Extending Iterative Protein Redesign and Optimization (IPRO) in protein library design for ligand specificity.

In this article we extend the Iterative Protein Redesign and Optimization (IPRO) framework for the design of protein libraries with targeted ligand specificity. Mutations that minimize the binding energy with the desired ligand are identified. At the same time explicit constraints are introduced that maintain the binding energy for all decoy ligands above a threshold necessary for successful binding. The proposed framework is demonstrated by computationally altering the effector binding specificity of the bacterial transcriptional regulatory protein AraC, belonging to the AraC/XylS family of transcriptional regulators for different unnatural ligands. The obtained results demonstrate the importance of systematically suppressing the binding energy for competing ligands. Pinpointing a small set of mutations within the binding pocket greatly improves the difference in binding energies between targeted and decoy ligands, even when they are very similar.

[1]  B. Stoddard,et al.  Computational Thermostabilization of an Enzyme , 2005, Science.

[2]  Frances H. Arnold,et al.  Directed enzyme evolution : screening and selection methods , 2003 .

[3]  C. Wolberger,et al.  Arm–domain interactions can provide high binding cooperativity , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[4]  Loren L Looger,et al.  Computational Design of a Biologically Active Enzyme , 2004, Science.

[5]  R. Laine,et al.  Mutation of active site residues in the chitin-binding domain ChBDChiA1 from chitinase A1 of Bacillus circulans alters substrate specificity: use of a green fluorescent protein binding assay. , 2004, Archives of biochemistry and biophysics.

[6]  H. Muirhead,et al.  A specific, highly active malate dehydrogenase by redesign of a lactate dehydrogenase framework. , 1988, Science.

[7]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  CHARMM: The Energy Function and Its Parameterization , 2002 .

[8]  R. Schleif Regulation of the L-arabinose operon of Escherichia coli. , 2000, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[9]  J. Greenblatt,et al.  Arabinose C protein: regulation of the arabinose operon in vitro. , 1971, Nature: New biology.

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

[11]  S J Wodak,et al.  Automatic protein design with all atom force-fields by exact and heuristic optimization. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[12]  Robert Schleif,et al.  AraC protein: a love-hate relationship. , 2003, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[13]  K. R. Ely,et al.  A glucocorticoid-responsive mutant androgen receptor exhibits unique ligand specificity: therapeutic implications for androgen-independent prostate cancer. , 2002, Endocrinology.

[14]  Roland L. Dunbrack,et al.  Backbone-dependent rotamer library for proteins. Application to side-chain prediction. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[15]  George Georgiou,et al.  Engineering of protease variants exhibiting high catalytic activity and exquisite substrate selectivity. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  R. Schleif,et al.  Mutational analysis of residue roles in AraC function. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[17]  R. Helling,et al.  Induction of the ara Operon of Escherichia coli B/r , 1972, Journal of bacteriology.

[18]  F. Arnold,et al.  Directed Evolution Library Creation , 2003 .

[19]  Costas D. Maranas,et al.  Computational challenges in combinatorial library design for protein engineering , 2004 .

[20]  B. Katzenellenbogen,et al.  Directed Evolution of Human Estrogen Receptor Variants with Significantly Enhanced Androgen Specificity and Affinity* , 2004, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[21]  P. Schleyer Encyclopedia of computational chemistry , 1998 .

[22]  J. Power,et al.  Positive Control of Enzyme Synthesis by Gene C in the l-Arabinose System , 1965, Journal of bacteriology.

[23]  C. Maranas,et al.  IPRO: an iterative computational protein library redesign and optimization procedure. , 2006, Biophysical journal.

[24]  L. Looger,et al.  Computational design of receptor and sensor proteins with novel functions , 2003, Nature.

[25]  H. Farid,et al.  A new approach to the design of uniquely folded thermally stable proteins , 2008, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[26]  C. Wolberger,et al.  The 1.6 A crystal structure of the AraC sugar-binding and dimerization domain complexed with D-fucose. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[28]  R. Schleif,et al.  Hemiplegic mutations in AraC protein. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[29]  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.

[30]  C. Wolberger,et al.  Structural basis for ligand-regulated oligomerization of AraC. , 1997, Science.

[31]  A. D. McLachlan,et al.  Solvation energy in protein folding and binding , 1986, Nature.

[32]  M. Wu,et al.  Mapping arm-DNA-binding domain interactions in AraC. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[33]  G Wilcox,et al.  The interaction of L-arabinose and D-fucose with AraC protein. , 1974, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[34]  Z. Weng,et al.  ZDOCK: An initial‐stage protein‐docking algorithm , 2003, Proteins.

[35]  Loren L Looger,et al.  Computational design of receptors for an organophosphate surrogate of the nerve agent soman. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.