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
PLOS One logo

Assignment of PolyProline II Conformation and Analysis of Sequence – Structure Relationship

Yohann Mansiaux1,2,3,#,Agnel Praveen Joseph1,2,3,#,Jean-Christophe Gelly1,2,3,Alexandre G de Brevern1,2,3,*
Editor:Markus Buehler4
1INSERM, UMR-S 665, Dynamique des Structures et Interactions des Macromolécules Biologiques (DSIMB), Paris, France
2Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7, Paris, France
3Institut National de la Transfusion Sanguine (INTS), Paris, France
4Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States of America
✉

* E-mail:alexandre.debrevern@univ-paris-diderot.fr

Conceived and designed the experiments: JCG AdB. Performed the experiments: YM AdB. Analyzed the data: YM APJ AdB. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: YM APJ JCG AdB. Wrote the manuscript: APJ JCG AdB.

#

Contributed equally.

Roles

Markus Buehler:Editor

Received 2010 Aug 12; Accepted 2011 Mar 7; Collection date 2011.

Mansiaux et al.

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 properly credited.

PMCID: PMC3069088  PMID:21483785

Abstract

Background

Secondary structures are elements of great importance in structural biology, biochemistry and bioinformatics. They are broadly composed of two repetitive structures namely α-helices and β-sheets, apart from turns, and the rest is associated to coil. These repetitive secondary structures have specific and conserved biophysical and geometric properties. PolyProline II (PPII) helix is yet another interesting repetitive structure which is less frequent and not usually associated with stabilizing interactions. Recent studies have shown that PPII frequency is higher than expected, and they could have an important role in protein – protein interactions.

Methodology/Principal Findings

A major factor that limits the study of PPII is that its assignment cannot be carried out with the most commonly used secondary structure assignment methods (SSAMs). The purpose of this work is to propose a PPII assignment methodology that can be defined in the frame of DSSP secondary structure assignment. Considering the ambiguity in PPII assignments by different methods, a consensus assignment strategy was utilized. To define the most consensual rule of PPII assignment, three SSAMs that can assign PPII, were compared and analyzed. The assignment rule was defined to have a maximum coverage of all assignments made by these SSAMs. Not many constraints were added to the assignment and only PPII helices of at least 2 residues length are defined.

Conclusions/Significance

The simple rules designed in this study for characterizing PPII conformation, lead to the assignment of 5% of all amino as PPII. Sequence – structure relationships associated with PPII, defined by the different SSAMs, underline few striking differences. A specific study of amino acid preferences in their N and C-cap regions was carried out as their solvent accessibility and contact patterns. Thus the assignment of PPII can be coupled with DSSP and thus opens a simple way for further analysis in this field.

Introduction

The three dimensional structures of proteins are of great help to understand the precise details of its biological function. Contrary to the earlier views, the first low resolution model of myoglobin exhibited high complexity and a definite lack of symmetry[1]. In spite of the global complexity, Pauling and Corey had proposed two types of regularities in the local backbone conformation[2],[3]. The first one constitutes the α-helix conformation which was estimated to be stable and favorable on the basis of accurate geometrical parameters derived from small molecule crystal structures[4]. The second one is the β-sheet which was made of extended anti-parallel or parallel strands stabilized by backbone hydrogen bonds between them[5]. The high frequency of α-helices and β-sheets observed in experimentally determined structures[6] has led to the concept of ‘secondary structures’ which describes these local backbone regularities in the protein structure. Basically the secondary structure description is composed mainly of α-helix, β-strand and a state corresponding to other regions in the backbone, the coil. The structure descriptions are often limited to these three classes. With availability of a large number of experimentally determined protein structures, it is becoming obvious that other backbone conformations are also favored in proteins. The α-helices are not the only helical conformation and are often not linear[7],[8], the β-sheets also show irregularities[9],[10] and the coil is in fact, not strictly random.

The class of β-turns is of particular interest. In the late 60 s, Venkatachalam discovered the existence of these small local folds that are characterized by the reversal of polypeptide chain and stabilized by a hydrogen bond between the first and the last residue[11]. These β-turns are part of a more general class, known as tight turns, which are characterized by precise dihedral angle values of their central residues and a short distance between the extremities[12]. The latter has been shown to play important structural and functional roles[13].

Apart from turns, the other characterized secondary structure is the PolyProline II (PPII) helix. The PPII helices correspond to a unique local fold[14]. They were discovered more than 50 years ago in fibrous proteins[15],[16], as they contribute to coiled coil supersecondary structures formation . Later they were also found to occur in numerous globular proteins. PPII helix is a left-handed helical structure with an overall shape resembling a triangular prism[17],[18]. With a helical pitch of 9.3 Å/turn, each turn constituting of 3 residues, it forms an extended helix. This conformation is characterized by recurrent trans isomers of peptide bonds and (φ, ψ) values of −75° and +145° respectively, the dihedral angles being a characteristic of β-strands As noted by G. Rose, considering the hydrogen-bonded β-turns[11] and PPII[16] along with the classical secondary structure result in the assignment of 80% of the all amino acids to a regular backbone conformation[19].This rises to 90%, in a more recent study where the turns are defined in slightly different way[20].

Nonetheless, when compared to α-helices, β-sheets and turns, analysis of PPII has not gained wide interest, mainly due to three factors: (i) PPII has a low frequency of occurrence, (ii) PPII conformation is not stabilized by a strong hydrogen bond pattern, thus considered as an unstable conformation and, (iii) only a few methods for PPII assignment are available and these methods use different assignment parameters resulting in variable assignments. Also, PPII helices are not assigned by the widely used Secondary Structure Assignment Method (SSAM): DSSP[21].

Adzhubei and Sternberg in their first systematic search, found 96 PPII helices in a databank of 80 proteins[22]. They were surprisingly common. Even if they are called polyproline for historical reasons, they are not only composed of Proline successions, some PPII helices have no Proline at all[22],[23],[24],[25],[26] ,e.g., short stretches of poly-glutamines were found to form PPII conformation[27]. Hollingsworth, Berkholz and Karplus recently proposed that its common name could be changed to a more general form,i.e., “polypeptide-II”. This would maintain the familiar acronym, avoid the misleading association with only Proline, and be consistent with the observation that it is a prominent conformation in unfolded polypeptide chains[28].

These PPII helices are highly solvent-exposed and tend to have high crystallographic temperature factors[22]. Moreover PPII are not stabilized by salt bridges[29]. It has been suggested that PPII helices could be stabilized by water mediated main chain hydrogen bonds (in the absence of main chain-main chain H-bonds), as they also tend to have a regular pattern of hydrogen bonds with water[30]. Several studies suggest that peptide-solvent interaction is a major determinant of PPII conformation[31],[32],[33]. However, the preference for polyproline II conformation is also reported to be independent of the degree of solvation[34]. Avbelj and Baldwin noticed that solvation strongly affects preferences for different backbone conformations. The dependence of backbone preference on solvation might explain why Alanine favors PPII conformation whereas Valine favors extended structure[35]. Stapley and Creamer suggested that local side-chain to main-chain hydrogen bonds are also important in stabilizing PPII helices[24]. Cubellis and co-workers recently highlighted that PPII helices are stabilized by non-local interactions[36]. PPII do not display strong sequence propensities in contrast to the other extended conformations, such as β-strands[37]. The non-local stabilization of hydrogen-bond donors and acceptors does, however, result in PPII conformations being well suited for participating in protein-protein interactions. They are also suspected to have a role in amyloid formation[38],[39] and nucleic acid binding[40]. Hence, a recent study shows its importance in Duchenne muscular dystrophy[41]. Several studies have also focused on the extremities of PPII. It has been proposed that PPII might interrupt in the formation of β-sheet which is prone to aggregation[42], due to its particular geometry with the neighboring amide bond[43]. They could have a key role in the folding process[44]; the concentration of residues in the PPII conformational space lowers the entropy of the unfolded protein chain and thus facilitates folding (under appropriate conditions)[45],[46]. Recently, the number of studies on PPII conformations has increased[19],[36],[47],[48],[49], especially in the field of molecular dynamics[19],[32],[45],[50].

