DBAC: A simple prediction method for protein binding hot spots based on burial levels and deeply buried atomic contacts

BackgroundA protein binding hot spot is a cluster of residues in the interface that are energetically important for the binding of the protein with its interaction partner. Identifying protein binding hot spots can give useful information to protein engineering and drug design, and can also deepen our understanding of protein-protein interaction. These residues are usually buried inside the interface with very low solvent accessible surface area (SASA). Thus SASA is widely used as an outstanding feature in hot spot prediction by many computational methods. However, SASA is not capable of distinguishing slightly buried residues, of which most are non hot spots, and deeply buried ones that are usually inside a hot spot.ResultsWe propose a new descriptor called “burial level” for characterizing residues, atoms and atomic contacts. Specifically, burial level captures the depth the residues are buried. We identify different kinds of deeply buried atomic contacts (DBAC) at different burial levels that are directly broken in alanine substitution. We use their numbers as input for SVM to classify between hot spot or non hot spot residues. We achieve F measure of 0.6237 under the leave-one-out cross-validation on a data set containing 258 mutations. This performance is better than other computational methods.ConclusionsOur results show that hot spot residues tend to be deeply buried in the interface, not just having a low SASA value. This indicates that a high burial level is not only a necessary but also a more sufficient condition than a low SASA for a residue to be a hot spot residue. We find that those deeply buried atoms become increasingly more important when their burial levels rise up. This work also confirms the contribution of deeply buried interfacial atomic contacts to the energy of protein binding hot spot.

[1]  L. Serrano,et al.  Predicting changes in the stability of proteins and protein complexes: a study of more than 1000 mutations. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[2]  U. Sauer,et al.  Contributions of engineered surface salt bridges to the stability of T4 lysozyme determined by directed mutagenesis. , 1991, Biochemistry.

[3]  D. Baker,et al.  A simple physical model for binding energy hot spots in protein–protein complexes , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  François Stricher,et al.  The FoldX web server: an online force field , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[5]  Oliviero Carugo,et al.  DPX: for the analysis of the protein core , 2003, Bioinform..

[6]  B. Lee,et al.  The interpretation of protein structures: estimation of static accessibility. , 1971, Journal of molecular biology.

[7]  Pedro A Fernandes,et al.  Hot spots—A review of the protein–protein interface determinant amino‐acid residues , 2007, Proteins.

[8]  A. Kortt,et al.  Effects of substitutions in the binding surface of an antibody on antigen affinity. , 1998, Protein engineering.

[9]  Xing-Ming Zhao,et al.  APIS: accurate prediction of hot spots in protein interfaces by combining protrusion index with solvent accessibility , 2010, BMC Bioinformatics.

[10]  Chih-Jen Lin,et al.  LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines , 2011, TIST.

[11]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Principles of protein-protein interactions: what are the preferred ways for proteins to interact? , 2008, Chemical reviews.

[12]  Massimiliano Pontil,et al.  Prediction of hot spot residues at protein-protein interfaces by combining machine learning and energy-based methods , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[13]  Jinyan Li,et al.  ‘Double water exclusion’: a hypothesis refining the O-ring theory for the hot spots at protein interfaces , 2009, Bioinform..

[14]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Hydrogen bonds and salt bridges across protein-protein interfaces. , 1997, Protein engineering.

[15]  N. Pokala,et al.  Energy functions for protein design: adjustment with protein-protein complex affinities, models for the unfolded state, and negative design of solubility and specificity. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[16]  J. Wells,et al.  High-resolution epitope mapping of hGH-receptor interactions by alanine-scanning mutagenesis. , 1989, Science.

[17]  T. Clackson,et al.  A hot spot of binding energy in a hormone-receptor interface , 1995, Science.

[18]  G Schreiber,et al.  Evaluation of direct and cooperative contributions towards the strength of buried hydrogen bonds and salt bridges. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[19]  B. Tidor,et al.  Do salt bridges stabilize proteins? A continuum electrostatic analysis , 1994, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[20]  T. Hamelryck An amino acid has two sides: A new 2D measure provides a different view of solvent exposure , 2005, Proteins.

[21]  Lukasz A. Kurgan,et al.  Sequence based residue depth prediction using evolutionary information and predicted secondary structure , 2008, BMC Bioinformatics.

