PEDS Advance Access originally published online on February 24, 2005
Protein Engineering Design and Selection 2005 18(1):11-24; doi:10.1093/protein/gzh095
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Favorable scaffolds: proteins with different sequence, structure and function may associate in similar ways
1Koc University, Center of Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, and College of Engineering, Rumelifeneri Yolu, 34450 Sariyer Istanbul, Turkey, 2Basic Research Program, SAIC-Frederick, Inc., Laboratory of Experimental and Computational Biology, NCI-Frederick, Frederick, MD 21702, USA and 3Sackler Institute of Molecular Medicine, Department of Human Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
Correspondence should be addressed to R.Nussinov at SAIC-Frederick, Inc. or to O.Keskin. E-mail: ruthn{at}ncifcrf.gov or okeskin{at}ku.edu.tr
Proteins with similar structures may have different functions. Here, using a non-redundant two-chain protein–protein interface dataset containing 103 clusters, we show that this paradigm extends to interfaces. Whereas usually similar interfaces are obtained from globally similar chains, this is not always the case. Remarkably, in some interface clusters, although the interfaces are similar, the overall structures and functions of the chains are different. Hence, our work suggests that different folds may combinatorially assemble to yield similar local interface motifs. The preference of different folds to associate in similar ways illustrates that the paradigm is universal, whether for single chains in folding or for protein–protein association in binding. We analyze and compare the two types of clusters. Type I, with similar interfaces, similar global structures and similar functions, is better packed, less planar, has larger total and non-polar buried surface areas, better complementarity and more backbone–backbone hydrogen bonds than Type II (similar interfaces, different global structures and different functions). The dataset clusters may provide rich data for protein–protein recognition, cellular networks and drug design. In particular, they should be useful in addressing the difficult question of what the favorable ways for proteins to interact are.
Received August 10, 2004; revised November 12, 2004; accepted December 3, 2004.
Edited by Dek Woolfson
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Guharoy and P. Chakrabarti Secondary structure based analysis and classification of biological interfaces: identification of binding motifs in protein protein interactions Bioinformatics, August 1, 2007; 23(15): 1909 - 1918. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Liu, S. Liu, X. Zhu, H. Liang, A. Cao, Z. Chang, and L. Lai Nonnatural protein-protein interaction-pair design by key residues grafting PNAS, March 27, 2007; 104(13): 5330 - 5335. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Li, J. Li, and L. Wong Discovering motif pairs at interaction sites from protein sequences on a proteome-wide scale Bioinformatics, April 15, 2006; 22(8): 989 - 996. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|