Analysis of binding properties and specificity through identification of the interface forming residues (IFR) for serine proteases in silico docked to different inhibitors

BackgroundEnzymes belonging to the same super family of proteins in general operate on variety of substrates and are inhibited by wide selection of inhibitors. In this work our main objective was to expand the scope of studies that consider only the catalytic and binding pocket amino acids while analyzing enzyme specificity and instead, include a wider category which we have named the Interface Forming Residues (IFR). We were motivated to identify those amino acids with decreased accessibility to solvent after docking of different types of inhibitors to sub classes of serine proteases and then create a table (matrix) of all amino acid positions at the interface as well as their respective occupancies. Our goal is to establish a platform for analysis of the relationship between IFR characteristics and binding properties/specificity for bi-molecular complexes.ResultsWe propose a novel method for describing binding properties and delineating serine proteases specificity by compiling an exhaustive table of interface forming residues (IFR) for serine proteases and their inhibitors. Currently, the Protein Data Bank (PDB) does not contain all the data that our analysis would require. Therefore, an in silico approach was designed for building corresponding complexesThe IFRs are obtained by "rigid body docking" among 70 structurally aligned, sequence wise non-redundant, serine protease structures with 3 inhibitors: bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor (BPTI), ecotine and ovomucoid third domain inhibitor. The table (matrix) of all amino acid positions at the interface and their respective occupancy is created. We also developed a new computational protocol for predicting IFRs for those complexes which were not deciphered experimentally so far, achieving accuracy of at least 0.97.ConclusionsThe serine proteases interfaces prefer polar (including glycine) residues (with some exceptions). Charged residues were found to be uniquely prevalent at the interfaces between the "miscellaneous-virus" subfamily and the three inhibitors. This prompts speculation about how important this difference in IFR characteristics is for maintaining virulence of those organisms.Our work here provides a unique tool for both structure/function relationship analysis as well as a compilation of indicators detailing how the specificity of various serine proteases may have been achieved and/or could be altered. It also indicates that the interface forming residues which also determine specificity of serine protease subfamily can not be presented in a canonical way but rather as a matrix of alternative populations of amino acids occupying variety of IFR positions.

[1]  G. Rose,et al.  Hydrophobicity of amino acid residues in globular proteins. , 1985, Science.

[2]  M. Qasim,et al.  What can the structures of enzyme-inhibitor complexes tell us about the structures of enzyme substrate complexes? , 2000, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[3]  R. Huber,et al.  Structure of the complex formed by bovine trypsin and bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor. Crystal structure determination and stereochemistry of the contact region. , 1973, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[5]  L. Gráf,et al.  Alteration of the specificity of ecotin, an E. coli serine proteinase inhibitor, by site directed mutagenesis , 1994, FEBS letters.

[6]  C. Craik,et al.  Structural basis of substrate specificity in the serine proteases , 1995, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[7]  J. Janin,et al.  Surface and inside volumes in globular proteins , 1979, Nature.

[8]  Wagner Meira,et al.  Protein cutoff scanning: A comparative analysis of cutoff dependent and cutoff free methods for prospecting contacts in proteins , 2009, Proteins.

[9]  Gail J. Bartlett,et al.  Analysis of catalytic residues in enzyme active sites. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[10]  L. Hedstrom An Overview of Serine Proteases , 2001, Current protocols in protein science.

[11]  Tim J. P. Hubbard,et al.  Data growth and its impact on the SCOP database: new developments , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[12]  G Neshich,et al.  Analysis of structural and physico-chemical parameters involved in the specificity of binding between alpha-amylases and their inhibitors. , 2000, Protein engineering.

[13]  J. Greer Comparative modeling methods: Application to the family of the mammalian serine proteases , 1990, Proteins.

[14]  G V Almeida,et al.  The Star STING server: a multiplatform environment for protein structure analysis. , 2006, Genetics and molecular research : GMR.

[15]  B. Matthews,et al.  Three-dimensional Structure of Tosyl-α-chymotrypsin , 1967, Nature.

[16]  Antje Chang,et al.  BRENDA, AMENDA and FRENDA: the enzyme information system in 2007 , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[17]  Akinori Sarai,et al.  The Diamond STING server , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[18]  L. Hedstrom Serine protease mechanism and specificity. , 2002, Chemical reviews.

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

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

[21]  R Henderson,et al.  Three-dimensional structure of tosyl-alpha-chymotrypsin. , 1967, Nature.

[22]  Enrico Di Cera,et al.  Is it possible to transform trypsin to thrombin? , 2007, IUBMB life.

[23]  C. Goose,et al.  Glossary of Terms , 2004, Machine Learning.

[24]  J. Janin,et al.  Protein–protein interaction and quaternary structure , 2008, Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics.

[25]  Antje Chang,et al.  BRENDA, AMENDA and FRENDA the enzyme information system: new content and tools in 2009 , 2008, Nucleic Acids Res..

[26]  H. Neurath Proteolytic processing and physiological regulation. , 1989, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[27]  Kei Yura,et al.  [Structural bioinformatics]. , 2009, Tanpakushitsu kakusan koso. Protein, nucleic acid, enzyme.

[28]  R J Read,et al.  Refined crystal structure of Streptomyces griseus trypsin at 1.7 A resolution. , 1988, Journal of molecular biology.

[29]  A. Berger,et al.  On the size of the active site in proteases. I. Papain. , 1967, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

[30]  Luhua Lai,et al.  Specificity of trypsin and chymotrypsin: loop-motion-controlled dynamic correlation as a determinant. , 2005, Biophysical journal.

[31]  W. Ardelt,et al.  Turkey ovomucoid third domain inhibits eight different serine proteinases of varied specificity on the same ...Leu18-Glu19 ... reactive site. , 1985, Biochemistry.

[32]  Alexandre Alvaro,et al.  STING Millennium: a web-based suite of programs for comprehensive and simultaneous analysis of protein structure and sequence , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[33]  Robert Huber,et al.  The refined 1.9 A crystal structure of human alpha‐thrombin: interaction with D‐Phe‐Pro‐Arg chloromethylketone and significance of the Tyr‐Pro‐Pro‐Trp insertion segment. , 1989 .

[34]  R. Huber,et al.  The refined 1.9 A crystal structure of human alpha‐thrombin: interaction with D‐Phe‐Pro‐Arg chloromethylketone and significance of the Tyr‐Pro‐Pro‐Trp insertion segment. , 1989, The EMBO journal.

[35]  Janet M. Thornton,et al.  PDBsum more: new summaries and analyses of the known 3D structures of proteins and nucleic acids , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[36]  B Honig,et al.  Sequence to structure alignment in comparative modeling using PrISM , 1999, Proteins.

[37]  Ron Kohavi,et al.  Guest Editors' Introduction: On Applied Research in Machine Learning , 1998, Machine Learning.

[38]  David A. Agard,et al.  Structural plasticity broadens the specificity of an engineered protease , 1989, Nature.

[39]  W R Taylor,et al.  Residual colours: a proposal for aminochromography. , 1997, Protein engineering.

[40]  G. N. Ramachandran,et al.  Stereochemistry of polypeptide chain configurations. , 1963, Journal of molecular biology.