Evolutionary Dynamics on Protein Bi-stability Landscapes can Potentially Resolve Adaptive Conflicts

Experimental studies have shown that some proteins exist in two alternative native-state conformations. It has been proposed that such bi-stable proteins can potentially function as evolutionary bridges at the interface between two neutral networks of protein sequences that fold uniquely into the two different native conformations. Under adaptive conflict scenarios, bi-stable proteins may be of particular advantage if they simultaneously provide two beneficial biological functions. However, computational models that simulate protein structure evolution do not yet recognize the importance of bi-stability. Here we use a biophysical model to analyze sequence space to identify bi-stable or multi-stable proteins with two or more equally stable native-state structures. The inclusion of such proteins enhances phenotype connectivity between neutral networks in sequence space. Consideration of the sequence space neighborhood of bridge proteins revealed that bi-stability decreases gradually with each mutation that takes the sequence further away from an exactly bi-stable protein. With relaxed selection pressures, we found that bi-stable proteins in our model are highly successful under simulated adaptive conflict. Inspired by these model predictions, we developed a method to identify real proteins in the PDB with bridge-like properties, and have verified a clear bi-stability gradient for a series of mutants studied by Alexander et al. (Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 2009, 106:21149–21154) that connect two sequences that fold uniquely into two different native structures via a bridge-like intermediate mutant sequence. Based on these findings, new testable predictions for future studies on protein bi-stability and evolution are discussed.

[1]  C. Ofria,et al.  Evolution of digital organisms at high mutation rates leads to survival of the flattest , 2001, Nature.

[2]  M. Eigen,et al.  Molecular quasi-species. , 1988 .

[3]  R A Goldstein,et al.  Why are some proteins structures so common? , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  Dan S. Tawfik,et al.  Enzyme promiscuity: evolutionary and mechanistic aspects. , 2006, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[5]  P E Bourne,et al.  An alternative view of protein fold space , 2000, Proteins.

[6]  F. Kondrashov,et al.  The evolution of gene duplications: classifying and distinguishing between models , 2010, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[7]  David Baker,et al.  Macromolecular modeling with rosetta. , 2008, Annual review of biochemistry.

[8]  Mark D. Rausher,et al.  Escape from adaptive conflict after duplication in an anthocyanin pathway gene , 2008, Nature.

[9]  John Orban,et al.  The design and characterization of two proteins with 88% sequence identity but different structure and function , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  Andreas Wagner,et al.  A comparison of genotype-phenotype maps for RNA and proteins. , 2012, Biophysical journal.

[11]  Osvaldo Olmea,et al.  MAMMOTH (Matching molecular models obtained from theory): An automated method for model comparison , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[12]  F. Cohen,et al.  Conformational propagation with prion‐like characteristics in a simple model of protein folding , 2001, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[13]  Eric L. Miller,et al.  The Ascent of the Abundant: How Mutational Networks Constrain Evolution , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[14]  J. Sumida,et al.  Ensemble Perspective for Catalytic Promiscuity , 2011, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[15]  D. Baker,et al.  Role of conformational sampling in computing mutation‐induced changes in protein structure and stability , 2011, Proteins.

[16]  P. Schuster,et al.  From sequences to shapes and back: a case study in RNA secondary structures , 1994, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[17]  Andreas Wagner,et al.  Neutralism and selectionism: a network-based reconciliation , 2008, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[18]  Erich Bornberg-Bauer,et al.  Comparing folding codes in simple heteropolymer models of protein evolutionary landscape: robustness of the superfunnel paradigm. , 2005, Biophysical journal.

[19]  J. Maynard Smith.  Natural Selection and the Concept of a Protein Space , 1970 .

[20]  Erich Bornberg-Bauer,et al.  A structural model of latent evolutionary potentials underlying neutral networks in proteins. , 2007, HFSP journal.

[21]  Michael Q. Zhang,et al.  Computational Methods for Protein Folding: Scaling a Hierarchy of Complexities , 2002 .

[22]  E. Bornberg-Bauer,et al.  Modeling evolutionary landscapes: mutational stability, topology, and superfunnels in sequence space. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[23]  Robert T. Sauer,et al.  An evolutionary bridge to a new protein fold , 2000, Nature Structural Biology.

[24]  Dan S. Tawfik,et al.  Protein Dynamism and Evolvability , 2009, Science.

[25]  Dan S. Tawfik,et al.  Latent evolutionary potentials under the neutral mutational drift of an enzyme. , 2007, HFSP journal.

[26]  M. Levitt,et al.  Simulating protein evolution in sequence and structure space. , 2004, Current opinion in structural biology.