Numerous approaches for secondary structure assignment that rely on different descriptors, exist (seeTable 1 of[51]). DSSP[21] remains the most widely used SSAM. It identifies the secondary structures on the basis of particular hydrogen bond patterns detected from the protein geometry, with the help of an electrostatic model. DSSP is used for assigning secondary structures for the protein structures deposited in the Protein DataBank (PDB)[6],[52].

Table 1. Analysis of PPII properties.

f(PPII)all (%)in DSSP coil (%)av. len.in PPIIDSSP (%)
PROSS10.106.701.3565.9
XTLSSTR6.804.182.6356.0
SEGNO3.972.582.5845.6
mean6.954.48
DSSP with PPIIDSSP5.115.113.24100.0

The PPII frequency of the 3 SSAMs (seeFigure 1) and the novel PPIIDSSP are given with their average PPII length (av. len.) and the percentage of PPII assigned by PPIIDSSP which are in common with the other SSAM assignments.

Currently, only three publicly available SSAMs assign PPII, namely XTLSSTR[53], PROSS[54] and SEGNO[55]. XTLSSTR uses all the backbone atoms to compute two angles and three distances[53], which forms the basis of assignments. Assignments made by PROSS and SEGNO are based solely on backbone angles, mainly involving the ϕ and ψ dihedral angles.

The purpose of this work is to propose simple rules to assign PPII based on a classical secondary structures assignment carried out using DSSP. We have compared the assignment of the three available PPII assignment methods and specifically analyzed the distribution of PPII based on these assignments. Then, we propose a rule to assign PPII within the coil assigned by DSSP; such that there is a good concordance with the other assignments. Sequence – structure relationships of these PPIIs are also analyzed to study amino acid preferences and to ensure a good agreement with the previous studies[56]. In the same way, a specific analysis of sequence-structure relationships on capping regions was also carried out. Residue accessibility and contacts in the PPII helices were also studied as they are considered to be accessible for different interactions. The behaviour of PPII has also been analyzed at the light of a structural alphabet[56],[57] named Protein Blocks[58],[59],[60]. This gives a more accurate picture on the local structures associated with PPII.

Results

Comparison of the different SSAMs

A non-redundant databank of protein structures has been extracted from the PDB[6]. The list of protein structures has been obtained from PISCES database[61],[62], which is generated based on the following criteria : resolution less than 2.5 Å, R factor below 0.2 and no proteins share more than 30% sequence identity. As assessed earlier[51], SSAMs have only about 80% of consensus between them. We have re-computed an agreement rateC3 between the four SSAM assignments used in this study (seeFigure S1). The results were in agreement with previous studies[51],[55],[63],[64]: the secondary structure assignment by XTLSSTR had the lowest concordance with others, havingC3 values of 77.4, 73.5 and 73.8% with DSSP, PROSS and SEGNO respectively (mainly due to the highest frequency of assigned α-helices, as already observed in[65]). The assignment made by SEGNO remains closest to DSSP with aC3 of 88.9%. For PROSS, which was not used in the earlier analysis, theC3 values are around 82% (corresponding to classical values[51],[66],[67]). These results show that the two closest SSAMs are DSSP and SEGNO while PROSS is a little far away and XTLSSTR is even more distant.

PPII

Figure 1 summarizes most of the information on PPII distribution (see alsoTable 1). The frequencies of classical secondary structures (seeFigure S2 andS3) and especially of PPII are rather different for each SSAM. Frequencies of secondary structures assigned by DSSP and SEGNO are quite similar (except that SEGNO does not assign turns). Assignments made by PROSS have relatively similar frequencies when compared to that of DSSP, with a slightly lower frequency of turns[65]. XTLSSTR assigns more coil and less repetitive structures when compared to DSSP.

Figure 1. PPII distribution.

Figure 1

The Venn diagram gives the confusion between PPII assignments by the three SSAMs, namely PROSS, XTLSSTR and SEGNO. Inside different regions of the diagram is given two percentages x.xx(y.yy), the first percentage x.xx% correspond to the PPII frequency observed while y.yy gives the frequency in the DSSP coil alone. The secondary structure frequencies are given as a barplot in 4 states for DSSP, and 5 states for the other three assignments. The correspondence of PPII residues with the assignments by DSSP is also given.

The percentage of PPII is quite significant, starting from 3.97% for SEGNO, 6.80% for XTLSSTR and 10.10% for PROSS. A ratio of 2.5 is thus observed between PPII assignments. However 1/3rd of the PPII assigned by each SSAM is not associated to DSSP coil, but is shared between turns and β-strands. Considering only the DSSP coil regions, the PPII frequencies range only from 2.58% for SEGNO to 6.70% for PROSS. As seen in the Venn diagram, the consensus of PPII assignment is more limited,i.e., only 1.35% of the residues amino acids are assigned as PPII by all the 3 SSAMs. It represents 52% of PPII assigned by SEGNO, 32% by XTLSSTR and 20% by PROSS. If only two SSAMs are taken into account, the consensus in the region of DSSP coil goes up to 3.25%. Thus the average frequency of PPII is about 6.95%, and it is about 4.48% in the DSSP coil. Hence, no simple consensus emerges from the analysis of the different PPII assignments (see[51],[63],[65],[67]).

Definition of the PPII assignment based on DSSP

Choice of dihedrals

Seeking hints from literature[22][37] and the above analysis of previous methods[53],[54],[55], we propose a simple rule for assigning PPII conformation for the residues in the coil assigned by DSSP. For this purpose, we have used the dihedral angles (.φ+/−.ε, ψ+/−ε) to delineate the PPII space. The canonical (.φ, ψ) values of −75° and +145° have been selected as the core of PPII region, and an ε increasing by steps of 1°. Mean φ value of PPII assigned by the SSAMs equals 75.6° while mean ψ value is slightly different from the canonical value,i.e., 136.9°.

The value of ε is chosen such that equilibrium is reached between the number of amino acids assigned as PPII by one of the SSAMs and the residues not assigned as PPII in the DSSP coil. The higher the ε, the higher is the number of PPII assigned by one of the three SSAMs and higher is the number of amino acids not assigned as PPII by one or another.Figure 2a shows the distribution of PPII assigned in DSSP coil andFigure 2b gives the corresponding percentage in DSSP coil. With an ε of 17°, we have the highest percentage of amino acids assigned as PPII by SEGNO, XTLSSTR and PROSS, within the DSSP coil. Moreover, the corresponding percentage assigned (i.e., 4.9%) is close to the average occurrence of PPII (see previous sections). However, some PPII helices are only one residue long. It is mainly due to the delimitation of DSSP coil (seeTable 1).

Figure 2. Deriving PPII assignment criterion: Choice of epsilon.

Figure 2

(a) shows the percentage of residues found for ε ranging from 0 to 60°. The percentage of amino acids associated to DSSP coil is shown in grey, PII assigned by PROSS is indicated in pink, assignment by XTLSSTR is in red and that of SEGNO in orange. In blue is shown the percentage of residues considered as PPII at least by one of the three SSAMs and the green plot indicates percentage of common assignments. (b) The same information is given as the percentage of PPII residues (in regards to DSSP coil). In the initial search, the epsilon chosen corresponds to 17°, it is indicated by a black line.

