Analysis of Chameleon Sequences by Energy Decomposition on a Pairwise Per-residue Basis

The conversion from α-helix to β-strand that has been widely observed in so-called chameleon sequences has received considerable attention since such a structural change may induce many amyloidogenic proteins to self-assemble into fibrils thus causing fatal diseases. Here we report a large scale-analysis of the energetics of secondary structural conversions in a collection of chameleon sequences retrieved from the Protein Data Bank. Major energetic contributions to the secondary structural conversion were analyzed by carrying out energy decomposition on a pairwise per-residue basis, i.e., (i,i), (i,i ± 1), (i,i ± 2), (i,i ± 3), (i,i ± 4) and > (i,i ± 4) intra-/inter-residual interactions. While the overall potential energy differences were subtle, individual residue-based interacting energy differences were observed to vary significantly depending on the specific type of secondary structural conversion. The average energy difference between α-helix and β-strand, , in the chameleon sequences varied significantly in (i,i), (i,i ± 1) and > (i,i ± 4) interactions. The major energetic factors in secondary structure conversions were electrostatic interactions and the polar term for solvation energy. In addition, residue-based average energy differences in α-helix → β-strand conversions were well-correlated to those in α-helix → random coil → β-strand conversions (R2 = 0.92). Assuming that three secondary structural elements can transform in either direction, this strong correlation indicates that the present energy decomposition method using database structures of chameleon sequences provides a reliable tool for the characterization of secondary structure fluctuations in amino acid sequences.

[1]  R. L. Baldwin,et al.  Intrinsic backbone preferences are fully present in blocked amino acids , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  R. L. Baldwin,et al.  Origin of the neighboring residue effect on peptide backbone conformation. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  D Baker,et al.  Global properties of the mapping between local amino acid sequence and local structure in proteins. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  P. S. Kim,et al.  Context-dependent secondary structure formation of a designed protein sequence , 1996, Nature.

[5]  Patrice Koehl,et al.  The ASTRAL compendium for protein structure and sequence analysis , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[7]  K. Ikeda,et al.  Free‐energy landscape of a chameleon sequence in explicit water and its inherent α/β bifacial property , 2003 .

[8]  Sukjoon Yoon,et al.  Rapid assessment of contact‐dependent secondary structure propensity: Relevance to amyloidogenic sequences , 2005, Proteins.

[9]  B. Rost.  PHD: predicting one-dimensional protein structure by profile-based neural networks. , 1996, Methods in enzymology.

[10]  Kohei Uosaki,et al.  Unfolding, aggregation, and amyloid formation by the tetramerization domain from mutant p53 associated with lung cancer. , 2006, Biochemistry.

[11]  R. L. Baldwin,et al.  Energetics of the interaction between water and the helical peptide group and its role in determining helix propensities. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  S. Sudarsanam,et al.  Structural diversity of sequentially identical subsequences of proteins: Identical octapeptides can have different conformations , 1998, Proteins.

[13]  William J Welsh,et al.  Detecting hidden sequence propensity for amyloid fibril formation , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[14]  S Rackovsky.  On the nature of the protein folding code. , 1993, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  R. Srinivasan,et al.  A physical basis for protein secondary structure. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  Pierre Baldi,et al.  Improving the prediction of protein secondary structure in three and eight classes using recurrent neural networks and profiles , 2002, Proteins.

[17]  M Mezei,et al.  Chameleon sequences in the PDB. , 1998, Protein engineering.

[18]  B. Honig,et al.  Free energy determinants of secondary structure formation: I. alpha-Helices. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[19]  C. Dobson,et al.  NMR analysis of main-chain conformational preferences in an unfolded fibronectin-binding protein. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.