Structural determinants of protein evolution are context-sensitive at the residue level.

Structural properties of a protein residue's microenvironment have long been implicated as agents of selective constraint. Although these properties are inherently quantitative, structure-based studies of protein evolution tend to rely upon coarse distinctions between "surface" and "buried" residues and between "interfacial" and "noninterfacial" residues. Using homology-mapped yeast protein structures, we explore the relationships between residue evolution and continuous structural properties of the residue microenvironment, including solvent accessibility, density and distribution of residue-residue contacts, and burial depth. We confirm the role of solvent exposure as a major structural determinant of residue evolution and also identify a weak secondary effect arising from packing density. The relationship between solvent exposure and evolutionary rate (d(N)/d(S)) is found to be strong, positive, and linear. This reinforces the notion that residue burial is a continuous property with quantitative fitness implications. Next, we demonstrate systematic variation in residue-level structure-evolution relationships resulting from changes in global physical and biological contexts. We find that increasing protein-core size yields a more rapid relaxation of selective constraint as solvent exposure increases, although solvent-excluded residues remain similarly constrained. Finally, we analyze the selective constraint in protein-protein interfaces, revealing two fundamentally different yet separable components: continuous structural constraint that scales with total residue burial and a more surprising fixed functional constraint that accompanies any degree of interface involvement. These discoveries serve to elucidate and unite structure-evolution relationships at the residue and whole-protein levels.

[1]  Herbert Edelsbrunner,et al.  The weighted-volume derivative of a space-filling diagram , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  Wei-Lun Hsu,et al.  Proportion of solvent-exposed amino acids in a protein and rate of protein evolution. , 2007, Molecular biology and evolution.

[3]  C. Pál,et al.  An integrated view of protein evolution , 2006, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[4]  R. Varadarajan,et al.  Residue depth: a novel parameter for the analysis of protein structure and stability. , 1999, Structure.

[5]  Tong Zhou,et al.  Contact Density Affects Protein Evolutionary Rate from Bacteria to Animals , 2008, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[6]  D. Hartl,et al.  Solvent accessibility and purifying selection within proteins of Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica. , 2000, Molecular biology and evolution.

[7]  W. Kabsch,et al.  Dictionary of protein secondary structure: Pattern recognition of hydrogen‐bonded and geometrical features , 1983, Biopolymers.

[8]  Peter F Stadler,et al.  Solvent exposure imparts similar selective pressures across a range of yeast proteins. , 2009, Molecular biology and evolution.

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

[10]  Ziheng Yang,et al.  PAML: a program package for phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood , 1997, Comput. Appl. Biosci..

[11]  Frances H Arnold,et al.  Structural determinants of the rate of protein evolution in yeast. , 2006, Molecular biology and evolution.

[12]  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.

[13]  Z. Weng,et al.  Structure, function, and evolution of transient and obligate protein-protein interactions. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[14]  Hongyi Zhou,et al.  Quantifying the effect of burial of amino acid residues on protein stability , 2003, Proteins.

[15]  Yu Xia,et al.  Chapter 1 – Structural Perspectives on Protein Evolution , 2008 .

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

[17]  N. Friedman,et al.  Natural history and evolutionary principles of gene duplication in fungi , 2007, Nature.

[18]  David C. Jones,et al.  Assessing the impact of secondary structure and solvent accessibility on protein evolution. , 1998, Genetics.

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

[20]  J. C. Kendrew,et al.  Structure and function of haemoglobin: II. Some relations between polypeptide chain configuration and amino acid sequence , 1965 .

[21]  David Botstein,et al.  SGD: Saccharomyces Genome Database , 1998, Nucleic Acids Res..

[22]  J. E. Glynn,et al.  Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing , 1989 .

[23]  M. Sanner,et al.  Reduced surface: an efficient way to compute molecular surfaces. , 1996, Biopolymers.

[24]  John P. Overington,et al.  Environment‐specific amino acid substitution tables: Tertiary templates and prediction of protein folds , 1992, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[25]  E. Vallender,et al.  Systematically assessing the influence of 3-dimensional structural context on the molecular evolution of mammalian proteomes. , 2006, Molecular biology and evolution.

[26]  William H. Press,et al.  Numerical recipes in C. The art of scientific computing , 1987 .

[27]  Richard E. Dickerson,et al.  The structure of cytochromec and the rates of molecular evolution , 2005, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

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

[29]  R. Kliman,et al.  Selection Conflicts, Gene Expression, and Codon Usage Trends in Yeast , 2003, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[30]  Mike Tyers,et al.  BioGRID: a general repository for interaction datasets , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[31]  Eduardo P C Rocha,et al.  The quest for the universals of protein evolution. , 2006, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[32]  P. Sharp,et al.  The codon Adaptation Index--a measure of directional synonymous codon usage bias, and its potential applications. , 1987, Nucleic acids research.

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

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

[35]  C. Wilke,et al.  A single determinant dominates the rate of yeast protein evolution. , 2006, Molecular biology and evolution.

[36]  J. McInerney,et al.  The causes of protein evolutionary rate variation. , 2006, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[37]  Rodrigo Lopez,et al.  Multiple sequence alignment with the Clustal series of programs , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[38]  A. E. Hirsh,et al.  Functional genomic analysis of the rates of protein evolution. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[39]  T. Hamelryck An amino acid has two sides: A new 2D measure provides a different view of solvent exposure , 2005, Proteins.