Additional constraint

Taking the suggestions by different groups into account[22],[37],[55], we have added a second rule to the PPII assignment approach: at least two consecutive residues with dihedral angles within the range (.φ+/−ε, .φ+/−ε), are required to form PPII helix. After an iterative search, a new ε of 29° was chosen for the assignment, which represents a PPII frequency of 5.11%. The average length of the PPII assigned within DSSP coil using this rule equals to 3.24 residues. The PPII assignment based on DSSP (named hereafter as PPIIDSSP) corresponds to 56.0%, 45.6% and 65.9% of PPII assignments by XTLSSTR, SEGNO and PROSS respectively. This threshold ε has been selected by considering the following points: (i) the percent of amino acids assigned as PPII by one of the three SSAMs reached a maximum (of 83%), a further increase in ε decreased this percentage, and (ii) it is a good compromise between the average frequency of PPII observed (6.95%) and the average frequency of PPII within DSSP coil (4.48%). Mean φ and mean ψ values of PPIIDSSP are 75.3°and 141.1° respectively. Hence, this definition of PPII assignment is compared to the other PPII assignment methods and is consistent with theoretical definition of PPII.Table 1 summarizes the main results.Figure 3 gives the distribution of the different secondary structure states in the PPIIDSSP assignments corresponding to the chosen epsilon whileFigure 4 shows the same information for the values of epsilon ranging from zero to 60°. While looking at XTLSSTR assignments corresponding to PPIIDSSP residues, the PPII content is generally high and mainly coil is found for low ε values. For SEGNO, which carries out least number of PPII assignments (seeFigure 1), nearly 20% of the assignments correspond to β-strands. It must be noted that this SSAM does not assign any turns. Finally, PROSS shares the maximum number of PPII, the rest is mainly composed of β-strand and coil at a low percentage. The assignments are characterized by absence of helices and only a few turns were seen.Figure 4 shows the interest in considering a second consecutive dihedral angle (seeFigure 2 to compare).Figure S4 gives the distribution of distance between extremities of PPII for different PPII lengths. A striking observation is the low standard deviation of the distance. It ranges between 1 and 2 Å depending on the length, while the deviation is 2–3 times higher for the PPII helices assigned by other SSAMs.

Figure 3. PPIIs distribution with the length constraint.

Figure 3

PPII residues assigned in DSSP coil represent 5.1% of all the residues. For these residues the corresponding assignments by XTLSSTR, SEGNO and PROSS, are given.

Figure 4. Secondary structure content in PPII assignments.

Figure 4

The fig shows the percentage of residues of PPIIDSSP assigned as helix (red), β-turn (orange), coil (green), β-strand (blue) and PPII (purple) by (a) XTLSSTR, (b) SEGNO, and (c) PROSS, as a function of ε. The chosen ε (equals to 29°) is indicated by a black line.

As seen inFigure 5, for PROSS, this assignment criterion results in a small increase of the average length of PPII, from 1.35 to 1.63 amino acids (mainly due to a significant number of very short helices outside the DSSP coil). The average length in the case of SEGNO, decreases from 2.58 to 2.27 while for XTLSSTR, a decrease from 2.63 to 2.32 was observed.

Figure 5. Length of PPIIs.

Figure 5

For the three PPII assignment methods and the DSSP based assignment, the distribution across different lengths of PPII is given. The blue bars correspond to the PPII in coil assigned by DSSP, while the grey ones indicate the residues in all assigned states. For DSSP, the PPII assignments involving Proline (green) and those without any Proline (yellow) are also plotted.

Analysis of the sequence-structure relationship

As expected, the amino acid preference for PPIIs differs depending on the SSAM used for assignment. However, the distribution of amino acids remains clearly different from that seen in other secondary structures (seeFigure S5).Figure 6 summarizes the over and under-representation of amino acids in the PPIIs assigned by different SSAMs (including our new approach). All of them have about 3–5 over-represented amino acids. The most important one, as expected, is Proline (P) with a Z-score greater than 100. Then for all assignments, except PROSS (Z-score less than −10 andp less than 10−5), the other frequent amino acid is Lysine (K). The third important amino acid is Serine (S) which is seen more or less over-represented for the assignments by all the four SSAMs. It is highly preferred with respect to PROSS assignment (Z-score>4.4,p<10−5), considerable over-representation is found with SEGNO and XTLSSTR (Z-score>1.96,p<2.10−3) and in the case of our DSSP based assignment, occurrence frequency is similar to the background (Z-score equals to 1.1). Another important amino acid is Threonine (T), highly over-represented with XTLSSTR; strongly over-representation is seen with PROSS and DSSP, but slightly under-represented with SEGNO.

Figure 6. Amino acid distribution.

Figure 6

(a) plot giving the Z-scores associated with the amino acids in the PPII assigned using DSSP (this study), XTLSSTR, SEGNO and PROSS. (b) Hierarchical clustering of the amino acid distribution frequencies associated with different assignments and the recent analysis done by Berisio and co-workers[37] (in terms of relative frequencies).

In some cases, the SSAM assignment results in assignment specific amino acid preferences. Significant preference for Methionine is found only with DSSP (Z-score equals to 2.44,i.e. p<10−3) while Cysteine (C) is seen strongly over-represented with PROSS (Z-score equals to 3.73,i.e. p<10−3). The hierarchical clustering based on the relative amino acid distribution frequencies of the four SSAMs and also the data from the work of Vitagliano's group[37], is shown onFigure 6b. DSSP and XTLSSTR show similar characteristics as in the case of SEGNO and[37]. PROSS gives the most distant distribution as it shares only 3 common over-represented amino acids (P, T and S), and has a unique over-representation of C.

Figure 7 further highlights the characteristics of this distribution, giving the correlation of the relative preferences associated with PPIIDSSP with that of the other three SSAMs and also with the PPII analysis by Berisioet al. based on their assignment[37]. The correlation coefficients (excluding the Proline frequencies) are 0.89 with PROSS, 0.87 with the analysis of Berisio and co-workers, 0.82 with XTLSSTR, and only 0.53 with SEGNO. Between PROSS, XTLSSTR and the analysis of Berisioet al., correlation coefficients range between 0.93 and 0.79. Including SEGNO reduces this further to about 0.59. This underlines (i) that PPIIDSSP is consistent with other PPII assignment methods and (ii) some significant differences can be seen considering one or the other assignment. The latter is important for the purpose of structure prediction and analysis, as PPIIs are the repetitive structures with the most contrasted residue distribution.

Figure 7. Amino acid relative frequencies.

Figure 7

Plot of the relative frequencies of amino acids associated with PPIIDSSP with that of the PPII assigned by other SSAMs (red: XTLSSTR, green: SEGNO, black: PROSS) and the distribution obtained from the analysis of Berisio and co-workers[37](blue).

Analysis of amino acid preferences in PPII capping regions

Capping residues of PPIIDSSP (i.e., amino acids before and after PPIIDSSP) clearly have distinct amino acid preferences when compared to that of PPIIDSSP associated preferences (cf. previous paragraph). They are in fact close to coil and turn associated distributions.Figure 8 shows the amino acid distribution at the position just before the stretch assigned as PPIIDSSP (N−1) and the one after (C+1). N−1 has a high preference for Glycine (G) and Asparagine (N) and a considerable over-representation of Histidine (H), Glutamine (Q) and Lysine (K) is also seen. Histidine (H), Glutamine (Q) and Lysine (K) are also overrepresented in PPII. Lysine (K) has a Z-score of 1.2 in the N−1 and 7.0 within the PPII stretch. The distribution in the C+1 has more in common with that of PPII, characterized by high over-representations of G, P and V, strong over-representations of M and T and a significant representation of S.

Figure 8. Sequence – structure relationship of PPIIDSSP.

