Versatility and Invariance in the Evolution of Homologous Heteromeric Interfaces

Overview

Journal PLoS Comput Biol

Specialty Biology

Date 2012 Sep 7

PMID 22952442

Citations 18

Authors

Jessica Andreani

Guilhem Faure

Raphael Guerois

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Evolutionary pressures act on protein complex interfaces so that they preserve their complementarity. Nonetheless, the elementary interactions which compose the interface are highly versatile throughout evolution. Understanding and characterizing interface plasticity across evolution is a fundamental issue which could provide new insights into protein-protein interaction prediction. Using a database of 1,024 couples of close and remote heteromeric structural interologs, we studied protein-protein interactions from a structural and evolutionary point of view. We systematically and quantitatively analyzed the conservation of different types of interface contacts. Our study highlights astonishing plasticity regarding polar contacts at complex interfaces. It also reveals that up to a quarter of the residues switch out of the interface when comparing two homologous complexes. Despite such versatility, we identify two important interface descriptors which correlate with an increased conservation in the evolution of interfaces: apolar patches and contacts surrounding anchor residues. These observations hold true even when restricting the dataset to transiently formed complexes. We show that a combination of six features related either to sequence or to geometric properties of interfaces can be used to rank positions likely to share similar contacts between two interologs. Altogether, our analysis provides important tracks for extracting meaningful information from multiple sequence alignments of conserved binding partners and for discriminating near-native interfaces using evolutionary information.

Citing Articles

Structural comparison of homologous protein-RNA interfaces reveals widespread overall conservation contrasted with versatility in polar contacts.

Mahmoudi I, Quignot C, Martins C, Andreani J PLoS Comput Biol. 2024; 20(12):e1012650.

PMID: 39625988 PMC: 11642956. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012650.

Modularity and diversity of target selectors in Tn7 transposons.

Faure G, Saito M, Benler S, Peng I, Wolf Y, Strecker J Mol Cell. 2023; 83(12):2122-2136.e10.

PMID: 37267947 PMC: 10293859. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2023.05.013.

Structural and conformational changes induced by missense variants in the zinc finger domains of GATA3 involved in breast cancer.

Kumar R, Kumar R, Tanwar P, Deo S, Mathur S, Agarwal U RSC Adv. 2022; 10(65):39640-39653.

PMID: 35515377 PMC: 9057444. DOI: 10.1039/d0ra07786k.

Protein-peptide docking using CABS-dock and contact information.

Blaszczyk M, Pawel Ciemny M, Kolinski A, Kurcinski M, Kmiecik S Brief Bioinform. 2018; 20(6):2299-2305.

PMID: 30247502 PMC: 6954405. DOI: 10.1093/bib/bby080.

The PHD finger protein Spp1 has distinct functions in the Set1 and the meiotic DSB formation complexes.

Adam C, Guerois R, Citarella A, Verardi L, Adolphe F, Beneut C PLoS Genet. 2018; 14(2):e1007223.

PMID: 29444071 PMC: 5828529. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007223.

References

Ofran Y, Rost B . Analysing six types of protein-protein interfaces. J Mol Biol. 2002; 325(2):377-87. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-2836(02)01223-8. View

Shen Y, Chen Y, Chu S, Lin M, Hsu H, Wu P . E339...R416 salt bridge of nucleoprotein as a feasible target for influenza virus inhibitors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011; 108(40):16515-20. PMC: 3189076. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1113107108. View

Meenan N, Sharma A, Fleishman S, MacDonald C, Morel B, Boetzel R . The structural and energetic basis for high selectivity in a high-affinity protein-protein interaction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010; 107(22):10080-5. PMC: 2890441. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0910756107. View

Eames M, Kortemme T . Structural mapping of protein interactions reveals differences in evolutionary pressures correlated to mRNA level and protein abundance. Structure. 2007; 15(11):1442-51. PMC: 2600897. DOI: 10.1016/j.str.2007.09.010. View

Rahat O, Yitzhaky A, Schreiber G . Cluster conservation as a novel tool for studying protein-protein interactions evolution. Proteins. 2007; 71(2):621-30. DOI: 10.1002/prot.21749. View

Gao M, Skolnick J . Structural space of protein-protein interfaces is degenerate, close to complete, and highly connected. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010; 107(52):22517-22. PMC: 3012513. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1012820107. View

Madaoui H, Guerois R . Coevolution at protein complex interfaces can be detected by the complementarity trace with important impact for predictive docking. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008; 105(22):7708-13. PMC: 2409390. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0707032105. View

Guharoy M, Chakrabarti P . Conserved residue clusters at protein-protein interfaces and their use in binding site identification. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010; 11:286. PMC: 2894039. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-11-286. View

Rajamani D, Thiel S, Vajda S, Camacho C . Anchor residues in protein-protein interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004; 101(31):11287-92. PMC: 509196. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0401942101. View

10.

Poupon A . Voronoi and Voronoi-related tessellations in studies of protein structure and interaction. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2004; 14(2):233-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2004.03.010. View

11.

Schreiber G, Keating A . Protein binding specificity versus promiscuity. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2010; 21(1):50-61. PMC: 3053118. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2010.10.002. View

12.

Tuncbag N, Gursoy A, Guney E, Nussinov R, Keskin O . Architectures and functional coverage of protein-protein interfaces. J Mol Biol. 2008; 381(3):785-802. PMC: 2605427. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2008.04.071. View

13.

Kim P, Lu L, Xia Y, Gerstein M . Relating three-dimensional structures to protein networks provides evolutionary insights. Science. 2006; 314(5807):1938-41. DOI: 10.1126/science.1136174. View

14.

Tuncbag N, Gursoy A, Nussinov R, Keskin O . Predicting protein-protein interactions on a proteome scale by matching evolutionary and structural similarities at interfaces using PRISM. Nat Protoc. 2011; 6(9):1341-54. PMC: 7384353. DOI: 10.1038/nprot.2011.367. View

15.

Hu Z, Ma B, WOLFSON H, Nussinov R . Conservation of polar residues as hot spots at protein interfaces. Proteins. 2000; 39(4):331-42. View

16.

Stein A, Mosca R, Aloy P . Three-dimensional modeling of protein interactions and complexes is going 'omics. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2011; 21(2):200-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2011.01.005. View

17.

Zhao N, Pang B, Shyu C, Korkin D . Charged residues at protein interaction interfaces: unexpected conservation and orchestrated divergence. Protein Sci. 2011; 20(7):1275-84. PMC: 3149200. DOI: 10.1002/pro.655. View

18.

Jacak R, Leaver-Fay A, Kuhlman B . Computational protein design with explicit consideration of surface hydrophobic patches. Proteins. 2012; 80(3):825-38. PMC: 3277657. DOI: 10.1002/prot.23241. View

19.

Capra E, Perchuk B, Lubin E, Ashenberg O, Skerker J, Laub M . Systematic dissection and trajectory-scanning mutagenesis of the molecular interface that ensures specificity of two-component signaling pathways. PLoS Genet. 2010; 6(11):e1001220. PMC: 2991266. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1001220. View

20.

Hashimoto K, Panchenko A . Mechanisms of protein oligomerization, the critical role of insertions and deletions in maintaining different oligomeric states. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010; 107(47):20352-7. PMC: 2996646. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1012999107. View