|
|
|
|
 |
Contents |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Residue conservation analysis
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
DOI no:
|
J Mol Biol
371:1392-1404
(2007)
|
|
PubMed id:
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Structure-based Protocol for Identifying Mutations that Enhance Protein-Protein Binding Affinities.
|
|
D.W.Sammond,
Z.M.Eletr,
C.Purbeck,
R.J.Kimple,
D.P.Siderovski,
B.Kuhlman.
|
|
|
|
| |
ABSTRACT
|
|
|
| |
|
The ability to manipulate protein binding affinities is important for the
development of proteins as biosensors, industrial reagents, and therapeutics. We
have developed a structure-based method to rationally predict single mutations
at protein-protein interfaces that enhance binding affinities. The protocol is
based on the premise that increasing buried hydrophobic surface area and/or
reducing buried hydrophilic surface area will generally lead to enhanced
affinity if large steric clashes are not introduced and buried polar groups are
not left without a hydrogen bond partner. The procedure selects affinity
enhancing point mutations at the protein-protein interface using three criteria:
(1) the mutation must be from a polar amino acid to a non-polar amino acid or
from a non-polar amino acid to a larger non-polar amino acid, (2) the free
energy of binding as calculated with the Rosetta protein modeling program should
be more favorable than the free energy of binding calculated for the wild-type
complex and (3) the mutation should not be predicted to significantly
destabilize the monomers. The performance of the computational protocol was
experimentally tested on two separate protein complexes; Galpha(i1) from the
heterotrimeric G-protein system bound to the RGS14 GoLoco motif, and the E2,
UbcH7, bound to the E3, E6AP from the ubiquitin pathway. Twelve single-site
mutations that were predicted to be stabilizing were synthesized and
characterized in the laboratory. Nine of the 12 mutations successfully increased
binding affinity with five of these increasing binding by over 1.0 kcal/mol. To
further assess our approach we searched the literature for point mutations that
pass our criteria and have experimentally determined binding affinities. Of the
eight mutations identified, five were accurately predicted to increase binding
affinity, further validating the method as a useful tool to increase
protein-protein binding affinities.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Selected figure(s)
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
 |
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Binding curves for select affinity increasing
mutations compared to wild-type for (a) Gα[i1]:GoLoco and (b)
E6AP:UbcH7.
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
The above figure is
reprinted
by permission from Elsevier:
J Mol Biol
(2007,
371,
1392-1404)
copyright 2007.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Literature references that cite this PDB file's key reference
|
|
 |
| |
PubMed id
|
 |
Reference
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
A.F.Mehl,
N.U G,
Z.Ahmed,
A.Wells,
and
T.D.Spyratos
(2011).
Probing dimer interface stabilization within a four-helix bundle of the GrpE protein from Escherichia coli via internal deletion mutants: conversion of a dimer to monomer.
|
| |
Int J Biol Macromol,
48,
627-633.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
O.Sharabi,
A.Dekel,
and
J.M.Shifman
(2011).
Triathlon for energy functions: who is the winner for design of protein-protein interactions?
|
| |
Proteins,
79,
1487-1498.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
O.Sharabi,
C.Yanover,
A.Dekel,
and
J.M.Shifman
(2011).
Optimizing energy functions for protein-protein interface design.
|
| |
J Comput Chem,
32,
23-32.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
A.T.Frank,
C.B.Ramsook,
H.N.Otoo,
C.Tan,
G.Soybelman,
J.M.Rauceo,
N.K.Gaur,
S.A.Klotz,
and
P.N.Lipke
(2010).
Structure and function of glycosylated tandem repeats from Candida albicans Als adhesins.
|
| |
Eukaryot Cell,
9,
405-414.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
B.Li,
L.Zhao,
C.Wang,
H.Guo,
L.Wu,
X.Zhang,
W.Qian,
H.Wang,
and
Y.Guo
(2010).
The protein-protein interface evolution acts in a similar way to antibody affinity maturation.
|
| |
J Biol Chem,
285,
3865-3871.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
D.P.Nannemann,
K.W.Kaufmann,
J.Meiler,
and
B.O.Bachmann
(2010).
Design and directed evolution of a dideoxy purine nucleoside phosphorylase.
|
| |
Protein Eng Des Sel,
23,
607-616.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
D.W.Sammond,
Z.M.Eletr,
C.Purbeck,
and
B.Kuhlman
(2010).
