Literature DB >> 20652820

Protein subunit interfaces: A statistical analysis of hot spots in Sm proteins.

Srđan D Stojanović1, Božidarka L Zarić, Snežana D Zarić.   

Abstract

The distinguishing property of Sm protein associations is very high stability. In order to understand this property, we analyzed the interfaces and compared the properties of Sm protein interfaces with those of a test set, the Binding Interface Database (BID). The comparison revealed that the main differences between the interfaces of Sm proteins and those of the BID set are the content of charged residues, the coordination numbers of the residues, knowledge-based pair potentials, and the conservation scores of hot spots. In Sm proteins, the interfaces have more hydrophobic and fewer charged residues than the surfaces, which is also the case for the BID test set and other proteins. However, in the interfaces, the content of charged residues in Sm proteins (26%) is substantially larger than that in the BID set (22%). Hot spots are residues that make up a small fraction of the interfaces, but they contribute most of the binding energy. These residues are critical to protein-protein interactions. Analyses of knowledge-based pair potentials of hot spot and non-hot spot residues in Sm proteins show that they are significantly different; their mean values are 31.5 and 11.3, respectively. In the BID set, this difference is smaller; in this case, the mean values for hot spot and non-hot spot residues are 20.7 and 12.4, respectively. Hence, the pair potentials of hot spots differ significantly for the Sm and BID data sets. In the interfaces of Sm proteins, the amino acids are tightly packed, and the coordination numbers are larger in Sm proteins than in the BID set for both hot spots and non-hot spots. At the same time, the coordination numbers are higher for hot spots; the average coordination number of the hot spot residues in Sm proteins is 7.7, while it is 6.1 for the non-hot spot residues. The difference in the calculated average conservation score for hot spots and non-hot spots in Sm proteins is significantly larger than it is in the BID set. In Sm proteins, the average conservation score for the hot spots is 7.4. Hot spots are surrounded by residues that are moderately conserved (5.9). The average conservation score for the other interface residues is 5.6. The conservation scores in the BID set do not show a significant distinction between hot and non-hot spots: the mean values for hot and non-hot spot residues are 5.5 and 5.2, respectively. These data show that structurally conserved residues and hot spots are significantly correlated in Sm proteins.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20652820     DOI: 10.1007/s00894-010-0787-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mol Model        ISSN: 0948-5023            Impact factor:   1.810


  56 in total

Review 1.  Combining structural genomics and enzymology: completing the picture in metabolic pathways and enzyme active sites.

Authors:  H Erlandsen; E E Abola; R C Stevens
Journal:  Curr Opin Struct Biol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 6.809

2.  Statistical analysis and prediction of protein-protein interfaces.

Authors:  Andrew J Bordner; Ruben Abagyan
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2005-08-15

Review 3.  LSm proteins form heptameric rings that bind to RNA via repeating motifs.

Authors:  Permanan Khusial; Robert Plaag; Gary W Zieve
Journal:  Trends Biochem Sci       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 13.807

4.  Unique Sm core structure of U7 snRNPs: assembly by a specialized SMN complex and the role of a new component, Lsm11, in histone RNA processing.

Authors:  Ramesh S Pillai; Matthias Grimmler; Gunter Meister; Cindy L Will; Reinhard Lührmann; Utz Fischer; Daniel Schümperli
Journal:  Genes Dev       Date:  2003-09-15       Impact factor: 11.361

Review 5.  Protein folding via binding and vice versa.

Authors:  C J Tsai; D Xu; R Nussinov
Journal:  Fold Des       Date:  1998

Review 6.  Principles of protein-protein interactions.

Authors:  S Jones; J M Thornton
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1996-01-09       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Genome-scale protein expression and structural biology of Plasmodium falciparum and related Apicomplexan organisms.

Authors:  Masoud Vedadi; Jocelyne Lew; Jennifer Artz; Mehrnaz Amani; Yong Zhao; Aiping Dong; Gregory A Wasney; Mian Gao; Tanya Hills; Stephen Brokx; Wei Qiu; Sujata Sharma; Angelina Diassiti; Zahoor Alam; Michelle Melone; Anne Mulichak; Amy Wernimont; James Bray; Peter Loppnau; Olga Plotnikova; Kate Newberry; Emayavaram Sundararajan; Simon Houston; John Walker; Wolfram Tempel; Alexey Bochkarev; Ivona Kozieradzki; Aled Edwards; Cheryl Arrowsmith; David Roos; Kevin Kain; Raymond Hui
Journal:  Mol Biochem Parasitol       Date:  2006-11-13       Impact factor: 1.759

Review 8.  Interactions of protein antigens with antibodies.

Authors:  D R Davies; G H Cohen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1996-01-09       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  ConSurf 2005: the projection of evolutionary conservation scores of residues on protein structures.

Authors:  Meytal Landau; Itay Mayrose; Yossi Rosenberg; Fabian Glaser; Eric Martz; Tal Pupko; Nir Ben-Tal
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2005-07-01       Impact factor: 16.971

10.  Novel conserved domains in proteins with predicted roles in eukaryotic cell-cycle regulation, decapping and RNA stability.

Authors:  Vivek Anantharaman; L Aravind
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2004-07-16       Impact factor: 3.969

View more
  2 in total

1.  Contribution of anion-π interactions to the stability of Sm/LSm proteins.

Authors:  Luka M Breberina; Miloš K Milčić; Milan R Nikolić; Srđan Đ Stojanović
Journal:  J Biol Inorg Chem       Date:  2014-12-13       Impact factor: 3.358

2.  Contribution of cation-π interactions to the stability of Sm/LSm oligomeric assemblies.

Authors:  Ivana D Mucić; Milan R Nikolić; Srđan Đ Stojanović
Journal:  Protoplasma       Date:  2014-11-19       Impact factor: 3.356

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.