Figure 8

The central upper part presents the plot of Z-scores associated with the amino acid distribution in PPIIDSSP and the capping regions (seeFigure 3 for details). At its left and right the secondary structure distributions in these capping regions are shown (assigned by DSSP). The lower half of the figure shows the transitions of Protein Blocks in the Ncap to PPIIDSSP core (left) and from PPIIDSSP core to Ccap (right) . Only transitions with frequency more than 5% are shown.

Capping amino acids of PPIIDSSP are not only coil or β-sheet residues (seeFigure S6). N−1 residues are mainly turn associated residues (with a frequency of 48.5% which is 2.4 times its expected frequency) and coil (34.7%, 1.8 times expected). β-sheet represents only 12.3% (0.55 times expected). For the C+1 residues, the frequencies are more equilibrated, still showing a considerable over-representation of turns (28.3%, 1.4 times its expected frequency).

Analysis of local structure features of PPII capping regions

To obtain a more detailed picture of the local structures associated with PPII, we have analyzed the capping regions in terms of a structural alphabet[56],[57],[60],i.e., a set of small local protein structures that can be used to approximate precisely every part of a protein structure. Our structural alphabet, namely Protein Blocks[58],[59],[68], is composed of 16 distinct prototypes that are 5 residues long (seeMethods section). It is the most widely used structural alphabet and has been proved useful in approaching several problems in the area of structural bioinformatics,e.g., to compare protein structures[69],[70],[71], analyse sequence-structure specificities[72] or mine protein binding sites[73],[74].

This part of the study focuses on the precise analysis of the local protein conformations associated with PPII caps. Hence for the Ncap regions (seeFigure S6, bottom left), within the PPIIDSSP, PBb and PBsi top (the latter set is largely associated with α-helices[75]), are never seen. To study the PB specificities in the cap regions, series of two PBs (di-PBs) were considered. Interestingly, 8 series of di-PBs correspond to 78% of all, seen in the Ncap regions of PPII (seeFigure 8). These can be grouped into three main classes, the first one comprise 6 di-PBs and correspond to half of the Ncap associated di-PBs, the most important of these isdd. Many other strands related PBs are also found, which involves PBsc ande. The second most important series ispa (18.7%),i.e., a series characterizing transition of α-helix to β-strand. The third one (8.2%) isia which is largely associated with β-strand - β-strand transition[75]. Hence, different neighbourhoods are observed.

The Ccap is more conserved with only 6 di-PBs corresponding to 87% of the observations. Two main behaviours were observed. A first cluster is associated with longer PPIIDSSPs, involving seriesfk (25.8%),fb (11.5%) andhi (11.6%), while shorter PPIIDSSP are still strongly linked to beta-like PBs with seriesdd (19.1%),cd (13.8%) anddf (6.0%). Thus, PPIIDSSP have a strong local signature depending on the neighbourhood and more complex than expected.

Analysis of structural properties

PPII are considered as potential interacting regions, hence an analysis of their solvent accessibility will be of broad interest. Relative accessibility of different secondary structures is presented inFigure 9a. PPIIDSSP is the second most accessible secondary structure, following the turns and hence they are quite different from β-strands which are the less accessible (on an average). For a relative accessibility threshold of 25%, only 46.1% of PPIIDSSP are buried while in the case of turns, β-strands, α-helices and coils, 35.8%, 72.2%, 55.4% and 51.9% of residues are buried, respectively. Thus, PPIIDSSP is more accessible than coils also. Interestingly, PPIIDSSP with Proline are more accessible than PPIIDSSP without Proline (seeFigure 9b). Accessibility of Proline associated with PPIIDSSP is high and does not really differ from the average accessibility of Proline.

Figure 9. PPIIDSSP accessibility.

Figure 9

Plots showing the relative accessibility of the different secondary structures (left), and the relative accessibility ofPPIIDSSP (with and without proline residues) and that of all Prolines.

The average numbers of contacts have been analyzed, using a classical distance based approach,i.e., a contact is defined if a distance between atoms is less than 8.0 Å[76],[77],[78]. Unlike the accessibility, PPIIDSSP is similar to β-strand in terms of the average number of contacts. The turn and coil have lesser contacts and the contacts are more in the case of α-helices. These results are in accordance with previous studies on PPIIDSSP reflecting the relevance of the rules used to define it.

A case of molecular modeling

Finally, to study the dynamic behaviour of PPII (assigned using our approach), we carried out a Molecular Dynamics simulation. Molecular dynamics force field parameters seem to underestimate the polyproline II and thus diminish their frequencies[79]. For this purpose, we selectedSaccharomyces cerevisiae pyruvate decarboxylase (PDB code 2VK8[80]) which has a high PPIIDSSP content, about 12% (seeFigures 10a and 10b) and one of these PPII helices is quite long (seeFigures 10c and 10d). The simulation has been carried out using GROMACS 4.0.5[81],[82],[83],[84] with the OPLS-AA force field[85], details can be found inFigures S7 andS8.Figure 11a gives the frequency of PPIIDSSP assignment for each residue during the simulation. The majority of residues initially associated to PPIIDSSP stays associated to this state; only 17% of these residues have a frequency of PPIIDSSP less than 50%. Even, some residues initially not associated to PPIIDSSP state, becomes associated to this conformation during the course of the simulation. It is striking that the long PPII helix is in fact, 2 residues longer than initial. The evolution of the relative frequency of PPIIDSSP during the simulation shows only a mean loss of 11% of PPIIDSSP content. This value is not dependant on the time of the simulation and more interestingly, is equivalent to the mean loss of other repetitive structures (seeFigure 11b). These results suggest a better conservation of PPII than previously observed in molecular dynamics simulations[33],[86]. This can be explained by the fact that the previous studies mainly focus on PPII fragments and not the PPII content with a protein structure. This was also highlighted in the work of Zagrovic and co-workers[79]. Indeed, recent studies have shown the crucial impact of related force-fields on PPII conformation and the beta-strands contents, which also seem to be associated. AMBER-03 significantly overweighs the contribution of extended and PPII backbone configurations to the conformational equilibrium while AMBER-99SB variant shows a strong bias towards extended beta and PPII conformations[87].

Figure 10. Saccharomyces cerevisiae pyruvate decarboxylase.

Figure 10

(a) The structure involving four chains (PDB code 2VK8[80]). (b) Chain A represented in cartoon, with a long loop associated with PPII conformation, shown in stick representation. The long loop with both backbone and sidechain atoms (c) and with only only backbone. The connecting non PPIIDSSP region is shown in green.

Figure 11. Residues assigned as PPIIDSSP.

Figure 11

Frequencies of PPIIDSSP assignments during course of MD simulation shown for (a) the whole protein and (b) the PPII associated long loop (seeFigure 10). The positions initially assigned as PPIIDSSP are shown in purple.

Discussion

A long history of experimental analyses of peptides with PPII conformation exists. This involved the study of chemical activities under different conditions[45],[88],[89]. However, in the field of structural bioinformatics, PPII has been a subject of only a limited number of studies. The majority of studies on PPII concern protein folding[90], while few have focused on model building and sequence-structure relationships[91].

Pro-rich sequences are common recognition sites for protein–protein interaction ,e.g., the SH3 domain or the WW domain[92]. Hence protein – protein interaction involving PPII is also an important area of interest[93],[94],[95]. We can note for instance, the protein PflI which is a protein involved in flagellar positioning inCaulobacter crescentus possess a PPII helix, implicated in interactions[96]. Rath, Davidson and Deber concluded a crucial review on PPII with these sentences: “An increasing amount of evidence suggests that so-called “random-coil” polypeptides may not have completely irregular structure, but are more accurately described largely as PPII helices. This observation, along with the importance of PPII structure in protein– protein recognition elements, implies that the Polyproline II conformation should be regarded as equally important to the folding and function of proteins as the classical α-helix, β-sheet, and β-turn structures.”[97].

