User:Danielkeedy/Protein dynamics: Difference between revisions
Danielkeedy (talk | contribs) |
Danielkeedy (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
but also for many that are distal in sequence yet are brought into contact in the final folded structure. |
but also for many that are distal in sequence yet are brought into contact in the final folded structure. |
||
Because of this proximity, these residues's energy landscapes become coupled |
Because of this proximity, these residues's energy landscapes become coupled |
||
based on various biophysical phenomena such as hydrogen |
based on various biophysical phenomena such as [[hydrogen bond]]s, [[ionic bond]]s, and [[van der Waals force|van der Waals interactions]] (see figure). |
||
Transitions between states for such sets of residues therefore become correlated. |
Transitions between states for such sets of residues therefore become correlated. |
||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
which often shift collectively to adopt different conformations in different crystal structures (see figure). |
which often shift collectively to adopt different conformations in different crystal structures (see figure). |
||
However, coupled conformational heterogeneity is also sometimes evident in secondary structure. |
However, coupled conformational heterogeneity is also sometimes evident in secondary structure. |
||
For example, consecutive residues and residues offset by 4 in the primary sequence often interact in α helices. |
For example, consecutive residues and residues offset by 4 in the primary sequence often interact in [[alpha helix|α helices]]. |
||
Also, residues offset by 2 in the primary sequence point their sidechains toward the same face of β sheets and are close enough to interact sterically, |
Also, residues offset by 2 in the primary sequence point their sidechains toward the same face of [[beta sheet|β sheets]] and are close enough to interact sterically, |
||
as are residues on adjacent strands of the same β sheet. |
as are residues on adjacent strands of the same [[beta sheet|β sheet]]. |
||
[[File:Hen egg white lysozyme PDB ensemble.jpg|thumb|An "ensemble" of 44 crystal structures of hen egg white lysozyme from the Protein Data Bank, showing that different crystallization conditions lead to different conformations for various surface-exposed loops and termini (red arrows).]] |
[[File:Hen egg white lysozyme PDB ensemble.jpg|thumb|An "ensemble" of 44 crystal structures of hen egg white lysozyme from the Protein Data Bank, showing that different crystallization conditions lead to different conformations for various surface-exposed loops and termini (red arrows).]] |
Revision as of 05:11, 9 July 2013
Proteins are generally thought to adopt unique structures determined by their amino acid sequences, as outlined by Anfinsen's dogma. However, proteins are not strictly static objects, but rather populate ensembles of (sometimes similar) conformations. Transitions between these states occur on a variety of length scales (tenths of Å to nm) and time scales (ns to s), and have been linked to functionally relevant phenomena such as allosteric signaling and enzyme catalysis[1].
The study of protein dynamics is most directly concerned with the transitions between these states, but can also involve the nature and equilibrium populations of the states themselves. These two perspectives -- kinetics and thermodynamics, respectively -- can be conceptually synthesized in an "energy landscape" paradigm[2]: highly populated states and the kinetics of transitions between them can be described by the depths of energy wells and the heights of energy barriers, respectively.
Local flexibility: atoms and residues
Portions of protein structures often deviate from the equilibrium state. Some such excursions are harmonic, such as stochastic fluctuations of chemical bonds and bond angles. Others are anharmonic, such as sidechains that jump between separate discrete energy minima, or rotamers.
Evidence for local flexibility is often obtained from NMR spectroscopy. However, it can also be derived from very high-resolution electron density maps produced by X-ray crystallography[3], particularly when diffraction data is collected at room temperature instead of the traditional cryogenic temperature (typically near 100 K)[4].
Regional flexibility: intra-domain multi-residue coupling
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Catalase_diverse_alternate_conformation_network.jpg/220px-Catalase_diverse_alternate_conformation_network.jpg)
Many residues are in close spatial proximity in protein structures. This is true for most residues that are contiguous in the primary sequence, but also for many that are distal in sequence yet are brought into contact in the final folded structure. Because of this proximity, these residues's energy landscapes become coupled based on various biophysical phenomena such as hydrogen bonds, ionic bonds, and van der Waals interactions (see figure). Transitions between states for such sets of residues therefore become correlated.
