Abstract
Hydrogen bond, hydrophobic and vdW interactions are the three major non-covalent interactions at protein–protein interfaces. We have developed a method that uses only these properties to describe interactions between proteins, which can qualitatively estimate the individual contribution of each interfacial residue to the binding and gives the results in a graphic display way. This method has been applied to analyze alanine mutation data at protein–protein interfaces. A dataset containing 13 protein–protein complexes with 250 alanine mutations of interfacial residues has been tested. For the 75 hot-spot residues (ΔΔG≥1.5 kcal mol-1), 66 can be predicted correctly with a success rate of 88%. In order to test the tolerance of this method to conformational changes upon binding, we utilize a set of 26 complexes with one or both of their components available in the unbound form. The difference of key residues exported by the program is 11% between the results using complexed proteins and those from unbound ones. As this method gives the characteristics of the binding partner for a particular protein, in-depth studies on protein–protein recognition can be carried out. Furthermore, this method can be used to compare the difference between protein–protein interactions and look for correlated mutation.
Figure Key interaction grids at the interface between barnase and barstar. Key interaction grid for barnase and barstar are presented in one figure according to their coordinates. In order to distinguish the two proteins, different icons were assigned. Crosses represent key grids for barstar and dots represent key grids for barnase. The four residues in ball and stick are Asp40 in barstar and Arg83, Arg87, His102 in barnase.
Similar content being viewed by others
Reference
Lichtarge O, Sowa ME (2002) Curr Opin Struct Biol 12:21–27
Bock JR, Gough DA (2001) Bioinformatics 17:455–460
Kini RM, Evans HJ (1995) Biochem Biophys Res Commun 212:1115–1124
Casari G, Sander C, Valencia A (1995) Nat Struct Biol 2:171–178
Pazos F, Helmer-Citterich M, Ausiello G, Valencia A (1997) J Mol Biol 271:511–523
Gallet X, Charloteaux B, Thomas A, Brasseur R (2000) J Mol Biol 302:917–926
Madabushi S, Yao H, Marsh M, Kristensen DM, Philippi A, Sowa ME, Lichtarge O (2002) J Mol Biol 316:139–154
Aloy P, Russell RB (2002) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:5896–5901
Aloy P, Russell RB (2003) Bioinformatics 19:161–162
Zhou HX, Shan Y (2001) Proteins 44:336–343
Fariselli P, Pazos F, Valencia A, Casadio R (2002) Eur J Biochem 269:1356–1361
Pupko T, Bell RE, Mayrose I, Glaser F, Ben-Tal N (2002) Bioinformatics 18 Suppl 1:S71–7
Wells JA (1991) Methods Enzymology 202:390–411
Clackson T, Wells JA (1995) Science 267:383–386
Bogan AA, Thorn KS (1998) J Mol Biol 280:1–9
Thorn KS, Bogan AA (2001) Bioinformatics 17:284–285
Jones S, Thornton JM (1996) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:13–20
Lo Conte L, Chothia C, Janin J (1999) J Mol Biol 285:2177–2198
Elcock AH, Sept D, McCammon JA (2001) J Phys Chem B 105:1504–1518
Massova I, Kollman PA (1999) J Am Chem Soc 121:8133–8143
Huo S, Massova I, Kollman PA (2002) J Comput Chem 23:15–27
Verkhivker GM, Bouzida D, Gehlhaar DK, Rejto PA, Freer ST, Rose PW (2002) Proteins 48:539–557
Hu ZJ, Ma BY, Wolfson H, Nussinov R (2000) Proteins 39:331–342
Young L, Jernigan RL, Covell DG. (1994) Protein Sci 3:717–729
Villoutreix BO, Hardig Y, Wallqvist A, Covell DG, Frutos PG (1998) Proteins 31:391–405