As observed in many studies, local structure assignment is not trivial[56]. As these assignment methods are based on various parameters and definitions for repetitive structures, they often give different assignments[63],[67],[68],[98]. PPII is an important local protein structure, but not given enough significance, as noted by Deber[97] and Rose[19]. Here we propose a simple strategy to assign PPII on the basis of the most widely used SSAM,i.e., DSSP. For this purpose, two major points must be considered. The first is to define a rule that is largely coherent with the available PPII assignment methods. The second is to assess the sequence – structure relationship and check if the results are in agreement with the literature. It would emphasize the quality of our PPII assignment.

At first, we observe that confusions between the SSAMs (DSSP, XTLSSTR, SEGNO and PROSS[21],[53],[54],[55]) used in this study correlate well within the classicalC3 values of about 80%[51],[56],[63],[98].No strange behaviours (e.g., DEFINE[99] that has aC3 value close to 60%[51]) were observed.

The analysis of the relative frequency of PPII reveals a complex issue. As mentioned earlier, a ratio of 2.5 is observed while comparing the frequencies of occurrence of PPII, based on the assignments by SEGNO and PROSS, with the occurrence frequencies ranging from 4.0 to 10.1%. The results of works done by other groups also highlight this issue. Adzhubei and Sternberg found them more common than expected[91]. Jha and co-workers even ascribed a singular dominance to PPII based on their coil library[34]. However, the work of Daggett's group did not confirm this[100] while Berisio and co-workers found an occurrence rate of 2%[37].

Another issue is the way turns are treated. In many works on the analysis of secondary structures, assignment of turns has not been considered. For instance, SEGNO assigns helices, sheets and PPII, but not the turns. In a same way, Berisio and co-workers used PROMOTIF to assign α- and 310-helices and β-strands, and then assign PPII based on their own rules[37]. As turns are important and cannot be neglected[65], we have decided to consider them prior to the PPII assignment.

Using simple rules based on the choice of a set of (φ, ψ) dihedral angles for assigning PPIIDSSP, led to a good agreement with the assignment made by other SSAMs. After different tests, we have selected a range of +/−29° around the canonical values of PPII. This gives a PPII occurrence frequency of 5.1%, representing about 1/3rd of the coil state and leading to an average length of 3.2 residues per PPIIDSSP helix. This assignment is coherent with distribution of PPII based on the assignments made by other SSAMs (seeTable 1 for a summary).

Interestingly, our results show a good concordance with recent studies and also the assignment done by the other SSAMs. It must be noted that the agreement was poor when compared to the earlier studies with fewer data[22],[24],[101], the correlation coefficients were between 0.1 and 0.3. Moreover, the amino acid preferences of PPII observed, is similar to that seen in the assignments made by other SSAMs and published studies. This is characterized by a strong over-representation of P (as expected), K, and a considerable preference for M, T and S. Since long, there has been evidence for the presence of PPII conformations in non-proline polypeptides[26],[102], we observe this predominantly in the shorter helices (seeFigure 2).

PPII helices have been implicated in protein–protein recognition and folding. PPII conformation in stabilized in the unfolded polypeptides[97] and polymers of proline in aqueous solution are known to adopt this conformation as a result of steric interactions between prolyl rings[23]. Several studies report that PPII helices are more surface exposed than other repetitive structures[22],[24], our results agree entirely with these findings. Interestingly, its accessibility is not as high as turns which are more accessible than any other secondary structures, including coils. Analysis of capping regions of PPII shows pertinent properties. Especially the Ncap could be roughly characterized as a ‘turn’ without Proline. Recent studies have also highlighted the difference in the type of interactions between secondary structures. n→π* interactions favour contacts between α–helix and PPII while dipole–dipole interactions are frequent between β–sheet and PPII and long-range backbone H-bonds bridge α–helix and β–sheet conformations[103],[104].

In conclusion, it can be seen that though our approach is coarse and simple, it presents considerable insights into the understanding of PPII. The results are in good agreement with that of the earlier studies on PPII. Moreover, the PPIIDSSP helices are longer than PPII helices of the other SSAMs. Implementation of such an approach is quite easy. However, one must note that ana posteriori assignment is perhaps not the optimal assignment. The choice of DSSP is mainly due to its popularity though other methods exists which are quite efficient,e.g., STRIDE[105]. Assignment made by STRIDE has 95% agreement with DSSP[51]. Satisfactorily, using our approach, 96.7% of PPIISTRIDE is also assigned as PPIIDSSP. Like SEGNO, the assignment rules could be adapted to give different assignments for the core and extremities of PPII[36]. Nonetheless, our approach could assist in highlighting the importance of PPII as a repetitive structure and widening the extent of research carried out on PPII[97].

Materials and Methods

Data sets

The dataset of protein structures is taken from the PISCES database[61],[62] and represents 1,732,996 amino acids from 6,665 proteins chosen based on a pairwise sequence identity cutoff of 30% with resolution less than 2.5 Å and R factor below 0.2. It is available athttp://www.dsimb.inserm.fr/~debrevern/DOWN/DB/PPII. Each chain is complete and does not have missing residues[51],[68].

Secondary structure assignment

Assignment has been carried out with four different methods: DSSP[21] (CMBI version 2000), XTLSSTR[53], PROSS[54] (version September 2004) and SEGNO[55] (version 3.1). DSSP, PROSS, XTLSSTR and SEGNO assign more than five secondary structural states, thus we have reduced them as: α-helix includes α, 3.10 and α- helices, the β-strand contains only the β-sheet, the turn involves the turn assignments and bends (which are assigned by DSSP), the PPII corresponds to the PolyProline II assignments (not assigned by DSSP) and the coil includes the rest of the assignments (β-bridges and coil). Default settings have been used for all methods.

Protein Blocks description

Protein Blocks (PBs[60]) correspond to a set of 16 local prototypes, labeled froma top (seeFigure 1 of[68]), of 5 residues length, clustered based on φ, ψ dihedral angles description. They were obtained using an unsupervised classifier similar to Kohonen Maps[106] and Hidden Markov Models[107]. The PBsm andd can be roughly described as prototypes for central α-helix and central β-strand, respectively. PBsa throughc primarily represent the N-cap region of β-strand while PBse andf correspond to the C-caps; PBsg throughj are specific to coils,k andl correspond to the N cap region of α-helix, and PBsn throughp to that of C-caps. This structural alphabet allows a reasonable approximation of local protein 3D structures[59] with an average root mean square deviation (rmsd) of 0.42 Å[58]. PB[58] assignment was carried out using an in-house program written in C (available athttp://www.dsimb.inserm.fr/~debrevern/DOWN/LECT/), it follows similar rules to assignment done by PBE web server (http://bioinformatics.univ-reunion.fr/PBE/)[71].

Agreement rate

To compare two distinct secondary structure assignment methods, we used an agreement rateC3, which is the proportion of residues associated to the same secondary structure state[63]. Note that SEGNO does not assign turns.

Z-score

The amino acid occurrences for each secondary structure have been normalized to a Z-score[59],[108],[109],[110]:

graphic file with name pone.0018401.e001.jpg

whereInline graphic is the observed occurrence number of amino acidi in positionj for a given secondary structure andInline graphic the expected number. The expected frequency is given by the product of the occurrences in positionj with the frequency of occurrence of amino acidi in the entire databank. Positive Z-scores correspond to overrepresented amino acids and respectively negative z-score for underrepresented; threshold values of 4.42 and 1.96 were chosen (probability less than 10−5 and 5.10−2 respectively) to assess the significance.

Supporting Information

Figure S1

Agreement rate of SSAMs (reduced to three-states).

(DOC)

Figure S2

Secondary structure frequencies of the different SSAMs.

(DOC)

Figure S3

Ramachandran maps. a) full databank, PPII assigned by b) PROSS, c) XTLSSTR and d) SEGNO.

(DOC)

Figure S4

Distance between extremities of PPII assigned through coil DSSP.

(DOC)

Figure S5

Clustering based on the amino acid distribution in the assignments made by different SSAMs.

(DOC)

Figure S6

PPII capping regions.

(DOC)

Figure S7

Molecular dynamics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae pyruvate decarboxylase (PDB code 2VK8).

(DOC)

Figure S8

Molecular dynamics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae pyruvate decarboxylase (PDB code 2VK8). [animation]

(DOC)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Aurélie Bornot for her help in molecular modeling simulation. We also would like to thank all the developers of the different SSAMs for their methodologies and providing them to the scientific community.

Footnotes

Competing Interests:The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Funding:This work was supported by grants from the Ministère de la Recherche, Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7, National Institute for Blood Transfusion (INTS) and the Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM). APJ has a grant from CEFIPRA number 3903-E. AdB acknowledges CEFIPRA for collaborative grant (number 3903-E). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Kendrew JC, Bodo G, Dintzis HM, Parrish RG, Wyckoff H, et al. A three-dimensional model of the myoglobin molecule obtained by x-ray analysis. Nature. 1958;181:662–666. doi: 10.1038/181662a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pauling L, Corey RB. Two Hydrogen-Bonded Spiral Configurations of the Polypeptide Chain. J Am Chem Soc. 1950;72:5349. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Eisenberg D. The discovery of the alpha-helix and beta-sheet, the principal structural features of proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:11207–11210. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2034522100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Pauling L, Corey RB, Branson HR. The structure of proteins; two hydrogen-bonded helical configurations of the polypeptide chain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1951;37:205–211. doi: 10.1073/pnas.37.4.205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Pauling L, Corey RB. The pleated sheet, a new layer configuration of polypeptide chains. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1951;37:251–256. doi: 10.1073/pnas.37.5.251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, et al. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28:235–242. doi: 10.1093/nar/28.1.235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bansal M, Kumar S, Velavan R. HELANAL: a program to characterize helix geometry in proteins. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2000;17:811–819. doi: 10.1080/07391102.2000.10506570. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Martin J, Letellier G, Marin A, Taly JF, de Brevern AG, et al. Protein secondary structure assignment revisited: a detailed analysis of different assignment methods. BMC Struct Biol. 2005;5:17. doi: 10.1186/1472-6807-5-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chan AW, Hutchinson EG, Harris D, Thornton JM. Identification, classification, and analysis of beta-bulges in proteins. Protein Sci. 1993;2:1574–1590. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560021004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Richardson JS, Getzoff ED, Richardson DC. The beta bulge: a common small unit of nonrepetitive protein structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978;75:2574–2578. doi: 10.1073/pnas.75.6.2574. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Venkatachalam CM. Stereochemical criteria for polypeptides and proteins. V. Conformation of a system of three linked peptide units. Biopolymers. 1968;6:1425–1436. doi: 10.1002/bip.1968.360061006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Richardson JS. The anatomy and taxonomy of protein structure. Adv Protein Chem. 1981;34:167–339. doi: 10.1016/s0065-3233(08)60520-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Rose GD. Prediction of chain turns in globular proteins on a hydrophobic basis. Nature. 1978;272:586–590. doi: 10.1038/272586a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Makowska J, Rodziewicz-Motowidlo S, Baginska K, Vila JA, Liwo A, et al. Polyproline II conformation is one of many local conformational states and is not an overall conformation of unfolded peptides and proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103:1744–1749. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0510549103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Pauling L, Corey RB. The structure of fibrous proteins of the collagen-gelatin group. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1951;37:272–281. doi: 10.1073/pnas.37.5.272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Cowan PM, McGavin S, North AC. The polypeptide chain configuration of collagen. Nature. 1955;176:1062–1064. doi: 10.1038/1761062a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Arnott S, Dover SD. The structure of poly-L-proline II. Acta Crystallogr B. 1968;24:599–601. doi: 10.1107/s056774086800289x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sasisekharan V. Structure of poly-L-proline II. Acta Crystallogr. 1959;12:897–903. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Fitzkee NC, Fleming PJ, Gong H, Panasik N, Jr, Street TO, et al. Are proteins made from a limited parts list? Trends Biochem Sci. 2005;30:73–80. doi: 10.1016/j.tibs.2004.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Perskie LL, Rose GD. Physical-chemical determinants of coil conformations in globular proteins. Protein Sci. 2010;19:1127–1136. doi: 10.1002/pro.399. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kabsch W, Sander C. Dictionary of protein secondary structure: pattern recognition of hydrogen-bonded and geometrical features. Biopolymers. 1983;22:2577–2637. doi: 10.1002/bip.360221211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Adzhubei AA, Sternberg MJ. Left-handed polyproline II helices commonly occur in globular proteins. J Mol Biol. 1993;229:472–493. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1993.1047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Creamer TP. Left-handed polyproline II helix formation is (very) locally driven. Proteins. 1998;33:218–226. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Stapley BJ, Creamer TP. A survey of left-handed polyproline II helices. Protein Sci. 1999;8:587–595. doi: 10.1110/ps.8.3.587. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Creamer TP, Campbell MN. Determinants of the polyproline II helix from modeling studies. Adv Protein Chem. 2002;62:263–282. doi: 10.1016/s0065-3233(02)62010-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Chellgren BW, Creamer TP. Short sequences of non-proline residues can adopt the polyproline II helical conformation. Biochemistry. 2004;43:5864–5869. doi: 10.1021/bi049922v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Chellgren BW, Miller AF, Creamer TP. Evidence for polyproline II helical structure in short polyglutamine tracts. J Mol Biol. 2006;361:362–371. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2006.06.044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hollingsworth SA, Berkholz DS, Karplus PA. On the occurrence of linear groups in proteins. Protein Sci. 2009;18:1321–1325. doi: 10.1002/pro.133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Whittington SJ, Creamer TP. Salt bridges do not stabilize polyproline II helices. Biochemistry. 2003;42:14690–14695. doi: 10.1021/bi035565x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Liu Z, Chen K, Ng A, Shi Z, Woody RW, et al. Solvent dependence of PII conformation in model alanine peptides. J Am Chem Soc. 2004;126:15141–15150. doi: 10.1021/ja047594g. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kentsis A, Mezei M, Gindin T, Osman R. Unfolded state of polyalanine is a segmented polyproline II helix. Proteins. 2004;55:493–501. doi: 10.1002/prot.20051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mezei M, Fleming PJ, Srinivasan R, Rose GD. Polyproline II helix is the preferred conformation for unfolded polyalanine in water. Proteins. 2004;55:502–507. doi: 10.1002/prot.20050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Sreerama N, Woody RW. Molecular dynamics simulations of polypeptide conformations in water: A comparison of alpha, beta, and poly(pro)II conformations. Proteins. 1999;36:400–406. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Jha AK, Colubri A, Zaman MH, Koide S, Sosnick TR, et al. Helix, sheet, and polyproline II frequencies and strong nearest neighbor effects in a restricted coil library. Biochemistry. 2005;44:9691–9702. doi: 10.1021/bi0474822. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Avbelj F, Baldwin RL. Origin of the change in solvation enthalpy of the peptide group when neighboring peptide groups are added. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106:3137–3141. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0813018106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Cubellis MV, Caillez F, Blundell TL, Lovell SC. Properties of polyproline II, a secondary structure element implicated in protein-protein interactions. Proteins. 