Interresidue interactions in protein classes

The free energy difference between folded and unfolded state is about the same for most proteins and it is not more than the energy of a few noncovalent interactions. In addition to the numerous noncovalent interactions, some proteins contain one or more disulfide bonds, which, as covalent crosslinks, significantly stabilize their tertiary structure. Correlation between the presence of disulfide bond(s), and the number noncovalent interresidue interactions of various kinds is analyzed here. The number of interactions per residue is almost the same for all protein. Also the number of long‐range interactions per residue is the same in all proteins. Proteins with S(SINGLE BOND)S bond(s) (extracellular proteins) have more medium‐range and fewer short‐range interactions than those without S(SINGLE BOND)S bonds. However, the difference is independent of the number of these covalent crosslinks. We concluded that the different distributions of the various kinds of noncovalent interaction reflect the needs of proteins in the different environments, the extracellular and the intracellular ones, rather than the presence of the disulfide bond(s). We also pointed out that the observed differences in the distributions of short‐ and medium‐range interactions are in good agreement with different secondary structure compositions of extracellular and intracellular proteins. Proteins 27:360–366, 1997. © 1997 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  A. Fiser,et al.  Different sequence environments of amino acid residues involved and not involved in long-range interactions in proteins. , 2009, International journal of peptide and protein research.

[2]  K. Nishikawa,et al.  Classification of proteins into groups based on amino acid composition and other characters. II. Grouping into four types. , 1983, Journal of biochemistry.

[3]  B. Matthews,et al.  Stabilization of functional proteins by introduction of multiple disulfide bonds. , 1991, Methods in enzymology.

[4]  E I Shakhnovich,et al.  Impact of local and non-local interactions on thermodynamics and kinetics of protein folding. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[6]  H. Scheraga,et al.  Chain reversals in proteins. , 1973, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

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

[8]  Georg E. Schulz,et al.  Principles of Protein Structure , 1979 .

[9]  C. Pace,et al.  Conformational stability and activity of ribonuclease T1 with zero, one, and two intact disulfide bonds. , 1988, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[10]  W. Kabsch,et al.  Dictionary of protein secondary structure: Pattern recognition of hydrogen‐bonded and geometrical features , 1983, Biopolymers.

[11]  K Nishikawa,et al.  Discrimination of intracellular and extracellular proteins using amino acid composition and residue-pair frequencies. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[12]  S. Betz.  Disulfide bonds and the stability of globular proteins , 1993, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.