[22]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[23]  Kurt S. Thorn,et al.  ASEdb: a database of alanine mutations and their effects on the free energy of binding in protein interactions , 2001, Bioinform..

[24]  Doheon Lee,et al.  A feature-based approach to modeling protein–protein interaction hot spots , 2009, Nucleic acids research.

[25]  P E Bourne,et al.  Protein structure alignment by incremental combinatorial extension (CE) of the optimal path. , 1998, Protein engineering.

[26]  Edsger W. Dijkstra,et al.  A note on two problems in connexion with graphs , 1959, Numerische Mathematik.

[27]  Ozlem Keskin,et al.  HotSprint: database of computational hot spots in protein interfaces , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[28]  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.

[29]  B Honig,et al.  Reconciling the magnitude of the microscopic and macroscopic hydrophobic effects. , 1991, Science.

[30]  A. Fersht,et al.  Protein-protein recognition: crystal structural analysis of a barnase-barstar complex at 2.0-A resolution. , 1994, Biochemistry.

[31]  B. L. de Groot,et al.  Predicting free energy changes using structural ensembles. , 2009, Nature methods.

[32]  C. Pace,et al.  Protein Ionizable Groups: pK Values and Their Contribution to Protein Stability and Solubility* , 2009, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[33]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Hot regions in protein--protein interactions: the organization and contribution of structurally conserved hot spot residues. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[34]  Oliviero Carugo,et al.  Atom depth as a descriptor of the protein interior. , 2003, Biophysical journal.

[35]  R. Varadarajan,et al.  Residue depth: a novel parameter for the analysis of protein structure and stability. , 1999, Structure.

[36]  T. Clackson,et al.  Structural and functional analysis of the 1:1 growth hormone:receptor complex reveals the molecular basis for receptor affinity. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[37]  Ariel Fernández,et al.  Insufficiently dehydrated hydrogen bonds as determinants of protein interactions , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[38]  Geoffrey I. Webb,et al.  Prodepth: Predict Residue Depth by Support Vector Regression Approach from Protein Sequences Only , 2009, PloS one.

[39]  Sarah A. Teichmann,et al.  Principles of protein-protein interactions , 2002, ECCB.

[40]  D. Bailey,et al.  The Binding Interface Database (BID): A Compilation of Amino Acid Hot Spots in Protein Interfaces , 2003, Bioinform..

[41]  A. Bogan,et al.  Anatomy of hot spots in protein interfaces. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[43]  Enrico Di Cera,et al.  The Thrombin Epitope Recognizing Thrombomodulin Is a Highly Cooperative Hot Spot in Exosite I* , 2002, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[44]  Ozlem Keskin,et al.  Identification of computational hot spots in protein interfaces: combining solvent accessibility and inter-residue potentials improves the accuracy , 2009, Bioinform..

[45]  R. Sauer,et al.  Are buried salt bridges important for protein stability and conformational specificity? , 1995, Nature Structural Biology.

[46]  David P. Dobkin,et al.  The quickhull algorithm for convex hulls , 1996, TOMS.

[47]  J. Wells,et al.  Systematic mutational analyses of protein-protein interfaces. , 1991, Methods in enzymology.

[48]  Oliviero Carugo,et al.  Atom depth in protein structure and function. , 2003, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[49]  P. Kollman,et al.  Computational Alanine Scanning To Probe Protein−Protein Interactions: A Novel Approach To Evaluate Binding Free Energies , 1999 .

[50]  J. Wells,et al.  Comparison of a structural and a functional epitope. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[51]  Zheng Yuan,et al.  Quantifying the relationship of protein burying depth and sequence , 2007, Proteins.

[52]  Salam A. Assi,et al.  PCRPi: Presaging Critical Residues in Protein interfaces, a new computational tool to chart hot spots in protein interfaces , 2009, Nucleic acids research.

[53]  H. B. Mann,et al.  On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other , 1947 .

[54]  Julie C. Mitchell,et al.  An automated decision‐tree approach to predicting protein interaction hot spots , 2007, Proteins.

[55]  Jinyan Li,et al.  Geometrically centered region: A “wet” model of protein binding hot spots not excluding water molecules , 2010, Proteins.