Upload
eugene-day
View
217
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EMBL-EBI
MSDpisa
a web service for studyingProtein Interfaces, Surfaces and Assemblies
Eugene Krissinel
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/msd-srv/prot_int/pistart.html
EMBL-EBI
What PISA is aboutWhat PISA is about
Crystal = translated Unit CellMore than 80% of protein structures are solved by means of X-ray diffraction on crystals.
An X-ray diffraction experiment produces atomic coordinates of the crystal’s Asymmetric Unit (ASU).
In general, neither ASU nor Unit Cell has any relation to Biological Unit, or stable protein complex which acts as a unit in physiological processes.
Is there a way to infer Biological Unit from the protein crystallography data?
Unit Cell = all space symmetry group mates of ASU
PDB file
EMBL-EBI
?no image or bad image
In (very) simple words …In (very) simple words …
2
crystallisation
3
in crystal
? ?good image but no
associations
in vivo
1
EMBL-EBI
At first glance …At first glance …
… the solution is simple as 1-2:
1. Evaluate all protein contacts (interfaces) in crystal2. Leave only the strongest (“biologically relevant”) ones
- and what you get will have chances to be a stable protein complex.
Small technical problem:
How to discriminate between “real” (biologically relevant) and “superficial” (inter-assembly, or crystal packing) interfaces?
EMBL-EBI
0 20 40 60 80
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
PDB entry
Bur
ied
AS
A [Å
2 ]
dimersmonomers
Real and superficial protein interfacesReal and superficial protein interfaces
Most often used discrimination criteria - interface area.
A cut-off at 900 Å2 gives about 80% success rate of discrimination between monomers and dimers.
Big proteins would be always sticky if this criteria is true …
EMBL-EBI
0 20 40 60 80
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
PDB entry
Fre
e E
nerf
gy G
ain
[kca
l/M]
dimersmonomers
Free energy gain of interface formation.
A cut-off at -8 kcal/M gives about 82% success rate of discrimination between monomers and dimers.
Can energy measure be uniform for all weights and shapes?
Real and superficial protein interfacesReal and superficial protein interfaces
EMBL-EBI
0 20 40 60 80
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
PDB entry
P-v
alue
of H
ydro
phob
ic P
atch dimers
monomers
Real and superficial protein interfacesReal and superficial protein interfaces
P-value of hydrophobic patches.
A measure of probability for the interface to be more hydrophobic than found.
A cut-off at 0.2 gives about 60% success rate of discrimination between monomers and dimers.
EMBL-EBI
0 20 40 60 80
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
PDB entry
Pac
king
Edg
e F
acto
r
dimersmonomers
Real and superficial protein interfacesReal and superficial protein interfaces
Packing edge factor.
A measure showing how closely the mass packing edge matches the actual interface.
A cut-off at 0.3 gives about 60% success rate of discrimination between monomers and dimers
interface
packing edge
EMBL-EBI
No ultimate discriminating parameter for the identification of biologically relevant protein interfaces may be proposed at present even for dimeric complexes
Jones, S. & Thornton, J.M. (1996) Principles of protein-protein interactions, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 93, 13-20.
Formation of N>2 -meric complexes is most probably a corporate process involving a set of interfaces. Therefore significance of an interface should not be detached from the context of protein complex
Real and superficial protein interfacesReal and superficial protein interfaces
EMBL-EBI
Making assemblies from significant interfacesMaking assemblies from significant interfaces
PQS server @ MSD-EBI (Kim Henrick) Trends in Biochem. Sci. (1998) 23, 358
Method: recursive splitting of the largest complexes as allowed by crystal symmetry. Termination criteria is derived from the individual statistical scores of crystal contacts. The results are not curated.
PITA software @ Thornton group EBI (Hannes Ponstingl) J. Appl. Cryst. (2003) 36, 1116
Method: progressive build-up by addition of monomeric chains that suit the selection criteria. The results are partly curated.
Despite failure to find an ultimate measure for interface biological relevance, two approaches were developed that use scoring of individual interfaces:
EMBL-EBI
It is not properties of individual interfaces but rather chemical stability of protein complex in general that really matters
Protein chains will most likely associate into largest complexes that are still stable
A protein complex is stable if its free energy of dissociation is positive:
Chemical stability of protein complexesChemical stability of protein complexes
0int STGGdiss
How to calculate Gdiss?
EMBL-EBI
Protein affinityProtein affinity
sbsbhbhb
n
iisns NENEAGAAAGG
121int ,
Solvation energy of protein complex
Solvation energies of dissociated
subunits
Free energy of H-bond formation
Number of H-bonds between
dissociated subunits
Free energy of salt bridge
formation
Number of salt bridges between
dissociated subunits
321 AAA 321 AAA
Dissociation into stable subunits with minimum
dissG
Choice of dissociation subunits:
Gint is function of protein interfaces
EMBL-EBI
Solvation free energySolvation free energy
k
rkkks aaAG
Atomic solvation parameters
Atom’s accessible
surface area
Atom’s accessible surface area in reference (unfolded)
state
protein
solv
ent
ka
Eisenberg, D. & McLachlan, A.D. (1986)Nature 319, 199-203.
k
EMBL-EBI
Entropy of macromolecules in solutions Entropy of macromolecules in solutions
aSISmSS surfSrottrans ,ˆ
Translational entropy Rotational entropy Sidechain entropy
MassSolvent-accessible
surface areaTensor of inertia
mRcmS ttrans log23
2321log2,ˆ SrSrot IIIRcIS
FaaSsurf
Murray C.W. and Verdonik M.L. (2002)J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design 16, 741-753.
Symmetry number
ct , cr and F are semiempirical parameters
EMBL-EBI
Entropy of dissociation Entropy of dissociation
n
n
ii AAASASS 21
1
,
Fitted parameter
Fitted parameter
Mass of i-th subunit
i i
i im
mRCn log123
buried
AAAAI
AAIR FanSk nk
i iSk ik
12
1
2
log2
k-th principal moment of inertia of i-th subunit
S is function of protein complex
EMBL-EBI
How to identify an assembly in crystal?How to identify an assembly in crystal?
We now know (or we think that we know) how to evaluate chemical stability of protein complexes.
Given a 3D-arrangement of protein chains, we can now say whether there are chances that this arrangement is a stable assembly, or biological unit.
But how to get potential assemblies in first place?
EMBL-EBI
How to catch a Desert Lion?
Method of Desert LionMethod of Desert Lion
Catch alllions and keepOne living in
Desert
EMBL-EBI
Enumerating assemblies in crystalEnumerating assemblies in crystal
crystal is represented as a periodic graph with monomeric chains as vertices and interfaces as edges
each set of assemblies is identified by engaged interface types
all assemblies may be enumerated by a backtracking scheme engaging all possible combinations of different interface types
Example: crystal with 3 interface types
Assembly set
Engaged interface types
1 000 - only monomers2 001 - dimer N13 010 - dimer N24 011
Assembly set
Engaged interface types
5 100 - dimer N36 101 7 110 8 111 - all crystal
EMBL-EBI
Clever backtrackingClever backtracking
The number of different interface types may reach a hundred. The algorithm is not going to complete backtracking of 2100 combinations unless it is clever enough to
check geometry and engage induced interfaces as soon as they emerge
check geometry and terminate backtracking if assembly contains two identical chains in parallel orientations
see the future and terminate backtracking if there are no stable assemblies down the current branch of the recursion tree
Engaged interfaces
Induced interface
Otherwise assembly will be infinite due to translation symmetry in crystal
Based on the observation that entropy of dissociation of unstable assemblies only increases down the recursion tree
… only then the algorithm completes in 0.1 secs to 1.5 hours depending on the structure …
EMBL-EBI
Detection of Biological Units in CrystalsDetection of Biological Units in Crystals
1. Build periodic graph of the crystal
2. Enumerate all possibly stable assemblies
3. Evaluate assemblies for chemical stability
4. Leave only sets of stable assemblies in the list and range them by chances to be a biological unit :
• Larger assemblies take preference• Single-assembly solutions take preference• Otherwise, assemblies with higher Gdiss take preference
Method Summary
EMBL-EBI
Are we any close?Are we any close?
