46
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Predicting the Effect of Mutations on Protein-Protein Binding Interactions through Structure-Based Interface Profiles

      research-article
        1 , 1 , 2 , *
      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

          The formation of protein-protein complexes is essential for proteins to perform their physiological functions in the cell. Mutations that prevent the proper formation of the correct complexes can have serious consequences for the associated cellular processes. Since experimental determination of protein-protein binding affinity remains difficult when performed on a large scale, computational methods for predicting the consequences of mutations on binding affinity are highly desirable. We show that a scoring function based on interface structure profiles collected from analogous protein-protein interactions in the PDB is a powerful predictor of protein binding affinity changes upon mutation. As a standalone feature, the differences between the interface profile score of the mutant and wild-type proteins has an accuracy equivalent to the best all-atom potentials, despite being two orders of magnitude faster once the profile has been constructed. Due to its unique sensitivity in collecting the evolutionary profiles of analogous binding interactions and the high speed of calculation, the interface profile score has additional advantages as a complementary feature to combine with physics-based potentials for improving the accuracy of composite scoring approaches. By incorporating the sequence-derived and residue-level coarse-grained potentials with the interface structure profile score, a composite model was constructed through the random forest training, which generates a Pearson correlation coefficient >0.8 between the predicted and observed binding free-energy changes upon mutation. This accuracy is comparable to, or outperforms in most cases, the current best methods, but does not require high-resolution full-atomic models of the mutant structures. The binding interface profiling approach should find useful application in human-disease mutation recognition and protein interface design studies.

          Author Summary

          Few proteins carry out their tasks in isolation. Instead, proteins combine with each other in complicated ways that can be affected by either the natural genetic variation that occurs among people or by disease causing mutations such as those that occur in cancer or in genetic disorders. To understand how these mutations affect our health, it is necessary to understand how mutations can affect the strength of the interactions that bind proteins together. This is a difficult task to do in a laboratory on a large scale and scientists are increasingly turning to computational methods to predict these effects in advance. We show that by looking at the multiple alignments of similar protein-protein complex structures at the interface regions, new constraints based on the evolution of the three dimensional structures of proteins can be made to predict which mutations are compatible with two proteins interacting and which are not.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

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

          Shape complementarity at protein/protein interfaces.

          A new statistic Sc, which has a number of advantages over other measures of packing, is used to examine the shape complementarity of protein/protein interfaces selected from the Brookhaven Protein Data Bank. It is shown using Sc that antibody/antigen interfaces as a whole exhibit poorer shape complementarity than is observed in other systems involving protein/protein interactions. This result can be understood in terms of the fundamentally different evolutionary history of particular antibody/antigen associations compared to other systems considered, and in terms of the differing chemical natures of the interfaces.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            How significant is a protein structure similarity with TM-score = 0.5?

            Protein structure similarity is often measured by root mean squared deviation, global distance test score and template modeling score (TM-score). However, the scores themselves cannot provide information on how significant the structural similarity is. Also, it lacks a quantitative relation between the scores and conventional fold classifications. This article aims to answer two questions: (i) what is the statistical significance of TM-score? (ii) What is the probability of two proteins having the same fold given a specific TM-score? We first made an all-to-all gapless structural match on 6684 non-homologous single-domain proteins in the PDB and found that the TM-scores follow an extreme value distribution. The data allow us to assign each TM-score a P-value that measures the chance of two randomly selected proteins obtaining an equal or higher TM-score. With a TM-score at 0.5, for instance, its P-value is 5.5 x 10(-7), which means we need to consider at least 1.8 million random protein pairs to acquire a TM-score of no less than 0.5. Second, we examine the posterior probability of the same fold proteins from three datasets SCOP, CATH and the consensus of SCOP and CATH. It is found that the posterior probability from different datasets has a similar rapid phase transition around TM-score=0.5. This finding indicates that TM-score can be used as an approximate but quantitative criterion for protein topology classification, i.e. protein pairs with a TM-score >0.5 are mostly in the same fold while those with a TM-score <0.5 are mainly not in the same fold.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Characterization of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in coding regions of human genes.

              A major goal in human genetics is to understand the role of common genetic variants in susceptibility to common diseases. This will require characterizing the nature of gene variation in human populations, assembling an extensive catalogue of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in candidate genes and performing association studies for particular diseases. At present, our knowledge of human gene variation remains rudimentary. Here we describe a systematic survey of SNPs in the coding regions of human genes. We identified SNPs in 106 genes relevant to cardiovascular disease, endocrinology and neuropsychiatry by screening an average of 114 independent alleles using 2 independent screening methods. To ensure high accuracy, all reported SNPs were confirmed by DNA sequencing. We identified 560 SNPs, including 392 coding-region SNPs (cSNPs) divided roughly equally between those causing synonymous and non-synonymous changes. We observed different rates of polymorphism among classes of sites within genes (non-coding, degenerate and non-degenerate) as well as between genes. The cSNPs most likely to influence disease, those that alter the amino acid sequence of the encoded protein, are found at a lower rate and with lower allele frequencies than silent substitutions. This likely reflects selection acting against deleterious alleles during human evolution. The lower allele frequency of missense cSNPs has implications for the compilation of a comprehensive catalogue, as well as for the subsequent application to disease association.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS Comput Biol
                PLoS Comput. Biol
                plos
                ploscomp
                PLoS Computational Biology
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1553-734X
                1553-7358
                27 October 2015
                October 2015
                : 11
                : 10
                : e1004494
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
                [2 ]Department of Biological Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
                Iowa State University, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: JRB YZ. Performed the experiments: JRB. Wrote the paper: JRB YZ.

                Article
                PCOMPBIOL-D-15-00498
                10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004494
                4624718
                26506533
                9b097803-d7f8-40ee-961b-bae264524105
                Copyright @ 2015

                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

                History
                : 25 March 2015
                : 6 August 2015
                Page count
                Figures: 11, Tables: 0, Pages: 25
                Funding
                The project is supported in part by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM083107) granted to YZ. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Quantitative & Systems biology
                Quantitative & Systems biology

                Comments

                Comment on this article