Protein Dynamics and Contact Topology Reveal Protein–DNA Binding Orientation

Structure-encoded conformational dynamics are crucial for biomolecular functions. However, there is insufficient evidence to support the notion that dynamics play a role in guiding protein-nucleic acid interactions. Here, we show that protein–DNA docking orientation is a function of protein intrinsic dynamics, but the binding site itself does not display unique patterns in the examined spectrum of motions. This revelation is made possible by a novel technique that locates “dynamics interfaces” in proteins across which protein parts are anticorrelated in their slowest dynamics. A striking statistic is that such interfaces intersect the DNA in 97% of the 104 examined cases. These findings were then used to screen decoys generated by rigid-body docking of DNA molecules onto DNA-binding proteins. Using our method, the chance to discern near-native poses from non-native decoys increased by 2.5- and 1.6-fold, as compared to a random guess and methods based on surface complementarity, respectively. Hence, dynamically allowed protein–DNA docking orientations can work as new filters to cull and rerank docking poses and therefore enhance the predictability of DNA-binding sites that themselves do not have distinct dynamics features. Computer software implementing the method can be accessed via http://dyn.life.nthu.edu.tw/IDD/DNA.htm

Protein Dynamics and Contact Topology Reveal Protein–DNA Binding Orientation

Structure-encoded conformational dynamics are crucial for biomolecular functions. However, there is insufficient evidence to support the notion that dynamics play a role in guiding protein-nucleic acid interactions. Here, we show that protein–DNA docking orientation is a function of protein intrinsic dynamics, but the binding site itself does not display unique patterns in the examined spectrum of motions. This revelation is made possible by a novel technique that locates “dynamics interfaces” in proteins across which protein parts are anticorrelated in their slowest dynamics. A striking statistic is that such interfaces intersect the DNA in 97% of the 104 examined cases. These findings were then used to screen decoys generated by rigid-body docking of DNA molecules onto DNA-binding proteins. Using our method, the chance to discern near-native poses from non-native decoys increased by 2.5- and 1.6-fold, as compared to a random guess and methods based on surface complementarity, respectively. Hence, dynamically allowed protein–DNA docking orientations can work as new filters to cull and rerank docking poses and therefore enhance the predictability of DNA-binding sites that themselves do not have distinct dynamics features. Computer software implementing the method can be accessed via http://dyn.life.nthu.edu.tw/IDD/DNA.htm

Molecular Binding Sites Are Located Near the Interface of Intrinsic Dynamics Domains (IDDs)

We provide evidence supporting that protein–protein and protein–ligand docking poses are functions of protein shape and intrinsic dynamics. Over sets of 68 protein–protein complexes and 240 nonhomologous enzymes, we recognize common predispositions for binding sites to have minimal vibrations and angular momenta, while two interacting proteins orient so as to maximize the angle between their rotation/bending axes (>65°). The findings are then used to define quantitative criteria to filter out docking decoys less likely to be the near-native poses; hence, the chances to find near-native hits can be doubled. With the novel approach to partition a protein into “domains” of robust but disparate intrinsic dynamics, 90% of catalytic residues in enzymes can be found within the first 50% of the residues closest to the interface of these dynamics domains. The results suggest an anisotropic rather than isotropic distribution of catalytic residues near the mass centers of enzymes