Profiling charge complementarity and selectivity for binding at the protein surface.

A novel analysis and representation of the protein surface in terms of electrostatic binding complementarity and selectivity is presented. The charge optimization methodology is applied in a probe-based approach that simulates the binding process to the target protein. The molecular surface is color coded according to calculated optimal charge or according to charge selectivity, i.e., the binding cost of deviating from the optimal charge. The optimal charge profile depends on both the protein shape and charge distribution whereas the charge selectivity profile depends only on protein shape. High selectivity is concentrated in well-shaped concave pockets, whereas solvent-exposed convex regions are not charge selective. This suggests the synergy of charge and shape selectivity hot spots toward molecular selection and recognition, as well as the asymmetry of charge selectivity at the binding interface of biomolecular systems. The charge complementarity and selectivity profiles map relevant electrostatic properties in a readily interpretable way and encode information that is quite different from that visualized in the standard electrostatic potential map of unbound proteins.

[1]  Bruce Tidor,et al.  Optimizing electrostatic affinity in ligand-receptor binding: Theory, computation, and ligand properties , 1998 .

[2]  Bruce Tidor,et al.  Optimization of binding electrostatics: Charge complementarity in the barnase‐barstar protein complex , 2001, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[3]  K. Sharp,et al.  Protein folding and association: Insights from the interfacial and thermodynamic properties of hydrocarbons , 1991, Proteins.

[4]  P. Kollman,et al.  A well-behaved electrostatic potential-based method using charge restraints for deriving atomic char , 1993 .

[5]  J Otlewski,et al.  Interscaffolding additivity: binding of P1 variants of bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor to four serine proteases. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  J. Hell,et al.  Selectivity and Promiscuity of the First and Second PDZ Domains of PSD-95 and Synapse-associated Protein 102* , 2002, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[7]  R M Stroud,et al.  Episelection: novel Ki approximately nanomolar inhibitors of serine proteases selected by binding or chemistry on an enzyme surface. , 1995, Biochemistry.

[8]  Jae Young Lee,et al.  Crystal structure and functional analysis of the SurE protein identify a novel phosphatase family , 2001, Nature Structural Biology.

[9]  M. Karplus,et al.  CHARMM: A program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations , 1983 .

[10]  Y N Vorobjev,et al.  SIMS: computation of a smooth invariant molecular surface. , 1997, Biophysical journal.

[11]  Enrico O. Purisima,et al.  A simple yet accurate boundary element method for continuum dielectric calculations , 1995, J. Comput. Chem..

[12]  D L Nelson,et al.  Electronic effects in the interaction of para-substituted benzamidines with trypsin: the involvement of the pi-electronic density at the central atom of the substituent in binding. , 1977, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[13]  Ann Marie Craig,et al.  CRIPT, a Novel Postsynaptic Protein that Binds to the Third PDZ Domain of PSD-95/SAP90 , 1998, Neuron.

[14]  Eamonn F. Healy,et al.  Development and use of quantum mechanical molecular models. 76. AM1: a new general purpose quantum mechanical molecular model , 1985 .

[15]  Bruce Tidor,et al.  Electrostatic Complementarity at Ligand Binding Sites: Application to Chorismate Mutase , 2001 .

[16]  J Otlewski,et al.  The crystal structures of the complexes between bovine beta-trypsin and ten P1 variants of BPTI. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[17]  Bruce Tidor,et al.  Barstar is electrostatically optimized for tight binding to barnase , 2001, Nature Structural Biology.

[18]  Mark S. Gordon,et al.  General atomic and molecular electronic structure system , 1993, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[20]  John H. Lewis,et al.  Crystal Structures of a Complexed and Peptide-Free Membrane Protein–Binding Domain: Molecular Basis of Peptide Recognition by PDZ , 1996, Cell.

[21]  Enrico O. Purisima,et al.  Fast summation boundary element method for calculating solvation free energies of macromolecules , 1998, J. Comput. Chem..

[22]  K. Sharp,et al.  Accurate Calculation of Hydration Free Energies Using Macroscopic Solvent Models , 1994 .

[23]  B. Brannetti,et al.  Distinct Binding Specificity of the Multiple PDZ Domains of INADL, a Human Protein with Homology to INAD fromDrosophila melanogaster * , 2001, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[24]  Enrico O. Purisima,et al.  Optimizing Ligand Charges for Maximum Binding Affinity. A Solvated Interaction Energy Approach , 2001 .

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

[26]  James J. P. Stewart,et al.  MOPAC: A semiempirical molecular orbital program , 1990, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[27]  P. Kollman,et al.  Application of RESP charges to calculate conformational energies, hydrogen bond energies, and free energies of solvation , 1993 .

[28]  B Tidor,et al.  Computation of electrostatic complements to proteins: A case of charge stabilized binding , 1998, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.