[27]  Christoph Adami,et al.  Thermodynamic prediction of protein neutrality. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[28]  D. Lipman,et al.  Modelling neutral and selective evolution of protein folding , 1991, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[29]  Michael Levitt,et al.  Comparative modeling and protein‐like features of hydrophobic–polar models on a two‐dimensional lattice , 2012, Proteins.

[30]  S. Copley.  Enzymes with extra talents: moonlighting functions and catalytic promiscuity. , 2003, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[31]  James E. Bray,et al.  The CATH Database provides insights into protein structure/function relationships , 1999, Nucleic Acids Res..

[32]  Michele Vendruscolo,et al.  Neutral evolution of model proteins: diffusion in sequence space and overdispersion. , 1998, Journal of theoretical biology.

[33]  S. Meier,et al.  A biological cosmos of parallel universes: Does protein structural plasticity facilitate evolution? , 2007, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[34]  Carl Troein,et al.  Enumerating Designing Sequences in the HP Model , 2002, Journal of biological physics.

[35]  Dan S. Tawfik,et al.  Enzyme promiscuity: a mechanistic and evolutionary perspective. , 2010, Annual review of biochemistry.

[36]  K. Dill,et al.  Comparing folding codes for proteins and polymers , 1996, Proteins.

[37]  A. Godzik,et al.  Internal organization of large protein families: Relationship between the sequence, structure, and function‐based clustering , 2011, Proteins.

[38]  R. Doolittle,et al.  A simple method for displaying the hydropathic character of a protein. , 1982, Journal of molecular biology.

[39]  Joost Schymkowitz,et al.  The stability effects of protein mutations appear to be universally distributed. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[40]  M. Levitt,et al.  Normal modes of prion proteins: from native to infectious particle. , 2011, Biochemistry.

[41]  Richard A Goldstein,et al.  The structure of protein evolution and the evolution of protein structure. , 2008, Current opinion in structural biology.

[42]  G. Wagner,et al.  Mutational robustness can facilitate adaptation , 2010, Nature.

[43]  M. Huynen,et al.  Neutral evolution of mutational robustness. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[44]  M. DePristo,et al.  Missense meanderings in sequence space: a biophysical view of protein evolution , 2005, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[45]  E. Bornberg-Bauer,et al.  How are model protein structures distributed in sequence space? , 1997, Biophysical journal.

[46]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  Fuzzy Sets , 1996, Inf. Control..

[47]  Gustavo D. Parisi,et al.  PCDB: a database of protein conformational diversity , 2010, Nucleic Acids Res..

[48]  A. Godzik,et al.  Global distribution of conformational states derived from redundant models in the PDB points to non-uniqueness of the protein structure , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[49]  Hue Sun Chan,et al.  Cooperativity, local-nonlocal coupling, and nonnative interactions: principles of protein folding from coarse-grained models. , 2011, Annual review of physical chemistry.

[50]  David Baker,et al.  Algorithm discovery by protein folding game players , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[51]  John Orban,et al.  Proteins that switch folds. , 2010, Current opinion in structural biology.

[52]  Oliver F. Lange,et al.  Consistent blind protein structure generation from NMR chemical shift data , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[53]  H S Chan,et al.  Modeling protein density of states: Additive hydrophobic effects are insufficient for calorimetric two‐state cooperativity , 2000, Proteins.

[54]  Rafael Sanjuán,et al.  Mechanisms of genetic robustness in RNA viruses , 2006, EMBO reports.

[55]  Edward M. Reingold,et al.  Graph drawing by force‐directed placement , 1991, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[56]  D. M. Taverna,et al.  The evolution of duplicated genes considering protein stability constraints. , 1999, Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing.

[57]  A. Hughes.  The evolution of functionally novel proteins after gene duplication , 1994, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[58]  Erich Bornberg-Bauer,et al.  Escape from Adaptive Conflict follows from weak functional trade-offs and mutational robustness , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[59]  L. James,et al.  Diverse HIV viruses are targeted by a conformationally dynamic antiviral , 2012, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[60]  Yaakov Levy,et al.  Mutations as trapdoors to two competing native conformations of the Rop-dimer , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[61]  Brian F. Volkman,et al.  Interconversion between two unrelated protein folds in the lymphotactin native state , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[62]  Sergey Lyskov,et al.  PyRosetta: a script-based interface for implementing molecular modeling algorithms using Rosetta , 2010, Bioinform..

[63]  Oliver F. Lange,et al.  Solution structure of a minor and transiently formed state of a T4 lysozyme mutant , 2011, Nature.

