ICTM-Department of Chemistry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
J Mol Model. 2010 Nov;16(11):1743-51. doi: 10.1007/s00894-010-0787-4. Epub 2010 Jul 23.
The distinguishing property of Sm protein associations is very high stability. In order to understand this property, we analyzed the interfaces and compared the properties of Sm protein interfaces with those of a test set, the Binding Interface Database (BID). The comparison revealed that the main differences between the interfaces of Sm proteins and those of the BID set are the content of charged residues, the coordination numbers of the residues, knowledge-based pair potentials, and the conservation scores of hot spots. In Sm proteins, the interfaces have more hydrophobic and fewer charged residues than the surfaces, which is also the case for the BID test set and other proteins. However, in the interfaces, the content of charged residues in Sm proteins (26%) is substantially larger than that in the BID set (22%). Hot spots are residues that make up a small fraction of the interfaces, but they contribute most of the binding energy. These residues are critical to protein-protein interactions. Analyses of knowledge-based pair potentials of hot spot and non-hot spot residues in Sm proteins show that they are significantly different; their mean values are 31.5 and 11.3, respectively. In the BID set, this difference is smaller; in this case, the mean values for hot spot and non-hot spot residues are 20.7 and 12.4, respectively. Hence, the pair potentials of hot spots differ significantly for the Sm and BID data sets. In the interfaces of Sm proteins, the amino acids are tightly packed, and the coordination numbers are larger in Sm proteins than in the BID set for both hot spots and non-hot spots. At the same time, the coordination numbers are higher for hot spots; the average coordination number of the hot spot residues in Sm proteins is 7.7, while it is 6.1 for the non-hot spot residues. The difference in the calculated average conservation score for hot spots and non-hot spots in Sm proteins is significantly larger than it is in the BID set. In Sm proteins, the average conservation score for the hot spots is 7.4. Hot spots are surrounded by residues that are moderately conserved (5.9). The average conservation score for the other interface residues is 5.6. The conservation scores in the BID set do not show a significant distinction between hot and non-hot spots: the mean values for hot and non-hot spot residues are 5.5 and 5.2, respectively. These data show that structurally conserved residues and hot spots are significantly correlated in Sm proteins.
Sm 蛋白复合物的一个显著特点是其具有高度稳定性。为了理解这一特性,我们分析了 Sm 蛋白复合物的界面,并将其与 Binding Interface Database (BID) 测试集的界面特性进行了比较。比较结果表明,Sm 蛋白复合物界面与 BID 测试集以及其他蛋白的界面之间的主要区别在于带电荷残基的含量、残基的配位数、基于知识的对势以及热点的保守评分。在 Sm 蛋白复合物中,界面的疏水性残基比表面的疏水性残基多,带电荷残基比表面的带电荷残基少,BID 测试集和其他蛋白也是如此。然而,在界面中,Sm 蛋白复合物中带电荷残基的含量(26%)明显大于 BID 测试集(22%)。热点是构成界面很小一部分但对结合能贡献最大的残基。这些残基对于蛋白质-蛋白质相互作用至关重要。分析 Sm 蛋白复合物中热点和非热点残基的基于知识的对势表明,它们的差异非常显著,热点残基的平均值为 31.5,非热点残基的平均值为 11.3。在 BID 测试集中,这种差异较小,热点和非热点残基的平均值分别为 20.7 和 12.4。因此,Sm 蛋白复合物和 BID 数据集的热点对势差异非常显著。在 Sm 蛋白复合物的界面中,氨基酸紧密堆积,热点和非热点的 Sm 蛋白复合物的配位数都大于 BID 测试集。同时,热点的配位数更高;Sm 蛋白复合物中热点残基的平均配位数为 7.7,而非热点残基的平均配位数为 6.1。Sm 蛋白复合物中热点和非热点残基的平均保守评分差异明显大于 BID 测试集。Sm 蛋白复合物中热点的平均保守评分为 7.4。热点由中等保守(5.9)的残基环绕。其他界面残基的平均保守评分为 5.6。BID 测试集中的保守评分在热点和非热点之间没有明显的区别:热点和非热点残基的平均值分别为 5.5 和 5.2。这些数据表明,在 Sm 蛋白复合物中,结构保守残基与热点显著相关。