Residue centrality, functionally important residues, and active site shape: Analysis of enzyme and non‐enzyme families

Abstract

The representation of protein structures as small-world networks facilitates the search for topological determinants, which may relate to functionally important residues. Here, we aimed to investigate the performance of residue centrality, viewed as a family fold characteristic, in identifying functionally important residues in protein families. Our study is based on 46 families, including 29 enzyme and 17 nonenzyme families. A total of 80% of these central positions corresponded to active site residues or residues in direct contact with these sites. For enzyme families, this percentage increased to 91%, while for nonenzyme families the percentage decreased substantially to 48%. A total of 70% of these central positions are located in catalytic sites in the enzyme families, 64% are in hetero-atom binding sites in those families binding hetero-atoms, and only 16% belong to protein-protein interfaces in families with protein-protein interaction data. These differences reflect the active site shape: enzyme active sites locate in surface clefts, hetero-atom binding residues are in deep cavities, while protein-protein interactions involve a more planar configuration. On the other hand, not all surface cavities or clefts are comprised of central residues. Thus, closeness centrality identifies functionally important residues in enzymes. While here we focus on binding sites, we expect to identify key residues for the integration and transmission of the information to the rest of the protein, reflecting the relationship between fold and function. Residue centrality is more conserved than the protein sequence, emphasizing the robustness of protein structures. Article published online ahead of print. Article and publication date are at http://www.proteinscience.org/cgi

Comparing four different approaches for the determination of inter‐residue interactions provides insight for the structure prediction of helical membrane proteins

“…As the first step, protein structures. These approaches can be approximately classified into three categories: approaches employing a single distance cutoff between atoms of two residues, 3,5,9 approaches based on van der Walls radii of atoms, 4 and approaches detecting specific inter-residue interactions, e.g. H-bonds.…”

How accurate and statistically robust are catalytic site predictions based on closeness centrality?

“…Despite growing consensus concerning the utility of these methods, a robust assessment of their prediction accuracy remains to be completed. Amitai et al [32], Thibert et al [33] and del Sol et al [35] examine the ability of residue centrality to predict catalytic and/or functional sites within datasets of 178, 128 and 46 proteins, respectively. The results from these studies are encouraging.…”

AlloRep: A Repository of Sequence, Structural and Mutagenesis Data for the LacI/GalR Transcription Regulators

“…In the structural contact network, this position is a hub position involved in multiple inter- and intra-monomeric interactions with: DNA, the inter-domain linker sequence, and the regulatory-domain (Fig 3A). Highly connected nodes within residue-residue contact networks are frequently found to be functionally relevant [41,42]. A search of the table “mut1_single” showed that, in E. coli LacI, 12 mutations of position 118 had impaired or abolished DNA binding [13,15].…”