[64]  Li Yuan,et al.  Tonicity-responsive microRNAs contribute to the maximal induction of osmoregulatory transcription factor OREBP in response to high-NaCl hypertonicity , 2010, Nucleic Acids Res..

[65]  C. Wilke,et al.  Thermodynamics of Neutral Protein Evolution , 2006, Genetics.

[66]  Markus Porto,et al.  Connectivity of Neutral Networks, Overdispersion, and Structural Conservation in Protein Evolution , 2001, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[67]  Erich Bornberg-Bauer,et al.  Evolvability and single-genotype fluctuation in phenotypic properties: a simple heteropolymer model. , 2010, Biophysical journal.

[68]  Erich Bornberg-Bauer,et al.  Recombinatoric exploration of novel folded structures: A heteropolymer-based model of protein evolutionary landscapes , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[69]  F. Arnold,et al.  Protein stability promotes evolvability. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[70]  Jane R. Allison,et al.  Current computer modeling cannot explain why two highly similar sequences fold into different structures. , 2011, Biochemistry.

[71]  Michael Q. Zhang,et al.  Current Topics in Computational Molecular Biology , 2002 .

[72]  A Irbäck,et al.  On hydrophobicity correlations in protein chains. , 2000, Biophysical journal.

[73]  E. Shakhnovich,et al.  STABILITY OF DESIGNED PROTEINS AGAINST MUTATIONS , 1998, cond-mat/9809410.

[74]  Pernille R. Jensen,et al.  Continuous Molecular Evolution of Protein-Domain Structures by Single Amino Acid Changes , 2007, Current Biology.

[75]  D. Baker,et al.  De novo structure generation using chemical shifts for proteins with high‐sequence identity but different folds , 2010, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[76]  K. Dill,et al.  ‘‘Sequence space soup’’ of proteins and copolymers , 1991 .

[77]  Erich Bornberg-Bauer,et al.  Perspectives on protein evolution from simple exact models. , 2002, Applied bioinformatics.

[78]  Carl Troein,et al.  Mutation-induced fold switching among lattice proteins. , 2011, The Journal of chemical physics.

[79]  Robert T Sauer,et al.  Sequence determinants of a conformational switch in a protein structure. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[80]  Kenneth H. Wolfe,et al.  Turning a hobby into a job: How duplicated genes find new functions , 2008, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[81]  D. Yee,et al.  Principles of protein folding — A perspective from simple exact models , 1995, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[82]  J. Piatigorsky,et al.  Enzyme/crystallins: Gene sharing as an evolutionary strategy , 1989, Cell.

[83]  Michael Specht,et al.  p3d – Python module for structural bioinformatics , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[84]  Christoph Adami,et al.  Stability and the evolvability of function in a model protein. , 2004, Biophysical journal.

[85]  Surendra S. Negi,et al.  Thermodynamic fidelity of the mammalian cytochrome P450 2B4 active site in binding substrates and inhibitors. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

[86]  U. Bastolla,et al.  Structurally constrained protein evolution: results from a lattice simulation , 1999, cond-mat/9912331.

[87]  N S Wingreen,et al.  Are protein folds atypical? , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[88]  P. Alexander,et al.  A minimal sequence code for switching protein structure and function , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[89]  Ron Unger,et al.  Different mechanistic requirements for prokaryotic and eukaryotic chaperonins: a lattice study , 2007, ISMB/ECCB.

[90]  D. Herschlag,et al.  Catalytic promiscuity and the evolution of new enzymatic activities. , 1999, Chemistry & biology.

[91]  Dan S. Tawfik,et al.  Intense neutral drifts yield robust and evolvable consensus proteins. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

[92]  Tamar Schlick,et al.  Analysis of protein sequence/structure similarity relationships. , 2002, Biophysical journal.

[93]  M. Cordes,et al.  Evolutionary bridges to new protein folds: design of C-terminal Cro protein chameleon sequences. , 2011, Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS.

[94]  L. Serrano,et al.  Predicting changes in the stability of proteins and protein complexes: a study of more than 1000 mutations. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[95]  Michael Levitt,et al.  Roles of mutation and recombination in the evolution of protein thermodynamics , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[96]  P. Schuster,et al.  IR-98-039 / April Continuity in Evolution : On the Nature of Transitions , 1998 .

[97]  R. Sauer,et al.  Tolerance of a protein to multiple polar‐to‐hydrophobic surface substitutions , 2008, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[98]  P. Tompa,et al.  Prion protein: Evolution caught en route , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.