Literature DB >> 35832734

A Method for Assessing the Robustness of Protein Structures by Randomizing Packing Interactions.

Shilpa Yadahalli1, Lakshmi P Jayanthi1, Shachi Gosavi1.   

Abstract

Many single-domain proteins are not only stable and water-soluble, but they also populate few to no intermediates during folding. This reduces interactions between partially folded proteins, misfolding, and aggregation, and makes the proteins tractable in biotechnological applications. Natural proteins fold thus, not necessarily only because their structures are well-suited for folding, but because their sequences optimize packing and fit their structures well. In contrast, folding experiments on the de novo designed Top7 suggest that it populates several intermediates. Additionally, in de novo protein design, where sequences are designed for natural and new non-natural structures, tens of sequences still need to be tested before success is achieved. Both these issues may be caused by the specific scaffolds used in design, i.e., some protein scaffolds may be more tolerant to packing perturbations and varied sequences. Here, we report a computational method for assessing the response of protein structures to packing perturbations. We then benchmark this method using designed proteins and find that it can identify scaffolds whose folding gets disrupted upon perturbing packing, leading to the population of intermediates. The method can also isolate regions of both natural and designed scaffolds that are sensitive to such perturbations and identify contacts which when present can rescue folding. Overall, this method can be used to identify protein scaffolds that are more amenable to whole protein design as well as to identify protein regions which are sensitive to perturbations and where further mutations should be avoided during protein engineering.
Copyright © 2022 Yadahalli, Jayanthi and Gosavi.

Entities:  

Keywords:  molecular dynamics simulations; packing perturbations; protein folding; protein scaffold; robustness of protein structure; sequence permutations; structure-based models

Year:  2022        PMID: 35832734      PMCID: PMC9271847          DOI: 10.3389/fmolb.2022.849272

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Front Mol Biosci        ISSN: 2296-889X


  69 in total

1.  Slipknotting upon native-like loop formation in a trefoil knot protein.

Authors:  Jeffrey K Noel; Joanna I Sułkowska; José N Onuchic
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-08-11       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  GROMACS 4:  Algorithms for Highly Efficient, Load-Balanced, and Scalable Molecular Simulation.

Authors:  Berk Hess; Carsten Kutzner; David van der Spoel; Erik Lindahl
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 6.006

3.  Mis-translation of a computationally designed protein yields an exceptionally stable homodimer: implications for protein engineering and evolution.

Authors:  Gautam Dantas; Alexander L Watters; Bradley M Lunde; Ziad M Eletr; Nancy G Isern; Toby Roseman; Jan Lipfert; Sebastian Doniach; Martin Tompa; Brian Kuhlman; Barry L Stoddard; Gabriele Varani; David Baker
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2006-08-04       Impact factor: 5.469

4.  P versus Q: structural reaction coordinates capture protein folding on smooth landscapes.

Authors:  Samuel S Cho; Yaakov Levy; Peter G Wolynes
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-01-09       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 5.  Multiple routes and structural heterogeneity in protein folding.

Authors:  Jayant B Udgaonkar
Journal:  Annu Rev Biophys       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 12.981

6.  Packing energetics determine the folding routes of the RNase-H proteins.

Authors:  Shilpa Yadahalli; Shachi Gosavi
Journal:  Phys Chem Chem Phys       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 3.676

7.  Modeling Structural Flexibility of Proteins with Go-Models.

Authors:  Ping Jiang; Ulrich H E Hansmann
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2012-06-12       Impact factor: 6.006

8.  A tale of two ferredoxins: sequence similarity and structural differences.

Authors:  S Sri Krishna; Ruslan I Sadreyev; Nick V Grishin
Journal:  BMC Struct Biol       Date:  2006-04-09

Review 9.  Consistency principle for protein design.

Authors:  Rie Koga; Nobuyasu Koga
Journal:  Biophys Physicobiol       Date:  2019-11-29

10.  Understanding the folding-function tradeoff in proteins.

Authors:  Shachi Gosavi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-12       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.