Protein−protein interactions are usually studied in dilute buffered solutions with macromolecule concentrations of <10 g/L. In cells, however, the macromolecule concentration can exceed 300 g/L, resulting in nonspecific interactions between macromolecules. These interactions can be divided into hard-core steric repulsions and "soft" chemical interactions. Here, we test a hypothesis from scaled particle theory; the influence of hard-core repulsions on a protein dimer depends on its shape. We tested the idea using a side-by-side dumbbell-shaped dimer and a domain-swapped ellipsoidal dimer. Both dimers are variants of the B1 domain of protein G and differ by only three residues. The results from the relatively inert synthetic polymer crowding molecules, Ficoll and PEG, support the hypothesis, indicating that the domain-swapped dimer is stabilized by hard-core repulsions while the side-by-side dimer shows little to no stabilization. We also show that protein cosolutes, which interact primarily through nonspecific chemical interactions, have the same small effect on both dimers. Our results suggest that the shape of the protein dimer determines the influence of hard-core repulsions, providing cells with a mechanism for regulating protein−protein interactions. macromolecular crowding | protein−protein interactions | scaled particle theory P rotein−protein interactions are essential for maintaining cellular homeostasis (1). Details of their equilibria under thermodynamically ideal conditions have provided a trove of information. Ideality in this sense refers to dilute solutions, where each monomer contacts only solvent or another monomer, conditions far removed from those in cells where protein− protein interactions evolved. In the cytoplasm, and other cellular compartments and biological fluids, macromolecules can occupy up to 30% of the volume, and their concentrations often exceed 300 g/L (2).Protein molecules take part in more-complex interactions under nonideal conditions. The surrounding macromolecules influence proteins in two ways, neither of which is significant in dilute solution. Hard-core repulsions arise from high volume occupancy, because two molecules cannot occupy the same space at the same time. This volume exclusion favors the most compact state of a protein (3). Chemical interactions comprise transient contacts between protein surfaces arising from the diverse chemical landscapes of proteins (4). When repulsive (i.e., like charges), they favor the state that maximizes the distance between charges, adding to the hard-core repulsions and stabilizing the native state. Attractive chemical interactions (e.g., opposite charges, hydrogen bonds) are destabilizing. We are beginning to understand how hard-core repulsions and chemical interactions affect protein stability (5), but there are few studies about crowding effects on protein−protein interactions (6-9).Given the existential roles of both protein−protein interactions and crowding in biology (10), we are undertaking efforts to determine the effect of cro...

Cells are crowded, but proteins are almost always studied in dilute aqueous buffer. We review the experimental evidence that crowding affects the equilibrium thermodynamics of protein stability and protein association and discuss the theories employed to explain these observations. In doing so, we highlight differences between synthetic polymers and biologically relevant crowders. Theories based on hard-core interactions predict only crowding-induced entropic stabilization. However, experiment-based efforts conducted under physiologically relevant conditions show that crowding can destabilize proteins and their complexes. Furthermore, quantification of the temperature dependence of crowding effects produced by both large and small cosolutes, including osmolytes, sugars, synthetic polymers, and proteins, reveals enthalpic effects that stabilize or destabilize proteins. Crowding-induced destabilization and the enthalpic component point to the role of chemical interactions between and among the macromolecules, cosolutes, and water. We conclude with suggestions for future studies. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Biophysics, Volume 51 is May 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Protein–protein interactions are essential for life but rarely thermodynamically quantified in living cells. In vitro efforts show that protein complex stability is modulated by high concentrations of cosolutes, including synthetic polymers, proteins, and cell lysates via a combination of hard-core repulsions and chemical interactions. We quantified the stability of a model protein complex, the A34F GB1 homodimer, in buffer, Escherichia coli cells and Xenopus laevis oocytes. The complex is more stable in cells than in buffer and more stable in oocytes than E. coli. Studies of several variants show that increasing the negative charge on the homodimer surface increases stability in cells. These data, taken together with the fact that oocytes are less crowded than E. coli cells, lead to the conclusion that chemical interactions are more important than hard-core repulsions under physiological conditions, a conclusion also gleaned from studies of protein stability in cells. Our studies have implications for understanding how promiscuous—and specific—interactions coherently evolve for a protein to properly function in the crowded cellular environment.

Protein–protein interactions are fundamental to biology yet are rarely studied under physiologically relevant conditions where the concentration of macromolecules can exceed 300 g/L. These high concentrations cause cosolute–complex contacts that are absent in dilute buffer. Understanding such interactions is important because they organize the cellular interior. We used 19F nuclear magnetic resonance, the dimer-forming A34F variant of the model protein GB1, and the cosolutes bovine serum albumin (BSA) and lysozyme to assess the effects of repulsive and attractive charge–charge dimer–cosolute interactions on dimer stability. The interactions were also manipulated via charge-change variants and by changing the pH. Charge–charge repulsions between BSA and GB1 stabilize the dimer, and the effects of lysozyme indicate a role for attractive interactions. The data show that chemical interactions can regulate the strength of protein–protein interactions under physiologically relevant crowded conditions and suggest a mechanism for tuning the equilibrium thermodynamics of protein–protein interactions in cells.

No abstract