Identification of Local Conformational Similarity in Structurally Variable Regions of Homologous Proteins Using Protein Blocks

Structure comparison tools can be used to align related protein structures to identify structurally conserved and variable regions and to infer functional and evolutionary relationships. While the conserved regions often superimpose well, the variable regions appear non superimposable. Differences in homologous protein structures are thought to be due to evolutionary plasticity to accommodate diverged sequences during evolution. One of the kinds of differences between 3-D structures of homologous proteins is rigid body displacement. A glaring example is not well superimposed equivalent regions of homologous proteins corresponding to α-helical conformation with different spatial orientations. In a rigid body superimposition, these regions would appear variable although they may contain local similarity. Also, due to high spatial deviation in the variable region, one-to-one correspondence at the residue level cannot be determined accurately. Another kind of difference is conformational variability and the most common example is topologically equivalent loops of two homologues but with different conformations. In the current study, we present a refined view of the “structurally variable” regions which may contain local similarity obscured in global alignment of homologous protein structures. As structural alphabet is able to describe local structures of proteins precisely through Protein Blocks approach, conformational similarity has been identified in a substantial number of ‘variable’ regions in a large data set of protein structural alignments; optimal residue-residue equivalences could be achieved on the basis of Protein Blocks which led to improved local alignments. Also, through an example, we have demonstrated how the additional information on local backbone structures through protein blocks can aid in comparative modeling of a loop region. In addition, understanding on sequence-structure relationships can be enhanced through our approach. This has been illustrated through examples where the equivalent regions in homologous protein structures share sequence similarity to varied extent but do not preserve local structure.

[1]  Bohdan Schneider,et al.  A short survey on protein blocks , 2010, Biophysical Reviews.

[2]  Carmay Lim,et al.  A structural-alphabet-based strategy for finding structural motifs across protein families , 2010, Nucleic acids research.

[3]  I. Bahar,et al.  Global dynamics of proteins: bridging between structure and function. , 2010, Annual review of biophysics.

[4]  Nadia Pisanti,et al.  A Relational Extension of the Notion of Motifs: Application to the Common 3D Protein Substructures Searching Problem , 2009, J. Comput. Biol..

[5]  Catherine L. Worth,et al.  Structural and functional constraints in the evolution of protein families , 2009, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[6]  A. Bornot,et al.  Analysis of protein contacts into Protein Units. , 2009, Biochimie.

[7]  Liisa Holm,et al.  Advances and pitfalls of protein structural alignment. , 2009, Current opinion in structural biology.

[8]  Alexandre G de Brevern,et al.  Analysis of protein chameleon sequence characteristics , 2009, Bioinformation.

[9]  Simon C Lovell,et al.  The effect of sequence evolution on protein structural divergence. , 2009, Molecular biology and evolution.

[10]  Narayanaswamy Srinivasan,et al.  Length Variations amongst Protein Domain Superfamilies and Consequences on Structure and Function , 2009, PloS one.

[11]  K. Teilum,et al.  Functional aspects of protein flexibility , 2009, Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences.

[12]  M Tyagi,et al.  Protein structure mining using a structural alphabet , 2008, Proteins.

[13]  Lenore Cowen,et al.  Matt: Local Flexibility Aids Protein Multiple Structure Alignment , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[14]  M. Tyagi,et al.  Local Protein Structures , 2007 .

[15]  A. G. Brevern,et al.  “Pinning strategy”: a novel approach for predicting the backbone structure in terms of protein blocks from sequence , 2007, Journal of Biosciences.

[16]  C. Lim,et al.  Discovering structural motifs using a structural alphabet: Application to magnesium-binding sites , 2007, BMC Bioinformatics.

[17]  B. Charloteaux,et al.  Prediction of peptide structure: How far are we? , 2006, Proteins.

[18]  N. Srinivasan,et al.  A substitution matrix for structural alphabet based on structural alignment of homologous proteins and its applications , 2006, Proteins.

[19]  Gabrielle A. Reeves,et al.  Structural diversity of domain superfamilies in the CATH database. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[20]  Narayanaswamy Srinivasan,et al.  Protein Block Expert (PBE): a web-based protein structure analysis server using a structural alphabet , 2006, Nucleic Acids Res..

[21]  A. Murzin,et al.  Evolution of protein fold in the presence of functional constraints. , 2006, Current opinion in structural biology.

[22]  J. Nyborg,et al.  Structural basis of the action of pulvomycin and GE2270 A on elongation factor Tu. , 2006, Biochemistry.

[23]  Joël Pothier,et al.  YAKUSA: A fast structural database scanning method , 2005, Proteins.

[24]  Alejandra Leo-Macias,et al.  A new progressive-iterative algorithm for multiple structure alignment , 2005, Bioinform..

[25]  C. Orengo,et al.  Protein families and their evolution-a structural perspective. , 2005, Annual review of biochemistry.

[26]  Rachel Kolodny,et al.  Comprehensive evaluation of protein structure alignment methods: scoring by geometric measures. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[27]  Tom L. Blundell,et al.  Molecular anatomy: Phyletic relationships derived from three-dimensional structures of proteins , 2005, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[28]  Alexandre G. de Brevern,et al.  New assessment of a structural alphabet , 2005, Silico Biol..

[29]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  FlexProt: Alignment of Flexible Protein Structures Without a Predefinition of Hinge Regions , 2004, J. Comput. Biol..

[30]  Alexandre G. de Brevern,et al.  Use of a structural alphabet for analysis of short loops connecting repetitive structures , 2004, BMC Bioinformatics.

[31]  Gerard J Kleywegt,et al.  Evaluation of protein fold comparison servers , 2003, Proteins.

[32]  Teuvo Kohonen,et al.  Self-organized formation of topologically correct feature maps , 2004, Biological Cybernetics.

[33]  Dietmar Schomburg,et al.  Crystal structure and snapshots along the reaction pathway of a family 51 α‐L‐arabinofuranosidase , 2003 .

[34]  Adam Godzik,et al.  Flexible structure alignment by chaining aligned fragment pairs allowing twists , 2003, ECCB.

[35]  S. Teague Implications of protein flexibility for drug discovery , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[36]  Yoshitsugu Shiro,et al.  Thermophilic cytochrome P450 (CYP119) from Sulfolobus solfataricus: high resolution structure and functional properties. , 2002, Journal of inorganic biochemistry.

[37]  G. Hammes Multiple conformational changes in enzyme catalysis. , 2002, Biochemistry.

[38]  A. Sali,et al.  Evolution and physics in comparative protein structure modeling. , 2002, Accounts of chemical research.

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

[40]  Frances M. G. Pearl,et al.  Review: what can structural classifications reveal about protein evolution? , 2001, Journal of structural biology.

[41]  N Srinivasan,et al.  Use of a database of structural alignments and phylogenetic trees in investigating the relationship between sequence and structural variability among homologous proteins. , 2001, Protein engineering.

[42]  A. Sali,et al.  Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. , 2000, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[43]  C. Etchebest,et al.  Bayesian probabilistic approach for predicting backbone structures in terms of protein blocks , 2000, Proteins.

[44]  Liisa Holm,et al.  DaliLite workbench for protein structure comparison , 2000, Bioinform..

[45]  Joseph Schlessinger,et al.  Crystal Structures of Two FGF-FGFR Complexes Reveal the Determinants of Ligand-Receptor Specificity , 2000, Cell.

