Unstructured interactions between peptides and proteins: Exploring the role of sequence motifs in affinity and specificity
Source abstract
Abstract
Unstructured interactions between proteins and other molecules or surfaces are often described as nonspecific, and have received relatively little attention in terms of their role in biology. However, despite their lack of a specific binding structure, these unstructured interactions can in fact be very selective. The lack of a specific structure for these interactions makes them more difficult to study in a chemically meaningful way, but one approach is statistical, i.e. simply looking at a large number of different ligands and using that to understand the chemistry of binding. Surface-bound peptide arrays are useful in this regard, and have been used as a model previously for this purpose (Wang and Woodbury, 2014). In that study, the binding of several proteins, including β-galactosidase, to all possible dipeptides, tripeptides and tetrapeptides (using seven selected amino acids) was performed and analyzed in terms of the charge characteristics, hydrophobicity, etc., of the binding interaction. The current work builds upon that study by starting with a representative subset of the tetrapeptides characterized previously and either extending them by adding all possible combinations of one, two and three amino acids, or by concatenating 57 of the previously characterized tetrapeptides to each other in all possible combinations (including order). The extended and concatenated libraries were analyzed by binding either labeled β-galactosidase to them or by binding a mixture of 10 different labeled proteins of various sizes, hydrophobicities and charge characteristics to the peptide arrays. By comparing the binding signals from the tetrapeptides or amino acid extensions alone to the binding signals from the complete extended or concatenated sequences, it was possible to evaluate the extent to which affinity and specificity of the whole sequence depends on the subsequences that make it up. The conclusion is that while joining two component sequences together can either greatly increase or decrease overall binding and specificity (relative to the component sequences alone), the contribution to the binding affinity and specificity of the individual binding components is strongly dependent on their position in the peptide; component sequences that bind strongly at the C-terminus of the peptide do not necessarily add substantially to binding and specificity when placed at the N-terminus.
Source: europepmc · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Monoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research · Lipid Membrane Structure and Behavior · Biochemical and Structural Characterization
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (26)
Show source-provided references
1. Flexible nets – the roles of intrinsic disorder in protein interaction networks10.1111/j.1742-4658.2005.04948.x ↗
2. Biomaterials: where we have been and where we are going10.1146/annurev.bioeng.6.040803.140027 ↗
3. Simulation of non-specific protein–mRNA interactions10.1093/nar/gki981 ↗
4. How do site-specific DNA-binding proteins find their targets?10.1093/nar/gkh624 ↗
5. Crystal-structure of a cap-DNA complex – the DNA is bent by 90-degrees10.1126/science.1653449 ↗
6. Nonspecific interaction between DNA and protein allows for cooperativity: a case study with mycobacterium DNA binding protein10.1021/jp209423n ↗
7. Decoding nonspecific interactions from nature10.1039/c2sc21135a ↗
8. Role of nonspecific interactions in molecular chaperones through model-based bioinformatics10.1016/j.bpj.2012.10.040 ↗
9. Nonspecific binding limits the number of proteins in a cell and shapes their interaction networks10.1073/pnas.1010954108 ↗
10. Specific and nonspecific membrane-binding determinants cooperate in targeting phosphatidylinositol transfer protein beta-isoform to the mammalian trans-golgi network10.1091/mbc.E06-01-0089 ↗
11. Exploring peptide space for enzyme modulators10.1021/ja100403a ↗
12. Selective protein–peptide interactions at surfaces10.1016/j.actbio.2013.10.025 ↗
13. http://www.lcsciences.com/applications/proteomics/.
14. Light directed massively parallel on-chip synthesis of peptide arrays with t-Boc chemistry10.1002/pmic.200300597 ↗
15. Individually addressable parallel peptide synthesis on microchips10.1038/nbt723 ↗
16. Peptide synthesis based on t-Boc chemistry and solution photogenerated acids10.1021/cc0000139 ↗
17. Stewart · 1984
18. A simple method for displaying the hydropathic character of a protein10.1016/0022-2836(82)90515-0 ↗
19. Greving · 2009
20. Small-molecule peptides inhibit Z alpha(1)-antitrypsin polymerization10.1111/j.1582-4934.2008.00608.x ↗
21. Identification of a 4-mer peptide inhibitor that effectively blocks the polymerization of pathogenic Z alpha(1)-antitrypsin10.1165/rcmb.2005-0207OC ↗
22. The alpha 1-antitrypsin gene and its deficiency states10.1016/0168-9525(89)90200-X ↗
23. Topography of a 2.0angstrom structure of alpha(1)-antitrypsin reveals targets for rational drug design to prevent conformational disease10.1110/ps.9.7.1274 ↗
24. Discovery of high-affinity protein binding ligands – backwards10.1371/journal.pone.0010728 ↗
25. Cellular crowding imposes global constraints on the chemistry and evolution of proteomes10.1073/pnas.1209312109 ↗
26. Protein misinteraction avoidance causes highly expressed proteins to evolve slowly10.1073/pnas.1117408109 ↗