Literature DB >> 14691234

Are protein-protein interfaces more conserved in sequence than the rest of the protein surface?

Daniel R Caffrey1, Shyamal Somaroo, Jason D Hughes, Julian Mintseris, Enoch S Huang.   

Abstract

Protein interfaces are thought to be distinguishable from the rest of the protein surface by their greater degree of residue conservation. We test the validity of this approach on an expanded set of 64 protein-protein interfaces using conservation scores derived from two multiple sequence alignment types, one of close homologs/orthologs and one of diverse homologs/paralogs. Overall, we find that the interface is slightly more conserved than the rest of the protein surface when using either alignment type, with alignments of diverse homologs showing marginally better discrimination. However, using a novel surface-patch definition, we find that the interface is rarely significantly more conserved than other surface patches when using either alignment type. When an interface is among the most conserved surface patches, it tends to be part of an enzyme active site. The most conserved surface patch overlaps with 39% (+/- 28%) and 36% (+/- 28%) of the actual interface for diverse and close homologs, respectively. Contrary to results obtained from smaller data sets, this work indicates that residue conservation is rarely sufficient for complete and accurate prediction of protein interfaces. Finally, we find that obligate interfaces differ from transient interfaces in that the former have significantly fewer alignment gaps at the interface than the rest of the protein surface, as well as having buried interface residues that are more conserved than partially buried interface residues.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14691234      PMCID: PMC2286531          DOI: 10.1110/ps.03323604

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Protein Sci        ISSN: 0961-8368            Impact factor:   6.725


  66 in total

1.  Sequence codes for extended conformation: a neighbor-dependent sequence analysis of loops in proteins.

Authors:  C J Crasto; J Feng
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2001-02-15

2.  ConSurf: an algorithmic tool for the identification of functional regions in proteins by surface mapping of phylogenetic information.

Authors:  A Armon; D Graur; N Ben-Tal
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2001-03-16       Impact factor: 5.469

3.  Protein-protein interfaces: analysis of amino acid conservation in homodimers.

Authors:  W S Valdar; J M Thornton
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2001-01-01

4.  Analysis and prediction of functional sub-types from protein sequence alignments.

Authors:  S S Hannenhalli; R B Russell
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2000-10-13       Impact factor: 5.469

5.  Principles of protein-protein recognition.

Authors:  C Chothia; J Janin
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1975-08-28       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  An investigation of protein subunit and domain interfaces.

Authors:  P Argos
Journal:  Protein Eng       Date:  1988-07

7.  Surface, subunit interfaces and interior of oligomeric proteins.

Authors:  J Janin; S Miller; C Chothia
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  1988-11-05       Impact factor: 5.469

8.  The interpretation of protein structures: estimation of static accessibility.

Authors:  B Lee; F M Richards
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  1971-02-14       Impact factor: 5.469

9.  Prediction and confirmation of a site critical for effector regulation of RGS domain activity.

Authors:  M E Sowa; W He; K C Slep; M A Kercher; O Lichtarge; T G Wensel
Journal:  Nat Struct Biol       Date:  2001-03

10.  Pattern of nucleotide substitution at major histocompatibility complex class I loci reveals overdominant selection.

Authors:  A L Hughes; M Nei
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1988-09-08       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  125 in total

1.  Mechanism of cohesin loading onto chromosomes: a conformational dynamics study.

Authors:  Ozge Kurkcuoglu; Paul A Bates
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2010-08-09       Impact factor: 4.033

2.  Physicochemical and residue conservation calculations to improve the ranking of protein-protein docking solutions.

Authors:  Yuhua Duan; Boojala V B Reddy; Yiannis N Kaznessis
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 6.725

3.  Conservation and relative importance of residues across protein-protein interfaces.

Authors:  Mainak Guharoy; Pinak Chakrabarti
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-10-12       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Localization of protein-binding sites within families of proteins.

Authors:  Dmitry Korkin; Fred P Davis; Andrej Sali
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2005-08-04       Impact factor: 6.725

5.  Structure, function, and evolution of transient and obligate protein-protein interactions.

Authors:  Julian Mintseris; Zhiping Weng
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-07-25       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Tunnel plasticity and quaternary structural integrity of a pentameric protein ring.

Authors:  Kenneth J Woycechowsky; Florian P Seebeck; Donald Hilvert
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 6.725

7.  Co-evolutionary analysis of domains in interacting proteins reveals insights into domain-domain interactions mediating protein-protein interactions.

Authors:  Raja Jothi; Praveen F Cherukuri; Asba Tasneem; Teresa M Przytycka
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2006-08-01       Impact factor: 5.469

Review 8.  Computational prediction of protein hot spot residues.

Authors:  John Kenneth Morrow; Shuxing Zhang
Journal:  Curr Pharm Des       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 3.116

9.  LTHREADER: prediction of extracellular ligand-receptor interactions in cytokines using localized threading.

Authors:  Vinay Pulim; Jadwiga Bienkowska; Bonnie Berger
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2007-12-20       Impact factor: 6.725

10.  Structural mapping of protein interactions reveals differences in evolutionary pressures correlated to mRNA level and protein abundance.

Authors:  Matt Eames; Tanja Kortemme
Journal:  Structure       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 5.006

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.