Energy Landscapes of Protein Self-Assembly: Lessons from Native Topology-Based Models

Many cellular functions rely on interactions among proteins and between proteins and nucleic acids. Our understanding of the principles that govern protein folding has been advanced in the recent years using the energy landscape theory and thanks to tight collaborations between experimentalists and theoreticians. It is likely that our current understanding of protein folding can be applied to understand more complex cellular self-organization processes. The limited success of binding predictions may suggest that the physical and chemical principles of protein binding have to be revisited to correctly capture the essence of protein recognition. In this review, we discuss the power of reduced models to study the physics of protein assembly. Since energetic frustration is sufficiently small, native topology-based models, which correspond to perfectly unfrustrated energy landscapes, have shown that binding mechanisms are robust and governed primarily by the protein’s native topology. These models impressively capture many of the binding characteristics found in experiments and highlights the fundamental role of flexibility in binding. The essential role of solvent molecules and electrostatic interactions in binding is also discussed. Despite the success of the minimally frustrated models to describe the dynamics and mechanisms of binding, the actual degree of frustration has to be explored to quantify the capacity of a protein to bind specifically to other proteins. We have found that introducing mutations can significantly reduce specificity by introducing an additional binding mode. Deciphering and quantifying the key ingredients for biological self-assembly is invaluable to reading out genomic sequences and understanding cellular interaction networks.

[1]  Peter G Wolynes,et al.  A survey of flexible protein binding mechanisms and their transition states using native topology based energy landscapes. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[2]  Cecilia Clementi,et al.  The effects of nonnative interactions on protein folding rates: Theory and simulation , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[3]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Understanding protein folding with energy landscape theory Part I: Basic concepts , 2002, Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics.

[4]  S. Jones,et al.  Principles of protein-protein interactions. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  Gideon Schreiber,et al.  Kinetic studies of protein-protein interactions. , 2002, Current opinion in structural biology.

[6]  A. Fersht Structure and mechanism in protein science , 1998 .

[7]  J. Tame,et al.  Crystallographic and calorimetric analysis of peptide binding to OppA protein. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[8]  P. Wolynes,et al.  The physics and bioinformatics of binding and folding—an energy landscape perspective , 2003, Biopolymers.

[9]  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.

[10]  Samuel S. Cho,et al.  Domain swapping is a consequence of minimal frustration. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  Eric J. Sorin,et al.  Simulations of the role of water in the protein-folding mechanism. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  P. Petrone,et al.  MHC-peptide binding is assisted by bound water molecules. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[13]  C. Chothia,et al.  The atomic structure of protein-protein recognition sites. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[14]  Wendell A. Lim,et al.  Optimization of specificity in a cellular protein interaction network by negative selection , 2003, Nature.

[15]  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.

[16]  Michael Nilges,et al.  The impact of protein flexibility on protein–protein docking , 2004, Proteins.

[17]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Water mediation in protein folding and molecular recognition. , 2006, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[18]  S. Vajda,et al.  Anchor residues in protein-protein interactions. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  Vijay S Pande,et al.  Dimerization of the p53 oligomerization domain: identification of a folding nucleus by molecular dynamics simulations. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[20]  Amedeo Caflisch,et al.  Flexibility of monomeric and dimeric HIV-1 protease , 2003 .

[21]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Theory of Protein Folding This Review Comes from a Themed Issue on Folding and Binding Edited Basic Concepts Perfect Funnel Landscapes and Common Features of Folding Mechanisms , 2022 .

[22]  P. Wolynes,et al.  Spin glasses and the statistical mechanics of protein folding. , 1987, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[23]  Peter G Wolynes,et al.  Role of water mediated interactions in protein-protein recognition landscapes. , 2003, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[24]  Frank Alber,et al.  A structural perspective on protein-protein interactions. , 2004, Current opinion in structural biology.

[25]  Peter G Wolynes,et al.  Overcoming residual frustration in domain-swapping: the roles of disulfide bonds in dimerization and aggregation , 2005, Physical biology.

[26]  G. Hummer,et al.  Water penetration and escape in proteins , 2000, Proteins.

[27]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Protein folding funnels: a kinetic approach to the sequence-structure relationship. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[28]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Protein folding mediated by solvation: Water expulsion and formation of the hydrophobic core occur after the structural collapse , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  Pernilla Wittung-Stafshede,et al.  Monomer topology defines folding speed of heptamer , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[30]  Peter G Wolynes,et al.  Protein topology determines binding mechanism. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[31]  Peter G. Wolynes,et al.  Energy Landscape Analysis of Protein Dimers , 2004 .

[32]  David Eisenberg,et al.  3D domain swapping: As domains continue to swap , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[33]  T. Bhat,et al.  Bound water molecules and conformational stabilization help mediate an antigen-antibody association. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  Peter G Wolynes,et al.  The folding and dimerization of HIV-1 protease: evidence for a stable monomer from simulations. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[35]  Yaakov Levy,et al.  Water and proteins: a love-hate relationship. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[36]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions , 2002, Proteins.

[37]  Yongli Zhang,et al.  Predicting indirect readout effects in protein-DNA interactions. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[38]  P. Wolynes,et al.  Water in protein structure prediction. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.