2011
DOI: 10.6026/97320630006137
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Insights from the structural analysis of protein heterodimer interfaces

Abstract: Protein heterodimer complexes are often involved in catalysis, regulation, assembly, immunity and inhibition. This involves the formation of stable interfaces between the interacting partners. Hence, it is of interest to describe heterodimer interfaces using known structural complexes. We use a non-redundant dataset of 192 heterodimer complex structures from the protein databank (PDB) to identify interface residues and describe their interfaces using amino-acids residue property preference. Analysis of the dat… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
22
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The difference in percentages between interface polar residues and nonpolar residues (P% − NP%) gives the measure of the abundance of polar or nonpolar residues at the interface . The interface polarity abundance (P% − NP%) measure (described in Materials and Methods: Interface analysis) is significantly different among the different functional categories with P = 4.25E−05 (Table and Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The difference in percentages between interface polar residues and nonpolar residues (P% − NP%) gives the measure of the abundance of polar or nonpolar residues at the interface . The interface polarity abundance (P% − NP%) measure (described in Materials and Methods: Interface analysis) is significantly different among the different functional categories with P = 4.25E−05 (Table and Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The classification of protein–protein complexes based on their composition, affinity, interface stability, and lifetime association into different groups has gained momentum in the past decade, although the boundaries between these classes is often indefinite, based on physiological conditions . Alternatively, the classification of complexes into major functional groups can be valuable in relating structural data to biological functions for better understanding of PPIs . Moreover, the classification of protein–protein complexes based on functions and their usefulness in improving prediction accuracy has been observed recently .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It consists of 40 Enzymes, 144 Regulatory, 25 Enzyme inhibitors, 27 Regulatory inhibitors, 18 Immune complexes and 24 biological assembly complexes (Figure 1). This dataset is similar to a manually curated dataset having functional annotations described earlier by Sowmya et al (2011) [21]. We further grouped complexes associated with regulator, enzyme and biological assemblies as obligatory (essential) and those of enzyme and regulatory inhibitors as nonobligatory (unwanted).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The correlation of determination r2 was calculated for energy and interface size among class A (interface non-polar residues is more than surface) and class B (interface non-polar residues less than surface) [21]. …”
Section: Tablementioning
confidence: 99%
“…12 entries with N-to C-termini distances of less than 15 Å were identified ( Supplementary Table S2). This protocol of identifying PDB entries with heterodimeric proteins is similar to that of Sowmya et al (2011).…”
Section: Heterodimer Selectionmentioning
confidence: 99%