This is perhaps most obvious for surface-exposed loops, which often shift collectively to adopt different conformations in different crystal structures (see figure). However, coupled conformational heterogeneity is also sometimes evident in secondary structure. For example, consecutive residues and residues offset by 4 in the primary sequence often interact in α helices. Also, residues offset by 2 in the primary sequence point their sidechains toward the same face of β sheets and are close enough to interact sterically, as are residues on adjacent strands of the same β sheet.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Hen_egg_white_lysozyme_PDB_ensemble.jpg/220px-Hen_egg_white_lysozyme_PDB_ensemble.jpg)
When these coupled residues form pathways linking functionally important parts of a protein, they may participate in allosteric signaling. For example, when a molecule of oxygen binds to one subunit of the hemoglobin tetramer, that information is allosterically propagated to the other three subunits, thereby enhancing their affinity for oxygen. In this case, the coupled flexibility in hemoglobin allows for cooperative oxygen binding, which is physiologically useful because it allows rapid oxygen loading in lung tissue and rapid oxygen unloading in oxygen-deprived tissues (e.g. muscle).
Global flexibility: multiple domains
The presence of multiple domains in proteins gives rise to a great deal of flexibility and mobility, leading to protein domain dynamics. [5] Domain motions can be inferred by comparing different structures of a protein (as in Database of Molecular Motions), or they can be directly observed using spectra [6] [7] measured by neutron spin echo spectroscopy. They can also be suggested by sampling in extensive molecular dynamics trajectories [8] and principal component analysis.[9] Domain motions are important for:[10]
- catalysis[citation needed]
- regulatory activity
- transport of metabolites
- formation of protein assemblies
- cellular locomotion
One of the largest observed domain motions is the `swivelling' mechanism in pyruvate phosphate dikinase. The phosphoinositide domain swivels between two states in order to bring a phosphate group from the active site of the nucleotide binding domain to that of the phosphoenolpyruvate/pyruvate domain.[11] The phosphate group is moved over a distance of 45A involving a domain motion of about 100 degrees around a single residue. In enzymes, the closure of one domain onto another captures a substrate by an induced fit, allowing the reaction to take place in a controlled way. A detailed analysis by Gerstein led to the classification of two basic types of domain motion; hinge and shear.[10] Only a relatively small portion of the chain, namely the inter-domain linker and side chains undergo significant conformational changes upon domain rearrangement.[12]
Hinges by secondary structures
A study by Hayward[13] found that the termini of α-helices and β-sheets form hinges in a large number of cases. Many hinges were found to involve two secondary structure elements acting like hinges of a door, allowing an opening and closing motion to occur. This can arise when two neighbouring strands within a β-sheet situated in one domain, diverge apart as they join the other domain. The two resulting termini then form the bending regions between the two domains. α-helices that preserve their hydrogen bonding network when bent are found to behave as mechanical hinges, storing `elastic energy' that drives the closure of domains for rapid capture of a substrate.[13]
Helical to extended conformation
The interconversion of helical and extended conformations at the site of a domain boundary is not uncommon. In calmodulin, torsion angles change for five residues in the middle of a domain linking α-helix. The helix is split into two, almost perpendicular, smaller helices separated by four residues of an extended strand.[14][15]
Shear motions
Shear motions involve a small sliding movement of domain interfaces, controlled by the amino acid side chains within the interface. Proteins displaying shear motions often have a layered architecture: stacking of secondary structures. The interdomain linker has merely the role of keeping the domains in close proximity.
Domain motion and functional dynamics in enzymes
The analysis of the internal dynamics of structurally different, but functionally similar enzymes has highlighted a common relationship between the positioning of the active site and the two principal protein sub-domains. In fact, for several members of the hydrolase superfamily, the catalytic site is located close to the interface separating the two principal quasi-rigid domains.[8] Such positioning appears instrumental for maintaining the precise geometry of the active site, while allowing for an appreciable functionally oriented modulation of the flanking regions resulting from the relative motion of the two sub-domains.
Implications for macromolecular evolution
Evidence suggests that protein dynamics are important for function, e.g. enzyme catalysis in DHFR, yet they are also posited to facilitate the acquisition of new functions by molecular evolution[16]. This argument suggests that proteins have evolved to have stable, mostly unique folded structures, but the unavoidable residual flexibility leads to some degree of functional promiscuity, which can be amplified by subsequent mutations.
However, there is a growing awareness that intrinsically unstructured proteins are quite prevalent in eukaryotic genomes[17], casting further doubt on the simplest "sequence determines structure (singular)" interpretation of Anfinsen's dogma. In effect, the new paradigm is characterized by the addition of two caveats: "sequence and cellular environment determine structural ensemble".
References
This article incorporates text and figures from George, R. A. (2002) "Predicting Structural Domains in Proteins" Thesis, University College London, which were contributed by its author.
