Emergence of symmetry in homooligomeric biological assemblies

Naturally occurring homooligomeric protein complexes exhibit striking internal symmetry. The evolutionary origins of this symmetry have been the subject of considerable speculation; proposals for the advantages associated with symmetry include greater folding efficiency, reduced aggregation, amenability to allosteric regulation, and greater adaptability. An alternative possibility stems from the idea that to contribute to fitness, and hence be subject to evolutionary optimization, a complex must be significantly populated, which implies that the interaction energy between monomers in the ancestors of modern-day complexes must have been sufficient to at least partially overcome the entropic cost of association. Here, we investigate the effects of this bias toward very-low-energy complexes on the distribution of symmetry in primordial homooligomers modeled as randomly interacting pairs of monomers. We demonstrate quantitatively that a bias toward very-low-energy complexes can result in the emergence of symmetry from random ensembles in which the overall frequency of symmetric complexes is vanishingly small. This result is corroborated by using explicit protein–protein docking calculations to generate ensembles of randomly docked complexes: the fraction of these that are symmetric increases from 0.02% in the overall population to >50% in very low energy subpopulations.

[1]  P. Wolynes,et al.  Symmetry and the energy landscapes of biomolecules. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  J. Changeux,et al.  ON THE NATURE OF ALLOSTERIC TRANSITIONS: A PLAUSIBLE MODEL. , 1965, Journal of molecular biology.

[3]  Jeffrey J. Gray,et al.  Protein-protein docking with simultaneous optimization of rigid-body displacement and side-chain conformations. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[4]  E I Shakhnovich,et al.  Statistically enhanced self-attraction of random patterns. , 2006, Physical review letters.

[5]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Domain swapping: entangling alliances between proteins. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  N. Wingreen,et al.  Emergence of Preferred Structures in a Simple Model of Protein Folding , 1996, Science.

[7]  E I Shakhnovich,et al.  Structural similarity enhances interaction propensity of proteins. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[8]  Sarah A. Teichmann,et al.  3D Complex: A Structural Classification of Protein Complexes , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[9]  David Baker,et al.  Macromolecular modeling with rosetta. , 2008, Annual review of biochemistry.

[10]  Frank F. Richards,et al.  Symmetry and Function of Biological Systems at the Macromolecular Level , 1970, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.

[11]  Peter G Wolynes,et al.  Symmetry and frustration in protein energy landscapes: a near degeneracy resolves the Rop dimer-folding mystery. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  K. Sharp,et al.  Entropy in protein folding and in protein-protein interactions. , 1997, Current opinion in structural biology.

[13]  A J Olson,et al.  Structural symmetry and protein function. , 2000, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[14]  D Eisenberg,et al.  3D domain swapping: A mechanism for oligomer assembly , 1995, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[15]  S. Teichmann,et al.  Assembly reflects evolution of protein complexes , 2008, Nature.

[16]  K. Hanson,et al.  Symmetry of protein oligomers formed by isologous association. , 1966, Journal of molecular biology.

[17]  F. Crick,et al.  Structure of Small Viruses , 1956, Nature.