Villoutreix BO, Covell DG, Blom AM, Wallqvist A, Friedrich U (2001) J Comput-Aided Mol Des 15:13–27
Goodford PJ (1985) J Med Chem 28:849–857
Gao Y, Wang RX, Lai LH (2002) Acta Phys-Chim Sin 18:676–679
Myers EW, Miller W (1989) Bull Math Biol 51:5–37
Delano WL (2002) Curr Opin Struct Biol 12:14–20
Betts MJ, Sternberg MJ (1999) Protein Eng 12:271–283
Wang RX, Gao Y, Lai LH (2000) J Mol Model 6:498-516
Wang RX, Liu L, Lai LH, Tang YQ (1998) J Mol Model 4:379–394
Wang RX, Gao Y, Lai LH (2000) Perspect Drug Discovery 19:47–66
Buckle AM, Chreiber GS, Fersht AR (1994) Biochem 33:8878–8889
Schreiber G, Fersht AR (1995) J Mol Biol 248:478–486
Covell DG, Wallqvist A (1997) J Mol Biol 269:281–297
Böttger A, Böttger V, Garcia-Echeverria C, Chène P, Hochkeppel HK, Sampson W, Ang K, Howard SF, Picksley SM, Lane DP (1997) J Mol Biol 269:744–756
DeLano WL, Ultsch MH, de Vos AM, Wells JM (2000) Science 287:1279–1283
Tong L, Pav S, Pargellis C, Do F, Lamarre D, Anderson PC (1993) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:8387–8391
Goldman ER, Dall’Acqua W, Braden BC, Mariuzza RA (1997) Biochem 36:49–56
Dall’Acqua W, Goldman ER, Eisenstein E, Mariuzza RA (1996) Biochem 35:9667–9676
Dall’Acqua W, Goldman ER, Lin W, Teng C, Tsuchiya D, Li HM, Ysern X, Braden BC, Li YL, Smith-Gill SJ, Mariuzza RA (1998) Biochem 37:7981–7991
Acknowledgement
This work has been supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (the 863 High-tech project and the Basic Research Project 2003CB715900), the National Natural Science Foundation of China and The Committee of Science and Technology of Beijing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Complexed | Unbound protein 1 | Unbound protein 2 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PDB code | Res (Å) | Protein 1 chain | Protein 2 chain | PDB code | Res (Å) | Chain | PDB code | Res (Å) | Chain |
Enzyme–inhibitor complex | |||||||||
1brb | 2.1 | E | I | 1bra | 2.2 | – | |||
1cgi | 2.3 | E | I | 1chg | 2.5 | – | 1hpt | 2.3 | – |
2kai | 2.5 | A, B | I | 2pka | 2.1 | A, B | – | ||
2ptc | 1.9 | E | I | 1bty | 1.5 | – | 1bpi | 1.1 | – |
2sic | 1.8 | E | I | 1sup | 1.6 | – | 3ssi | 2.3 | – |
2sni | 2.1 | E | I | 2ci2 | 2.0 | – | |||
1acb | 2.0 | E | I | 5cha | 1.7 | A | |||
1brc | 2.5 | E | I | 1aap | 1.5 | A | |||
1cse | 1.2 | E | I | 1scd | 2.3 | – | |||
1ppe | 2.0 | E | I | 1lu0 | 1.03 | A | |||
1stf | 2.4 | E | I | 1ppn | 1.6 | – | |||
1tgs | 1.8 | Z | I | 1tgt | 1.5 | – | |||
2tec | 2.0 | E | I | 1thm | 1.4 | – | |||
4htc | 2.3 | L, H | I | 2hnt | 2.5 | – | |||
1udi | 2.7 | E | I | 1udh | 1.8 | – | 1ugi | 1.55 | A |
Antibody–antigen complexes | |||||||||
1mlc | 2.1 | A, B | E | 1mlb | 2.1 | – | 1lza | 1.6 | – |
1vfb | 1.8 | A, B | C | 1vfa | 1.8 | A, B | 1lza | 1.6 | – |
1nca | 2.5 | L, H | N | 7nn9 | 2.0 | – | |||
1igc | 2.6 | L,H | A | 1igd | 1.1 | – | |||
2jel | 2.8 | L, H | P | 1poh | 2.0 | – | |||
Other complexes | |||||||||
1atn | 2.8 | D | A | 3dni | 2.0 | – | |||
1gla | 2.6 | G | F | 1bu6 | 2.37 | Y | 1f3g | 2.1 | – |
1spb | 2.0 | S | P | 1sup | 1.6 | – | |||
2btf | 2.6 | P | A | 1pne | 2.0 | – | |||
3hhr | 2.8 | A | B, C | 1hgu | 2.5 | – | |||
1mda | 2.5 | L, H | A | 1aan | 2.0 | – |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gao, Y., Wang, R. & Lai, L. Structure-based method for analyzing protein–protein interfaces. J Mol Model 10, 44–54 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00894-003-0168-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00894-003-0168-3