- ^
Fraser, J. S., Clarkson, M. W., Degnan, S. C., Erion, R., Kern, D., and Alber, T. (2009). "Hidden alternative structures of proline isomerase essential for catalysis". Nature. 462 (7273): 669–673. doi:10.1038/nature08615. PMID 19956261.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^
Frauenfelder, H., Sligar, S. G., and Wolynes, P. G. (1991). "The energy landscapes and motions of proteins". Science. 254 (1603): 1598–1603. doi:10.1126/science.1749933. PMID 1749933.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^
Davis, I. W., Arendall, W. B. III, Richardson, D. C., and Richardson, J. S. (2006). "The backrub motion: how protein backbone shrugs when a sidechain dances". Structure. 14 (2): 265–274. doi:10.1016/j.str.2005.10.007. PMID 16472746.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^
Fraser, J. S., van den Bedem, H., Samelson, A. J., Lang, P. T., Holton, J. M., Echols, N., and Alber, T. (2011). "Accessing protein conformational ensembles using room-temperature X-ray crystallography". PNAS. 108 (39): 16247–16252. doi:10.1073/pnas.1111325108. PMID 21918110.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Bu Z, Callaway DJ (2011). "Proteins MOVE! Protein dynamics and long-range allostery in cell signaling". Advances in Protein Chemistry and Structural Biology. 83: 163–221. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-381262-9.00005-7. PMID 21570668.
- ^ Farago B, Li J, Cornilescu G, Callaway DJ, Bu Z (2010). "Activation of Nanoscale Allosteric Protein Domain Motion Revealed by Neutron Spin Echo Spectroscopy". Biophysical Journal. 99 (10): 3473–3482. Bibcode:2010BpJ....99.3473F. doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2010.09.058. PMC 2980739. PMID 21081097.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Bu Z, Biehl R, Monkenbusch M, Richter D,
D.J.E. Callaway (2005). "Coupled protein domain motion in Taq polymerase revealed by neutron spin-echo spectroscopy". Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 102 (49): 17646–17651. Bibcode:2005PNAS..10217646B. doi:10.1073/pnas.0503388102. PMC 1345721. PMID 16306270.
{{cite journal}}
: line feed character in|author=
at position 41 (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ a b Potestio, R., Pontiggia, F. and Micheletti, C. (2009). "Coarse-grained description of protein internal dynamics: an optimal strategy for decomposing proteins in rigid subunits". Biophysical Journal. 96 (12): 4993–5002. Bibcode:2009BpJ....96.4993P. doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2009.03.051. PMC 2712024. PMID 19527659.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Baron R and Vellore NA (2012). "LSD1/CoREST is an allosteric nanoscale clamp regulated by H3-histone-tail molecular recognition". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 109 (31): 12509–14. doi:10.1073/pnas.1207892109. PMID 22802671.
- ^ a b Gerstein M, Lesk AM, Chothia C. (1994). "Structural mechanisms for domain movements in proteins". Biochemistry. 33 (22): 6739–49. doi:10.1021/bi00188a001. PMID 8204609.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Herzberg O; et al. (1996). "Swiveling-domain mechanism for enzymatic phosphotransfer between remote reaction sites". Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 93 (7): 2652–7. Bibcode:1996PNAS...93.2652H. doi:10.1073/pnas.93.7.2652. PMC 39685. PMID 8610096.
{{cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=
(help) - ^ Janin, J. and Wodak, S. J (1983). "Structural domains in proteins and their role in the dynamics of protein function". Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 42 (1): 21–78. doi:10.1016/0079-6107(83)90003-2. PMID 6353481.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ a b Hayward, 1999
- ^ Meador, W. E., Means, A. R., and Quiocho, F. A (1992). "Target enzyme recognition by calmodulin: 2.4A structure of a calmodulin-peptide complex". Science. 257 (5074): 1251–1255. Bibcode:1992Sci...257.1251M. doi:10.1126/science.1519061. PMID 1519061.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Ikura, M., Clore, G. M., Gronenborn, A. M., Zhu, G., Klee, C. B., and Bax, A (1992). "Solution structure of a calmodulin-target peptide complex by multidimensional NMR". Science. 256 (5057): 632–638. Bibcode:1992Sci...256..632I. doi:10.1126/science.1585175. PMID 1585175.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^
Tokuriki, N. and Tawfik, D. S. (2009). "Protein dynamism and evolvability". Science. 324 (5924): 203–207. doi:10.1126/science.1169375. PMID 19359577.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^
Dyson, H. J. and Wright, P. E. (2005). "Intrinsically unstructured proteins and their functions". Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology. 6 (5057): 197–208. doi:10.1038/nrm1589. PMID 15738986.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)