Combinatorial methods for small-molecule placement in computational enzyme design

The incorporation of small-molecule transition state structures into protein design calculations poses special challenges because of the need to represent the added translational, rotational, and conformational freedoms within an already difficult optimization problem. Successful approaches to computational enzyme design have focused on catalytic side-chain contacts to guide placement of small molecules in active sites. We describe a process for modeling small molecules in enzyme design calculations that extends previously described methods, allowing favorable small-molecule positions and conformations to be explored simultaneously with sequence optimization. Because all current computational enzyme design methods rely heavily on sampling of possible active site geometries from discrete conformational states, we tested the effects of discretization parameters on calculation results. Rotational and translational step sizes as well as side-chain library types were varied in a series of computational tests designed to identify native-like binding contacts in three natural systems. We find that conformational parameters, especially the type of rotamer library used, significantly affect the ability of design calculations to recover native binding-site geometries. We describe the construction and use of a crystallographic conformer library and find that it more reliably captures active-site geometries than traditional rotamer libraries in the systems tested.

[1]  Eric A. Althoff,et al.  Kemp elimination catalysts by computational enzyme design , 2008, Nature.

[2]  D. Benjamin Gordon,et al.  Exact rotamer optimization for protein design , 2003, J. Comput. Chem..

[3]  M. Karplus,et al.  Effective energy function for proteins in solution , 1999, Proteins.

[4]  K. Houk,et al.  On the Transition State of the Chorismate-Prephenate Rearrangement , 1994 .

[5]  Stephen L. Mayo,et al.  Dramatic performance enhancements for the FASTER optimization algorithm , 2006, J. Comput. Chem..

[6]  J. Richardson,et al.  Asparagine and glutamine: using hydrogen atom contacts in the choice of side-chain amide orientation. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[7]  I. Lasters,et al.  Fast and accurate side‐chain topology and energy refinement (FASTER) as a new method for protein structure optimization , 2002, Proteins.

[8]  Richard A Friesner,et al.  Sequence optimization and designability of enzyme active sites. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  L. Looger,et al.  Computational design of receptor and sensor proteins with novel functions , 2003, Nature.

[10]  N. Metropolis,et al.  Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines , 1953, Resonance.

[11]  J. Richardson,et al.  The penultimate rotamer library , 2000, Proteins.

[12]  Christopher A. Voigt,et al.  De novo design of biocatalysts. , 2002, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[13]  Eric A. Althoff,et al.  De Novo Computational Design of Retro-Aldol Enzymes , 2008, Science.

[14]  Roland L. Dunbrack,et al.  Bayesian statistical analysis of protein side‐chain rotamer preferences , 1997, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[15]  Bruce Randall Donald,et al.  A Novel Ensemble-Based Scoring and Search Algorithm for Protein Redesign and Its Application to Modify the Substrate Specificity of the Gramicidin Synthetase A Phenylalanine Adenylation Enzyme , 2005, J. Comput. Biol..

[16]  S L Mayo,et al.  Pairwise calculation of protein solvent-accessible surface areas. , 1998, Folding & design.

[17]  Richard A Friesner,et al.  Computational prediction of native protein ligand-binding and enzyme active site sequences. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  Christopher A. Voigt,et al.  Trading accuracy for speed: A quantitative comparison of search algorithms in protein sequence design. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[19]  J. Ponder,et al.  Tertiary templates for proteins. Use of packing criteria in the enumeration of allowed sequences for different structural classes. , 1987, Journal of molecular biology.

[20]  S. L. Mayo,et al.  DREIDING: A generic force field for molecular simulations , 1990 .

[21]  S. L. Mayo,et al.  Enzyme-like proteins by computational design , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  Z. Xiang,et al.  Extending the accuracy limits of prediction for side-chain conformations. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[23]  Raphael Guerois,et al.  Energy estimation in protein design. , 2002, Current opinion in structural biology.

[24]  Loren L Looger,et al.  Computational Design of a Biologically Active Enzyme , 2004, Science.

[25]  P. Karplus,et al.  ATOMIC-STRUCTURE OF THE BURIED CATALYTIC POCKET OF ESCHERICHIA-COLI CHORISMATE MUTASE. , 1995 .

[26]  Tom L Blundell,et al.  Advantages of fine-grained side chain conformer libraries. , 2003, Protein engineering.

[27]  S. Benkovic,et al.  A Perspective on Enzyme Catalysis , 2003, Science.

[28]  Junichi Takagi,et al.  Computational design of an integrin I domain stabilized in the open high affinity conformation , 2000, Nature Structural Biology.

[29]  S. L. Mayo,et al.  Automated design of the surface positions of protein helices , 1997, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[30]  Stephen L Mayo,et al.  Computationally designed variants of Escherichia coli chorismate mutase show altered catalytic activity. , 2005, Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS.

[31]  Stephen L. Mayo,et al.  Design, structure and stability of a hyperthermophilic protein variant , 1998, Nature Structural Biology.

[32]  Daniel Herschlag,et al.  Challenges in enzyme mechanism and energetics. , 2003, Annual review of biochemistry.

[33]  S. L. Mayo,et al.  De novo protein design: fully automated sequence selection. , 1997, Science.

[34]  F. Richards,et al.  Construction of new ligand binding sites in proteins of known structure. I. Computer-aided modeling of sites with pre-defined geometry. , 1991, Journal of molecular biology.

[35]  L. Tong,et al.  Optimal alignment for enzymatic proton transfer: Structure of the Michaelis complex of triosephosphate isomerase at 1.2-Å resolution , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[36]  Barry Honig,et al.  Extending the accuracy limits of prediction for side-chain conformations. , 2001 .

[37]  Bruce Randall Donald,et al.  A novel ensemble-based scoring and search algorithm for protein redesign, and its application to modify the substrate specificity of the gramicidin synthetase A phenylalanine adenylation enzyme , 2004, RECOMB.

[38]  W. Delano The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System , 2002 .

[39]  Jonathan W. Essex,et al.  A review of protein-small molecule docking methods , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[40]  Ethan A Merritt,et al.  Cooperative hydrogen bond interactions in the streptavidin–biotin system , 2006, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[41]  Niles A Pierce,et al.  Protein design is NP-hard. , 2002, Protein engineering.

[42]  D. Baker,et al.  Design of a Novel Globular Protein Fold with Atomic-Level Accuracy , 2003, Science.

[43]  S. L. Mayo,et al.  Probing the role of packing specificity in protein design. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[44]  Stephen L Mayo,et al.  Electrostatics in computational protein design. , 2005, Current opinion in chemical biology.