Structure, function, and evolution of transient and obligate protein-protein interactions.

Recent analyses of high-throughput protein interaction data coupled with large-scale investigations of evolutionary properties of interaction networks have left some unanswered questions. To what extent do protein interactions act as constraints during evolution of the protein sequence? How does the type of interaction, specifically transient or obligate, play into these constraints? Are the mutations in the binding site of an interacting protein correlated with mutations in the binding site of its partner? We address these and other questions by relying on a carefully curated dataset of protein complex structures. Results point to the importance of distinguishing between transient and obligate interactions. We conclude that residues in the interfaces of obligate complexes tend to evolve at a relatively slower rate, allowing them to coevolve with their interacting partners. In contrast, the plasticity inherent in transient interactions leads to an increased rate of substitution for the interface residues and leaves little or no evidence of correlated mutations across the interface.

[1]  S. Henikoff,et al.  Amino acid substitution matrices from protein blocks. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  N. Grishin,et al.  The subunit interfaces of oligomeric enzymes are conserved to a similar extent to the overall protein sequences , 1994, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

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

[4]  S. Jones,et al.  Principles of protein-protein interactions. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  Thomas L. Madden,et al.  Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. , 1997, Nucleic acids research.

[6]  Chris Sander,et al.  The HSSP database of protein structure-sequence alignments and family profiles , 1998, Nucleic Acids Res..

[7]  R Nussinov,et al.  Protein folding via binding and vice versa. , 1998, Folding & design.

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

[9]  M. Ashburner,et al.  Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology , 2000, Nature Genetics.

[10]  F. Cohen,et al.  Co-evolution of proteins with their interaction partners. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[11]  A. Valencia,et al.  Similarity of phylogenetic trees as indicator of protein-protein interaction. , 2001, Protein engineering.

[12]  A. Elcock,et al.  Identification of protein oligomerization states by analysis of interface conservation , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  T. Alber,et al.  The many faces of Ras: recognition of small GTP-binding proteins. , 2001, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[14]  J. Thornton,et al.  Protein–protein interfaces: Analysis of amino acid conservation in homodimers , 2001, Proteins.

[15]  S. Teichmann.  The constraints protein-protein interactions place on sequence divergence. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[16]  D. Haussler,et al.  Information‐theoretic dissection of pairwise contact potentials , 2002, Proteins.

[17]  A. E. Hirsh,et al.  Evolutionary Rate in the Protein Interaction Network , 2002, Science.

[18]  Eugene V Koonin,et al.  No simple dependence between protein evolution rate and the number of protein-protein interactions: only the most prolific interactors tend to evolve slowly , 2003, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[19]  Chern-Sing Goh,et al.  Co-evolutionary analysis reveals insights into protein-protein interactions. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[20]  Dennis P Wall,et al.  A simple dependence between protein evolution rate and the number of protein-protein interactions , 2003, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[21]  C. Pál,et al.  Dosage sensitivity and the evolution of gene families in yeast , 2003, Nature.

[22]  Z. Weng,et al.  Atomic contact vectors in protein‐protein recognition , 2003, Proteins.

[23]  J. Thornton,et al.  Structural characterisation and functional significance of transient protein-protein interactions. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[24]  C. Adami,et al.  Apparent dependence of protein evolutionary rate on number of interactions is linked to biases in protein–protein interactions data sets , 2003, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[25]  Dmitrij Frishman,et al.  MIPS: analysis and annotation of proteins from whole genomes in 2005 , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[26]  Dan M. Bolser,et al.  Large-scale co-evolution analysis of protein structural interlogues using the global protein structural interactome map (PSIMAP) , 2004, Bioinform..

[27]  Nick V. Grishin,et al.  Estimation of the number of amino acid substitutions per site when the substitution rate varies among sites , 1995, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[28]  J. Rothberg,et al.  Gaining confidence in high-throughput protein interaction networks , 2004, Nature Biotechnology.

[29]  Daniel R. Caffrey,et al.  Are protein–protein interfaces more conserved in sequence than the rest of the protein surface? , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[30]  Peer Bork,et al.  Shared components of protein complexes--versatile building blocks or biochemical artefacts? , 2004, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[31]  Robert C. Edgar,et al.  MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. , 2004, Nucleic acids research.

[32]  Cathy H. Wu,et al.  The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt) , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[33]  Zhilei Chen,et al.  A highly sensitive selection method for directed evolution of homing endonucleases , 2005, Nucleic acids research.