[46]  J. Nyborg,et al.  High resolution crystal structure of bovine mitochondrial EF-Tu in complex with GDP. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[47]  A. Sali,et al.  Modeling of loops in protein structures , 2000, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[48]  Frances M. G. Pearl,et al.  Protein folds, functions and evolution. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[49]  M. Gerstein,et al.  The relationship between protein structure and function: a comprehensive survey with application to the yeast genome. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[50]  David C. Jones,et al.  Contemporary approaches to protein structure classification , 1998, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[51]  J Skolnick,et al.  Functional analysis of the Escherichia coli genome using the sequence-to-structure-to-function paradigm: identification of proteins exhibiting the glutaredoxin/thioredoxin disulfide oxidoreductase activity. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[52]  P E Bourne,et al.  Protein structure alignment by incremental combinatorial extension (CE) of the optimal path. , 1998, Protein engineering.

[53]  Michael Y. Galperin,et al.  Analogous enzymes: independent inventions in enzyme evolution. , 1998, Genome research.

[54]  Charlotte M. Deane,et al.  JOY: protein sequence-structure representation and analysis , 1998, Bioinform..

[55]  S. Jones,et al.  Prediction of protein-protein interaction sites using patch analysis. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[56]  Eric O Long,et al.  Structure of the inhibitory receptor for human natural killer cells resembles haematopoietic receptors , 1997, Nature.

[57]  David C. Jones,et al.  CATH--a hierarchic classification of protein domain structures. , 1997, Structure.

[58]  M. Karplus,et al.  PDB-based protein loop prediction: parameters for selection and methods for optimization. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[59]  Baldomero Oliva,et al.  An automated classification of the structure of protein loops. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[60]  Mark Gerstein,et al.  How far can sequences diverge? , 1997, Nature.

[61]  M Gerstein,et al.  Protein evolution. How far can sequences diverge? , 1997, Nature.

[62]  A. Godzik The structural alignment between two proteins: Is there a unique answer? , 1996, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

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

[64]  J. Thompson,et al.  CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. , 1994, Nucleic acids research.

[65]  T. Blundell,et al.  Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[66]  T L Blundell,et al.  An evaluation of the performance of an automated procedure for comparative modelling of protein tertiary structure. , 1993, Protein engineering.

[67]  E. Dodson,et al.  Crystal structure of domains 3 and 4 of rat CD4: relation to the NH2-terminal domains. , 1993, Science.

[68]  G. Barton,et al.  Multiple protein sequence alignment from tertiary structure comparison: Assignment of global and residue confidence levels , 1992, Proteins.

[69]  P. Argos,et al.  Analysis of insertions/deletions in protein structures. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[70]  T L Blundell,et al.  A variable gap penalty function and feature weights for protein 3-D structure comparisons. , 1992, Protein engineering.

[71]  T. Blundell,et al.  Definition of general topological equivalence in protein structures. A procedure involving comparison of properties and relationships through simulated annealing and dynamic programming. , 1990, Journal of molecular biology.

[72]  T L Blundell,et al.  Phylogenetic relationships from three-dimensional protein structures. , 1990, Methods in enzymology.

[73]  W R Taylor,et al.  Protein structure alignment. , 1989, Journal of molecular biology.

[74]  Lawrence R. Rabiner,et al.  A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition , 1989, Proc. IEEE.

[75]  M. Karplus,et al.  Prediction of the folding of short polypeptide segments by uniform conformational sampling , 1987, Biopolymers.

[76]  C. Levinthal,et al.  Predicting antibody hypervariable loop conformations II: Minimization and molecular dynamics studies of MCPC603 from many randomly generated loop conformations , 1986, Proteins.

[77]  T. A. Jones,et al.  Using known substructures in protein model building and crystallography. , 1986, The EMBO journal.

[78]  J. Moult,et al.  An algorithm for determining the conformation of polypeptide segments in proteins by systematic search , 1986, Proteins.

[79]  T. Kohonen Self-organized formation of topographically correct feature maps , 1982 .

[80]  J. Greer,et al.  Model for haptoglobin heavy chain based upon structural homology. , 1980, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[81]  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.

[82]  Lvek,et al.  Evolution of protein structures and functions , 2022 .