Molecular signatures-based prediction of enzyme promiscuity

MOTIVATION Enzyme promiscuity, a property with practical applications in biotechnology and synthetic biology, has been related to the evolvability of enzymes. At the molecular level, several structural mechanisms have been linked to enzyme promiscuity in enzyme families. However, it is at present unclear to what extent these observations can be generalized. Here, we introduce for the first time a method for predicting catalytic and substrate promiscuity using a graph-based representation known as molecular signature. RESULTS Our method, which has an accuracy of 85% for the non-redundant KEGG database, is also a powerful analytical tool for characterizing structural determinants of protein promiscuity. Namely, we found that signatures with higher contribution to the prediction of promiscuity are uniformly distributed in the protein structure of promiscuous enzymes. In contrast, those signatures that act as promiscuity determinants are significantly depleted around non-promiscuous catalytic sites. In addition, we present the study of the enolase and aminotransferase superfamilies as illustrative examples of characterization of promiscuous enzymes within a superfamily and achievement of enzyme promiscuity by protein reverse engineering. Recognizing the role of enzyme promiscuity in the process of natural evolution of enzymatic function can provide useful hints in the design of directed evolution experiments. We have developed a method with potential applications in the guided discovery and enhancement of latent catalytic capabilities surviving in modern enzymes. AVAILABILITY http://www.issb.genopole.fr~faulon.

[1]  Angelo D. Favia,et al.  Protein promiscuity and its implications for biotechnology , 2009, Nature Biotechnology.

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

[3]  M Wilmanns,et al.  Directed evolution of a (beta alpha)8-barrel enzyme to catalyze related reactions in two different metabolic pathways. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  J. Aguilar,et al.  L-lyxose metabolism employs the L-rhamnose pathway in mutant cells of Escherichia coli adapted to grow on L-lyxose , 1991, Journal of bacteriology.

[5]  Jason Weston,et al.  Gene Selection for Cancer Classification using Support Vector Machines , 2002, Machine Learning.

[6]  Jean-Loup Faulon,et al.  Genome scale enzyme–metabolite and drug–target interaction predictions using the signature molecular descriptor , 2008 .

[7]  Janet M. Thornton,et al.  The Catalytic Site Atlas: a resource of catalytic sites and residues identified in enzymes using structural data , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[8]  E. Sitbon,et al.  Occurrence of protein structure elements in conserved sequence regions , 2007, BMC Structural Biology.

[9]  H. Kagamiyama,et al.  Directed evolution of an aspartate aminotransferase with new substrate specificities. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  T. Gibson,et al.  Protein disorder prediction: implications for structural proteomics. , 2003, Structure.

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

[12]  Vladimir N. Vapnik,et al.  The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory , 2000, Statistics for Engineering and Information Science.

[13]  S. Kuramitsu,et al.  Free Energy Requirement for Domain Movement of an Enzyme* , 2000, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[14]  E. Andrianantoandro,et al.  Synthetic biology: new engineering rules for an emerging discipline , 2006, Molecular systems biology.

[15]  K. Hult,et al.  Enzyme promiscuity: mechanism and applications. , 2007, Trends in biotechnology.

[16]  J. Gerlt,et al.  Structural basis for substrate specificity in phosphate binding (beta/alpha)8-barrels: D-allulose 6-phosphate 3-epimerase from Escherichia coli K-12. , 2008, Biochemistry.

[17]  U. Bornscheuer,et al.  Catalytic promiscuity in biocatalysis: using old enzymes to form new bonds and follow new pathways. , 2004, Angewandte Chemie.

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

[19]  S. Copley,et al.  Recruitment of a double bond isomerase to serve as a reductive dehalogenase during biodegradation of pentachlorophenol. , 2000, Biochemistry.

[20]  Jean-Loup Faulon,et al.  The signature molecular descriptor. 3. Inverse-quantitative structure-activity relationship of ICAM-1 inhibitory peptides. , 2003, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[21]  M. Wilmanns,et al.  Two-fold repeated (betaalpha)4 half-barrels may provide a molecular tool for dual substrate specificity. , 2005, EMBO reports.

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

[23]  Structural modification of acyl carrier protein by butyryl group , 2009, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[24]  Jean-Loup Faulon,et al.  Predicting protein-protein interactions using signature products , 2005, Bioinform..

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

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

[27]  Tatsuya Akutsu,et al.  Protein homology detection using string alignment kernels , 2004, Bioinform..

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

[29]  Thomas E. Ferrin,et al.  Designed divergent evolution of enzyme function , 2006, Nature.

[30]  Jason Weston,et al.  Mismatch String Kernels for SVM Protein Classification , 2002, NIPS.

[31]  I. Tanaka,et al.  Crystal structure of the Pyrococcus horikoshii isopropylmalate isomerase small subunit provides insight into the dual substrate specificity of the enzyme. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[32]  Philip M. Kim,et al.  The role of disorder in interaction networks: a structural analysis , 2008, Molecular systems biology.

[33]  Yoshihiro Yamanishi,et al.  KEGG for linking genomes to life and the environment , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[34]  Janet M Thornton,et al.  Ligand selectivity and competition between enzymes in silico , 2004, Nature Biotechnology.

[35]  Enrique Querol,et al.  Do Current Sequence Analysis Algorithms Disclose Multifunctional (moonlighting) Proteins? , 2003, Bioinform..

[36]  David C. Jones,et al.  CATH--a hierarchic classification of protein domain structures. , 1997, Structure.

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

[38]  M. Reetz,et al.  Alternate-site enzyme promiscuity. , 2007, Angewandte Chemie.

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

[40]  Adam Godzik,et al.  Cd-hit: a fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences , 2006, Bioinform..

[41]  Ranyee A. Chiang,et al.  Evolution of structure and function in the o-succinylbenzoate synthase/N-acylamino acid racemase family of the enolase superfamily. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[42]  Anna R Panchenko,et al.  Exploring functional roles of multibinding protein interfaces , 2009, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[43]  C. P. Whitman,et al.  The chemical versatility of the β–α–β fold: Catalytic promiscuity and divergent evolution in the tautomerase superfamily , 2008, Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences.

[44]  Jack F Kirsch,et al.  How does an enzyme evolved in vitro compare to naturally occurring homologs possessing the targeted function? Tyrosine aminotransferase from aspartate aminotransferase. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[45]  G. Petsko.  Enzyme evolution: Design by necessity , 2000, Nature.

[46]  Philip A. Romero,et al.  Exploring protein fitness landscapes by directed evolution , 2009, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[47]  R. Kazlauskas.  Enhancing catalytic promiscuity for biocatalysis. , 2005, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[48]  G. H. Reed,et al.  The enolase superfamily: a general strategy for enzyme-catalyzed abstraction of the alpha-protons of carboxylic acids. , 1996, Biochemistry.

[49]  E. Myers,et al.  Basic local alignment search tool. , 1990, Journal of molecular biology.

[50]  Robert D. Carr,et al.  The Signature Molecular Descriptor. 4. Canonizing Molecules Using Extended Valence Sequences , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[51]  M. Gerstein,et al.  The relationship between protein structure and function: a comprehensive survey with application to the yeast genome. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[52]  M. Wilmanns,et al.  Two‐fold repeated (βα)4 half‐barrels may provide a molecular tool for dual substrate specificity , 2005 .

[53]  Thomas Gärtner,et al.  On Graph Kernels: Hardness Results and Efficient Alternatives , 2003, COLT.