4.3 Article

Identifying stabilizing key residues in proteins using interresidue interaction energy matrix

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/prot.21938

关键词

noncovalent interactions; protein stability; ab initio quantum chemical calculations; hydrophobic core; bioinformatics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We are proposing an interresidue interaction energy map (IEM) - a new tool for protein structure analysis and protein bioinformatics. This approach employs the sum of pair-wise interaction energies of a particular residue as a measure of its structural importance. We will show that the IEM can serve as a means for identifying key residues responsible for the stability of a protein. Our method can be compared with the interresidue contact map but has the advantage of weighting the contacts by the stabilization energy content which they bring to the protein structure. For the theoretical adjustment of the proposed method, we chose the Trp-cage mini protein as a model system to compare a spectrum of computational methods ranging from the ab initio MP2 level through the DFT method to empirical force-field methods. The IEM method correctly identifies Tryptophane 6 as the key residue in the Trp-cage. The other residues with the highest stabilizing contributions correspond to the structurally important positions in the protein. We have further tested our method on the Trp-Cage miniprotein - a P12W mutant of the Trp-cage and on two proteins from the rubredoxin family that differ in their thermostability. Our method correctly identified the thermodynamically more stable variants in both cases and therefore can also be used as a tool for the relative measurement of protein stability. Finally, we will point out the important role played by dispersion energy, which contributes significantly to the total stabilization energy and whose role in aromatic pairs is clearly dominant. Surprisingly, the dispersion energy plays an even more important role in the interaction of prolines with aromatic systems.

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

4.3
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