2005;58:880–892. doi: 10.1002/prot.20327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Berisio R, Loguercio S, De Simone A, Zagari A, Vitagliano L. Polyproline helices in protein structures: A statistical survey. Protein Pept Lett. 2006;13:847–854. doi: 10.2174/092986606777841154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Blanch EW, Morozova-Roche LA, Cochran DA, Doig AJ, Hecht L, et al. Is polyproline II helix the killer conformation? A Raman optical activity study of the amyloidogenic prefibrillar intermediate of human lysozyme. J Mol Biol. 2000;301:553–563. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.2000.3981. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Eker F, Griebenow K, Schweitzer-Stenner R. Abeta(1–28) fragment of the amyloid peptide predominantly adopts a polyproline II conformation in an acidic solution. Biochemistry. 2004;43:6893–6898. doi: 10.1021/bi049542+. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Hicks JM, Hsu VL. The extended left-handed helix: a simple nucleic acid-binding motif. Proteins. 2004;55:330–338. doi: 10.1002/prot.10630. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Banks GB, Judge LM, Allen JM, Chamberlain JS. The polyproline site in hinge 2 influences the functional capacity of truncated dystrophins. PLoS Genet. 2010;6:e1000958. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000958. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Darnell G, Orgel JP, Pahl R, Meredith SC. Flanking polyproline sequences inhibit beta-sheet structure in polyglutamine segments by inducing PPII-like helix structure. J Mol Biol. 2007;374:688–704. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2007.09.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kuemin M, Schweizer S, Ochsenfeld C, Wennemers H. Effects of terminal functional groups on the stability of the polyproline II structure: a combined experimental and theoretical study. J Am Chem Soc. 2009;131:15474–15482. doi: 10.1021/ja906466q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Shi Z, Chen K, Liu Z, Kallenbach NR. Conformation of the backbone in unfolded proteins. Chem Rev. 2006;106:1877–1897. doi: 10.1021/cr040433a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Shi Z, Olson CA, Rose GD, Baldwin RL, Kallenbach NR. Polyproline II structure in a sequence of seven alanine residues. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99:9190–9195. doi: 10.1073/pnas.112193999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Shi Z, Woody RW, Kallenbach NR. Is polyproline II a major backbone conformation in unfolded proteins? Adv Protein Chem. 2002;62:163–240. doi: 10.1016/s0065-3233(02)62008-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Vlasov PK, Kilosanidze GT, Ukrainskii DL, Kuz'min AV, Tumanian VG, et al. [Left-handed helix conformation of poly-L-proline II type in globular proteins. Statistics of incidence and a role of sequence]. Biofizika. 2001;46:573–576. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kelly MA, Chellgren BW, Rucker AL, Troutman JM, Fried MG, et al. Host-guest study of left-handed polyproline II helix formation. Biochemistry. 2001;40:14376–14383. doi: 10.1021/bi011043a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Chen K, Liu Z, Zhou C, Shi Z, Kallenbach NR. Neighbor effect on PPII conformation in alanine peptides. J Am Chem Soc. 2005;127:10146–10147. doi: 10.1021/ja052094o. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Pappu RV, Rose GD. A simple model for polyproline II structure in unfolded states of alanine-based peptides. Protein Sci. 2002;11:2437–2455. doi: 10.1110/ps.0217402. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Tyagi M, Bornot A, Offmann B, de Brevern AG. Analysis of loop boundaries using different local structure assignment methods. Protein Sci. 2009;18:1869–1881. doi: 10.1002/pro.198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bernstein FC, Koetzle TF, Williams GJ, Meyer EF, Jr, Brice MD, et al. The Protein Data Bank: a computer-based archival file for macromolecular structures. J Mol Biol. 1977;112:535–542. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2836(77)80200-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.King SM, Johnson WC. Assigning secondary structure from protein coordinate data. Proteins. 1999;35:313–320. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Srinivasan R, Rose GD. A physical basis for protein secondary structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96:14258–14263. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.25.14258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Cubellis MV, Cailliez F, Lovell SC. Secondary structure assignment that accurately reflects physical and evolutionary characteristics. BMC Bioinformatics. 2005;6(Suppl 4):S8. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-6-S4-S8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Offmann B, Tyagi M, de Brevern AG. Local Protein Structures. Current Bioinformatics. 2007;3:165–202. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Joseph AP, Bornot A, de Brevern AG. Rangwala H, Karypis G, editors. Local Structure Alphabets. Protein Structure Prediction wiley. 2010. pp. 75–106.
  • 58.de Brevern AG. New assessment of a structural alphabet. In Silico Biol. 2005;5:283–289. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.de Brevern AG, Etchebest C, Hazout S. Bayesian probabilistic approach for predicting backbone structures in terms of protein blocks. Proteins. 2000;41:271–287. doi: 10.1002/1097-0134(20001115)41:3<271::aid-prot10>3.0.co;2-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Joseph AP, Agarwal G, Mahajan S, Gelly J-C, Swapna LS, et al. A short survey on Protein Blocks. Biophysical Reviews. 2010;2:137–145. doi: 10.1007/s12551-010-0036-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Wang G, Dunbrack RL., Jr PISCES: a protein sequence culling server. Bioinformatics. 2003;19:1589–1591. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Wang G, Dunbrack RL., Jr PISCES: recent improvements to a PDB sequence culling server. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33:W94–98. doi: 10.1093/nar/gki402. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Fourrier L, Benros C, de Brevern AG. Use of a structural alphabet for analysis of short loops connecting repetitive structures. BMC Bioinformatics. 2004;5:58. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-5-58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Martin J, de Brevern AG, Camproux AC. In silico local structure approach: A case study on Outer Membrane Proteins. Proteins. 2008;71:92–109. doi: 10.1002/prot.21659. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Bornot A, de Brevern AG. Protein beta-turn assignments. Bioinformation. 2006;1:153–155. doi: 10.6026/97320630001153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Labesse G, Colloc'h N, Pothier J, Mornon JP. P-SEA: a new efficient assignment of secondary structure from C alpha trace of proteins. Comput Appl Biosci. 1997;13:291–295. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/13.3.291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Colloc'h N, Etchebest C, Thoreau E, Henrissat B, Mornon JP. Comparison of three algorithms for the assignment of secondary structure in proteins: the advantages of a consensus assignment. Protein Eng. 1993;6:377–382. doi: 10.1093/protein/6.4.377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Tyagi M, Bornot A, Offmann B, de Brevern AG. Protein short loop prediction in terms of a structural alphabet. Comput Biol Chem. 2009;33:329–333. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2009.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Tyagi M, de Brevern AG, Srinivasan N, Offmann B. Protein structure mining using a structural alphabet. Proteins. 2008;71:920–937. doi: 10.1002/prot.21776. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Tyagi M, Gowri VS, Srinivasan N, de Brevern AG, Offmann B. A substitution matrix for structural alphabet based on structural alignment of homologous proteins and its applications. Proteins. 2006;65:32–39. doi: 10.1002/prot.21087. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Tyagi M, Sharma P, Swamy CS, Cadet F, Srinivasan N, et al. Protein Block Expert (PBE): a web-based protein structure analysis server using a structural alphabet. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34:W119–123. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkl199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.de Brevern AG, Joseph AP, Valadié H. Species Specific Amino Acid Sequence - Protein Local Structure Relationships: an analysis in the light of a structural alphabet. J Theor Biol. 2011 doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2011.01.047. in press. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Dudev M, Lim C. Discovering structural motifs using a structural alphabet: application to magnesium-binding sites. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007;8:106. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-8-106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Wu CY, Chen YC, Lim C. A structural-alphabet-based strategy for finding structural motifs across protein families. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38:e150. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq478. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.de Brevern AG, Valadie H, Hazout S, Etchebest C. Extension of a local backbone description using a structural alphabet: a new approach to the sequence-structure relationship. Protein Sci. 2002;11:2871–2886. doi: 10.1110/ps.0220502. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Faure G, Bornot A, de Brevern AG. Protein contacts, inter-residue interactions and side-chain modelling. Biochimie. 2008;90:626–639. doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2007.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Faure G, Bornot A, de Brevern AG. Analysis of protein contacts into Protein Units. Biochimie. 2009;91:876–887. doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2009.04.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Esque J, Oguey C, de Brevern AG. Comparative Analysis of Threshold and Tessellation Methods for Determining Protein Contacts. J Chem Inf Model. 2011 doi: 10.1021/ci100195t. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Zagrovic B, Lipfert J, Sorin EJ, Millett IS, van Gunsteren WF, et al. Unusual compactness of a polyproline type II structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:11698–11703. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0409693102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Kutter S, Weiss MS, Wille G, Golbik R, Spinka M, et al. Covalently bound substrate at the regulatory site of yeast pyruvate decarboxylases triggers allosteric enzyme activation. J Biol Chem. 2009;284:12136–12144. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M806228200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Lindahl E, Hess B, van der Spoel D. GROMACS 3.0: A package for molecular simulation and trajectory analysis. J Mol Mod. 2001;7:306–317. [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Hess B, Kutzner C, van der Spoel D, Lindahl E. GROMACS 4: Algorithms for highly efficient, load-balanced, and scalable molecular simulation. J Chem Theor Comp. 2008;4:435–447. doi: 10.1021/ct700301q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.van der Spoel D, Lindahl E, Hess B, Groenhof G, Mark AE, et al. GROMACS: Fast, Flexible and Free. J Comp Chem. 2005;26:1701–1718. doi: 10.1002/jcc.20291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Berendsen HJC, van der Spoel D, van Drunen R. GROMACS: A message-passing parallel molecular dynamics implementation. Comp Phys Comm. 2005;91:43–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Jorgensen WL, Maxwell DS, Tirado-Rives J. Development and Testing of the OPLS All-Atom Force Field on Conformational Energetics and Properties of Organic Liquids. J Am Chem Soc. 1996;118:11225–11236. [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Kameda T, Takada S. Secondary structure provides a template for the folding of nearby polypeptides. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103:17765–17770. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0602632103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Thompson EJ, DePaul AJ, Patel SS, Sorin EJ. Evaluating molecular mechanical potentials for helical peptides and proteins. PLoS One. 2010;5:e10056. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Shi Z, Chen K, Liu Z, Ng A, Bracken WC, et al. Polyproline II propensities from GGXGG peptides reveal an anticorrelation with beta-sheet scales. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:17964–17968. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507124102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Horng JC, Raines RT. Stereoelectronic effects on polyproline conformation. Protein Sci. 2006;15:74–83. doi: 10.1110/ps.051779806. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Jun S, Becker JS, Yonkunas M, Coalson R, Saxena S. Unfolding of alanine-based peptides using electron spin resonance distance measurements. Biochemistry. 2006;45:11666–11673. doi: 10.1021/bi061195b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Adzhubei AA, Sternberg MJ. Conservation of polyproline II helices in homologous proteins: implications for structure prediction by model building. Protein Sci. 1994;3:2395–2410. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560031223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Kay BK, Williamson MP, Sudol M. The importance of being proline: the interaction of proline-rich motifs in signaling proteins with their cognate domains. FASEB J. 2000;14:231–241. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Peterson FC, Volkman BF. Diversity of polyproline recognition by EVH1 domains. Front Biosci. 2009;14:833–846. doi: 10.2741/3281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Polverini E, Rangaraj G, Libich DS, Boggs JM, Harauz G. Binding of the proline-rich segment of myelin basic protein to SH3 domains: spectroscopic, microarray, and modeling studies of ligand conformation and effects of posttranslational modifications. Biochemistry. 2008;47:267–282. doi: 10.1021/bi701336n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Watanabe Y, Tsuboi H, Koyama M, Kubo M, Del Carpio CA, et al. Molecular dynamics study on the ligand recognition by tandem SH3 domains of p47phox, regulating NADPH oxidase activity. Comput Biol Chem. 2006;30:303–312. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2006.04.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Obuchowski PL, Jacobs-Wagner C. PflI, a protein involved in flagellar positioning in Caulobacter crescentus. J Bacteriol. 2008;190:1718–1729. doi: 10.1128/JB.01706-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Rath A, Davidson AR, Deber CM. The structure of “unstructured” regions in peptides and proteins: role of the polyproline II helix in protein folding and recognition. Biopolymers. 2005;80:179–185. doi: 10.1002/bip.20227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Martin J, Letellier G, Marin A, Taly J-F, de Brevern AG, et al. Protein secondary structure assignment revisited: a detailed analysis of different assignment methods. BMC Structural Biology. 2005;5:17. doi: 10.1186/1472-6807-5-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Richards FM, Kundrot CE. Identification of structural motifs from protein coordinate data: secondary structure and first-level supersecondary structure. Proteins. 1988;3:71–84. doi: 10.1002/prot.340030202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Beck DA, Alonso DO, Inoyama D, Daggett V. The intrinsic conformational propensities of the 20 naturally occurring amino acids and reflection of these propensities in proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105:12259–12264. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0706527105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Swindells MB, MacArthur MW, Thornton JM. Intrinsic phi, psi propensities of amino acids, derived from the coil regions of known structures. Nat Struct Biol. 1995;2:596–603. doi: 10.1038/nsb0795-596. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Tiffany ML, Krimm S. New chain conformations of poly(glutamic acid) and polylysine. Biopolymers. 1968;6:1379–1382. doi: 10.1002/bip.1968.360060911. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Shi Z, Kallenbach NR. Ramachandran redux. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108:3–4. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1017021108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Porter LL, Rose GD. From the Cover: Redrawing the Ramachandran plot after inclusion of hydrogen-bonding constraints. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108:109–113. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1014674107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Frishman D, Argos P. Knowledge-based protein secondary structure assignment. Proteins. 1995;23:566–579. doi: 10.1002/prot.340230412. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Kohonen T. Self-organized formation of topologically correct feature maps. Biol Cybern. 1982;43:59–69. [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Rabiner LR. A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected application in speech recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE. 1989;77:257–286. [Google Scholar]
  • 108.de Brevern AG, Benros C, Gautier R, Valadie H, Hazout S, et al. Local backbone structure prediction of proteins. In Silico Biol. 2004;4:381–386. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.de Brevern AG, Hazout S. ‘Hybrid protein model’ for optimally defining 3D protein structure fragments. Bioinformatics. 2003;19:345–353. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btf859. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Etchebest C, Benros C, Hazout S, de Brevern AG. A structural alphabet for local protein structures: improved prediction methods. Proteins. 2005;59:810–827. doi: 10.1002/prot.20458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Figure S1

Agreement rate of SSAMs (reduced to three-states).

(DOC)

Figure S2

Secondary structure frequencies of the different SSAMs.

(DOC)

Figure S3

Ramachandran maps. a) full databank, PPII assigned by b) PROSS, c) XTLSSTR and d) SEGNO.

(DOC)

Figure S4

Distance between extremities of PPII assigned through coil DSSP.

(DOC)

Figure S5

Clustering based on the amino acid distribution in the assignments made by different SSAMs.

(DOC)

Figure S6

PPII capping regions.

(DOC)

Figure S7

Molecular dynamics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae pyruvate decarboxylase (PDB code 2VK8).

(DOC)

Figure S8

Molecular dynamics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae pyruvate decarboxylase (PDB code 2VK8). [animation]

(DOC)

Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy ofPLOS

ACTIONS

RESOURCES

[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp