Protein-Protein Interactions

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Ligands and reversible binding. Ligands Kinetic experiments study the rate at which reactions happen.- how conc of reactant and product change as funct.
Advertisements

Thermodynamics of Protein Folding
Amino Acid and Protein1. 2  The formation of a peptide bond between glycine and alanine is shown in Figure 5.8. The product is called dipeptide, the.
Biomolecular Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy BIOCHEMISTRY BEYOND STRUCTURE Protein dynamics from NMR Analytical Biochemistry Comparative Analysis.
Biomolecular Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy BIOCHEMISTRY BEYOND STRUCTURE Protein dynamics from NMR Analytical biochemistry Comparative analysis.
Lecture 6 Protein-protein interactions Affinities (cases of simple and cooperative binding) Examples of Ligand-protein interactions Antibodies and their.
Review of “Stability of Macromolecular Complexes” Dan Kulp Brooijmans, Sharp, Kuntz.
Protein “folding” occurs due to the intrinsic chemical/physical properties of the 1° structure “Unstructured” “Disordered” “Denatured” “Unfolded” “Structured”
Chapter 1 2/5-2/6/07 Overall important concept:  G =  H – T  S –Toward lower enthalpy Forming bonds = good –Toward higher entropy More degrees of freedom.
Rerun of essentials of week one From Rotamers to Models and back via the Entropy of Water.
Protein Structure Modelling Many sequences - few structures Homology Modelling - Based on Sequence Similarity with Sequences of Known Structures.
Conformational Entropy Entropy is an essential component in ΔG and must be considered in order to model many chemical processes, including protein folding,
A Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to Molecular Thermodynamics What really makes proteins fold and ligands bind Alan Cooper Amsterdam: November 2002 Chemistry Department.
Lecture 9: Theory of Non-Covalent Binding Equilibria Dr. Ronald M. Levy Statistical Thermodynamics.
How NMR is Used for the Study of Biomacromolecules Analytical biochemistry Comparative analysis Interactions between biomolecules Structure determination.
Biochemistry 412 Analytical & Preparative Protein Chemistry I 1 February 2005.
10 good reasons to perform ITC experiments
Protein Structure and Properties
Affinity and Avidity by: Omar Ammar
Origin of Cooperativity
Protein-Protein Interactions II
Protein-Protein Interactions I
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages (April 2008)
Protein Engineering Protein engineering Industrial enzymes (Table 8.1)
Volume 102, Issue 3, Pages (February 2012)
Enzyme Kinetics & Protein Folding 9/7/2004
Analytical & Preparative Protein Chemistry I
Volume 8, Issue 7, Pages (July 2000)
Antonio del Sol, Chung-Jung Tsai, Buyong Ma, Ruth Nussinov  Structure 
An Integrated Approach to Protein-Protein Docking
Ancestral Protein Reconstruction Yields Insights into Adaptive Evolution of Binding Specificity in Solute-Binding Proteins  Ben E. Clifton, Colin J. Jackson 
Directed Mutagenesis and Protein Engineering
Volume 113, Issue 3, Pages (August 2017)
Giovanni Settanni, Antonino Cattaneo, Paolo Carloni 
Protein structure prediction.
Yvonne Groemping, Karine Lapouge, Stephen J. Smerdon, Katrin Rittinger 
Volume 18, Issue 8, Pages (August 2010)
Volume 111, Issue 4, Pages (August 2016)
Ubiquitin Recognition by the Human TSG101 Protein
Volume 8, Issue 7, Pages (July 2000)
A Solution to Limited Genomic Capacity: Using Adaptable Binding Surfaces to Assemble the Functional HIV Rev Oligomer on RNA  Matthew D. Daugherty, Iván.
Volume 25, Issue 5, Pages e3 (May 2017)
Solution and Crystal Structures of a Sugar Binding Site Mutant of Cyanovirin-N: No Evidence of Domain Swapping  Elena Matei, William Furey, Angela M.
Fernando Corrêa, Jason Key, Brian Kuhlman, Kevin H. Gardner  Structure 
A Conformational Switch in the CRIB-PDZ Module of Par-6
Graham D. Bailey, Jae K. Hyun, Alok K. Mitra, Richard L. Kingston 
Improving SH3 domain ligand selectivity using a non-natural scaffold
Volume 32, Issue 2, Pages (February 2010)
Structure, Exchange Determinants, and Family-Wide Rab Specificity of the Tandem Helical Bundle and Vps9 Domains of Rabex-5  Anna Delprato, Eric Merithew,
The Structure of the Tiam1 PDZ Domain/ Phospho-Syndecan1 Complex Reveals a Ligand Conformation that Modulates Protein Dynamics  Xu Liu, Tyson R. Shepherd,
Volume 12, Issue 7, Pages (July 2004)
Jason K. Cheung, Thomas M. Truskett  Biophysical Journal 
Volume 28, Issue 2, Pages (February 2008)
Structural Basis of Caspase-7 Inhibition by XIAP
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages (February 2003)
The Structural Basis of Peptide-Protein Binding Strategies
How a Single T Cell Receptor Recognizes Both Self and Foreign MHC
Volume 11, Issue 8, Pages (August 2003)
Structure of the Staphylococcus aureus AgrA LytTR Domain Bound to DNA Reveals a Beta Fold with an Unusual Mode of Binding  David J. Sidote, Christopher.
Volume 22, Issue 4, Pages (April 2014)
Allosteric drugs: thinking outside the active-site box
Structure and Interactions of PAS Kinase N-Terminal PAS Domain
Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages (August 2004)
Protein–Protein Communication: Structural Model of the Repression Complex Formed by CytR and the Global Regulator CRP  Birgitte H Kallipolitis, Mads Nørregaard-Madsen,
Insights from Free-Energy Calculations: Protein Conformational Equilibrium, Driving Forces, and Ligand-Binding Modes  Yu-ming M. Huang, Wei Chen, Michael J.
Annia Rodríguez-Hernández, John J. Perona  Structure 
Daniel Seeliger, Bert L. de Groot  Biophysical Journal 
Structural basis of Lewisb antigen binding by the Helicobacter pylori adhesin BabA by Naim Hage, Tina Howard, Chris Phillips, Claire Brassington, Ross.
Structure of the Mtb CarD/RNAP β-Lobes Complex Reveals the Molecular Basis of Interaction and Presents a Distinct DNA-Binding Domain for Mtb CarD  Gulcin.
Volume 15, Issue 6, Pages (September 2004)
Presentation transcript:

