3.8 Article

MODIP revisited: re-evaluation and refinement of an automated procedure for modeling of disulfide bonds in proteins

Journal

PROTEIN ENGINEERING
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages 187-193

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/proeng/gzg024

Keywords

disulfide bonds; protein stability; site-directed mutagenesis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There have been several attempts to stabilize proteins through the introduction of engineered disulfide bonds. For reasons that are currently unclear, these have met with mixed success. Hence identification of locations where introduction of a disulfide cross-link will lead to protein stabilization is still a challenging task. A computational procedure, MODIP, was introduced more than a decade ago to select sites in protein structures that have the correct geometry for disulfide formation when replaced by Cys. In this study, we re-evaluated the stereochemical criteria used by MODIP for the selection and gradation of sites for modeling disulfides. We introduced steric criteria to check for energetically unfavorable non-bonded contacts with the modeled disulfide, since these can considerably offset the stabilizing effect of the cross-link. The performance of the refined procedure was checked for its ability to correctly predict naturally occurring disulfide bonds in proteins. A set of proteins in which disulfide bonds were introduced experimentally were analyzed with respect to MODIP predictions, stability and other parameters such as accessibility, residue depth, B-factors of the mutated sites, change in volume upon mutation and loop length enclosed by the disulfide. The analysis suggests that in addition to proper stereochemistry, stabilizing disulfides occur in regions of low depth, relatively high mobility, have a loop length greater than 25 and where the disulfide typically occupies a volume less than or equal to that of the original residues.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available