Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Search in PMCSearch
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more:PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society logo

Studies of protein-protein interfaces: a statistical analysis of the hydrophobic effect.

C J Tsai1,S L Lin1,H J Wolfson1,R Nussinov1
1Laboratory of Mathematical Biology, NCI-FCRF, Frederick, Maryland 21702, USA.
PMCID: PMC2143524  PMID:9007976

Abstract

Data sets of 362 structurally nonredundant protein-protein interfaces and of 57 symmetry-related oligomeric interfaces have been used to explore whether the hydrophobic effect that guides protein folding is also the main driving force for protein-protein associations. The buried nonpolar surface area has been used to measure the hydrophobic effect. Our analysis indicates that, although the hydrophobic effect plays a dominant role in protein-protein binding, it is not as strong as that observed in the interior of protein monomers. Comparison of interiors of the monomers with those of the interfaces reveals that, in general, the hydrophobic amino acids are more frequent in the interior of the monomers than in the interior of the protein-protein interfaces. On the other hand, a higher proportion of charged and polar residues are buried at the interfaces, suggesting that hydrogen bonds and ion pairs contribute more to the stability of protein binding than to that of protein folding. Moreover, comparison of the interior of the interfaces to protein surfaces indicates that the interfaces are poorer in polar/charged than the surfaces and are richer in hydrophobic residues. The interior of the interfaces appears to constitute a compromise between the stabilization contributed by the hydrophobic effect on the one hand and avoiding patches on the protein surfaces that are too hydrophobic on the other. Such patches would be unfavorable for the unassociated monomers in solution. We conclude that, although the types of interactions are similar between protein-protein interfaces and single-chain proteins overall, the contribution of the hydrophobic effect to protein-protein associations is not as strong as to protein folding. This implies that packing patterns and interatom, or interresidue, pairwise potential functions, derived from monomers, are not ideally suited to predicting and assessing ligand associations or design. These would perform adequately only in cases where the hydrophobic effect at the binding site is substantial.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as aPDF (3.7 MB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Alexandrov N. N., Go N. Biological meaning, statistical significance, and classification of local spatial similarities in nonhomologous proteins. Protein Sci. 1994 Jun;3(6):866–875. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560030601. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bernstein F. C., Koetzle T. F., Williams G. J., Meyer E. F., Jr, Brice M. D., Rodgers J. R., Kennard O., Shimanouchi T., Tasumi M. The Protein Data Bank: a computer-based archival file for macromolecular structures. J Mol Biol. 1977 May 25;112(3):535–542. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2836(77)80200-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chou K. C. A novel approach to predicting protein structural classes in a (20-1)-D amino acid composition space. Proteins. 1995 Apr;21(4):319–344. doi: 10.1002/prot.340210406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cornette J. L., Cease K. B., Margalit H., Spouge J. L., Berzofsky J. A., DeLisi C. Hydrophobicity scales and computational techniques for detecting amphipathic structures in proteins. J Mol Biol. 1987 Jun 5;195(3):659–685. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(87)90189-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Crippen G. M., Maiorov V. N. How many protein folding motifs are there? J Mol Biol. 1995 Sep 8;252(1):144–151. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1995.0481. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dill K. A. Dominant forces in protein folding. Biochemistry. 1990 Aug 7;29(31):7133–7155. doi: 10.1021/bi00483a001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Finkelstein A. V., Ptitsyn O. B. Why do globular proteins fit the limited set of folding patterns? Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 1987;50(3):171–190. doi: 10.1016/0079-6107(87)90013-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Janin J., Rodier F. Protein-protein interaction at crystal contacts. Proteins. 1995 Dec;23(4):580–587. doi: 10.1002/prot.340230413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jones S., Thornton J. M. Principles of protein-protein interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Jan 9;93(1):13–20. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.1.13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lee B., Richards F. M. The interpretation of protein structures: estimation of static accessibility. J Mol Biol. 1971 Feb 14;55(3):379–400. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(71)90324-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Shanbhag V. P. Estimation of surface hydrophobicity of proteins by partitioning. Methods Enzymol. 1994;228:254–264. doi: 10.1016/0076-6879(94)28025-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Shrake A., Rupley J. A. Environment and exposure to solvent of protein atoms. Lysozyme and insulin. J Mol Biol. 1973 Sep 15;79(2):351–371. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(73)90011-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Tsai C. J., Lin S. L., Wolfson H. J., Nussinov R. A dataset of protein-protein interfaces generated with a sequence-order-independent comparison technique. J Mol Biol. 1996 Jul 26;260(4):604–620. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Tsai C. J., Lin S. L., Wolfson H. J., Nussinov R. Protein-protein interfaces: architectures and interactions in protein-protein interfaces and in protein cores. Their similarities and differences. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 1996 Apr;31(2):127–152. doi: 10.3109/10409239609106582. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Vakser I. A., Aflalo C. Hydrophobic docking: a proposed enhancement to molecular recognition techniques. Proteins. 1994 Dec;20(4):320–329. doi: 10.1002/prot.340200405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Walls P. H., Sternberg M. J. New algorithm to model protein-protein recognition based on surface complementarity. Applications to antibody-antigen docking. J Mol Biol. 1992 Nov 5;228(1):277–297. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(92)90506-f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Young L., Jernigan R. L., Covell D. G. A role for surface hydrophobicity in protein-protein recognition. Protein Sci. 1994 May;3(5):717–729. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560030501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society are provided here courtesy ofThe Protein Society

ACTIONS

RESOURCES

[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp