Structural features can be unconserved in proteins with similar folds. An analysis of side-chain to side-chain contacts secondary structure and accessibility
- PMID: 7966343
- DOI: 10.1006/jmbi.1994.1733
Structural features can be unconserved in proteins with similar folds. An analysis of side-chain to side-chain contacts secondary structure and accessibility
Abstract
Side-chain to side-chain contacts, accessibility, secondary structure and RMS deviation were compared within 607 pairs of proteins having similar three-dimensional (3D) structures. Three types of protein 3D structural similarities were defined: type A having sequence and usually functional similarity; type B having functional, but no sequence similarity; and type C having only 3D structural similarity. Within proteins having little or no sequence similarity (types B and C), structural features frequently had a degree of conservation comparable to dissimilar 3D structures. Despite similar protein folds, as few as 30% of residues within similar protein 3D structures can form a common core. RMS deviations on core C alpha atoms can be as high as 3.2 A. Similar protein structures can have secondary structure identities as low as 41%, which is equivalent to that expected by chance. By defining three categories of amino acid accessibility (buried, half buried and exposed), some similar protein 3D structures have as few as 30% of positions in the same category, making them indistinguishable from pairs of dissimilar protein structures. Similar structures can also have as few as 12% of common side-chain to side-chain contacts, and virtually no similar energetically favourable side-chain to side-chain interactions. Complementary changes are defined as structurally equivalent pairs of interacting residues in two structures with energetically favourable but different side-chain interactions. For many proteins with similar three-dimensional structures, the proportion of complementary changes is near to that expected by chance, suggesting that many similar structures have fundamentally different stabilising interactions. All of the results suggest that proteins having similar 3D structures can have little in common apart from a scaffold of core secondary structures. This has profound implications for methods of protein fold detection, since many of the properties assumed to be conserved across similar protein 3D structures (e.g. accessibility, side-chain to side-chain contacts, etc.) are often unconserved within weakly similar (i.e. type B and C) protein 3D structures. Little difference was found between type B and C similarities suggesting that the structure of similar proteins can evolve beyond recognition even when function is conserved. Our findings suggest that it is more general features of protein structure, such as the requirements for burial of hydrophobic residues and exposure of polar residues, rather than specific residue-residue interactions that determine how well a particular sequence adopts a particular fold.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
Similar articles
-
The 1.7 A crystal structure of BPI: a study of how two dissimilar amino acid sequences can adopt the same fold.J Mol Biol. 2000 Jun 16;299(4):1019-34. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.2000.3805. J Mol Biol. 2000. PMID: 10843855
-
Recognition of analogous and homologous protein folds: analysis of sequence and structure conservation.J Mol Biol. 1997 Jun 13;269(3):423-39. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1997.1019. J Mol Biol. 1997. PMID: 9199410
-
An integrated approach to the analysis and modeling of protein sequences and structures. III. A comparative study of sequence conservation in protein structural families using multiple structural alignments.J Mol Biol. 2000 Aug 18;301(3):691-711. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.2000.3975. J Mol Biol. 2000. PMID: 10966778
-
[A turning point in the knowledge of the structure-function-activity relations of elastin].J Soc Biol. 2001;195(2):181-93. J Soc Biol. 2001. PMID: 11727705 Review. French.
-
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):127-52. doi: 10.3109/10409239609106582. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 1996. PMID: 8740525 Review.
Cited by
-
Accuracy of structure-based sequence alignment of automatic methods.BMC Bioinformatics. 2007 Sep 20;8:355. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-8-355. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007. PMID: 17883866 Free PMC article.
-
A comparison of position-specific score matrices based on sequence and structure alignments.Protein Sci. 2002 Feb;11(2):361-70. doi: 10.1110/ps.19902. Protein Sci. 2002. PMID: 11790846 Free PMC article.
-
Structural similarity to link sequence space: new potential superfamilies and implications for structural genomics.Protein Sci. 2002 May;11(5):1101-16. doi: 10.1110/ps.3950102. Protein Sci. 2002. PMID: 11967367 Free PMC article.
-
Prediction of the structural motifs of sandwich proteins.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Nov 30;101(48):16780-3. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0407570101. Epub 2004 Nov 18. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004. PMID: 15550537 Free PMC article.
-
Length variations amongst protein domain superfamilies and consequences on structure and function.PLoS One. 2009;4(3):e4981. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004981. Epub 2009 Mar 31. PLoS One. 2009. PMID: 19333395 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources