4.6 Article

β-Bulges: Extensive structural analyses of β-sheets irregularities

期刊

PROTEIN SCIENCE
卷 22, 期 10, 页码 1366-1378

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pro.2324

关键词

beta-sheets; beta-strand; structural irregularity; evolution; structural alphabet; protein blocks; folds; structural comparison; protein structure; mining

资金

  1. Ministry of Research (France)
  2. University Paris Diderot
  3. Sorbonne Paris Cite
  4. National Institute for Blood Transfusion (INTS, France)
  5. Laboratoire of Excellence GR-Ex (France)
  6. Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM, France)
  7. ANR Naturadyre
  8. HFSP (India)
  9. NCBS (India)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

beta-Sheets are quite frequent in protein structures and are stabilized by regular main-chain hydrogen bond patterns. Irregularities in -sheets, named -bulges, are distorted regions between two consecutive hydrogen bonds. They disrupt the classical alternation of side chain direction and can alter the directionality of -strands. They are implicated in protein-protein interactions and are introduced to avoid -strand aggregation. Five different types of -bulges are defined. Previous studies on -bulges were performed on a limited number of protein structures or one specific family. These studies evoked a potential conservation during evolution. In this work, we analyze the -bulge distribution and conservation in terms of local backbone conformations and amino acid composition. Our dataset consists of 66 times more -bulges than the last systematic study (Chan et al. Protein Science 1993, 2:1574-1590). Novel amino acid preferences are underlined and local structure conformations are highlighted by the use of a structural alphabet. We observed that -bulges are preferably localized at the N- and C-termini of -strands, but contrary to the earlier studies, no significant conservation of -bulges was observed among structural homologues. Displacement of -bulges along the sequence was also investigated by Molecular Dynamics simulations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据