Search

Structures of proteins and protein-protein complexes are determined by the same physical principles and thus share a number of similarities. At the same time, there could be differences because in order to function, proteins interact with other molecules, undergo conformations changes, and so forth, which might impose different restraints on the tertiary versus quaternary structures. This study focuses on structural properties of protein-protein interfaces in comparison with the protein core, based on the wealth of currently available structural data and new structure-based approaches. The results showed that physicochemical characteristics, such as amino acid composition, residue-residue contact preferences, and hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity distributions, are similar in protein core and protein-protein interfaces. On the other hand, characteristics that reflect the evolutionary pressure, such as structural composition and packing, are largely different. The results provide important insight into fundamental properties of protein structure and function. At the same time, the results contribute to better understanding of the ways to dock proteins. Recent progress in predicting structures of individual proteins follows the advancement of deep learning techniques and new approaches to residue coevolution data. Protein core could potentially provide large amounts of data for application of the deep learning to docking. However, our results showed that the core motifs are significantly different from those at protein-protein interfaces, and thus may not be directly useful for docking. At the same time, such difference may help to overcome a major obstacle in application of the coevolutionary data to docking-discrimination of the intramolecular information not directly relevant to docking., (© 2020 The Protein Society.)

Physicochemical description of numerous cell processes is fundamentally based on the energy landscapes of protein molecules involved. Although the whole energy landscape is difficult to reconstruct, increased attention to particular targets has provided enough structures for mapping functionally important subspaces associated with the unbound and bound protein structures. The subspace mapping produces a discrete representation of the landscape, further called energy spectrum. We compiled and characterized ensembles of bound and unbound conformations of six small proteins and explored their spectra in implicit solvent. First, the analysis of the unbound-to-bound changes points to conformational selection as the binding mechanism for four proteins. Second, results show that bound and unbound spectra often significantly overlap. Moreover, the larger the overlap the smaller the root mean square deviation (RMSD) between the bound and unbound conformational ensembles. Third, the center of the unbound spectrum has a higher energy than the center of the corresponding bound spectrum of the dimeric and multimeric states for most of the proteins. This suggests that the unbound states often have larger entropy than the bound states. Fourth, the exhaustively long minimization, making small intrarotamer adjustments (all-atom RMSD ≤ 0.7 Å), dramatically reduces the distance between the centers of the bound and unbound spectra as well as the spectra extent. It condenses unbound and bound energy levels into a thin layer at the bottom of the energy landscape with the energy spacing that varies between 0.8-4.6 and 3.5-10.5 kcal/mol for the unbound and bound states correspondingly. Finally, the analysis of protein energy fluctuations showed that protein vibrations itself can excite the interstate transitions, including the unbound-to-bound ones., (© 2013 The Protein Society.)