The role of hydrophobic interactions in positioning of peripheral proteins in membranes

Abstract Background Three-dimensional (3D) structures of numerous peripheral membrane proteins have been determined. Biological activity, stability, and conformations of these proteins depend on their spatial positions with respect to the lipid bilayer. However, these positions are usually undetermined. Results We report the first large-scale computational study of monotopic/peripheral proteins with known 3D structures. The optimal translational and rotational positions of 476 proteins are determined by minimizing energy of protein transfer from water to the lipid bilayer, which is approximated by a hydrocarbon slab with a decadiene-like polarity and interfacial regions characterized by water-permeation profiles. Predicted membrane-binding sites, protein tilt angles and membrane penetration depths are consistent with spin-labeling, chemical modification, fluorescence, NMR, mutagenesis, and other experimental studies of 53 peripheral proteins and peptides. Experimental membrane binding affinities of peripheral proteins were reproduced in cases that did not involve a helix-coil transition, specific binding of lipids, or a predominantly electrostatic association. Coordinates of all examined peripheral proteins and peptides with the calculated hydrophobic membrane boundaries, subcellular localization, topology, structural classification, and experimental references are available through the Orientations of Proteins in Membranes (OPM) database. Conclusion Positions of diverse peripheral proteins and peptides in the lipid bilayer can be accurately predicted using their 3D structures that represent a proper membrane-bound conformation and oligomeric state, and have membrane binding elements present. The success of the implicit solvation model suggests that hydrophobic interactions are usually sufficient to determine the spatial position of a protein in the membrane, even when electrostatic interactions or specific binding of lipids are substantial. Our results demonstrate that most peripheral proteins not only interact with the membrane surface, but penetrate through the interfacial region and reach the hydrocarbon interior, which is consistent with published experimental studies.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/116604/1/12900_2007_Article_125.pd

Life at the border: Adaptation of proteins to anisotropic membrane environment

This review discusses main features of transmembrane (TM) proteins which distinguish them from water‐soluble proteins and allow their adaptation to the anisotropic membrane environment. We overview the structural limitations on membrane protein architecture, spatial arrangement of proteins in membranes and their intrinsic hydrophobic thickness, co‐translational and post‐translational folding and insertion into lipid bilayers, topogenesis, high propensity to form oligomers, and large‐scale conformational transitions during membrane insertion and transport function. Special attention is paid to the polarity of TM protein surfaces described by profiles of dipolarity/polarizability and hydrogen‐bonding capacity parameters that match polarity of the lipid environment. Analysis of distributions of Trp resides on surfaces of TM proteins from different biological membranes indicates that interfacial membrane regions with preferential accumulation of Trp indole rings correspond to the outer part of the lipid acyl chain region—between double bonds and carbonyl groups of lipids. These “midpolar” regions are not always symmetric in proteins from natural membranes. We also examined the hydrophobic effect that drives insertion of proteins into lipid bilayer and different free energy contributions to TM protein stability, including attractive van der Waals forces and hydrogen bonds, side‐chain conformational entropy, the hydrophobic mismatch, membrane deformations, and specific protein–lipid binding.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/108308/1/pro2508.pd

Structural organization of G-protein-coupled receptors

Atomic-resolution structures of the transmembrane 7-α-helical domains of 26 G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) (including opsins, cationic amine, melatonin, purine, chemokine, opioid, and glycoprotein hormone receptors and two related proteins, retinochrome and Duffy erythrocyte antigen) were calculated by distance geometry using interhelical hydrogen bonds formed by various proteins from the family and collectively applied as distance constraints, as described previously [Pogozheva et al., Biophys. J., 70 (1997) 1963]. The main structural features of the calculated GPCR models are described and illustrated by examples. Some of the features reflect physical interactions that are responsible for the structural stability of the transmembrane α-bundle: the formation of extensive networks of interhelical H-bonds and sulfur–aromatic clusters that are spatially organized as 'polarity gradients' the close packing of side-chains throughout the transmembrane domain; and the formation of interhelical disulfide bonds in some receptors and a plausible Zn2+ binding center in retinochrome. Other features of the models are related to biological function and evolution of GPCRs: the formation of a common 'minicore' of 43 evolutionarily conserved residues; a multitude of correlated replacements throughout the transmembrane domain; an Na+-binding site in some receptors, and excellent complementarity of receptor binding pockets to many structurally dissimilar, conformationally constrained ligands, such as retinal, cyclic opioid peptides, and cationic amine ligands. The calculated models are in good agreement with numerous experimental data.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/42965/1/10822_2004_Article_200887.pd

OPM database and PPM web server: resources for positioning of proteins in membranes

