Exploring Protein Cavities through Rigidity Analysis

The geometry of cavities in the surfaces of proteins facilitates a variety of biochemical functions. To better understand the biochemical nature of protein cavities, the shape, size, chemical properties, and evolutionary nature of functional and nonfunctional surface cavities have been exhaustively surveyed in protein structures. The rigidity of surface cavities, however, is not immediately available as a characteristic of structure data, and is thus more difficult to examine. Using rigidity analysis for assessing and analyzing molecular rigidity, this paper performs the first survey of the relationships between cavity properties, such as size and residue content, and how they correspond to cavity rigidity. Our survey measured a variety of rigidity metrics on 120,323 cavities from 12,785 sequentially non-redundant protein chains. We used VASP-E, a volume-based algorithm for analyzing cavity geometry. Our results suggest that rigidity properties of protein cavities are dependent on cavity surface area.

[1]  D. Goodin,et al.  Artificial protein cavities as specific ligand-binding templates: characterization of an engineered heterocyclic cation-binding site that preserves the evolved specificity of the parent protein. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[2]  M. Jacobson,et al.  Binding-Site Assessment by Virtual Fragment Screening , 2010, PloS one.

[3]  B. Honig,et al.  On the nature of cavities on protein surfaces: Application to the identification of drug‐binding sites , 2006, Proteins.

[4]  B. Hendrickson,et al.  An Algorithm for Two-Dimensional Rigidity Percolation , 1997 .

[5]  D. Jacobs,et al.  Protein flexibility predictions using graph theory , 2001, Proteins.

[6]  Brian Y. Chen,et al.  VASP-E: Specificity Annotation with a Volumetric Analysis of Electrostatic Isopotentials , 2014, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[7]  B. Hendrickson,et al.  Regular ArticleAn Algorithm for Two-Dimensional Rigidity Percolation: The Pebble Game , 1997 .

[8]  P S Kim,et al.  Evidence that a prominent cavity in the coiled coil of HIV type 1 gp41 is an attractive drug target. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  D. Lomas,et al.  Topography of a 2.0 Å structure of α1‐antitrypsin reveals targets for rational drug design to prevent conformational disease , 2000, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[10]  O. Lichtarge,et al.  A family of evolution-entropy hybrid methods for ranking protein residues by importance. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[11]  Andrea Mattevi,et al.  Insights into the mode of inhibition of human mitochondrial monoamine oxidase B from high-resolution crystal structures , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  Carsten Kutzner,et al.  GROMACS 4:  Algorithms for Highly Efficient, Load-Balanced, and Scalable Molecular Simulation. , 2008, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[13]  J. Thornton,et al.  A method for localizing ligand binding pockets in protein structures , 2005, Proteins.

[14]  Peter A. Kollman,et al.  AMBER, a package of computer programs for applying molecular mechanics, normal mode analysis, molecular dynamics and free energy calculations to simulate the structural and energetic properties of molecules , 1995 .

[15]  Ing Ren Tsang,et al.  Cluster size diversity, percolation, and complex systems. , 1999, Physical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics.

[16]  Vincent Le Guilloux,et al.  Fpocket: An open source platform for ligand pocket detection , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[17]  Claudio Anselmi,et al.  Dynamics of the Antigen-binding Grooves in CD1 Proteins , 2013, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

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

[19]  A. Fersht,et al.  Glutamine, alanine or glycine repeats inserted into the loop of a protein have minimal effects on stability and folding rates. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[20]  R. Blasczyk,et al.  The composition of the F pocket in HLA-A*74 generates C-terminal promiscuity among its bound peptides. , 2011, Tissue antigens.

[21]  Jeffrey Jie-Lou Liao,et al.  Molecular recognition of protein kinase binding pockets for design of potent and selective kinase inhibitors. , 2007, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[22]  Andrea Mattevi,et al.  Structure of human monoamine oxidase B, a drug target for the treatment of neurological disorders , 2002, Nature Structural Biology.

[23]  B. Lee,et al.  The interpretation of protein structures: estimation of static accessibility. , 1971, Journal of molecular biology.

[24]  Olivier Lichtarge,et al.  ET viewer: an application for predicting and visualizing functional sites in protein structures , 2006, Bioinform..

[25]  Barry Honig,et al.  VASP: A Volumetric Analysis of Surface Properties Yields Insights into Protein-Ligand Binding Specificity , 2010, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[26]  Yu Li,et al.  Identification of cavities on protein surface using multiple computational approaches for drug binding site prediction , 2011, Bioinform..

[27]  H. Edelsbrunner,et al.  Anatomy of protein pockets and cavities: Measurement of binding site geometry and implications for ligand design , 1998, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[28]  M. Swindells,et al.  Protein clefts in molecular recognition and function. , 1996, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[29]  F. Cohen,et al.  An evolutionary trace method defines binding surfaces common to protein families. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.