Assembly classification on the benchmark set of 218 structures published in
Ponstingl, H., Kabir, T. and Thornton, J. (2003) Automatic inference of protein quaternary structures from crystals. J. Appl. Cryst. 36, 1116-1122.
1mer 2mer 3mer 4mer 6mer Other Sum Correct 1mer 50 4 0 1 0 0 55 91% 2mer 6 68+11 0 2+1 0 0 76+12 90% 3mer 1 0 22 0 1 0 24 92% 4mer 2 3 0 27+6 0 0 32+6 87% 6mer 0 0 0 1 10+2 0 11+2 92% Total: 198+20 90%
198+20 <=> 198 homomers and 20 heteromers
Fitted parameters:
hbE
sbE
1. Free energy of a H-bond :
2. Free energy of a salt bridge :
3. Constant entropy term :
4. Surface entropy factor : FT CT
= 0.51 kcal/mol
= 0.21 kcal/mol
= 11.7 kcal/mol
= 0.57·10-3 kcal/(mol*Å2)
Classification error in Gdiss : ± 5 kcal/mol
EMBL-EBI
A better method?A better method?
PQS server : 78% (not optimised on the benchmark set, but manually curated)
PITA software : 84% (optimised with 18 parameters, system overfit(?))
Present study : 90% (optimised with 4 parameters, system underfit)
Percent of successful classifications, as measured on the same benchmark set of 218 PDB entries:
EMBL-EBI
1mer 2mer 3mer 4mer 5mer 6mer 8mer 10mer 12mer Other Sum Correct 1mer 131 11 0 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 150 87% 2mer 12+6 88+12 1 4 0 1 2 0 0 0 105+21 79% 3mer 1 2 6+2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7+5 67% 4mer 1+1 5+2 0 25+5 0 0 1+2 0 0 0 32+10 71% 5mer 1 0 0 0 2+1 0 0 0 0 0 2+2 75% 6mer 1 2+1 0 0 0 13+2 0 0 0 0 15+4 79% 8mer 0 1 0 0 0 0 0+2 0 0 0 1+2 67% 10mer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 100% 12mer 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5+1 0 7+1 75% Total: 321+45 81%
What is beyond the benchmark set?What is beyond the benchmark set?
Classification results obtained for 366 recent depositions into PDB in reference to manual classification in MSD-EBI :
321+45 <=> 321 homomers and 45 heteromers
Classification error in Gdiss : ± 5 kcal/mol
EMBL-EBI
Is it ever going to be 100%?Is it ever going to be 100%?
theoretical models for protein affinity and entropy change upon protein complexation are primitive
coordinate (experimental) data is of a limited accuracy
there is no feasible way to take conformations in crystal into account
experimental data on multimeric states is very limited and not always reliable - calibration of parameters is difficult
protein assemblies may exist in some environments and dissociate in other - a definite answer is simply not there
Nobody should be that naive, because :
EMBL-EBI
Web-server PISAWeb-server PISA
A new MSD-EBI tool for working around Protein Interfaces, Surfaces and Assemblies
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/msd-srv/prot_int/pistart.html
EMBL-EBI
EMBL-EBI
EMBL-EBI
EMBL-EBI
ConclusionsConclusions
Stable protein complexes, which are likely to be biological units, may be calculated from protein crystallography data at 80-90% success rate
Biological relevance of a particular protein interface cannot be reliably inferred from the interface properties only. Instead, one should conclude about significance of an interface from the analysis of the relevant protein assemblies
Acknowledgement. This work has been supported by research grant No. 721/B19544 from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) UK.