4.8 Article

Beyond icosahedral symmetry in packings of proteins in spherical shells

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1706825114

Keywords

coarse-grained modeling; icosahedral symmetry; protein cage; self-assembly; protein design

Funding

  1. BrisSynBio [a UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)/UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Synthetic Biology Research Center] [BB/L01386X/1]
  2. BBSRC LoLa Grant [BB/M002969/1]
  3. Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award [WM140008]
  4. BBSRC [BB/M002969/1, BB/L01386X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/L01386X/1, BB/M002969/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The formation of quasi-spherical cages from protein building blocks is a remarkable self-assembly process in many natural systems, where a small number of elementary building blocks are assembled to build a highly symmetric icosahedral cage. In turn, this has inspired synthetic biologists to design de novo protein cages. We use simple models, on multiple scales, to investigate the self-assembly of a spherical cage, focusing on the regularity of the packing of protein-like objects on the surface. Using building blocks, which are able to pack with icosahedral symmetry, we examine how stable these highly symmetric structures are to perturbations that may arise from the interplay between flexibility of the interacting blocks and entropic effects. We find that, in the presence of those perturbations, icosahedral packing is not the most stable arrangement for a wide range of parameters; rather disordered structures are found to be the most stable. Our results suggest that (i) many designed, or even natural, protein cages may not be regular in the presence of those perturbations and (ii) optimizing those flexibilities can be a possible design strategy to obtain regular synthetic cages with full control over their surface properties.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available