Tradeoff Between Stability and Multispecificity in the Design of Promiscuous Proteins

Natural proteins often partake in several highly specific protein-protein interactions. They are thus subject to multiple opposing forces during evolutionary selection. To be functional, such multispecific proteins need to be stable in complex with each interaction partner, and, at the same time, to maintain affinity toward all partners. How is this multispecificity acquired through natural evolution? To answer this compelling question, we study a prototypical multispecific protein, calmodulin (CaM), which has evolved to interact with hundreds of target proteins. Starting from high-resolution structures of sixteen CaM-target complexes, we employ state-of-the-art computational methods to predict a hundred CaM sequences best suited for interaction with each individual CaM target. Then, we design CaM sequences most compatible with each possible combination of two, three, and all sixteen targets simultaneously, producing almost 70,000 low energy CaM sequences. By comparing these sequences and their energies, we gain insight into how nature has managed to find the compromise between the need for favorable interaction energies and the need for multispecificity. We observe that designing for more partners simultaneously yields CaM sequences that better match natural sequence profiles, thus emphasizing the importance of such strategies in nature. Furthermore, we show that the CaM binding interface can be nicely partitioned into positions that are critical for the affinity of all CaM-target complexes and those that are molded to provide interaction specificity. We reveal several basic categories of sequence-level tradeoffs that enable the compromise necessary for the promiscuity of this protein. We also thoroughly quantify the tradeoff between interaction energetics and multispecificity and find that facilitating seemingly competing interactions requires only a small deviation from optimal energies. We conclude that multispecific proteins have been subjected to a rigorous optimization process that has fine-tuned their sequences for interactions with a precise set of targets, thus conferring their multiple cellular functions.

[1]  Igor N. Berezovsky,et al.  Positive and Negative Design in Stability and Thermal Adaptation of Natural Proteins , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[2]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[3]  Roland L. Dunbrack,et al.  Backbone-dependent rotamer library for proteins. Application to side-chain prediction. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[4]  C. Yanover,et al.  Design of multispecific protein sequences using probabilistic graphical modeling , 2010, Proteins.

[5]  Design, expression and characterization of mutants of fasciculin optimized for interaction with its target, acetylcholinesterase , 2009, Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS.

[6]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Energetic determinants of protein binding specificity: Insights into protein interaction networks , 2009, Proteomics.

[7]  Amy C. Anderson,et al.  Computational structure-based redesign of enzyme activity , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  T. Baker,et al.  Specificity versus stability in computational protein design. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  A. Gronenborn,et al.  Solution structure of a calmodulin-target peptide complex by multidimensional NMR. , 1994, Science.

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

[11]  Christopher T. Saunders,et al.  Recapitulation of protein family divergence using flexible backbone protein design. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[12]  Mitsuhiko Ikura,et al.  Genetic polymorphism and protein conformational plasticity in the calmodulin superfamily: Two ways to promote multifunctionality , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  Yair Weiss,et al.  Approximate Inference and Protein-Folding , 2002, NIPS.

[14]  A. Means,et al.  Calmodulin: a prototypical calcium sensor. , 2000, Trends in cell biology.

[15]  Junichi Takagi,et al.  Computational design of an integrin I domain stabilized in the open high affinity conformation , 2000, Nature Structural Biology.

[16]  G. Schreiber,et al.  Assessing computational methods for predicting protein stability upon mutation: good on average but not in the details. , 2009, Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS.

[17]  Beth M Beadle,et al.  Structural bases of stability-function tradeoffs in enzymes. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[18]  Menachem Fromer,et al.  Accurate prediction for atomic‐level protein design and its application in diversifying the near‐optimal sequence space , 2009, Proteins.

[19]  Kimmen Sjölander,et al.  INTREPID: a web server for prediction of functionally important residues by evolutionary analysis , 2009, Nucleic Acids Res..

[20]  J. Adelman,et al.  Structure of the gating domain of a Ca2+-activated K+ channel complexed with Ca2+/calmodulin , 2001, Nature.

[21]  C. D. Gelatt,et al.  Optimization by Simulated Annealing , 1983, Science.

[22]  Jens Meiler,et al.  A Correspondence Between Solution-State Dynamics of an Individual Protein and the Sequence and Conformational Diversity of its Family , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[23]  Ozlem Keskin,et al.  Similar binding sites and different partners: implications to shared proteins in cellular pathways. , 2007, Structure.

[24]  D. Benjamin Gordon,et al.  Exact rotamer optimization for protein design , 2003, J. Comput. Chem..

[25]  Julia M. Shifman,et al.  Computational design of calmodulin mutants with up to 900-fold increase in binding specificity. , 2009, Journal of molecular biology.

