Structural Similarity and Classification of Protein Interaction Interfaces

Interactions between proteins play a key role in many cellular processes. Studying protein-protein interactions that share similar interaction interfaces may shed light on their evolution and could be helpful in elucidating the mechanisms behind stability and dynamics of the protein complexes. When two complexes share structurally similar subunits, the similarity of the interaction interfaces can be found through a structural superposition of the subunits. However, an accurate detection of similarity between the protein complexes containing subunits of unrelated structure remains an open problem

Diffusion, Crowding & Protein Stability in a Dynamic Molecular Model of the Bacterial Cytoplasm

A longstanding question in molecular biology is the extent to which the behavior of macromolecules observed in vitro accurately reflects their behavior in vivo. A number of sophisticated experimental techniques now allow the behavior of individual types of macromolecule to be studied directly in vivo; none, however, allow a wide range of molecule types to be observed simultaneously. In order to tackle this issue we have adopted a computational perspective, and, having selected the model prokaryote Escherichia coli as a test system, have assembled an atomically detailed model of its cytoplasmic environment that includes 50 of the most abundant types of macromolecules at experimentally measured concentrations. Brownian dynamics (BD) simulations of the cytoplasm model have been calibrated to reproduce the translational diffusion coefficients of Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) observed in vivo, and “snapshots” of the simulation trajectories have been used to compute the cytoplasm's effects on the thermodynamics of protein folding, association and aggregation events. The simulation model successfully describes the relative thermodynamic stabilities of proteins measured in E. coli, and shows that effects additional to the commonly cited “crowding” effect must be included in attempts to understand macromolecular behavior in vivo

Distinguishing crystallographic from biological interfaces in protein complexes: role of intermolecular contacts and energetics for classification

BACKGROUND: Study of macromolecular assemblies is fundamental to understand functions in cells. X-ray crystallography is the most common technique to solve their 3D structure at atomic resolution. In a crystal, however, both biologically-relevant interfaces and non-specific interfaces resulting from crystallographic packing are observed. Due to the complexity of the biological assemblies currently tackled, classifying those interfaces, i.e. distinguishing biological from crystal lattice interfaces, is not trivial and often prone to errors. In this context, analyzing the physico-chemical characteristics of biological/crystal interfaces can help researchers identify possible features that distinguish them and gain a better understanding of the systems. RESULTS: In this work, we are providing new insights into the differences between biological and crystallographic complexes by focusing on "pair-properties" of interfaces that have not yet been fully investigated. We investigated properties such intermolecular residue-residue contacts (already successfully applied to the prediction of binding affinities) and interaction energies (electrostatic, Van der Waals and desolvation). By using the XtalMany and BioMany interface datasets, we show that interfacial residue contacts, classified as a function of their physico-chemical properties, can distinguish between biological and crystallographic interfaces. The energetic terms show, on average, higher values for crystal interfaces, reflecting a less stable interface due to crystal packing compared to biological interfaces. By using a variety of machine learning approaches, we trained a new interface classification predictor based on contacts and interaction energetic features. Our predictor reaches an accuracy in classifying biological vs crystal interfaces of 0.92, compared to 0.88 for EPPIC (one of the main state-of-the-art classifiers reporting same performance as PISA). CONCLUSION: In this work we have gained insights into the nature of intermolecular contacts and energetics terms distinguishing biological from crystallographic interfaces. Our findings might have a broader applicability in structural biology, for example for the identification of near native poses in docking. We implemented our classification approach into an easy-to-use and fast software, freely available to the scientific community from http://github.com/haddocking/interface-classifier