Statistical analysis of predominantly transient protein–protein interfaces

A non‐redundant set of 170 protein–protein interfaces of known structure was statistically analyzed for residue and secondary‐structure compositions, pairing preferences and side‐chain–backbone interaction frequencies. By focussing mainly on transient protein–protein interfaces, the results underline previous findings for protein–protein interfaces but also show some new interesting aspects of transient interfaces. The residue compositions at interfaces found in this study correlate well with the results of other studies. On average, contacts between pairs of hydrophobic and polar residues were unfavorable, and the charged residues tended to pair subject to charge complementarity. Secondary structure composition analysis shows that neither helices nor β‐sheets are dominantly populated at interfaces. Analyzing the pairing preferences of the secondary structure elements revealed a higher affinity within the same elements and alludes to tight packings. In addition, the results for the side‐chain and backbone interaction frequencies, which were measured under more stringent conditions, showed a high occurrence of side‐chain–backbone interactions. Taking a closer look at the helix and β‐sheet binding frequencies for a given side‐chain and backbone interaction underlined the relevance of tight packings. The polarity of interfaces increased with decreasing interface size. These types of information may be useful for scoring complexes in protein–protein docking studies or for prediction of protein–protein interfaces from the sequences alone. Proteins 2005. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  Holger Gohlke,et al.  Converging free energy estimates: MM‐PB(GB)SA studies on the protein–protein complex Ras–Raf , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[2]  Ilya A Vakser,et al.  The role of geometric complementarity in secondary structure packing: A systematic docking study , 2003, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[3]  J. Thornton,et al.  Diversity of protein–protein interactions , 2003, The EMBO journal.

[4]  Zhiping Weng,et al.  A protein–protein docking benchmark , 2003, Proteins.

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

[6]  Sarah A. Teichmann,et al.  Principles of protein-protein interactions , 2002, ECCB.

[7]  Patrick Aloy,et al.  Interrogating protein interaction networks through structural biology , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  C. Lange,et al.  Crystal structure of the yeast cytochrome bc1 complex with its bound substrate cytochrome c , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  Huan‐Xiang Zhou,et al.  Prediction of protein interaction sites from sequence profile and residue neighbor list , 2001, Proteins.

[10]  N. Ben-Tal,et al.  Residue frequencies and pairing preferences at protein–protein interfaces , 2001, Proteins.

[11]  M. Sippl,et al.  Structure-derived substitution matrices for alignment of distantly related sequences. , 2000, Protein engineering.

[12]  R. Norel,et al.  Electrostatic aspects of protein-protein interactions. , 2000, Current opinion in structural biology.

[13]  S. Jones,et al.  Protein domain interfaces: characterization and comparison with oligomeric protein interfaces. , 2000, Protein engineering.

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

[15]  R M Jackson,et al.  Comparison of protein–protein interactions in serine protease‐inhibitor and antibody‐antigen complexes: Implications for the protein docking problem , 2008, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[16]  M J Sternberg,et al.  Use of pair potentials across protein interfaces in screening predicted docked complexes , 1999, Proteins.

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

[18]  O. Ptitsyn,et al.  Empirical solvent‐mediated potentials hold for both intra‐molecular and inter‐molecular inter‐residue interactions , 1998, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

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

[20]  A J Olson,et al.  Morphology of protein-protein interfaces. , 1998, Structure.

[21]  M J Sternberg,et al.  Predictive docking of protein-protein and protein-DNA complexes. , 1998, Current opinion in structural biology.

[22]  S. Jones,et al.  Analysis of protein-protein interaction sites using surface patches. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[24]  A. McCoy,et al.  Electrostatic complementarity at protein/protein interfaces. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[25]  D J DeRosier,et al.  Macromolecular assemblages. Sizing things up. , 1997, Current opinion in structural biology.

[26]  S Vajda,et al.  Empirical potentials and functions for protein folding and binding. , 1997, Current opinion in structural biology.

[27]  R. Jernigan,et al.  Inter-residue potentials in globular proteins and the dominance of highly specific hydrophilic interactions at close separation. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[28]  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.

[29]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Protein-protein interfaces: architectures and interactions in protein-protein interfaces and in protein cores. Their similarities and differences. , 1996, Critical reviews in biochemistry and molecular biology.

[30]  K Schulten,et al.  VMD: visual molecular dynamics. , 1996, Journal of molecular graphics.

[31]  Francis Rodier,et al.  Protein–protein interaction at crystal contacts , 1995, Proteins.

[32]  M J Sippl,et al.  Knowledge-based potentials for proteins. , 1995, Current opinion in structural biology.

[33]  P. Argos,et al.  Cavities and packing at protein interfaces , 1994, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[34]  C. Aflalo,et al.  Hydrophobic docking: A proposed enhancement to molecular recognition techniques , 1994, Proteins.

[35]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Shape complementarity at protein–protein interfaces , 1994, Biopolymers.

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

[37]  R. M. Burnett,et al.  Distribution and complementarity of hydropathy in mutisunit proteins , 1991, Proteins.

[38]  G. Casari,et al.  Identification of native protein folds amongst a large number of incorrect models. The calculation of low energy conformations from potentials of mean force. , 1990, Journal of molecular biology.

[39]  P. Argos.  An investigation of protein subunit and domain interfaces. , 1988, Protein engineering.

[40]  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.

[41]  G J Williams,et al.  The Protein Data Bank: a computer-based archival file for macromolecular structures. , 1978, Archives of biochemistry and biophysics.

[42]  F M Richards,et al.  Areas, volumes, packing and protein structure. , 1977, Annual review of biophysics and bioengineering.