al.  Evolutionary predictions of binding surfaces and interactions. , 2002, Current opinion in structural biology.

[27]  W. Delano Unraveling hot spots in binding interfaces: progress and challenges. , 2002, Current opinion in structural biology.

[28]  J. Janin,et al.  Dissecting protein–protein recognition sites , 2002, Proteins.

[29]  L. Serrano,et al.  Predicting changes in the stability of proteins and protein complexes: a study of more than 1000 mutations. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[30]  Ke Fan,et al.  What is the minimum number of letters required to fold a protein? , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[31]  J. Janin,et al.  Dissecting subunit interfaces in homodimeric proteins , 2003, Proteins.

[32]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Computational methods of analysis of protein-protein interactions. , 2003, Current opinion in structural biology.

[33]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Protein–protein interactions: Structurally conserved residues distinguish between binding sites and exposed protein surfaces , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  J. Janin,et al.  A dissection of specific and non-specific protein-protein interfaces. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[35]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Protein-protein interactions; coupling of structurally conserved residues and of hot spots across interfaces. Implications for docking. , 2004, Structure.

[36]  Patrick Aloy,et al.  Ten thousand interactions for the molecular biologist , 2004, Nature Biotechnology.

[37]  Daniel R. Caffrey,et al.  Are protein–protein interfaces more conserved in sequence than the rest of the protein surface? , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[38]  A. Panchenko,et al.  Prediction of functional sites by analysis of sequence and structure conservation , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[39]  S. Smith‐Gill,et al.  Magnitude of the hydrophobic effect at central versus peripheral sites in protein-protein interfaces. , 2005, Structure.

[40]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Statistical analysis and prediction of protein–protein interfaces , 2005, Proteins.

[41]  R L Jernigan,et al.  Protein sequence entropy is closely related to packing density and hydrophobicity. , 2005, Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS.