Why reinvent the wheel? Building new proteins based on ready‐made parts

We protein engineers are ambivalent about evolution: on the one hand, evolution inspires us with myriad examples of biomolecular binders, sensors, and catalysts; on the other hand, these examples are seldom well‐adapted to the engineering tasks we have in mind. Protein engineers have therefore modified natural proteins by point substitutions and fragment exchanges in an effort to generate new functions. A counterpoint to such design efforts, which is being pursued now with greater success, is to completely eschew the starting materials provided by nature and to design new protein functions from scratch by using de novo molecular modeling and design. While important progress has been made in both directions, some areas of protein design are still beyond reach. To this end, we advocate a synthesis of these two strategies: by using design calculations to both recombine and optimize fragments from natural proteins, we can build stable and as of yet un‐sampled structures, thereby granting access to an expanded repertoire of conformations and desired functions. We propose that future methods that combine phylogenetic analysis, structure and sequence bioinformatics, and atomistic modeling may well succeed where any one of these approaches has failed on its own.

[1]  E. Padlan,et al.  Structural basis for the specificity of antibody–antigen reactions and structural mechanisms for the diversification of antigen-binding specificities , 1977, Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics.

[2]  W. Stemmer Rapid evolution of a protein in vitro by DNA shuffling , 1994, Nature.

[3]  D. Baker,et al.  Design of a Novel Globular Protein Fold with Atomic-Level Accuracy , 2003, Science.

[4]  R. Sterner,et al.  Establishing catalytic activity on an artificial (βα)8‐barrel protein designed from identical half‐barrels , 2013, FEBS letters.

[5]  D. Baker,et al.  Computational design of a protein-based enzyme inhibitor. , 2013, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  D. Baker,et al.  Principles for designing ideal protein structures , 2012, Nature.

[7]  A. R. Fresht Structure and Mechanism in Protein Science: A Guide to Enzyme Catalysis and Protein Folding , 1999 .

[8]  D. Baker,et al.  De novo design of a four-fold symmetric TIM-barrel protein with atomic-level accuracy , 2015, Nature chemical biology.

[9]  C. Orengo,et al.  One fold with many functions: the evolutionary relationships between TIM barrel families based on their sequences, structures and functions. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[10]  Jack Snoeyink,et al.  Scientific benchmarks for guiding macromolecular energy function improvement. , 2013, Methods in enzymology.

[11]  Yaoqi Zhou,et al.  Energy functions in de novo protein design: current challenges and future prospects. , 2013, Annual review of biophysics.

[12]  H. Bilofsky,et al.  Unusual distributions of amino acids in complementarity-determining (hypervariable) segments of heavy and light chains of immunoglobulins and their possible roles in specificity of antibody-combining sites. , 1977, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[13]  L. Regan,et al.  Characterization of a helical protein designed from first principles. , 1988, Science.

[14]  Dan S. Tawfik Loop Grafting and the Origins of Enzyme Species , 2006, Science.

[15]  Sarel J. Fleishman,et al.  AbDesign: An algorithm for combinatorial backbone design guided by natural conformations and sequences , 2015, Proteins.

[16]  Thomas Madej,et al.  Structural similarity of loops in protein families: toward the understanding of protein evolution , 2005, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[17]  David Baker,et al.  Role of the Biomolecular Energy Gap in Protein Design, Structure, and Evolution , 2012, Cell.

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

[19]  D. Baker,et al.  Restricted sidechain plasticity in the structures of native proteins and complexes , 2011, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[20]  J. Martial,et al.  Octarellin VI: Using Rosetta to Design a Putative Artificial (β/α)8 Protein , 2013, PloS one.

[21]  Dan S. Tawfik,et al.  Reconstruction of functional beta-propeller lectins via homo-oligomeric assembly of shorter fragments. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[22]  François Stricher,et al.  How Protein Stability and New Functions Trade Off , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[23]  David Baker,et al.  Bridging the gaps in design methodologies by evolutionary optimization of the stability and proficiency of designed Kemp eliminase KE59 , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Second-generation octarellins: two new de novo (beta/alpha)8 polypeptides designed for investigating the influence of beta-residue packing on the alpha/beta-barrel structure stability. , 1995, Protein engineering.

[25]  Tanja Kortemme,et al.  Flexible backbone sampling methods to model and design protein alternative conformations. , 2013, Methods in enzymology.

[26]  P. Babbitt,et al.  Divergent evolution of enzymatic function: mechanistically diverse superfamilies and functionally distinct suprafamilies. , 2001, Annual review of biochemistry.

[27]  David Baker,et al.  An exciting but challenging road ahead for computational enzyme design , 2010, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[28]  J Saldanha,et al.  Humanization of a mouse monoclonal antibody by CDR-grafting: the importance of framework residues on loop conformation. , 1991, Protein engineering.

[29]  P. Babbitt,et al.  Evolution of enzyme superfamilies. , 2006, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[30]  K Dane Wittrup,et al.  Isolating and engineering human antibodies using yeast surface display , 2006, Nature Protocols.

