Relative Solvent Accessible Surface Area Predicts Protein Conformational Changes upon Binding

Summary Protein interactions are often accompanied by significant changes in conformation. We have analyzed the relationships between protein structures and the conformational changes they undergo upon binding. Based upon this, we introduce a simple measure, the relative solvent accessible surface area, which can be used to predict the magnitude of binding-induced conformational changes from the structures of either monomeric proteins or bound subunits. Applying this to a large set of protein complexes suggests that large conformational changes upon binding are common. In addition, we observe considerable enrichment of intrinsically disordered sequences in proteins predicted to undergo large conformational changes. Finally, we demonstrate that the relative solvent accessible surface area of monomeric proteins can be used as a simple proxy for protein flexibility. This reveals a powerful connection between the flexibility of unbound proteins and their binding-induced conformational changes, consistent with the conformational selection model of molecular recognition.

[1]  A. Fersht,et al.  Structure of tumor suppressor p53 and its intrinsically disordered N-terminal transactivation domain , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  Pinak Chakrabarti,et al.  Macromolecular recognition in the Protein Data Bank , 2006, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[3]  K. Henrick,et al.  Inference of macromolecular assemblies from crystalline state. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[4]  J. Marsh,et al.  Structural diversity in free and bound states of intrinsically disordered protein phosphatase 1 regulators. , 2010, Structure.

[5]  R. Nussinov,et al.  How different are structurally flexible and rigid binding sites? Sequence and structural features discriminating proteins that do and do not undergo conformational change upon ligand binding. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  C. Chothia,et al.  The atomic structure of protein-protein recognition sites. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[7]  H. Dyson,et al.  Linking folding and binding. , 2009, Current opinion in structural biology.

[8]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Principles of flexible protein–protein docking , 2008, Proteins.

[9]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Extended disordered proteins: targeting function with less scaffold. , 2003, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[10]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Insights into protein flexibility: The relationship between normal modes and conformational change upon protein–protein docking , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  A M Lesk,et al.  Interior and surface of monomeric proteins. , 1987, Journal of molecular biology.

[12]  P. Tompa,et al.  Fuzzy complexes: polymorphism and structural disorder in protein-protein interactions. , 2008, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[13]  Collaborative Computational,et al.  The CCP4 suite: programs for protein crystallography. , 1994, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[14]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Folding funnels, binding funnels, and protein function , 1999, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[15]  D. Teller Accessible area, packing volumes and interaction surfaces of globular proteins , 1976, Nature.

[16]  David Baker,et al.  Protein-protein docking with backbone flexibility. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[17]  Oliver F. Lange,et al.  Recognition Dynamics Up to Microseconds Revealed from an RDC-Derived Ubiquitin Ensemble in Solution , 2008, Science.

[18]  Cyrus Chothia,et al.  The accessible surface area and stability of oligomeric proteins , 1987, Nature.

[19]  J. Thornton,et al.  Diversity of protein–protein interactions , 2003, The EMBO journal.

[20]  M. Sternberg,et al.  An analysis of conformational changes on protein-protein association: implications for predictive docking. , 1999, Protein engineering.

[21]  A. Nairn,et al.  Spinophilin directs Protein Phosphatase 1 specificity by blocking substrate binding sites , 2010, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[22]  C Chothia,et al.  Surface, subunit interfaces and interior of oligomeric proteins. , 1988, Journal of molecular biology.

[23]  Alexandre M J J Bonvin,et al.  Flexible protein-protein docking. , 2006, Current opinion in structural biology.

[24]  Michail Yu. Lobanov,et al.  Intrinsic Disorder in Protein Interactions: Insights From a Comprehensive Structural Analysis , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[25]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Mechanism and evolution of protein dimerization , 1998, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[26]  J. Beckmann,et al.  FoldIndex©: a simple tool to predict whether a given protein sequence is intrinsically unfolded , 2005 .

[27]  Jaime Prilusky,et al.  FoldIndex copyright: a simple tool to predict whether a given protein sequence is intrinsically unfolded , 2005, Bioinform..

[28]  Michele Vendruscolo,et al.  A Coupled Equilibrium Shift Mechanism in Calmodulin-Mediated Signal Transduction , 2008, Structure.

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

[30]  L. Kay,et al.  Protein dynamics and conformational disorder in molecular recognition , 2009, Journal of molecular recognition : JMR.

[31]  M. Tyers,et al.  Structure/function implications in a dynamic complex of the intrinsically disordered Sic1 with the Cdc4 subunit of an SCF ubiquitin ligase. , 2010, Structure.

[32]  Differential scanning calorimetry of thermal unfolding of the methionine repressor protein (MetJ) from Escherichia coli. , 1992, Biochemistry.

[33]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Analysis of ordered and disordered protein complexes reveals structural features discriminating between stable and unstable monomers. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[34]  Peter G Wolynes,et al.  Protein topology determines binding mechanism. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[35]  Ad Bax,et al.  Solution structure of Ca2+–calmodulin reveals flexible hand-like properties of its domains , 2001, Nature Structural Biology.

[36]  István Simon,et al.  Molecular principles of the interactions of disordered proteins. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[37]  Christian Griesinger,et al.  Quantitative determination of the conformational properties of partially folded and intrinsically disordered proteins using NMR dipolar couplings. , 2009, Structure.

[38]  A. Lesk,et al.  Structural mechanisms for domain movements in proteins. , 1994, Biochemistry.

[39]  David Eisenberg,et al.  3D domain swapping: As domains continue to swap , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[40]  Emmanuel D Levy,et al.  PiQSi: protein quaternary structure investigation. , 2007, Structure.

[41]  I. Bahar,et al.  Structural changes involved in protein binding correlate with intrinsic motions of proteins in the unbound state. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[42]  R. Nussinov,et al.  The role of dynamic conformational ensembles in biomolecular recognition. , 2009, Nature chemical biology.

[43]  J. Janin,et al.  Surface area of globular proteins. , 1976, Journal of molecular biology.

[44]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..