Protein-Protein Interactions Biochemistry 412 Protein-Protein Interactions February 22, 2005

Macromolecular Recognition by Proteins • Protein folding is a process governed by intramolecular recognition. • Protein-protein association is an intermolecular process. Note: the biophysical principles are the same!

Special Features of Protein-Protein Interfaces • Critical for macromolecular recognition • Typically, ca. 500 - 1500 Å2 of surface buried upon complex formation by two globular proteins • Epitopes on protein surface thus may have a “hybrid” character, compatible with both a solvent-exposed (‘free”) state and a buried, solvent-inaccessible (“bound”) state • Energetics of binding primarily determined by a few critical residues • Flexibility of surface loops may be quite important for promoting “adaptive” binding and for allowing high specificity interactions without overly-tight binding (via free state entropy effects) • Most contacts between two proteins at the interface involve amino acid side chains, although there are some backbone interactions

Formalisms for Characterizing Binding Affinities For a protein (P), ligand (A), and complex (P • A) P + A P • A where [P]total = [P] + [P • A] ka kd The association constant: Ka = [P • A]/[P][A] = ka/kd The dissociation constant: Kd = 1/Ka = [P][A]/[P • A] …please note that Kd has units of concentration, and so when Kd = [A] then [P] = [P • A], and thus Kd is equal to the concentration of the ligand A at the point of half-maximal binding.

