ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
pPerturb: A Server for Predicting Long-Distance Energetic Couplings and Mutation-Induced Stability Changes in Proteins via Perturbations
My Activity
  • Open Access
Article

pPerturb: A Server for Predicting Long-Distance Energetic Couplings and Mutation-Induced Stability Changes in Proteins via Perturbations
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Soundhararajan Gopi
    Soundhararajan Gopi
    Department of Biotechnology, Bhupat and Jyoti Mehta School of Biosciences, Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IITM), Chennai 600036, India
  • Devanshu Devanshu
    Devanshu Devanshu
    Department of Biotechnology, Bhupat and Jyoti Mehta School of Biosciences, Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IITM), Chennai 600036, India
  • Nandakumar Rajasekaran
    Nandakumar Rajasekaran
    Department of Biotechnology, Bhupat and Jyoti Mehta School of Biosciences, Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IITM), Chennai 600036, India
    Department of Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, United States
  • Sathvik Anantakrishnan
    Sathvik Anantakrishnan
    Department of Biotechnology, Bhupat and Jyoti Mehta School of Biosciences, Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IITM), Chennai 600036, India
  • Athi N. Naganathan*
    Athi N. Naganathan
    Department of Biotechnology, Bhupat and Jyoti Mehta School of Biosciences, Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IITM), Chennai 600036, India
    *E-mail: [email protected]
Open PDF

ACS Omega

Cite this: ACS Omega 2020, 5, 2, 1142–1146
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.9b03371
Published January 9, 2020

Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The strength of intraprotein interactions or contact network is one of the dominant factors determining the thermodynamic stabilities of proteins. The nature and the extent of connectivity of this network also play a role in allosteric signal propagation characteristics upon ligand binding to a protein domain. Here, we develop a server for rapid quantification of the strength of an interaction network by employing an experimentally consistent perturbation approach previously validated against a large data set of 375 mutations in 19 different proteins. The web server can be employed to predict the extent of destabilization of proteins arising from mutations in the protein interior in experimentally relevant units. Moreover, coupling distances—a measure of the extent of percolation on perturbation—and overall perturbation magnitudes are predicted in a residue-specific manner, enabling a first look at the distribution of energetic couplings in a protein or its changes upon ligand binding. We show specific examples of how the server can be employed to probe for the distribution of local stabilities in a protein, to examine changes in side chain orientations or packing before and after ligand binding, and to predict changes in stabilities of proteins upon mutations of buried residues. The web server is freely available at http://pbl.biotech.iitm.ac.in/pPerturb and supports recent versions of all major browsers.

Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society

Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The network of noncovalent interactions in the protein interior primarily determines the thermodynamic stability of proteins. (1−3) These evolutionarily fine-tuned intraprotein interaction networks or contact networks display a range of local and nonlocal connectivity, thus determining protein local stability and folding mechanisms. Studies on designed proteins (4) and natural sensory proteins (5) highlight that it is this network of interactions that determines the stability and tunability upon solvent perturbations. Allosteric signals from a perturbation (ligand binding, mutation, and post-translational modification) also propagate through these contact networks, thus determining the functional output. (6−10) In fact, recent works suggest that modulating packing interactions in the protein interior affect the ligand-binding affinity on the protein surface. (11) A central theme in a majority of these approaches is that the interaction network is extremely pliable, contributing to the evolution of proteins, their functionality, (12,13) and cooperativity in protein folding thermodynamics (14,15) and even manifests as disease due to changes in the stability. (16)
Recent works combining graph-theoretic analysis of protein structures, all-atom molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, re-analysis of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) experimental data on perturbations point to an intricate connection between the packing density (i.e. the distribution of local and nonlocal interactions) and the extent of percolation of a signal. (9,17−19) They highlight that distance constraints alone can provide a simple avenue to look for allosteric hotspots. The major conclusions of the above work have also been validated through extensive analysis of anisotropic network models (20) and experimental dissection of stability–disease effects in three different proteins. (21) Here, we extend these theoretical results and experimental observations into a web server that can be used to rapidly predict strongly interacting residues, distribution of energetic coupling across the protein structure, and residue-specific parameters that shed light on potential allosteric hotspots and residues that likely determine cooperativity. The server can also be employed to predict the degree of destabilization in proteins upon mutations involving side chain truncation of uncharged residues in the protein interior.

