Non‐randomness in side‐chain packing: the distribution of interplanar angles

We analyze the distributions of interplanar angles between interacting side chains with well‐defined planar regions, to see whether these distributions correspond to random packing or alternatively show orientational preferences. We use a non‐homologous set of 79 high‐resolution protein chain structures to show that the observed distributions are significantly different from the sinusoidal one expected for random packing. Overall, we see a relative excess of small angles and a paucity of large interplanar angles; the difference between the expected and observed distributions can be described as a shift of 5% of the interplanar angles from large (≥60°) to small (<30°) values. By grouping the residue pairs into categories based on chemical similarity, we find that some categories have very non‐sinusoidal interplanar angle distributions, whereas other categories have distributions that are close to sinusoidal. For a few categories, observed deviations from a sinusoidal distribution can be explained by the electrostatic anisotropy of the isolated pair potential energy. In other cases, the observed distributions reflect the longer range effects of different possible interaction geometries. In particular, geometries that disrupt external hydrogen bonding are disfavored. Proteins 29:370–380, 1997. © 1997 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  P. Kraulis A program to produce both detailed and schematic plots of protein structures , 1991 .

[2]  John B. O. Mitchell,et al.  Amino/aromatic interactions , 1993, Nature.

[3]  S L Mowbray,et al.  Planar stacking interactions of arginine and aromatic side-chains in proteins. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[4]  F M Richards,et al.  An analysis of packing in the protein folding problem , 1993, Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics.

[5]  G. Rose,et al.  The protein-folding problem: the native fold determines packing, but does packing determine the native fold? , 1991, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  C. Chothia The nature of the accessible and buried surfaces in proteins. , 1976, Journal of molecular biology.

[7]  W R Taylor,et al.  A local alignment method for protein structure motifs. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[8]  R L Jernigan,et al.  Coordination geometry of nonbonded residues in globular proteins. , 1996, Folding & design.

[9]  Tom Blundell,et al.  The active site of aspartic proteinases , 1991, FEBS letters.

[10]  K. Dill Dominant forces in protein folding. , 1990, Biochemistry.

[11]  J M Thornton,et al.  Towards an understanding of the arginine-aspartate interaction. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[12]  T. P. Flores,et al.  Identification and classification of protein fold families. , 1993, Protein engineering.

[13]  J. Kraut,et al.  Structure of Subtilisin BPN′ at 2.5 Å Resolution , 1969, Nature.

[14]  P. Lindley,et al.  Sulphur‐aromatic interactions in proteins , 1985 .

[15]  Stephen K. Burley,et al.  Dimerization energetics of benzene and aromatic amino acid side chains , 1986 .

[16]  John B. O. Mitchell,et al.  The nature of the N  H…︁OC hydrogen bond: An intermolecular perturbation theory study of the formamide/formaldehyde complex , 1990 .

[17]  A. Stone,et al.  Intermolecular forces in van der waals dimers , 1986 .

[18]  Sarah L. Price,et al.  The electrostatic interactions in van der Waals complexes involving aromatic molecules , 1987 .

[19]  S L Mowbray,et al.  Strange bedfellows: interactions between acidic side-chains in proteins. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[20]  J M Thornton,et al.  SIRIUS. An automated method for the analysis of the preferred packing arrangements between protein groups. , 1990, Journal of molecular biology.

[21]  Janet M. Thornton,et al.  The interaction between phenylalanine rings in proteins , 1985 .

[22]  J. Thornton,et al.  Satisfying hydrogen bonding potential in proteins. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[23]  G A Petsko,et al.  Amino‐aromatic interactions in proteins , 1986, FEBS letters.

[24]  D. Blow,et al.  Role of a Buried Acid Group in the Mechanism of Action of Chymotrypsin , 1969, Nature.

[25]  B. Matthews,et al.  A test of the "jigsaw puzzle" model for protein folding by multiple methionine substitutions within the core of T4 lysozyme. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  A. Furano,et al.  Brain "identifier sequence". , 1986, Science.

[27]  J. Singh,et al.  The geometries of interacting arginine‐carboxyls in proteins , 1987, FEBS letters.

[28]  John B. O. Mitchell,et al.  A comparison of three theoretical approaches to the study of side-chain interactions in proteins , 1993 .

[29]  S. Price,et al.  On the electrostatic directionality of NH…OC hydrogen bonding , 1989 .

[30]  S. Karlin,et al.  Geometry of interplanar residue contacts in protein structures. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[31]  J. Thornton,et al.  Amino/aromatic interactions in proteins: is the evidence stacked against hydrogen bonding? , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[32]  G J Williams,et al.  The Protein Data Bank: a computer-based archival file for macromolecular structures. , 1977, Journal of molecular biology.

[33]  K A Dill,et al.  Side‐chain entropy and packing in proteins , 1994, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[34]  P. S. Kim,et al.  A switch between two-, three-, and four-stranded coiled coils in GCN4 leucine zipper mutants. , 1993, Science.

[35]  D. A. Dougherty,et al.  Cation-π Interactions in Chemistry and Biology: A New View of Benzene, Phe, Tyr, and Trp , 1996, Science.

[36]  J M Thornton,et al.  Pi-pi interactions: the geometry and energetics of phenylalanine-phenylalanine interactions in proteins. , 1991, Journal of molecular biology.

[37]  M. Levitt,et al.  Aromatic Rings Act as Hydrogen Bond Acceptors , 2022 .

[38]  C. M. Freeman,et al.  Lost hydrogen bonds and buried surface area: rationalising stability in globular proteins , 1993 .