The Orientations of Proteins in Membranes (OPM) database is a curated web resource that provides spatial positions of membrane-bound peptides and proteins of known three-dimensional structure in the lipid bilayer, together with their structural classification, topology and intracellular localization. OPM currently contains more than 1200 transmembrane and peripheral proteins and peptides from approximately 350 organisms that represent approximately 3800 Protein Data Bank entries. Proteins are classified into classes, superfamilies and families and assigned to 21 distinct membrane types. Spatial positions of proteins with respect to the lipid bilayer are optimized by the PPM 2.0 method that accounts for the hydrophobic, hydrogen bonding and electrostatic interactions of the proteins with the anisotropic water-lipid environment described by the dielectric constant and hydrogen-bonding profiles. The OPM database is freely accessible at http://opm.phar.umich.edu. Data can be sorted, searched or retrieved using the hierarchical classification, source organism, localization in different types of membranes. The database offers downloadable coordinates of proteins and peptides with membrane boundaries. A gallery of protein images and several visualization tools are provided. The database is supplemented by the PPM server (http://opm.phar.umich.edu/server.php) which can be used for calculating spatial positions in membranes of newly determined proteins structures or theoretical models

Interatomic potentials and solvation parameters from protein engineering data for buried residues

Van der Waals (vdW) interaction energies between different atom types, energies of hydrogen bonds (H‐bonds), and atomic solvation parameters (ASPs) have been derived from the published thermodynamic stabilities of 106 mutants with available crystal structures by use of an originally designed model for the calculation of free‐energy differences. The set of mutants included substitutions of uncharged, inflexible, water‐inaccessible residues in α‐helices and β‐sheets of T4, human, and hen lysozymes and HI ribonuclease. The determined energies of vdW interactions and H‐bonds were smaller than in molecular mechanics and followed the “like dissolves like” rule, as expected in condensed media but not in vacuum. The depths of modified Lennard‐Jones potentials were −0.34, −0.12, and −0.06 kcal/mole for similar atom types (polar–polar, aromatic–aromatic, and aliphatic–aliphatic interactions, respectively) and −0.10, −0.08, −0.06, −0.02, and nearly 0 kcal/mole for different types (sulfur–polar, sulfur–aromatic, sulfur–aliphatic, aliphatic–aromatic, and carbon–polar, respectively), whereas the depths of H‐bond potentials were −1.5 to −1.8 kcal/mole. The obtained solvation parameters, that is, transfer energies from water to the protein interior, were 19, 7, −1, −21, and −66 cal/moleÅ 2 for aliphatic carbon, aromatic carbon, sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen, respectively, which is close to the cyclohexane scale for aliphatic and aromatic groups but intermediate between octanol and cyclohexane for others. An analysis of additional replacements at the water–protein interface indicates that vdW interactions between protein atoms are reduced when they occur across water.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/106915/1/111984_ftp.pd

Community-wide assessment of GPCR structure modelling and ligand docking: GPCR Dock 2008

Recent breakthroughs in the determination of the crystal structures of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) have provided new opportunities for structure-based drug design strategies targeting this protein family. With the aim of evaluating the current status of GPCR structure prediction and ligand docking, a community-wide, blind prediction assessment - GPCR Dock 2008 - was conducted in coordination with the publication of the crystal structure of the human adenosine A2Areceptor bound to the ligand ZM241385. Twenty-nine groups submitted 206 structural models before the release of the experimental structure, which were evaluated for the accuracy of the ligand binding mode and the overall receptor model compared with the crystal structure. This analysis highlights important aspects for success and future development, such as accurate modelling of structurally divergent regions and use of additional biochemical insight such as disulphide bridges in the extracellular loops

Structure of the first representative of Pfam family PF09410 (DUF2006) reveals a structural signature of the calycin superfamily that suggests a role in lipid metabolism

The first structural representative of the domain of unknown function DUF2006 family, also known as Pfam family PF09410, comprises a lipocalin-like fold with domain duplication. The finding of the calycin signature in the N-terminal domain, combined with remote sequence similarity to two other protein families (PF07143 and PF08622) implicated in isoprenoid metabolism and the oxidative stress response, support an involvement in lipid metabolism. Clusters of conserved residues that interact with ligand mimetics suggest that the binding and regulation sites map to the N-terminal domain and to the interdomain interface, respectively.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/79347/1/S1744309109037749.pd

Open and closed conformations of two SpoIIAA-like proteins (YP_749275.1 and YP_001095227.1) provide insights into membrane association and ligand binding

The crystal structures of two orthologous proteins from different Shewanella species have uncovered a resemblance to CRAL-TRIO carrier proteins, which suggest that they function as transporters of small nonpolar molecules. One protein adopts an open conformation, while the other adopts a closed structure that may act as a conformational switch in the transport of ligands at the membrane surface