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

被引:271
作者
Caffrey, DR
Somaroo, S
Hughes, JD
Mintseris, J
Huang, ES [1 ]
机构
[1] Pfizer Discovery Technol Ctr, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
[2] Boston Univ, Bioinformat Program & Biomed Engn Dept, Boston, MA 02215 USA
关键词
interactions; binding; evolution; protein structure; sequence conservation;
D O I
10.1110/ps.03323604
中图分类号
Q5 [生物化学]; Q7 [分子生物学];
学科分类号
071010 ; 081704 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:190 / 202
页数:13
相关论文
共 74 条
[1]   Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs [J].
Altschul, SF ;
Madden, TL ;
Schaffer, AA ;
Zhang, JH ;
Zhang, Z ;
Miller, W ;
Lipman, DJ .
NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH, 1997, 25 (17) :3389-3402
[2]  
[Anonymous], J VONNEUMANN FDN QUA
[3]   AN INVESTIGATION OF PROTEIN SUBUNIT AND DOMAIN INTERFACES [J].
ARGOS, P .
PROTEIN ENGINEERING, 1988, 2 (02) :101-113
[4]   ConSurf: An algorithmic tool for the identification of functional regions in proteins by surface mapping of phylogenetic information [J].
Armon, A ;
Graur, D ;
Ben-Tal, N .
JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, 2001, 307 (01) :447-463
[5]   Analysis of catalytic residues in enzyme active sites [J].
Bartlett, GJ ;
Porter, CT ;
Borkakoti, N ;
Thornton, JM .
JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, 2002, 324 (01) :105-121
[6]   Effector recognition by the small GTP-binding proteins Ras and Ral [J].
Bauer, B ;
Mirey, G ;
Vetter, IR ;
García-Ranea, JA ;
Valencia, A ;
Wittinghofer, A ;
Camonis, JH ;
Cool, RH .
JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY, 1999, 274 (25) :17763-17770
[7]   Anatomy of hot spots in protein interfaces [J].
Bogan, AA ;
Thorn, KS .
JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, 1998, 280 (01) :1-9
[8]  
Caffrey DR, 2000, PROTEIN SCI, V9, P655
[9]   A METHOD TO PREDICT FUNCTIONAL RESIDUES IN PROTEINS [J].
CASARI, G ;
SANDER, C ;
VALENCIA, A .
NATURE STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY, 1995, 2 (02) :171-178
[10]   Dissecting protein-protein recognition sites [J].
Chakrabarti, P ;
Janin, J .
PROTEINS-STRUCTURE FUNCTION AND BIOINFORMATICS, 2002, 47 (03) :334-343