Computational Methods

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Perturbation Protocol

Mutations in the interior of a protein are generally assumed to affect only the nearest neighbors (say, within 5–6 Å). However, analysis of MD simulations of several mutants of Ubiquitin suggest that the van der Waals (vdW) packing interactions are distinctly affected at positions 10–15 Å from the perturbed site, and hence the second shell of residues, but decay in an exponential manner. (17) A large-scale analysis of NMR data corroborates simulations and reveals that any mutational perturbation contributes to distinct changes in the chemical shift pattern (and thus the electronic environment) even at residues 10–20 Å from the side of perturbation, following a similar exponential pattern. (18) Inspired by this, we developed a simple relation that connects mutational effects to the strength of packing by recasting the van der Waals interaction energy (EvdW) in terms of the extent to which the first- and second-shell neighbors are affected (x1 and x2, respectively) and the nature of the perturbation (i.e., whether V to A or I to A mutation, for example). (17) These statements can be written in the form
(1)
Here, i is the mutated residue and j and k refer to the first- and second-shell neighbors, respectively. The nature of the perturbation is introduced via nmut/nWT, which corresponds to the ratio of the number of heavy atoms in the mutated residue to that in the wild-type (WT) residue. The van der Waals interaction energy per residue can be estimated either from statistical mechanical models or all-atom MD simulations, as shown before. (17) In this case, values for x1 and x2 were estimated by introducing the above relation into the Wako–Saitô–Muñoz–Eaton (WSME) statistical mechanical model (22−24) and varying both the interaction cutoff (4–6 Å for both first and second shells) and the magnitudes of x1 and x2 (0–1). By generating more than 100 000 unfolding curves for 375 mutants from 19 different proteins, we arrived at values of 0.5 and 0.2 for x1 and x2 (at equal 6 Å radius for first- and second-shell residues), respectively; this involved looking for consistency in three dimensions involving the slope of the plot of experimental versus predicted change in stability (ΔΔG), mean absolute error (MAE), and the correlation coefficient. (17)Equation 1 can also be written in terms of contacts, Q, extracted from the contact map as
(2)
where ΔQ is the extracted perturbation. Equations 1 and 2 are directly related as the van der Waals interaction energy terms in eq 1 can be simply represented as the product of mean-field interaction energy and the number of pairwise atomic-level contacts (Q) between residue pairs and assuming that the mean-field interaction energy itself is not affected by the mutation. A residue-level contact map (Q terms in eq 2) can be constructed by counting the number of heavy-atom interactions between residues within a 6 Å spherical cutoff, which is conventionally done in nearly all Go̅-type (native-centric) models of protein folding. This equation alone captures the exponential pattern seen in experiments, thus attesting to its usefulness. (19)Equation 2 can be employed to perform in silico alanine-scanning mutagenesis to probe for the strength of the interaction network across different parts of the protein as recently performed on three proteins implicated in diseases. (21)

Web Server Description

The overall features of the pPerturb web server are depicted in Figure 1. Briefly, the server accepts PDB ID/file as input from the user (protein length, N ≤ 400) following which it perturbs specific residues or the entire protein based on the experimentally consistent empirical eqs 1 and 2. The perturbation involves truncation of side chains to alanine and in the case of alanine (glycine) to glycine (a virtual three-atom residue) while maintaining two shells of interaction around the perturbed site. The effect of perturbation (written as ΔQ) will be felt at a distance based on the extent to which the perturbed residue is connected to its immediate neighbors or the strength of the interaction network. The ΔQ thus extracted is plotted as a function of distance from the perturbed site and fitted to an exponential function, thus providing an important parameter, the coupling distance, dC, that captures the extent to which the perturbation has percolated (in a strict equilibrium sense) into the interaction network. The amplitude of the exponential function and the overall perturbation magnitude (∑ΔQ) provide additional information on the network features including the magnitude of perturbation and the number of interactions that are perturbed in the immediate neighborhood, respectively. (19) If specific regions of the structure are strongly coupled to each other, then the ∑ΔQ will be larger and vice versa. (9) The output is generated in a rapid manner; for example, the results for a 400-residue protein can be generated in just ∼4 min.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Flowchart depicting the organization of modules in the pPerturb web server. Once the protein structure is loaded into the server, perturbation profiles at the level of individual residues are generated for individual residues using eq 2, following which residue-specific parameters are provided for selected residues (perturbation profile) or all residues in the protein (interaction network profile). The residue-specific parameters are then colored on the protein structure to generate publication-quality images. Users can also request the prediction of changes in stability involving truncation mutations of uncharged residues wherein the mutational effects are introduced via eq 2. The model output can be downloaded as text files or high-resolution images.

The outputs from the server can be readily accessed as a text file or a graph. In addition to these, we map ∑ΔQ and/or dC on to the protein structure, enabling the download of publication-quality images in user-specified orientations, dimensions, and resolutions. These images afford a direct visualization of the residues that are affected upon mutation of a particular residue and can be particularly useful for biologists to understand mutational effects. Users can also input multimeric structures and perturb residues at the interface to explore the nonisotropic percolation of perturbations into the different subunits. It is also possible to compare the changes in intramolecular interaction networks of the same protein at two different states (for example, in the absence and presence of a ligand/cofactor) by uploading the respective protein structures. Following this, the user is given the option of predicting equilibrium unfolding curves from the Wako–Saitô–Muñoz–Eaton (WSME) model assuming an ensemble of 2N conformational states (22−25) for the truncation mutations involving uncharged residues. This method thus serves as a good starting point for identifying mutations that can precisely alter protein stabilities or to identify regions of structure that primarily contribute to thermodynamic stabilities. For mutations involving charged residues, the user is directed to our pStab web server for predicting changes in stabilities. (26)

Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Visualization of Local Stability or Interaction Network Profiles