[26]  Eric Beitz,et al.  TeXshade: shading and labeling of multiple sequence alignments using LaTeX2e , 2000, Bioinform..

[27]  James R. Apgar,et al.  Modeling backbone flexibility to achieve sequence diversity: the design of novel alpha-helical ligands for Bcl-xL. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[28]  Elisabeth L. Humphris,et al.  Prediction of protein-protein interface sequence diversity using flexible backbone computational protein design. , 2008, Structure.

[29]  P. Harbury,et al.  Automated design of specificity in molecular recognition , 2003, Nature Structural Biology.

[30]  Gevorg Grigoryan,et al.  Design of protein-interaction specificity affords selective bZIP-binding peptides , 2009, Nature.

[31]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Folding and binding cascades: Dynamic landscapes and population shifts , 2008, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[32]  Lan V. Zhang,et al.  Evidence for dynamically organized modularity in the yeast protein–protein interaction network , 2004, Nature.

[33]  O. Dym,et al.  The modular architecture of protein-protein binding interfaces. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Lethality and centrality in protein networks , 2001, Nature.

[35]  F A Quiocho,et al.  Target enzyme recognition by calmodulin: 2.4 A structure of a calmodulin-peptide complex. , 1992, Science.

[36]  Eugene I Shakhnovich,et al.  Amino acids determining enzyme-substrate specificity in prokaryotic and eukaryotic protein kinases , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[37]  Dmitrij Frishman,et al.  The MIPS mammalian protein?Cprotein interaction database , 2005, Bioinform..

[38]  Xiaozhen Hu,et al.  Computer-based redesign of a beta sandwich protein suggests that extensive negative design is not required for de novo beta sheet design. , 2008, Structure.

[39]  G. Crooks,et al.  WebLogo: a sequence logo generator. , 2004, Genome research.

[40]  David E. Kim,et al.  Computational Alanine Scanning of Protein-Protein Interfaces , 2004, Science's STKE.

[41]  Kristian M Müller,et al.  Positive aspects of negative design: simultaneous selection of specificity and interaction stability. , 2007, Biochemistry.

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

[43]  Tanja Kortemme,et al.  Design of Multi-Specificity in Protein Interfaces , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

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

[45]  T. Yuan,et al.  Molecular mechanisms of calmodulin's functional versatility. , 1998, Biochemistry and cell biology = Biochimie et biologie cellulaire.

[46]  Feng Ding,et al.  Correction: Emergence of Protein Fold Families through Rational Design , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[47]  W. Delano.  The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System , 2002 .

[48]  S. Gellman.  On the role of methionine residues in the sequence-independent recognition of nonpolar protein surfaces. , 1991, Biochemistry.

[49]  C. M. Summa,et al.  Computational de novo design, and characterization of an A(2)B(2) diiron protein. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[50]  D. Baker,et al.  Native protein sequences are close to optimal for their structures. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[51]  U. Alon.  Network motifs: theory and experimental approaches , 2007, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[52]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Hot regions in protein--protein interactions: the organization and contribution of structurally conserved hot spot residues. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[53]  D. Boehr,et al.  How Do Proteins Interact? , 2008, Science.

[54]  S. L. Mayo,et al.  De novo protein design: fully automated sequence selection. , 1997, Science.

[55]  A. del Sol,et al.  Small‐world network approach to identify key residues in protein–protein interaction , 2004, Proteins.

[56]  M. Schumacher,et al.  Crystal structures of apocalmodulin and an apocalmodulin/SK potassium channel gating domain complex. , 2004, Structure.

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

[58]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Conservation of polar residues as hot spots at protein interfaces , 2000, Proteins.

[59]  M. Feldman,et al.  Genetic Structure of Human Populations , 2002, Science.

[60]  Amy E Keating,et al.  X‐ray vs. NMR structures as templates for computational protein design , 2009, Proteins.

[61]  G. Xie,et al.  How regulators of G protein signaling achieve selective regulation. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[62]  Anne Houdusse,et al.  Crystal structure of apo-calmodulin bound to the first two IQ motifs of myosin V reveals essential recognition features , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[63]  Eugene I. Shakhnovich,et al.  Predicting specificity-determining residues in two large eukaryotic transcription factor families , 2005, Nucleic acids research.

[64]  Julia M. Shifman,et al.  Exploring the origins of binding specificity through the computational redesign of calmodulin , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[65]  B. Kuhlman,et al.  Computational design of affinity and specificity at protein-protein interfaces. , 2009, Current opinion in structural biology.

[66]  Menachem Fromer,et al.  A computational framework to empower probabilistic protein design , 2008, ISMB.