Quantification of the transferability of a designed protein specificity switch reveals extensive epistasis in molecular recognition

Significance Specific interactions between proteins control the function of essentially all cellular processes. Despite the importance of interaction specificity, it is unclear how structurally similar proteins achieve their unique recognition preferences. Here, we redesign the specificity of a protein binding domain and quantify the extent to which the designed specificity switch can be transferred to homologous domains. We show that identical mutations in structurally similar domains have a wide range of effects on specificity. We apply a structure-based computational model that recapitulates this context dependence. Our findings show how subtle structural differences between homologous domains contribute to their unique specificities. The differential responses to similar mutation observed here could help explain how families of recognition domains have evolved diverse new interactions. Reengineering protein–protein recognition is an important route to dissecting and controlling complex interaction networks. Experimental approaches have used the strategy of “second-site suppressors,” where a functional interaction is inferred between two proteins if a mutation in one protein can be compensated by a mutation in the second. Mimicking this strategy, computational design has been applied successfully to change protein recognition specificity by predicting such sets of compensatory mutations in protein–protein interfaces. To extend this approach, it would be advantageous to be able to “transplant” existing engineered and experimentally validated specificity changes to other homologous protein–protein complexes. Here, we test this strategy by designing a pair of mutations that modulates peptide recognition specificity in the Syntrophin PDZ domain, confirming the designed interaction biochemically and structurally, and then transplanting the mutations into the context of five related PDZ domain–peptide complexes. We find a wide range of energetic effects of identical mutations in structurally similar positions, revealing a dramatic context dependence (epistasis) of designed mutations in homologous protein–protein interactions. To better understand the structural basis of this context dependence, we apply a structure-based computational model that recapitulates these energetic effects and we use this model to make and validate forward predictions. Although the context dependence of these mutations is captured by computational predictions, our results both highlight the considerable difficulties in designing protein–protein interactions and provide challenging benchmark cases for the development of improved protein modeling and design methods that accurately account for the context.

[1]  D. Baker,et al.  Computational redesign of protein-protein interaction specificity , 2004, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[2]  Pasch,et al.  References and Notes Supporting Online Material Evolution of Hormone-receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation , 2022 .

[3]  D. Baker,et al.  Role of conformational sampling in computing mutation‐induced changes in protein structure and stability , 2011, Proteins.

[4]  Chris Sander,et al.  A Specificity Map for the PDZ Domain Family , 2008, PLoS biology.

[5]  Peer Bork,et al.  SMART 7: recent updates to the protein domain annotation resource , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..

[6]  L. Castagnoli,et al.  Protein Interaction Networks by Proteome Peptide Scanning , 2004, PLoS biology.

[7]  Jens Meiler,et al.  New algorithms and an in silico benchmark for computational enzyme design , 2006, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[8]  Roland L. Dunbrack,et al.  A smoothed backbone-dependent rotamer library for proteins derived from adaptive kernel density estimates and regressions. , 2011, Structure.

[9]  F. J. Poelwijk,et al.  The spatial architecture of protein function and adaptation , 2012, Nature.

[10]  O. Dym,et al.  The modular architecture of protein-protein binding interfaces. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  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.

[12]  D. Baker,et al.  Computation-Guided Backbone Grafting of a Discontinuous Motif onto a Protein Scaffold , 2011, Science.

[13]  Jiunn R Chen,et al.  PDZ Domain Binding Selectivity Is Optimized Across the Mouse Proteome , 2007, Science.

[14]  M. Yaffe,et al.  A motif-based profile scanning approach for genome-wide prediction of signaling pathways , 2001, Nature Biotechnology.

[15]  Tony Pawson,et al.  Protein modules and signalling networks , 1995, Nature.

[16]  G Schreiber,et al.  Energetics of protein-protein interactions: analysis of the barnase-barstar interface by single mutations and double mutant cycles. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[17]  Tanja Kortemme,et al.  Control of protein signaling using a computationally designed GTPase/GEF orthogonal pair , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  Dan S. Tawfik,et al.  Enzyme promiscuity: a mechanistic and evolutionary perspective. , 2010, Annual review of biochemistry.

[19]  Ke Liu,et al.  A despecialization step underlying evolution of a family of serine proteases. , 2003, Molecular cell.

[20]  B. Andrews,et al.  Protein-protein interaction affinity plays a crucial role in controlling the Sho1p-mediated signal transduction pathway in yeast. , 2004, Molecular cell.

[21]  J. Wells,et al.  Additivity of mutational effects in proteins. , 1990, Biochemistry.

[22]  M. Parera,et al.  Strong epistatic interactions within a single protein. , 2014, Molecular biology and evolution.

[23]  Wendell A. Lim,et al.  Optimization of specificity in a cellular protein interaction network by negative selection , 2003, Nature.

[24]  D. Baker,et al.  Computational design of a new hydrogen bond network and at least a 300-fold specificity switch at a protein-protein interface. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[25]  W. Lim,et al.  Unexpected modes of PDZ domain scaffolding revealed by structure of nNOS-syntrophin complex. , 1999, Science.

[26]  A. Dean,et al.  Pervasive Cryptic Epistasis in Molecular Evolution , 2010, PLoS genetics.

[27]  D. Baker,et al.  An orientation-dependent hydrogen bonding potential improves prediction of specificity and structure for proteins and protein-protein complexes. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[28]  L. Cantley,et al.  Recognition of Unique Carboxyl-Terminal Motifs by Distinct PDZ Domains , 1997, Science.

[29]  Brian Kuhlman,et al.  Computational design of second‐site suppressor mutations at protein–protein interfaces , 2010, Proteins.

[30]  Claes Gustafsson,et al.  Systematic variation of amino acid substitutions for stringent assessment of pairwise covariation. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.