We take the challenging case of neurotensin receptor 1 (NTSR1, a G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR)) characterized by seven transmembrane helices (TM1–TM7, Figure 2A). Recent experimental studies point to an activation mechanism involving structural changes in TM5 and TM6. (27) To identify any intrinsic differences in packing density, the perturbation protocol was applied to all residues in the protein and the resulting total perturbation magnitude (∑ΔQ) was mapped on to the structure. We employ ∑ΔQ rather than dC as the former does not require recourse to fitting routines, thus reducing any error arising from potential nonexponential decays. The structure is colored in the spectral scale with red and blue representing strong and weak coupling, respectively. It can be seen that the color map of ∑ΔQ is varied with the majority of the buried residues displaying strong coupling (red to green), while those on the lipid-exposed sites are weakly coupled (blue). Interestingly, we find that TM helices 5 and 6 are weakly coupled to the rest of the structure (not apparent in Figure 2A), thus suggesting that any early structural changes during unfolding or conformational transitions are potentially localized to these regions, in good agreement with experiments. (27)

Figure 2

Figure 2. Structural model of GPCR NTSR1 (PDB 6OS9) without (panel A) and with ∑ΔQ mapped on to the structure (panel B). The structure in panel B is colored in the spectral scale between the two extremes of well-packed residues (red) and weakly packed residues (blue). Note the stretch of dark blue in the TM helices 5 and 6 pointing to weak packing.

Structural Changes on Ligand Binding

Many proteins undergo minor or major structural changes on ligand binding, contributing to allosteric effects. Identifying regions that have undergone structural changes requires calculating root-mean-squared deviation (RMSD), a parameter that is agnostic to whether a specific region transitions to a more strongly or weakly packed state on ligand binding. The pPerturb web server provides precisely this information while also accounting for second-shell effects, which we present in Figure 3 in terms of ligand binding to the proteins bACBP, phosphofructokinase (PFK), and PDZ3. (28−30) In each case, we color residues in the spectral scale and depending on whether residues pack stronger (red) or weaker (blue) on ligand binding, as calculated from ∑ΔQb – ∑ΔQu, where b and u stand for ligand-bound and -unbound conformations of the protein, respectively. Perturbation analysis shows that that the packing of a large number of residues is affected by ligand binding in all of the three cases considered, in agreement with experiments on PDZ3. (31) In PDZ3, residues that exhibit high ∑ΔQ difference or Z-scored ∑ΔQ values greater than 1 highlight a connection between the ligand-binding site (peptide colored in magenta in Figure 3B, middle column) and the phosphorylation site located at the helix-sheet overhang of PDZ3 (residue Y92), exactly as observed in experiments (note the red spheres in Figure 3B, middle column). (32) It is important to emphasize here that our approach does not provide any signal transduction routes but can hint at likely connectivity patterns based on which graph-theoretic tools can be employed to construct signal propagation paths. Moreover, the ligands are not considered in this analysis as ligand binding manifests as changes in packing or coupling, which we extract through perturbation of the conformation that the protein adopts on ligand binding.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Left column presents a superimposition of ligand/inhibitor-unbound and -bound structures of the proteins bACBP (PDB ids 2ABD/1ACA for ligand-unbound and -bound states), PDZ3 (1BFE/1BE9), and PFK (3PFK/6PFK for inhibitor-unbound and -bound states) in gray and light brown, respectively. The overall RMSD values (including Cα and side chain) between the bound (b) and unbound (u) forms are 2.3, 1.1, and 1.6 Å, respectively. The cartoons in the middle and right columns are colored in the spectral scale (red to blue as in the color bar provided) according to ∑ΔQb – ∑ΔQu. Spheres represent the Cα atoms of specific residues whose difference in ∑ΔQ fall in the extremes, with Z-score ≥ 1 in the middle column and Z-score ≤ −1 in the right column. Note that such vivid details in terms of packing differences (middle and right columns) cannot be extracted from structural superimposition alone (left column).

Predicting Stability Changes on Truncation Mutations

Since the perturbation protocol relies on modulation of van der Waals interactions, it is straightforward to predict stability changes by introducing eq 1 into the WSME model, as discussed before. We had already shown that the changes in stabilities are predicted with a slope near 1 and a correlation coefficient of 0.7 for a database of 375 mutations. (17) In Figure 4, we show an illustrative example of the differences in stability arising from progressively weaker packing of I → V → A → G mutations in Ubiquitin. The prediction of the WT and mutant unfolding curves takes just ∼2 min in the web server. The protocol involves adjusting the van der Waals interaction energy iteratively to reproduce the experimental melting temperature of the WT at the user-specified pH and ionic strength, following which the perturbation protocol (eq 1) is employed to generate unfolding curves of the mutants. The user is also provided an option of choosing between a uniform entropic penalty for all residues and an entropic penalty that depends on either the residue identity (for glycine and proline) or the presence in a specific secondary structure element (helix and strand versus coil).

Figure 4

Figure 4. (A) Structure of ubiquitin (1UBQ) highlighting the position of I30 (cyan) together with first- and second-shell neighbors in blue and green, respectively. (B) Unfolding curves predicted by the WSME model for mutations at position 30 at pH 7.0 and 20 mM ionic strength by employing a 6 Å heavy-atom contact cutoff including the nearest neighbors.

Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

We have developed a multifaceted web server that performs rapid alanine-scanning mutagenesis to probe for the strength of the interaction network accounting for both local and nonlocal interactions in an experimentally consistent manner. The rapidity of the method enables simultaneous prediction of multiple residue-level parameters with implications in identifying pockets of residues that determine local stability and potential allosteric signal transduction paths and in predicting destabilization induced by mutations in the protein interior. The simplicity of our protocol, on the other hand, allows for a tremendous scope in the improvement of the web server to account for residue-specific energy terms and conformational entropy dependent on both the residue identity and secondary structure type.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Soundhararajan Gopi - Department of Biotechnology, Bhupat and Jyoti Mehta School of Biosciences, Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IITM), Chennai 600036, IndiaOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-7511-2571
    • Devanshu Devanshu - Department of Biotechnology, Bhupat and Jyoti Mehta School of Biosciences, Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IITM), Chennai 600036, India
    • Nandakumar Rajasekaran - Department of Biotechnology, Bhupat and Jyoti Mehta School of Biosciences, Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IITM), Chennai 600036, IndiaDepartment of Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, United States
    • Sathvik Anantakrishnan - Department of Biotechnology, Bhupat and Jyoti Mehta School of Biosciences, Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IITM), Chennai 600036, India
  • Author Contributions

    The manuscript was written through the contributions of all authors. All authors have approved the final version of the manuscript.

  • Funding

    This work was supported by the grant BT/PR26099/BID/7/811/2017 to A.N.N. from the Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India.

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

A.N.N. is a Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance Intermediate Fellow. S.G. acknowledges the Initiative for Biological Systems Engineering, IIT Madras, India for the IBSE Ph.D. Studentship.

Abbreviations Used

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

WSME

Wako–Saitô–Muñoz–Eaton

NMR

nuclear magnetic resonance

PDB

protein data bank

GPCR

G-protein coupled receptor

MD

molecular dynamics

RMSD

root-mean-squared deviation

vdW

van der Waals

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 32 other publications.

  1. 1
    Baase, W. A.; Eriksson, A. E.; Zhang, X. J.; Heinz, D. W.; Sauer, U.; Blaber, M.; Baldwin, E. P.; Wozniak, J. A.; Matthews, B. W. Dissection of protein structure and folding by directed mutagenesis. Faraday Discuss. 1992, 93, 173181,  DOI: 10.1039/fd9929300173
  2. 2
    Eriksson, A. E.; Baase, W. A.; Zhang, X. J.; Heinz, D. W.; Blaber, M.; Baldwin, E. P.; Matthews, B. W. Response of a protein structure to cavity-creating mutations and its relation to the hydrophobic effect. Science 1992, 255, 178183,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1553543
  3. 3
    Rocklin, G. J.; Chidyausiku, T. M.; Goreshnik, I.; Ford, A.; Houliston, S.; Lemak, A.; Carter, L.; Ravichandran, R.; Mulligan, V. K.; Chevalier, A.; Arrowsmith, C. H.; Baker, D. Global analysis of protein folding using massively parallel design, synthesis, and testing. Science 2017, 357, 168175,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aan0693
  4. 4
    Boyken, S. E.; Benhaim, M. A.; Busch, F.; Jia, M.; Bick, M. J.; Choi, H.; Klima, J. C.; Chen, Z.; Walkey, C.; Mileant, A.; Sahasrabuddhe, A.; Wei, K. Y.; Hodge, E. A.; Byron, S.; Quijano-Rubio, A.; Sankaran, B.; King, N. P.; Lippincott-Schwartz, J.; Wysocki, V. H.; Lee, K. K.; Baker, D. De novo design of tunable, pH-driven conformational changes. Science 2019, 364, 658664,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aav7897
  5. 5
    Narayan, A.; Gopi, S.; Fushman, D.; Naganathan, A. N. A binding cooperativity switch driven by synergistic structural swelling of an osmo-regulatory protein pair. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 1995  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-10002-9
  6. 6
    Luque, I.; Leavitt, S. A.; Freire, E. The linkage between protein folding and functional cooperativity: two sides of the same coin?. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 2002, 31, 235256,  DOI: 10.1146/annurev.biophys.31.082901.134215
  7. 7
    Di Paola, L.; Giuliani, A. Protein contact network topology: a natural language for allostery. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2015, 31, 4348,  DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2015.03.001
  8. 8
    Dokholyan, N. V. Controlling Allosteric Networks in Proteins. Chem. Rev. 2016, 116, 64636487,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00544
  9. 9
    Naganathan, A. N. Modulation of allosteric coupling by mutations: from protein dynamics and packing to altered native ensembles and function. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2019, 54, 19,  DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2018.09.004
  10. 10
    Guarnera, E.; Berezovsky, I. N. On the perturbation nature of allostery: sites, mutations, and signal modulation. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2019, 56, 1827,  DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2018.10.008
  11. 11
    Ben-David, M.; Huang, H.; Sun, M. G. F.; Corbi-Verge, C.; Petsalaki, E.; Liu, K.; Gfeller, D.; Garg, P.; Tempel, W.; Sochirca, I.; Shifman, J. M.; Davidson, A.; Min, J.; Kim, P. M.; Sidhu, S. S. Allosteric Modulation of Binding Specificity by Alternative Packing of Protein Cores. J. Mol. Biol. 2019, 431, 336350,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2018.11.018
  12. 12
    Petrović, D.; Risso, V. A.; Kamerlin, S. C. L.; Sanchez-Ruiz, J. M. Conformational dynamics and enzyme evolution. J. R. Soc., Interface 2018, 15, 20180330  DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2018.0330
  13. 13
    Tokuriki, N.; Tawfik, D. S. Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2009, 19, 596604,  DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2009.08.003
  14. 14
    Muñoz, V.; Campos, L. A.; Sadqi, M. Limited cooperativity in protein folding. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2016, 36, 5866,  DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2015.12.001
  15. 15
    Chan, H. S.; Shimizu, S.; Kaya, H. Cooperativity principles in protein folding. Methods Enzymol. 2004, 380, 350379,  DOI: 10.1016/S0076-6879(04)80016-8
  16. 16
    Stein, A.; Fowler, D. M.; Hartmann-Petersen, R.; Lindorff-Larsen, K. Biophysical and Mechanistic Models for Disease-Causing Protein Variants. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2019, 44, 575588,  DOI: 10.1016/j.tibs.2019.01.003
  17. 17
    Rajasekaran, N.; Suresh, S.; Gopi, S.; Raman, K.; Naganathan, A. N. A general mechanism for the propagation of mutational effects in proteins. Biochemistry 2017, 56, 294305,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.biochem.6b00798
  18. 18
    Rajasekaran, N.; Sekhar, A.; Naganathan, A. N. A Universal Pattern in the Percolation and Dissipation of Protein Structural Perturbations. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2017, 8, 47794784,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.7b02021
  19. 19
    Rajasekaran, N.; Naganathan, A. N. A self-consistent structural perturbation approach for determining the magnitude and extent of allosteric coupling in proteins. Biochem. J. 2017, 474, 23792388,  DOI: 10.1042/BCJ20170304
  20. 20
    Yu, M.; Chen, Y.; Wang, Z. L.; Liu, Z. Fluctuation correlations as major determinants of structure- and dynamics-driven allosteric effects. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2019, 21, 52005214,  DOI: 10.1039/C8CP07859A
  21. 21
    Medina-Carmona, E.; Betancor-Fernández, I.; Santos, J.; Mesa-Torres, N.; Grottelli, S.; Batlle, C.; Naganathan, A. N.; Oppici, E.; Cellini, B.; Ventura, S.; Salido, E.; Pey, A. L. Insight into the specificity and severity of pathogenic mechanisms associated with missense mutations through experimental and structural perturbation analyses. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2019, 28, 115,  DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddy323
  22. 22
    Wako, H.; Saitô, N. Statistical Mechanical Theory of Protein Conformation.2. Folding Pathway for Protein. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 1978, 44, 19391945,  DOI: 10.1143/JPSJ.44.1939
  23. 23
    Muñoz, V.; Eaton, W. A. A simple model for calculating the kinetics of protein folding from three-dimensional structures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1999, 96, 1131111316,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.96.20.11311
  24. 24
    Naganathan, A. N. Predictions from an Ising-like Statistical Mechanical Model on the Dynamic and Thermodynamic Effects of Protein Surface Electrostatics. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2012, 8, 46464656,  DOI: 10.1021/ct300676w
  25. 25
    Naganathan, A. N. A Rapid, Ensemble and Free Energy Based Method for Engineering Protein Stabilities. J. Phys. Chem. B 2013, 117, 49564964,  DOI: 10.1021/jp401588x
  26. 26
    Gopi, S.; Devanshu, D.; Krishna, P.; Naganathan, A. N. pStab: prediction of stable mutants, unfolding curves, stability maps and protein electrostatic frustration. Bioinformatics 2018, 34, 875877,  DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx697
  27. 27
    Kato, H. E.; Zhang, Y.; Hu, H.; Suomivuori, C. M.; Kadji, F. M. N.; Aoki, J.; Krishna Kumar, K.; Fonseca, R.; Hilger, D.; Huang, W.; Latorraca, N. R.; Inoue, A.; Dror, R. O.; Kobilka, B. K.; Skiniotis, G. Conformational transitions of a neurotensin receptor 1-Gi1 complex. Nature 2019, 572, 8085,  DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1337-6
  28. 28
    Kragelund, B. B.; Andersen, K. V.; Madsen, J. C.; Knudsen, J.; Poulsen, F. M. Three-dimensional structure of the complex between acyl-coenzyme A binding protein and palmitoyl-coenzyme A. J. Mol. Biol. 1993, 230, 12601277,  DOI: 10.1006/jmbi.1993.1240
  29. 29
    Schirmer, T.; Evans, P. R. Structural basis of the allosteric behaviour of phosphofructokinase. Nature 1990, 343, 140145,  DOI: 10.1038/343140a0
  30. 30
    Doyle, D. A.; Lee, A.; Lewis, J.; Kim, E.; Sheng, M.; MacKinnon, R. Crystal structures of a complexed and peptide-free membrane protein-binding domain: molecular basis of peptide recognition by PDZ. Cell 1996, 85, 10671076,  DOI: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81307-0
  31. 31
    Hultqvist, G.; Haq, S. R.; Punekar, A. S.; Chi, C. N.; Engstrom, A.; Bach, A.; Stromgaard, K.; Selmer, M.; Gianni, S.; Jemth, P. Energetic pathway sampling in a protein interaction domain. Structure 2013, 21, 11931202,  DOI: 10.1016/j.str.2013.05.010
  32. 32
    Petit, C. M.; Zhang, J.; Sapienza, P. J.; Fuentes, E. J.; Lee, A. L. Hidden dynamic allostery in a PDZ domain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106, 1824918254,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0904492106

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Citation Statements
Explore this article's citation statements on scite.ai

This article is cited by 9 publications.

  1. Gabrielle Stetz, Lindy Astl, Gennady M. Verkhivker. Exploring Mechanisms of Communication Switching in the Hsp90-Cdc37 Regulatory Complexes with Client Kinases through Allosteric Coupling of Phosphorylation Sites: Perturbation-Based Modeling and Hierarchical Community Analysis of Residue Interaction Networks. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2020, 16 (7) , 4706-4725. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.0c00280
  2. Javier Murciano-Calles, Alejandro Rodríguez-Martínez, Andrés Palencia, Montserrat Andujar-Sánchez, Manuel Iglesias-Bexiga, Carles Corbi, Pedro Buzon, Javier Ruiz Sanz, Jose C. Martinez, Horacio Pérez-Sánchez, Ana Camara-Artigas, Irene Luque. Phage display identification of high-affinity ligands for human TSG101-UEV: A structural and thermodynamic study of PTAP recognition. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 2024, 21 , 133233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.133233
  3. Arpan Narayan Roy, Aayatti Mallick Gupta, Deboshmita Banerjee, Jaydeb Chakrabarti, Pongali B. Raghavendra. Unraveling DPP4 Receptor Interactions with SARS-CoV-2 Variants and MERS-CoV: Insights into Pulmonary Disorders via Immunoinformatics and Molecular Dynamics. Viruses 2023, 15 (10) , 2056. https://doi.org/10.3390/v15102056
  4. Frank Y.C. Liu, Bo Ni, Markus J. Buehler. PRESTO: Rapid protein mechanical strength prediction with an end-to-end deep learning model. Extreme Mechanics Letters 2022, 55 , 101803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eml.2022.101803
  5. Surabhi Lata, Mohd. Akif. Probing structural basis for enhanced binding of SARS‐CoV‐2 P.1 variant spike protein with the human ACE2 receptor. Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 2022, 123 (7) , 1207-1221. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcb.30276
  6. Koji Ooka, Runjing Liu, Munehito Arai. The Wako-Saitô-Muñoz-Eaton Model for Predicting Protein Folding and Dynamics. Molecules 2022, 27 (14) , 4460. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27144460
  7. Matteo P. Ferla, Alistair T. Pagnamenta, Leonidas Koukouflis, Jenny C. Taylor, Brian D. Marsden. Venus: Elucidating the Impact of Amino Acid Variants on Protein Function Beyond Structure Destabilisation. Journal of Molecular Biology 2022, 434 (11) , 167567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2022.167567
  8. Rajiv K. Kar. Computational Resources for Bioscience Education. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 2021, 193 (10) , 3418-3424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-021-03601-0
  9. Sérgio M Marques, Joan Planas-Iglesias, Jiri Damborsky. Web-based tools for computational enzyme design. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 2021, 69 , 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2021.01.010

ACS Omega

Cite this: ACS Omega 2020, 5, 2, 1142–1146
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.9b03371
Published January 9, 2020

Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

Article Views

2393

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Flowchart depicting the organization of modules in the pPerturb web server. Once the protein structure is loaded into the server, perturbation profiles at the level of individual residues are generated for individual residues using eq 2, following which residue-specific parameters are provided for selected residues (perturbation profile) or all residues in the protein (interaction network profile). The residue-specific parameters are then colored on the protein structure to generate publication-quality images. Users can also request the prediction of changes in stability involving truncation mutations of uncharged residues wherein the mutational effects are introduced via eq 2. The model output can be downloaded as text files or high-resolution images.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Structural model of GPCR NTSR1 (PDB 6OS9) without (panel A) and with ∑ΔQ mapped on to the structure (panel B). The structure in panel B is colored in the spectral scale between the two extremes of well-packed residues (red) and weakly packed residues (blue). Note the stretch of dark blue in the TM helices 5 and 6 pointing to weak packing.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Left column presents a superimposition of ligand/inhibitor-unbound and -bound structures of the proteins bACBP (PDB ids 2ABD/1ACA for ligand-unbound and -bound states), PDZ3 (1BFE/1BE9), and PFK (3PFK/6PFK for inhibitor-unbound and -bound states) in gray and light brown, respectively. The overall RMSD values (including Cα and side chain) between the bound (b) and unbound (u) forms are 2.3, 1.1, and 1.6 Å, respectively. The cartoons in the middle and right columns are colored in the spectral scale (red to blue as in the color bar provided) according to ∑ΔQb – ∑ΔQu. Spheres represent the Cα atoms of specific residues whose difference in ∑ΔQ fall in the extremes, with Z-score ≥ 1 in the middle column and Z-score ≤ −1 in the right column. Note that such vivid details in terms of packing differences (middle and right columns) cannot be extracted from structural superimposition alone (left column).

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. (A) Structure of ubiquitin (1UBQ) highlighting the position of I30 (cyan) together with first- and second-shell neighbors in blue and green, respectively. (B) Unfolding curves predicted by the WSME model for mutations at position 30 at pH 7.0 and 20 mM ionic strength by employing a 6 Å heavy-atom contact cutoff including the nearest neighbors.

  • References


    This article references 32 other publications.

    1. 1
      Baase, W. A.; Eriksson, A. E.; Zhang, X. J.; Heinz, D. W.; Sauer, U.; Blaber, M.; Baldwin, E. P.; Wozniak, J. A.; Matthews, B. W. Dissection of protein structure and folding by directed mutagenesis. Faraday Discuss. 1992, 93, 173181,  DOI: 10.1039/fd9929300173
    2. 2
      Eriksson, A. E.; Baase, W. A.; Zhang, X. J.; Heinz, D. W.; Blaber, M.; Baldwin, E. P.; Matthews, B. W. Response of a protein structure to cavity-creating mutations and its relation to the hydrophobic effect. Science 1992, 255, 178183,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1553543
    3. 3
      Rocklin, G. J.; Chidyausiku, T. M.; Goreshnik, I.; Ford, A.; Houliston, S.; Lemak, A.; Carter, L.; Ravichandran, R.; Mulligan, V. K.; Chevalier, A.; Arrowsmith, C. H.; Baker, D. Global analysis of protein folding using massively parallel design, synthesis, and testing. Science 2017, 357, 168175,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aan0693
    4. 4
      Boyken, S. E.; Benhaim, M. A.; Busch, F.; Jia, M.; Bick, M. J.; Choi, H.; Klima, J. C.; Chen, Z.; Walkey, C.; Mileant, A.; Sahasrabuddhe, A.; Wei, K. Y.; Hodge, E. A.; Byron, S.; Quijano-Rubio, A.; Sankaran, B.; King, N. P.; Lippincott-Schwartz, J.; Wysocki, V. H.; Lee, K. K.; Baker, D. De novo design of tunable, pH-driven conformational changes. Science 2019, 364, 658664,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aav7897
    5. 5
      Narayan, A.; Gopi, S.; Fushman, D.; Naganathan, A. N. A binding cooperativity switch driven by synergistic structural swelling of an osmo-regulatory protein pair. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 1995  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-10002-9
    6. 6
      Luque, I.; Leavitt, S. A.; Freire, E. The linkage between protein folding and functional cooperativity: two sides of the same coin?. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 2002, 31, 235256,  DOI: 10.1146/annurev.biophys.31.082901.134215
    7. 7
      Di Paola, L.; Giuliani, A. Protein contact network topology: a natural language for allostery. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2015, 31, 4348,  DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2015.03.001
    8. 8
      Dokholyan, N. V. Controlling Allosteric Networks in Proteins. Chem. Rev. 2016, 116, 64636487,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00544
    9. 9
      Naganathan, A. N. Modulation of allosteric coupling by mutations: from protein dynamics and packing to altered native ensembles and function. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2019, 54, 19,  DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2018.09.004
    10. 10
      Guarnera, E.; Berezovsky, I. N. On the perturbation nature of allostery: sites, mutations, and signal modulation. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2019, 56, 1827,  DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2018.10.008
    11. 11
      Ben-David, M.; Huang, H.; Sun, M. G. F.; Corbi-Verge, C.; Petsalaki, E.; Liu, K.; Gfeller, D.; Garg, P.; Tempel, W.; Sochirca, I.; Shifman, J. M.; Davidson, A.; Min, J.; Kim, P. M.; Sidhu, S. S. Allosteric Modulation of Binding Specificity by Alternative Packing of Protein Cores. J. Mol. Biol. 2019, 431, 336350,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2018.11.018
    12. 12
      Petrović, D.; Risso, V. A.; Kamerlin, S. C. L.; Sanchez-Ruiz, J. M. Conformational dynamics and enzyme evolution. J. R. Soc., Interface 2018, 15, 20180330  DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2018.0330
    13. 13
      Tokuriki, N.; Tawfik, D. S. Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2009, 19, 596604,  DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2009.08.003
    14. 14
      Muñoz, V.; Campos, L. A.; Sadqi, M. Limited cooperativity in protein folding. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2016, 36, 5866,  DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2015.12.001
    15. 15
      Chan, H. S.; Shimizu, S.; Kaya, H. Cooperativity principles in protein folding. Methods Enzymol. 2004, 380, 350379,  DOI: 10.1016/S0076-6879(04)80016-8
    16. 16
