Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

Beauty Is in the Eye of the Beholder: Proteins Can Recognize Binding Sites of Homologous Proteins in More than One Way

*

PLoS Computational Biology

Public Library of Science

Read this article at

Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      Understanding the mechanisms of protein–protein interaction is a fundamental problem with many practical applications. The fact that different proteins can bind similar partners suggests that convergently evolved binding interfaces are reused in different complexes. A set of protein complexes composed of non-homologous domains interacting with homologous partners at equivalent binding sites was collected in 2006, offering an opportunity to investigate this point. We considered 433 pairs of protein–protein complexes from the ABAC database (AB and AC binary protein complexes sharing a homologous partner A) and analyzed the extent of physico-chemical similarity at the atomic and residue level at the protein–protein interface. Homologous partners of the complexes were superimposed using Multiprot, and similar atoms at the interface were quantified using a five class grouping scheme and a distance cut-off. We found that the number of interfacial atoms with similar properties is systematically lower in the non-homologous proteins than in the homologous ones. We assessed the significance of the similarity by bootstrapping the atomic properties at the interfaces. We found that the similarity of binding sites is very significant between homologous proteins, as expected, but generally insignificant between the non-homologous proteins that bind to homologous partners. Furthermore, evolutionarily conserved residues are not colocalized within the binding sites of non-homologous proteins. We could only identify a limited number of cases of structural mimicry at the interface, suggesting that this property is less generic than previously thought. Our results support the hypothesis that different proteins can interact with similar partners using alternate strategies, but do not support convergent evolution.

      Author Summary

      Interaction between proteins is a fundamental process, generic to most biological pathways. The increasing number of protein–protein complexes with atomic data should help us to understand the major factors that guide protein interactions. In particular, a number of examples are available of similar proteins that interact with proteins that are very different in terms of structure and function. An intuitive hypothesis to explain the ability of these different proteins to recognize the same partner is that they display the same local region for interaction, in other words, they imitate the same binding site. Here, we quantify the similarity between these putatively mimicking binding sites. We show that it is not statistically significant. We confirm this observation on the small sets of evolutionarily conserved residues. Our results suggest that different proteins that bind the same protein do not imitate binding sites, but probably target specific locations or residues at the binding site.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 74

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The Protein Data Bank.

      The Protein Data Bank (PDB; http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/ ) is the single worldwide archive of structural data of biological macromolecules. This paper describes the goals of the PDB, the systems in place for data deposition and access, how to obtain further information, and near-term plans for the future development of the resource.
        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: found
        • Article: not found

        SCOP: a structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures.

        To facilitate understanding of, and access to, the information available for protein structures, we have constructed the Structural Classification of Proteins (scop) database. This database provides a detailed and comprehensive description of the structural and evolutionary relationships of the proteins of known structure. It also provides for each entry links to co-ordinates, images of the structure, interactive viewers, sequence data and literature references. Two search facilities are available. The homology search permits users to enter a sequence and obtain a list of any structures to which it has significant levels of sequence similarity. The key word search finds, for a word entered by the user, matches from both the text of the scop database and the headers of Brookhaven Protein Databank structure files. The database is freely accessible on World Wide Web (WWW) with an entry point to URL http: parallel scop.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk magnitude of scop.
          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Principles of protein-protein interactions.

          This review examines protein complexes in the Brookhaven Protein Databank to gain a better understanding of the principles governing the interactions involved in protein-protein recognition. The factors that influence the formation of protein-protein complexes are explored in four different types of protein-protein complexes--homodimeric proteins, heterodimeric proteins, enzyme-inhibitor complexes, and antibody-protein complexes. The comparison between the complexes highlights differences that reflect their biological roles.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            Université de Lyon, Lyon, France; Université Lyon 1, IFR 128, CNRS, UMR 5086 Institut de Biologie et Chimie des Protéines (IBCP), Lyon, France
            National Cancer Institute, United States of America and Tel Aviv University, Israel
            Author notes

            Conceived and designed the experiments: JM. Performed the experiments: JM. Analyzed the data: JM. Wrote the paper: JM.

            Contributors
            Role: Editor
            Journal
            PLoS Comput Biol
            plos
            ploscomp
            PLoS Computational Biology
            Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
            1553-734X
            1553-7358
            June 2010
            June 2010
            17 June 2010
            : 6
            : 6
            2887470
            20585553
            10-PLCB-RA-1768R3
            10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000821
            (Editor)
            Juliette Martin. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
            Counts
            Pages: 13
            Categories
            Research Article
            Computational Biology/Macromolecular Structure Analysis

            Quantitative & Systems biology

            Comments

            Comment on this article