Protein-protein interfaces are vdW dominant with selective H-bonds and (or) electrostatics towards broad functional specificity

Abstract

Several catalysis, cellular regulation, immune function, cell wall assembly, transport, signaling and inhibition occur through Protein- Protein Interactions (PPI). This is possible with the formation of specific yet stable protein-protein interfaces. Therefore, it is of interest to understand its molecular principles using structural data in relation to known function. Several interface features have been documented using known X-ray structures of protein complexes since 1975. This has improved our understanding of the interface using structural features such as interface area, binding energy, hydrophobicity, relative hydrophobicity, salt bridges and hydrogen bonds. The strength of binding between two proteins is dependent on interface size (number of residues at the interface) and thus its corresponding interface area. It is known that large interfaces have high binding energy (sum of (van der Waals) vdW, H-bonds, electrostatics). However, the selective role played by each of these energy components and more especially that of vdW is not explicitly known. Therefore, it is important to document their individual role in known protein-protein structural complexes. It is of interest to relate interface size with vdW, H-bonds and electrostatic interactions at the interfaces of protein structural complexes with known function using statistical and multiple linear regression analysis methods to identify the prominent force. We used the manually curated non-redundant dataset of 278 hetero-dimeric protein structural complexes grouped using known functions by Sowmya et al. (2015) to gain additional insight to this phenomenon using a robust inter-atomic non-covalent interaction analyzing tool PPCheck (Anshul and Sowdhamini, 2015). This dataset consists of obligatory (enzymes, regulator, biological assembly), immune and nonobligatory (enzyme and regulator inhibitors) complexes. Results show that the total binding energy is more for large interfaces. However, this is not true for its individual energy factors. Analysis shows that vdW energies contribute to about 75% ± 11% on average among all complexes and it also increases with interface size (r2 ranging from 0.67 to 0.89 with p<0.01) at 95% confidence limit irrespective of molecular function. Thus, vdW is both dominant and proportional at the interface independent of molecular function. Nevertheless, H bond energy contributes to 15% ± 6.5% on average in these complexes. It also moderately increases with interface size (r2 ranging from 0.43 to 0.61 with p<0.01) only among obligatory and immune complexes. Moreover, there is about 11.3% ± 8.7% contribution by electrostatic energy. It increases with interface size specifically among non-obligatory regulator-inhibitors (r2 = 0.44). It is implied that both H-bonds and electrostatics are neither dominant nor proportional at the interface. Nonetheless, their presence cannot be ignored in binding. Therefore, H-bonds and (or) electrostatic energy having specific role for improved stability in complexes is implied. Thus, vdW is commo...

Computational Analysis of Non‐covalent Interactions in Phycocyanin Subunit Interfaces

“…The contribution of electrostatic energy is −51.93±33.75 kJ mol −1 (1.7 %) per interface. This observation is inconsistent with the previous analysis that vdW energies provide the major contribution to about 75 % on average among all complexes . However, this study did not consider the role of water molecules in the analysis.…”

“…There are few residues which have energies in the range −4 to −6 and −14 to −16 kJ mol −1 as well. The binding of two proteins is related to interface size (number of interface residues involved in binding) and its corresponding interface area related to total interface energy . The corresponding strength of non‐covalent interactions to interface size of phycocyanins is of significance (Figure ).…”

Understanding Thermostability Factors of Barley Limit Dextrinase by Molecular Dynamics Simulations

“…However, it is still lacking the understanding on the factor affecting the themostability of HvLD at the atomic level. It is suggested that enzymes keep their structural stability by various kinds of non-covalent interactions, such as hydrogen bonds, salt bridges, disulfide bonds, and hydrophobic interaction (Nick Pace et al, 2014;Nilofer et al, 2017). Recently, molecular dynamics (MD) simulation, as a useful tool, has been widely applied to find important characteristics of protein stability (Alizadeh-Rahrovi et al, 2015;Sharma and Sastry, 2015;Jiang et al, 2016;Idrees et al, 2017;Gu et al, 2019).…”

SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and Nsp3 binding: an in silico study

“…The strength of binding of the two proteins relies on the number of residues present at the interface between the two proteins and its area corresponding to interface. Large interfaces depict high binding energy (sum of vdW, H-bonds, electrostatics) (Roth et al 1996 ; Nilofer et al 2017 ). Docking results were examined with the PyMOL, MOE, and Chimera (DeLano 2002 ; Pettersen et al 2004 ; Vilar et al 2008 ), for interactions between the N protein and Nsp3 the closest interacting residues were labeled for better understanding.…”