3.8 Article

Using a residue clash map to functionally characterize protein recombination hybrids

Journal

PROTEIN ENGINEERING
Volume 16, Issue 12, Pages 1025-1034

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/protein/gzg129

Keywords

bioinformatics; directed evolution; protein engineering; residue-residue clash

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this article, we introduce a rapid, protein sequence database-driven approach to characterize all contacting residue pairs present in protein hybrids for inconsistency with protein family structural features. This approach is based on examining contacting residue pairs with different parental origins for different types of potentially unfavorable interactions (i.e. electrostatic repulsion, steric hindrance, cavity formation and hydrogen bond disruption). The identified clashing residue pairs between members of a protein family are then contrasted against functionally characterized hybrid libraries. Comparisons for five different protein recombination studies available in the literature: (i) glycinamide ribonucleotide transformylase (GART) from Escherichia coli ( purN) and human (hGART), (ii) human Mu class glutathione S-transferase (GST) M1-1 and M2-2, ( iii) beta-lactamase TEM-1 and PSE-4, (iv) catechol-2,3-oxygenase xylE and nahH, and ( v) dioxygenases ( toluene dioxygenase, tetrachlorobenzene dioxygenase and biphenyl dioxygenase) reveal that the patterns of identified clashing residue pairs are remarkably consistent with experimentally found patterns of functional crossover profiles. Specifically, we show that the proposed residue clash maps are on average 5.0 times more effective than randomly generated clashes and 1.6 times more effective than residue contact maps at explaining the observed crossover distributions among functional members of hybrid libraries. This suggests that residue clash maps can provide quantitative guidelines for the placement of crossovers in the design of protein recombination experiments.

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