[31]  B. Höcker,et al.  Mimicking enzyme evolution by generating new (betaalpha)8-barrels from (betaalpha)4-half-barrels. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[32]  B. Kuhlman,et al.  A comparison of successful and failed protein interface designs highlights the challenges of designing buried hydrogen bonds , 2013, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[33]  B. Höcker,et al.  Establishing wild-type levels of catalytic activity on natural and artificial (βα)8-barrel protein scaffolds , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[34]  Hiroki Noguchi,et al.  Computational design of a self-assembling symmetrical β-propeller protein , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  S. L. Mayo,et al.  De novo backbone and sequence design of an idealized α/β-barrel protein: evidence of stable tertiary structure , 2003 .

[36]  J. Richardson,et al.  De novo design, expression, and characterization of Felix: a four-helix bundle protein of native-like sequence. , 1990, Science.

[37]  Birte Höcker,et al.  A highly stable protein chimera built from fragments of different folds. , 2012, Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS.

[38]  D. Raleigh,et al.  De novo Design of Helical Bundles as Models for Understanding Protein Folding and Function , 2001 .

[39]  M. Paoli,et al.  Engineering of beta-propeller protein scaffolds by multiple gene duplication and fusion of an idealized WD repeat. , 2006, Biomolecular engineering.

[40]  L. Longo,et al.  Experimental support for the foldability–function tradeoff hypothesis: Segregation of the folding nucleus and functional regions in fibroblast growth factor‐1 , 2012, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[41]  J. Martial,et al.  Synthesis, purification and initial structural characterization of octarellin, a de novo polypeptide modelled on the alpha/beta-barrel proteins. , 1990, Protein engineering.

[42]  C. Janeway,et al.  The Immune System in Health and Disease , 2001 .

[43]  B K Shoichet,et al.  A relationship between protein stability and protein function. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[44]  Birte Höcker,et al.  Design of proteins from smaller fragments-learning from evolution. , 2014, Current opinion in structural biology.

[45]  D. Raleigh,et al.  De novo design of helical bundles as models for understanding protein folding and function. , 2000, Accounts of chemical research.

[46]  Christopher A. Voigt,et al.  Protein building blocks preserved by recombination , 2002, Nature Structural Biology.

[47]  Michael Blaber,et al.  Experimental support for the evolution of symmetric protein architecture from a simple peptide motif , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[48]  Lutz Riechmann,et al.  Reshaping human antibodies for therapy , 1988, Nature.

[49]  Dan S. Tawfik,et al.  Metamorphic proteins mediate evolutionary transitions of structure , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[50]  Frances H Arnold,et al.  Efficient sampling of SCHEMA chimera families to identify useful sequence elements. , 2013, Methods in enzymology.

[51]  David Baker,et al.  Computational design of ligand-binding proteins with high affinity and selectivity , 2013, Nature.

[52]  D. Baker,et al.  High thermodynamic stability of parametrically designed helical bundles , 2014, Science.

[53]  R. Merkl,et al.  Computational and experimental evidence for the evolution of a (beta alpha)8-barrel protein from an ancestral quarter-barrel stabilised by disulfide bonds. , 2010, Journal of molecular biology.

[54]  Colin J Jackson,et al.  Reconstructing a missing link in the evolution of a recently diverged phosphotriesterase by active-site loop remodeling. , 2012, Biochemistry.

[55]  Birte Höcker,et al.  Catalytic versatility, stability, and evolution of the (betaalpha)8-barrel enzyme fold. , 2005, Chemical reviews.

[56]  Bryan S. Der,et al.  Metal-mediated affinity and orientation specificity in a computationally designed protein homodimer. , 2012, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[57]  Sarel J Fleishman,et al.  Emerging themes in the computational design of novel enzymes and protein–protein interfaces , 2013, FEBS letters.

[58]  Sophie E Jackson,et al.  The folding and design of repeat proteins: reaching a consensus. , 2003, Current opinion in structural biology.

[59]  Jens Meiler,et al.  Potential of fragment recombination for rational design of proteins. , 2012, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[60]  Robert D. Finn,et al.  The Pfam protein families database , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[61]  J. Söding,et al.  More than the sum of their parts: On the evolution of proteins from peptides , 2003, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[62]  S. Akanuma,et al.  Experimental evidence for the existence of a stable half-barrel subdomain in the (beta/alpha)8-barrel fold. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

[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]  Sergey Nepomnyachiy,et al.  Global view of the protein universe , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[65]  Dan S. Tawfik,et al.  Directed enzyme evolution: beyond the low-hanging fruit. , 2012, Current opinion in structural biology.

[66]  Dan S. Tawfik,et al.  Functional β-propeller lectins by tandem duplications of repetitive units. , 2011, Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS.

[67]  S. L. Mayo,et al.  De novo backbone and sequence design of an idealized alpha/beta-barrel protein: evidence of stable tertiary structure. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[68]  Donald Hilvert,et al.  Precision is essential for efficient catalysis in an evolved Kemp eliminase , 2013, Nature.

[69]  Dan S. Tawfik,et al.  What makes a protein fold amenable to functional innovation? Fold polarity and stability trade-offs. , 2013, Journal of molecular biology.

[70]  Timothy A. Whitehead,et al.  Computational Design of Proteins Targeting the Conserved Stem Region of Influenza Hemagglutinin , 2011, Science.

[71]  José Arcadio Farías-Rico,et al.  Evolutionary relationship of two ancient protein superfolds. , 2014, Nature chemical biology.

[72]  David Baker,et al.  Computational design of a pH-sensitive IgG binding protein , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[74]  C. Janeway Immunobiology: The Immune System in Health and Disease , 1996 .