The jigsaw puzzle model: search for conformational specificity in protein interiors.

The jigsaw puzzle model postulates that the predominant factor relating primary sequence to three-dimensional fold lies in the stereospecific packing of interdigitating side-chains within densely packed protein interiors. An attempt has been made to check the validity of the model by means of a surface complementarity function. Out of a database of 100 highly resolved protein structures the contacts between buried hydrophobic residues (Leu, Ile, Val, Phe) and their neighbours have been categorized in terms of the extent of side-chain surface area involved in a contact (overlap) and their steric fit (Sm). The results show that the majority of contacts between a buried residue and its immediate neighbours (side-chains) are of high steric fit and in the case of extended overlap at least one of the angular parameters characterizing interresidue geometry to have pronounced deviation from a random distribution, estimated by chi(2). The calculations thus tend to support the "jigsaw puzzle" model in that 75-85% of the contacts involving hydrophobic residues are of high surface complementarity, which, coupled to high overlap, exercise fairly stringent constraints over the possible geometrical orientations between interacting residues. These constraints manifest in simple patterns in the distributions of orientational angles. Approximately 60-80% of the buried side-chain surface packs against neighbouring side-chains, the rest interacting with main-chain atoms. The latter partition of the surface maintains an equally high steric fit (relative to side-chain contacts) emphasizing a non-trivial though secondary role played by main-chain atoms in interior packing. The majority of this class of contacts, though of high complementarity, is of reduced overlap. All residues whether hydrophobic or polar/charged show similar surface complementarity measures upon burial, indicating comparable competence of all amino acids in packing effectively with their atomic environments. The specificity thus appears to be distributed over the entire network of contacts within proteins. The study concludes with a proposal to classify contacts as specific and non-specific (based on overlap and fit), with the former perhaps contributing more to the specificity between sequence and fold than the latter.

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

[2]  Michael L. Connolly,et al.  Computation of molecular volume , 1985 .

[3]  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.

[4]  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.

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

[6]  A. Fersht,et al.  Active barnase variants with completely random hydrophobic cores. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  K. Dill,et al.  Theory for protein mutability and biogenesis. , 1990, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[9]  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.

[10]  J M Thornton,et al.  Non‐randomness in side‐chain packing: the distribution of interplanar angles , 1997, Proteins.

[11]  F. Richards.  The interpretation of protein structures: total volume, group volume distributions and packing density. , 1974, Journal of molecular biology.

[12]  T. Terwilliger.  Engineering the stability and function of gene V protein. , 1995, Advances in protein chemistry.

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

[14]  M. Lawrence,et al.  Shape complementarity at protein/protein interfaces. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[15]  A. Fersht,et al.  Structural and energetic responses to cavity-creating mutations in hydrophobic cores: observation of a buried water molecule and the hydrophilic nature of such hydrophobic cavities. , 1996, Biochemistry.

[16]  A. Lesk,et al.  How different amino acid sequences determine similar protein structures: the structure and evolutionary dynamics of the globins. , 1980, Journal of molecular biology.

[17]  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.

[18]  J Skolnick,et al.  Monte Carlo simulation of equilibrium globular protein folding: alpha-helical bundles with long loops. , 1989, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  Michael H. Hecht,et al.  Protein Design: The Choice of de Novo Sequences* , 1997, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[20]  P. Kollman,et al.  A Second Generation Force Field for the Simulation of Proteins, Nucleic Acids, and Organic Molecules , 1995 .

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

[22]  L. H. Bradley,et al.  Protein design by binary patterning of polar and nonpolar amino acids. , 1993, Methods in molecular biology.

[23]  F. Crick,et al.  The packing of α‐helices: simple coiled‐coils , 1953 .

[24]  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.

[25]  E I Shakhnovich,et al.  Theory of cooperative transitions in protein molecules. I. Why denaturation of globular protein is a first‐order phase transition , 1989, Biopolymers.

[26]  W. Lim,et al.  The role of internal packing interactions in determining the structure and stability of a protein. , 1991, Journal of molecular biology.

[27]  A G Murzin,et al.  SCOP: a structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[28]  D. Yee,et al.  Principles of protein folding — A perspective from simple exact models , 1995, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[29]  B. Matthews,et al.  Response of a protein structure to cavity-creating mutations and its relation to the hydrophobic effect. , 1992, Science.

[30]  S F Altschul,et al.  Statistical methods and insights for protein and DNA sequences. , 1991, Annual review of biophysics and biophysical chemistry.

[31]  U. Samanta,et al.  Packing of aromatic rings against tryptophan residues in proteins. , 1999, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[32]  M. Zalis,et al.  Visualizing and quantifying molecular goodness-of-fit: small-probe contact dots with explicit hydrogen atoms. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.