Restricted sidechain plasticity in the structures of native proteins and complexes

Protein‐design methodology can now generate models of protein structures and interfaces with computed energies in the range of those of naturally occurring structures. Comparison of the properties of native structures and complexes to isoenergetic design models can provide insight into the properties of the former that reflect selection pressure for factors beyond the energy of the native state. We report here that sidechains in native structures and interfaces are significantly more constrained than designed interfaces and structures with equal computed binding energy or stability, which may reflect selection against potentially deleterious non‐native interactions.

[1]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  A method to identify protein sequences that fold into a known three-dimensional structure. , 1991, Science.

[2]  D C Richardson,et al.  Looking at proteins: representations, folding, packing, and design. Biophysical Society National Lecture, 1992. , 1992, Biophysical journal.

[3]  Roland L. Dunbrack,et al.  Conformational analysis of the backbone-dependent rotamer preferences of protein sidechains , 1994, Nature Structural Biology.

[4]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Shape complementarity at protein–protein interfaces , 1994, Biopolymers.

[5]  S. L. Mayo,et al.  De novo protein design: fully automated sequence selection. , 1997, Science.

[6]  Julia M. Shifman,et al.  Exploring the origins of binding specificity through the computational redesign of calmodulin , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[8]  D. Baker,et al.  Design of a Novel Globular Protein Fold with Atomic-Level Accuracy , 2003, Science.

[9]  P. Harbury,et al.  Automated design of specificity in molecular recognition , 2003, Nature Structural Biology.

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

[11]  David E. Kim,et al.  Computational Alanine Scanning of Protein-Protein Interfaces , 2004, Science's STKE.

[12]  D. Baker,et al.  Computational redesign of protein-protein interaction specificity , 2004, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[13]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  PatchDock and SymmDock: servers for rigid and symmetric docking , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[14]  Jens Meiler,et al.  New algorithms and an in silico benchmark for computational enzyme design , 2006, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[15]  D. Baker,et al.  The Highly Cooperative Folding of Small Naturally Occurring Proteins Is Likely the Result of Natural Selection , 2007, Cell.

[16]  Eric A. Althoff,et al.  De Novo Computational Design of Retro-Aldol Enzymes , 2008, Science.

[17]  Eric A. Althoff,et al.  Kemp elimination catalysts by computational enzyme design , 2008, Nature.

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

[19]  Alexandre M J J Bonvin,et al.  Are scoring functions in protein-protein docking ready to predict interactomes? Clues from a novel binding affinity benchmark. , 2010, Journal of proteome research.

[20]  Thomas Szyperski,et al.  Computational design of a PAK1 binding protein. , 2010, Journal of molecular biology.

[21]  David Baker,et al.  An exciting but challenging road ahead for computational enzyme design , 2010, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.