Computational design of second-site suppressor mutations at protein-protein interfaces.
|
| |
Proteins,
78,
1055-1065.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
J.Tian,
N.Wu,
X.Chu,
and
Y.Fan
(2010).
Predicting changes in protein thermostability brought about by single- or multi-site mutations.
|
| |
BMC Bioinformatics,
11,
370.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
B.Dassa,
N.London,
B.L.Stoddard,
O.Schueler-Furman,
and
S.Pietrokovski
(2009).
Fractured genes: a novel genomic arrangement involving new split inteins and a new homing endonuclease family.
|
| |
Nucleic Acids Res,
37,
2560-2573.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
D.J.Mandell,
and
T.Kortemme
(2009).
Computer-aided design of functional protein interactions.
|
| |
Nat Chem Biol,
5,
797-807.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
H.Wakabayashi,
A.E.Griffiths,
and
P.J.Fay
(2009).
Combining mutations of charged residues at the A2 domain interface enhances factor VIII stability over single point mutations.
|
| |
J Thromb Haemost,
7,
438-444.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
H.Watanabe,
H.Matsumaru,
A.Ooishi,
Y.Feng,
T.Odahara,
K.Suto,
and
S.Honda
(2009).
Optimizing pH Response of Affinity between Protein G and IgG Fc: HOW ELECTROSTATIC MODULATIONS AFFECT PROTEIN-PROTEIN INTERACTIONS.
|
| |
J Biol Chem,
284,
12373-12383.
|
 |
|
PDB codes:
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
J.Karanicolas,
and
B.Kuhlman
(2009).
Computational design of affinity and specificity at protein-protein interfaces.
|
| |
Curr Opin Struct Biol,
19,
458-463.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
J.L.Jordan,
J.W.Arndt,
K.Hanf,
G.Li,
J.Hall,
S.Demarest,
F.Huang,
X.Wu,
B.Miller,
S.Glaser,
E.J.Fernandez,
D.Wang,
and
A.Lugovskoy
(2009).
Structural understanding of stabilization patterns in engineered bispecific Ig-like antibody molecules.
|
| |
Proteins,
77,
832-841.
|
 |
|
PDB codes:
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
J.N.Haidar,
B.Pierce,
Y.Yu,
W.Tong,
M.Li,
and
Z.Weng
(2009).
Structure-based design of a T-cell receptor leads to nearly 100-fold improvement in binding affinity for pepMHC.
|
| |
Proteins,
74,
948-960.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
K.Khafizov
(2009).
GoLoco motif proteins binding to Galpha(i1): insights from molecular simulations.
|
| |
J Mol Model,
15,
1491-1499.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
O.Sharabi,
Y.Peleg,
E.Mashiach,
E.Vardy,
Y.Ashani,
I.Silman,
J.L.Sussman,
and
J.M.Shifman
(2009).
Design, expression and characterization of mutants of fasciculin optimized for interaction with its target, acetylcholinesterase.
|
| |
Protein Eng Des Sel,
22,
641-648.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
S.Chaudhury,
and
J.J.Gray
(2009).
Identification of structural mechanisms of HIV-1 protease specificity using computational peptide docking: implications for drug resistance.
|
| |
Structure,
17,
1636-1648.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
F.S.Willard,
Z.Zheng,
J.Guo,
G.J.Digby,
A.J.Kimple,
J.M.Conley,
C.A.Johnston,
D.Bosch,
M.D.Willard,
V.J.Watts,
N.A.Lambert,
S.R.Ikeda,
Q.Du,
and
D.P.Siderovski
(2008).
A Point Mutation to G{alpha}i Selectively Blocks GoLoco Motif Binding: DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR G{alpha}{middle dot}GoLoco COMPLEXES IN MITOTIC SPINDLE DYNAMICS.
|
| |
J Biol Chem,
283,
36698-36710.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
H.Wakabayashi,
F.Varfaj,
J.Deangelis,
and
P.J.Fay
(2008).
Generation of enhanced stability factor VIII variants by replacement of charged residues at the A2 domain interface.
|
| |
Blood,
112,
2761-2769.
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
The most recent references are shown first.
Citation data come partly from CiteXplore and partly
from an automated harvesting procedure. Note that this is likely to be
only a partial list as not all journals are covered by
either method. However, we are continually building up the citation data
so more and more references will be included with time.
Where a reference describes a PDB structure, the PDB
codes are
shown on the right.
|
');
}
}
 |