At a given ligand concentration [A] the free energy of binding, in terms of the difference in free energies between the free and the bound states, can be described as DG°binding = -RT ln ([A]/Kd) It is also often useful to describe the difference in binding affinity between a wild type protein and a mutant of the same protein, which is an intrinsic property independent of the ligand concentration. In that case we can express this as DDG°wt-mut = -RT ln (Kdmut/Kdwt)

Mapping Antigen-Antibody Interaction Surfaces (Binding Epitopes) Using Hydrogen-Deuterium Exchange and NMR Spectroscopy

Mapping Protein-Protein Interactions Using Alanine-Scanning Mutagenesis

“If amino acids had personalities, alanine would not be the life of the party!” - George Rose Johns Hopkins Univ.

Auguste Rodin The Kiss 1886 (100 Kb); Bronze, 87 x 51 x 55 cm; Musee Rodin, Paris

Clackson et al (1998) J. Mol. Biol. 277, 1111.

Most mutations that markedly affect the binding affinity (Ka) do so by affecting the off-rate (kd or koff). In general, mutational effects on the on-rate (ka or kon) are limited to the following circumstances: • Long-range electrostatic effects (steering) • Folding mutations masquerading as affinity mutations (i.e., mutations that shift the folding equilibrium to the non-native [and non-binding] state) • Inadvertent creation of alternative binding modes that compete with the “correct” binding mode

Cunningham & Wells (1993) J. Mol. Biol. 234, 554.

Cunningham & Wells (1993) J. Mol. Biol. 234, 554.

Clackson et al (1998) J. Mol. Biol. 277, 1111.

Reference Molecule: Turkey Ovomucoid Third Domain (a Serine Protease Inhibitor) • All nineteen possible amino acid substitutions were made for each of the residues shown in blue (total = 190). • For each inhibitor, binding constants were measured precisely for each of six different serine proteases. • X-ray structures were performed on a subset of the mutant complexes.

Structure of the complex to TKY-OM3D P1 Pro with Streptomyces griseus Protease B Bateman et al (2001) J. Mol. Biol. 305, 839.

The Principle of Additivity Consider the double mutant, AB, composed of mutation A and mutation B. In general (but not always -- see below), the binding free energy perturbations caused by single mutations are additive, in other words DDG°wt-mutAB = DDG°wt-mutA + DDG°wt-mutB + DDG°i where DDG°i ≈ 0. DDG°i has been termed the “interaction energy” (see (Wells [1990] Biochemistry 29, 8509). If DDG°i ≠ 0, then mutations A and B are said to be nonadditive and it can therefore be inferred that the two residues at which these mutations occur must physically interact, directly or indirectly, in the native structure. Note: this has important implications regarding how evolution shapes proteins.

Qasim et al (2003) Biochemistry 42, 6460.

…and the theorists are now beginning to mine this data to refine their docking programs. “Bad” prediction “Good” prediction Lorber et al (2002) Protein Sci. 11, 1393.

If you want to be “hard core” and really understand protein-protein interactions, you need to know more than just the free energies of association. You (ultimately) will need to know something about enthalpies, entropies, and heat capacities, too.

Makarov et al (1998) Biopolymers 45, 469.

Makarov et al (2000) Biophys. J. 76, 2966.

Makarov et al (2002) Acc. Chem. Res. 35, 376.

When two proteins form a complex, solvent must be displaced from the interfacial regions and the conformational freedom (configurational entropy) of the main chain and side chain atoms will change also.

Jelesarov and Bosshard (1999) J. Molec. Recognition 12, 3.

Jelesarov and Bosshard (1999) J. Molec. Recognition 12, 3.

Isothermal Titration Calorimetry Yields DH of Binding

…and when you have DH and DG (= -RTlnKa), you can calculate DS.

Some examples of experimentally-measured thermodynamic quantities for interacting proteins, measured using isothermal titration calorimetry: Note: isothermal titration calorimetry also directly yields n, the stoichiometry of binding. Weber and Salemme (2003) Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 13, 115.