      Stein, A.; Fowler, D. M.; Hartmann-Petersen, R.; Lindorff-Larsen, K. Biophysical and Mechanistic Models for Disease-Causing Protein Variants. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2019, 44, 575588,  DOI: 10.1016/j.tibs.2019.01.003
    17. 17
      Rajasekaran, N.; Suresh, S.; Gopi, S.; Raman, K.; Naganathan, A. N. A general mechanism for the propagation of mutational effects in proteins. Biochemistry 2017, 56, 294305,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.biochem.6b00798
    18. 18
      Rajasekaran, N.; Sekhar, A.; Naganathan, A. N. A Universal Pattern in the Percolation and Dissipation of Protein Structural Perturbations. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2017, 8, 47794784,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.7b02021
    19. 19
      Rajasekaran, N.; Naganathan, A. N. A self-consistent structural perturbation approach for determining the magnitude and extent of allosteric coupling in proteins. Biochem. J. 2017, 474, 23792388,  DOI: 10.1042/BCJ20170304
    20. 20
      Yu, M.; Chen, Y.; Wang, Z. L.; Liu, Z. Fluctuation correlations as major determinants of structure- and dynamics-driven allosteric effects. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2019, 21, 52005214,  DOI: 10.1039/C8CP07859A
    21. 21
      Medina-Carmona, E.; Betancor-Fernández, I.; Santos, J.; Mesa-Torres, N.; Grottelli, S.; Batlle, C.; Naganathan, A. N.; Oppici, E.; Cellini, B.; Ventura, S.; Salido, E.; Pey, A. L. Insight into the specificity and severity of pathogenic mechanisms associated with missense mutations through experimental and structural perturbation analyses. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2019, 28, 115,  DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddy323
    22. 22
      Wako, H.; Saitô, N. Statistical Mechanical Theory of Protein Conformation.2. Folding Pathway for Protein. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 1978, 44, 19391945,  DOI: 10.1143/JPSJ.44.1939
    23. 23
      Muñoz, V.; Eaton, W. A. A simple model for calculating the kinetics of protein folding from three-dimensional structures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1999, 96, 1131111316,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.96.20.11311
    24. 24
      Naganathan, A. N. Predictions from an Ising-like Statistical Mechanical Model on the Dynamic and Thermodynamic Effects of Protein Surface Electrostatics. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2012, 8, 46464656,  DOI: 10.1021/ct300676w
    25. 25
      Naganathan, A. N. A Rapid, Ensemble and Free Energy Based Method for Engineering Protein Stabilities. J. Phys. Chem. B 2013, 117, 49564964,  DOI: 10.1021/jp401588x
    26. 26
      Gopi, S.; Devanshu, D.; Krishna, P.; Naganathan, A. N. pStab: prediction of stable mutants, unfolding curves, stability maps and protein electrostatic frustration. Bioinformatics 2018, 34, 875877,  DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx697
    27. 27
      Kato, H. E.; Zhang, Y.; Hu, H.; Suomivuori, C. M.; Kadji, F. M. N.; Aoki, J.; Krishna Kumar, K.; Fonseca, R.; Hilger, D.; Huang, W.; Latorraca, N. R.; Inoue, A.; Dror, R. O.; Kobilka, B. K.; Skiniotis, G. Conformational transitions of a neurotensin receptor 1-Gi1 complex. Nature 2019, 572, 8085,  DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1337-6
    28. 28
      Kragelund, B. B.; Andersen, K. V.; Madsen, J. C.; Knudsen, J.; Poulsen, F. M. Three-dimensional structure of the complex between acyl-coenzyme A binding protein and palmitoyl-coenzyme A. J. Mol. Biol. 1993, 230, 12601277,  DOI: 10.1006/jmbi.1993.1240
    29. 29
      Schirmer, T.; Evans, P. R. Structural basis of the allosteric behaviour of phosphofructokinase. Nature 1990, 343, 140145,  DOI: 10.1038/343140a0
    30. 30
      Doyle, D. A.; Lee, A.; Lewis, J.; Kim, E.; Sheng, M.; MacKinnon, R. Crystal structures of a complexed and peptide-free membrane protein-binding domain: molecular basis of peptide recognition by PDZ. Cell 1996, 85, 10671076,  DOI: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81307-0
    31. 31
      Hultqvist, G.; Haq, S. R.; Punekar, A. S.; Chi, C. N.; Engstrom, A.; Bach, A.; Stromgaard, K.; Selmer, M.; Gianni, S.; Jemth, P. Energetic pathway sampling in a protein interaction domain. Structure 2013, 21, 11931202,  DOI: 10.1016/j.str.2013.05.010
    32. 32
      Petit, C. M.; Zhang, J.; Sapienza, P. J.; Fuentes, E. J.; Lee, A. L. Hidden dynamic allostery in a PDZ domain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106, 1824918254,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0904492106