The ability to consistently distinguish real protein structures from computationally generated model decoys is not yet a solved problem. One route to distinguish real protein structures from decoys is to delineate the important physical features that specify a real protein. For example, it has long been appreciated that the hydrophobic cores of proteins contribute significantly to their stability. We used two sources to obtain datasets of decoys to compare with real protein structures: submissions to the biennial Critical Assessment of protein Structure Prediction competition, in which researchers attempt to predict the structure of a protein only knowing its amino acid sequence, and also decoys generated by 3DRobot, which have user‐specified global root‐mean‐squared deviations from experimentally determined structures. Our analysis revealed that both sets of decoys possess cores that do not recapitulate the key features that define real protein cores. In particular, the model structures appear more densely packed (because of energetically unfavorable atomic overlaps), contain too few residues in the core, and have improper distributions of hydrophobic residues throughout the structure. Based on these observations, we developed a feed‐forward neural network, which incorporates key physical features of protein cores, to predict how well a computational model recapitulates the real protein structure without knowledge of the structure of the target sequence. By identifying the important features of protein structure, our method is able to rank decoy structures with similar accuracy to that obtained by state‐of‐the‐art methods that incorporate many additional features. The small number of physical features makes our model interpretable, emphasizing the importance of protein packing and hydrophobicity in protein structure prediction.
There have been several studies suggesting that protein structures solved by NMR spectroscopy and X‐ray crystallography show significant differences. To understand the origin of these differences, we assembled a database of high‐quality protein structures solved by both methods. We also find significant differences between NMR and crystal structures—in the root‐mean‐square deviations of the C
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10456764
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
- Volume:
- 88
- Issue:
- 9
- ISSN:
- 0887-3585
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- p. 1154-1161
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
more » « less
Abstract In recent years, new protein engineering methods have produced more than a dozen symmetric, self‐assembling protein cages whose structures have been validated to match their design models with near‐atomic accuracy. However, many protein cage designs that are tested in the lab do not form the desired assembly, and improving the success rate of design has been a point of recent emphasis. Here we present two protein structures solved by X‐ray crystallography of designed protein oligomers that form two‐component cages with tetrahedral symmetry. To improve on the past tendency toward poorly soluble protein, we used a computational protocol that favors the formation of hydrogen‐bonding networks over exclusively hydrophobic interactions to stabilize the designed protein–protein interfaces. Preliminary characterization showed highly soluble expression, and solution studies indicated successful cage formation by both designed proteins. For one of the designs, a crystal structure confirmed at high resolution that the intended tetrahedral cage was formed, though several flipped amino acid side chain rotamers resulted in an interface that deviates from the precise hydrogen‐bonding pattern that was intended. A structure of the other designed cage showed that, under the conditions where crystals were obtained, a noncage structure was formed wherein a porous 3D protein network in space group I213 is generated by an off‐target twofold homomeric interface. These results illustrate some of the ongoing challenges of developing computational methods for polar interface design, and add two potentially valuable new entries to the growing list of engineered protein materials for downstream applications.
-
more » « less
Abstract With the recent establishment of atomically precise nanochemistry, capabilities toward programmable control over the nanoparticle size and structure are being developed. Advances in the synthesis of atomically precise nanoclusters (NCs, 1–3 nm) have been made in recent years, and more importantly, their total structures (core plus ligands) have been mapped out by X‐ray crystallography. These ultrasmall Au nanoparticles exhibit strong quantum‐confinement effect, manifested in their optical absorption properties. With the advantage of atomic precision, gold‐thiolate nanoclusters (Au
n (SR)m ) are revealed to contain an inner kernel, Au–S interface (motifs), and surface ligand (‐R) shell. Programming the atomic packing into various crystallographic structures of the metal kernel can be achieved, which plays a significant role in determining the optical properties and the energy gap (E g) of NCs. When the size increases, a general trend is observed for NCs with fcc or decahedral kernels, whereas those NCs with icosahedral kernels deviate from the general trend by showing comparably smallerE g. Comparisons are also made to further demonstrate the more decisive role of the kernel structure over surface motifs based on isomeric Au NCs and NC series with evolving kernel or motif structures. Finally, future perspectives are discussed. -
Saccharomyces cerevisiae OYE 3 shares 80% sequence identity with the well-studied Saccharomyces pastorianus OYE 1; however, wild-type OYE 3 shows different stereoselectivities toward some alkene substrates. Site-saturation mutagenesis of Trp 116 in OYE 3 followed by substrate profiling showed that the mutations had relatively little effect, opposite to that observed previously for OYE 1. The X-ray crystal structures of unliganded and phenol-bound OYE 3 were solved to 1.8 and 1.9 Å resolution, respectively. Both structures were nearly identical to that of OYE 1, with only a single amino acid difference in the active site region (Ser 296 versus Phe 296, part of loop 6). Despite their essentially identical static X-ray structures, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations revealed that loop 6 conformations differed significantly in solution between OYE 3 and OYE 1. In OYE 3, loop 6 remained nearly as open as observed in the crystal structure; by contrast, loop 6 closed over the active site of OYE 1 by ca. 4 Å. Loop closure likely generates a greater number of active site protein contacts for substrate bound to OYE 1 as compared to OYE 3. These differences provide an explanation for the differing stereoselectivities of OYE 3 and OYE 1, despite their nearly identical X-ray crystal structures.more » « less
-
Phosphorylation and dephosphorylation of proteins by kinases and phosphatases are central to cellular responses and function. The structural effects of serine and threonine phosphorylation were examined in peptides and in proteins, by circular dichroism, NMR spectroscopy, bioinformatics analysis of the PDB, small-molecule X-ray crystallography, and computational investigations. Phosphorylation of both serine and threonine residues induces substantial conformational restriction in their physiologically more important dianionic forms. Threonine exhibits a particularly strong disorder-to-order transition upon phosphorylation, with dianionic phosphothreonine preferentially adopting a cyclic conformation with restricted φ (φ ~ –60 ̊) stabilized by three noncovalent interactions: a strong intraresidue phosphate-amide hydrogen bond, an n→π* interaction between consecutive carbonyls, and an n→σ* interaction between the phosphate Oγ lone pair and the antibonding orbital of C–Hβ that restricts the χ2 side chain conformation. Proline is unique among the canonical amino acids for its covalent cyclization on the backbone. Phosphothreonine can mimic proline's backbone cyclization via noncovalent interactions. The preferred torsions of dianionic phosphothreonine are φ,ψ = polyproline II helix > α-helix (φ ~ –60 ̊); χ1 = g–; χ2 ~ +115 ̊ (eclipsed C–H/O–P bonds). This structural signature is observed in diverse proteins, including in the activation loops of protein kinases and in protein-protein interactions. In total, these results suggest a structural basis for the differential use and evolution of threonine versus serine phosphorylation sites in proteins, with serine phosphorylation typically inducing smaller, rheostat-like changes, versus threonine phosphorylation promoting larger, step function-like switches, in proteins.more » « less
