Comparative Analysis of Inter residue Contact Energy Potentials with Surrounding Hydrophobicity Model

Saravanan KM

Abstract


During the process of protein folding, the regular secondary structures are formed through backbone hydrogen bonding and the side chain interact each other as well as the surrounding medium to create the more complex tertiary structure. Covalent interactions between cysteine groups, non-covalent electrostatic interactions between polar groups and van-der waals interactions between non-polar groups are commonly observed in tertiary structures. To explore the role of various forces contributing to protein stability, models based on inter-residue interactions are an attractive choice. Hence, in the present work, inter residue contact energy statistical potentials are derived and related with the surrounding hydrophobicity model. Also, the statistical potentials derived by various leading research groups are also compared with the classical surrounding hydrophobicity model. Our analysis revealed the importance of hydrophobicity as a dominant force in the protein folding process.

Keywords


Protein Folding

Full Text:

PDF

References


Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL., Estimation of effective interresidue contact energies from protein crystal structures: quasi-chemical approximation, Macromolecules, 1985; 18: 534-552.

Bahar I, Jernigan RL., Inter-residue potentials in globular proteins and the dominance of highly specific hydrophilic interactions at close separation. J Mol Biol, 1997; 266: 195-214.

Keskin O, Bahar I, Jernigan RL, Badretdinov AY, Ptitsyn OB., Empirical solvent‐mediated potentials hold for both intra‐molecular and inter‐molecular inter‐residue interactions, Protein Sci, 1998; 7: 2578-2586.

Gromiha MM., Important inter-residue contacts for enhancing the thermal stability of thermophilic proteins, Biophys Chem, 2001; 91: 71-77.

Fariselli P, Olmea O, Valencia A, Casadio R., Progress in predicting inter‐residue contacts of proteins with neural networks and correlated mutations, Proteins, 2001; 45: 157-162.

Gromiha MM, Selvaraj S., Inter-residue interactions in protein folding and stability, Prog Biophys Mol Biol, 2004; 86: 235-277.

Mary RD, Saravanan MK, Selvaraj S., Conservation of inter-residue interactions and prediction of folding rates of domain repeats, J Biomol Struct Dyn, 2015; 33: 534-551.

Manavalan P, Ponnuswamy PK., Hydrophobic character of amino acid residues in globular proteins, Nature, 1978; 275: 673-674.

Maiorov VN, Grippen GM., Contact potential that recognizes the correct folding of globular proteins, J Mol Biol, 1992; 227: 876-888.

Sippl MJ., Knowledge-based potentials for proteins, Curr Opin Struct Biol, 1995; 5: 229-235.

Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL., Residue–residue potentials with a favorable contact pair term and an unfavorable high packing density term, for simulation and threading, J Mol Biol, 1996; 256: 623-644.

Thomas PD, Dill KA., Statistical potentials extracted from protein structures: how accurate are they?. J Mol Biol, 1996; 257: 457-469.

Melo F, Sánchez R, Sali A., Statistical potentials for fold assessment, Protein Sci, 2002; 11: 430-448.

Saravanan KM, Suvaithenamudhan S, Parthasarathy S. Selvaraj S., Pairwise contact energy statistical potentials can help to find probability of point mutations, Proteins, 2017; 85: 54-64.

Zhang C, Kim SH., Environment-dependent residue contact energies for proteins, Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2000; 97: 2550-2555.

Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE., The protein data bank, Nucleic Acids Res, 2000; 28: 235-242.

Berrera M, Molinari H, Fogolari F., Amino acid empirical contact energy definitions for fold recognition in the space of contact maps, BMC Bioinformatics, 2003; 4: 8.

Lu H, Lu L, Skolnick J., Development of unified statistical potentials describing protein-protein interactions, Biophys J, 2003; 84: 1895-1901.

Wang G, Dunbrack RL., PISCES: a protein sequence culling server, Bioinformatics, 2003; 19: 1589-1591.

Murzin AG, Brenner SE, Hubbard T, Chothia C., SCOP: a structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures, J Mol Biol, 1995; 247: 536-540.

Xu Y, Xu D., Protein threading using PROSPECT: design and evaluation, Proteins, 2000; 40: 343–354.

. Nozaki Y, Tanford C., The solubility of amino acids and two glycine peptides in aqueous ethanol and dioxane solutions establishment of a hydrophobicity scale, J Biol Chem, 1971; 246: 2211-2217.

Bowie JU, Reidhaar-Olson JF, Lim WA, Sauer RT., Deciphering the message in protein sequences: tolerance to amino acid substitutions, Science, 1990; 247: 1306-1311.

Huang ES, Subbiah S, Levitt M., Recognizing native folds by the arrangement of hydrophobic and polar residues, J Mol Biol, 1995; 252: 709-720.

Gromiha MM, Pathak MC, Saraboji K, Ortlund EA, Gaucher EA., Hydrophobic environment is a key factor for the stability of thermophilic proteins, Proteins, 2013; 81: 715-721.

Rishyakulya MC, Saravanan KM., Computational Structural Analysis of C-Terminal Residues of Proteins Containing Transmembrane Regions, Int J Comp Biol, 2015; 4: 44-54.

Gromiha MM, Selvaraj S., Comparison between long-range interactions and contact order in determining the folding rate of two-state proteins: application of long-range order to folding rate prediction, J Mol Biol, 2001; 310: 27-32.

Aftabuddin M, Kundu S., Hydrophobic, hydrophilic and charged amino acid networks within protein, Biophys J, 2007; 93: 225-231.

Selvaraj S, Gromiha MM., Importance of long-range interactions in (α/β) 8 barrel fold, J Prot Chem, 1998; 17: 691-697.

Gromiha MM, Suwa M., Variation of amino acid properties in all-β globular and outer membrane protein structures, Int J Biol Macromol, 2003; 32: 93-98.