Sequence and structural analysis of two designed proteins with 88% identity adopting different folds.

Protein folding is a natural phenomenon by which a sequence of amino acids folds into a unique functional three-dimensional structure. Although the sequence code that governs folding remains a mystery, one can identify key inter-residue contacts responsible for a given topology. In nature, there are many pairs of proteins of a given length that share little or no sequence identity. Similarly, there are many proteins that share a common topology but lack significant evidence of homology. In order to tackle this problem, protein engineering studies have been used to determine the minimal number of amino acid residues that codes for a particular fold. In recent years, the coupling of theoretical models and experiments in the study of protein folding has resulted in providing some fruitful clues. He et al. have designed two proteins with 88% sequence identity, which adopt different folds and functions. In this work, we have systematically analysed these two proteins by performing pentapeptide search, secondary structure predictions, variation in inter-residue interactions and residue-residue pair preferences, surrounding hydrophobicity computations, conformational switching and energy computations. We conclude that the local secondary structural preference of the two designed proteins at the Nand C-terminal ends to adopt either coil or strand conformation may be a crucial factor in adopting the different folds. Early on during the process of folding, both proteins may choose different energetically favourable pathways to attain the different folds.

[1]  F. Young Biochemistry , 1955, The Indian Medical Gazette.

[2]  P. Doty,et al.  The far ultraviolet absorption spectra of polypeptide and protein solutions and their dependence on conformation. , 1961, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  C. Tanford Contribution of Hydrophobic Interactions to the Stability of the Globular Conformation of Proteins , 1962 .

[4]  H. Scheraga,et al.  The influence of long-range interactions on the structure of myoglobin. , 1968, Biochemistry.

[5]  P. Ponnuswamy,et al.  Hydrophobic character of amino acid residues in globular proteins , 1978, Nature.

[6]  P. Ponnuswamy,et al.  Properties of nucleation sites in globular proteins. , 1980, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

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

[8]  C Sander,et al.  On the use of sequence homologies to predict protein structure: identical pentapeptides can have completely different conformations. , 1984, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  M. Mutter,et al.  Peptides as Conformational Switch: Medium‐Induced Conformational Transitions of Designed Peptides , 1990 .

[10]  F E Cohen,et al.  Prion protein peptides induce alpha-helix to beta-sheet conformational transitions. , 1995, Biochemistry.

[11]  F. Cohen,et al.  Conformational switching in designed peptides: the helix/sheet transition. , 1996, Folding & design.

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

[13]  J M Sturtevant,et al.  What makes a protein a protein? Hydrophobic core designs that specify stability and structural properties , 1996, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[14]  M. Michael Gromiha,et al.  Influence of Medium and Long Range Interactions in Different Structural Classes of Globular Proteins , 1997, Journal of biological physics.

[15]  S. Balasubramanian,et al.  Transmuting α helices and β sheets , 1997 .

[16]  Anne Poupon,et al.  Predicting the protein folding nucleus from a sequence , 1999, FEBS letters.

[17]  M. Gromiha,et al.  Importance of long-range interactions in protein folding. , 1999, Biophysical chemistry.

[18]  C Combet,et al.  NPS@: network protein sequence analysis. , 2000, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[19]  G Chelvanayagam,et al.  An analysis of the helix‐to‐strand transition between peptides with identical sequence , 2000, Proteins.

[20]  Huan‐Xiang Zhou,et al.  Prediction of Residue−Residue Pair Frequencies in Proteins , 2000 .

[21]  M. Saraste,et al.  FEBS Lett , 2000 .

[22]  M. Gromiha,et al.  Clusters in α/β barrel proteins: Implications for protein structure, function, and folding: A graph theoretical approach , 2001, Proteins.

[23]  Burkhard Rost,et al.  DSSPcont: continuous secondary structure assignments for proteins , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[24]  M. Michael Gromiha,et al.  Role of Hydrophobic Clusters and Long-Range Contact Networks in the Folding of (α/β)8 Barrel Proteins , 2003 .

[25]  M Michael Gromiha,et al.  Inter-residue interactions in protein folding and stability. , 2004, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

[26]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  Remediation of the protein data bank archive , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[27]  John Orban,et al.  NMR structures of two designed proteins with high sequence identity but different fold and function , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  P. Alexander,et al.  A minimal sequence code for switching protein structure and function , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  R. Rosenfeld Nature , 2009, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[30]  Rahul Raman,et al.  Atomic Interaction Networks in the Core of Protein Domains and Their Native Folds , 2010, PloS one.