Counterbalance of ligand- and self-coupled motions characterizes multispecificity of ubiquitin

Explicit versus implicit consideration of binding partners in protein-protein complex to elucidate intrinsic dynamics

The binding of many proteins to their protein partners is tightly regulated via control of their relative intrinsic dynamics during the binding process, a phenomenon which can in turn be modulated. Therefore, investigating the intrinsic dynamics of proteins is necessary to understand function in a comprehensive way. By intrinsic dynamics herein, we principally refer to the vibrational signature of a protein molecule popularly obtained from normal modes or essential modes. For normal modes, one often considers that the molecule under investigation is a collection of springs in a solvent-free or implicit-solvent medium. In the context of a protein-binding partner, the analysis of vibration of the target protein is often complicated due to molecular interaction within the complex. Generally, it is assumed that the isolated bound conformation of the target protein captures the implicit effect of the binding partner on the intrinsic dynamics, therefore suggesting that any influence of the partner molecule is also already integrated. Such an assumption allows large-scale studies of the conservation of protein flexibility. However, in cases where a partner protein directly influences the vibration of the target via critical contacts at the protein-protein interface, the above assumption falls short of providing a detailed view. In this review article, we discuss the implications of considering the dynamics of a protein in a protein-protein complex, as modelled implicitly and explicitly with methods dependent on elastic network models. We further propose how such an explicit consideration can be applied to understand critical protein-protein contacts that can be targeted in future studies.

On the specificity of protein-protein interactions in the context of disorder

With the increased focus on intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) and their large interactomes, the question about their specificity — or more so on their multispecificity — arise. Here we recapitulate how specificity and multispecificity are quantified and address through examples if IDPs in this respect differ from globular proteins. The conclusion is that quantitatively, globular proteins and IDPs are similar when it comes to specificity. However, compared with globular proteins, IDPs have larger interactome sizes, a phenomenon that is further enabled by their flexibility, repetitive binding motifs and propensity to adapt to different binding partners. For IDPs, this adaptability, interactome size and a higher degree of multivalency opens for new interaction mechanisms such as facilitated exchange through trimer formation and ultra-sensitivity via threshold effects and ensemble redistribution. IDPs and their interactions, thus, do not compromise the definition of specificity. Instead, it is the sheer size of their interactomes that complicates its calculation. More importantly, it is this size that challenges how we conceptually envision, interpret and speak about their specificity.

cNMA: a framework of encounter complex-based normal mode analysis to model conformational changes in protein interactions

MOTIVATION

It remains both a fundamental and practical challenge to understand and anticipate motions and conformational changes of proteins during their associations. Conventional normal mode analysis (NMA) based on anisotropic network model (ANM) addresses the challenge by generating normal modes reflecting intrinsic flexibility of proteins, which follows a conformational selection model for protein-protein interactions. But earlier studies have also found cases where conformational selection alone could not adequately explain conformational changes and other models have been proposed. Moreover, there is a pressing demand of constructing a much reduced but still relevant subset of protein conformational space to improve computational efficiency and accuracy in protein docking, especially for the difficult cases with significant conformational changes.

METHOD AND RESULTS

With both conformational selection and induced fit models considered, we extend ANM to include concurrent but differentiated intra- and inter-molecular interactions and develop an encounter complex-based NMA (cNMA) framework. Theoretical analysis and empirical results over a large data set of significant conformational changes indicate that cNMA is capable of generating conformational vectors considerably better at approximating conformational changes with contributions from both intrinsic flexibility and inter-molecular interactions than conventional NMA only considering intrinsic flexibility does. The empirical results also indicate that a straightforward application of conventional NMA to an encounter complex often does not improve upon NMA for an individual protein under study and intra- and inter-molecular interactions need to be differentiated properly. Moreover, in addition to induced motions of a protein under study, the induced motions of its binding partner and the coupling between the two sets of protein motions present in a near-native encounter complex lead to the improved performance. A study to isolate and assess the sole contribution of intermolecular interactions toward improvements against conventional NMA further validates the additional benefit from induced-fit effects. Taken together, these results provide new insights into molecular mechanisms underlying protein interactions and new tools for dimensionality reduction for flexible protein docking.

AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION

Source codes are available upon request.

Specific non-local interactions are not necessary for recovering native protein dynamics

The elastic network model (ENM) is a widely used method to study native protein dynamics by normal mode analysis (NMA). In ENM we need information about all pairwise distances, and the distance between contacting atoms is restrained to the native value. Therefore ENM requires O(N²) information to realize its dynamics for a protein consisting of N amino acid residues. To see if (or to what extent) such a large amount of specific structural information is required to realize native protein dynamics, here we introduce a novel model based on only O(N) restraints. This model, named the ‘contact number diffusion’ model (CND), includes specific distance restraints for only local (along the amino acid sequence) atom pairs, and semi-specific non-local restraints imposed on each atom, rather than atom pairs. The semi-specific non-local restraints are defined in terms of the non-local contact numbers of atoms. The CND model exhibits the dynamic characteristics comparable to ENM and more correlated with the explicit-solvent molecular dynamics simulation than ENM. Moreover, unrealistic surface fluctuations often observed in ENM were suppressed in CND. On the other hand, in some ligand-bound structures CND showed larger fluctuations of buried protein atoms interacting with the ligand compared to ENM. In addition, fluctuations from CND and ENM show comparable correlations with the experimental B-factor. Although there are some indications of the importance of some specific non-local interactions, the semi-specific non-local interactions are mostly sufficient for reproducing the native protein dynamics.

Rigid-body motions of interacting proteins dominate multispecific binding of ubiquitin in a shape-dependent manner

To understand the dynamic aspects of multispecificity of ubiquitin, we studied nine ubiquitin-ligand (partner protein) complexes by normal mode analysis based on an elastic network model. The coupling between ubiquitin and ligand motions was analyzed by decomposing it into rigid-body (external) and vibrational (internal) motions of each subunit. We observed that in total the external motions in one of the subunits largely dominated the coupling. The combination of external motions of ubiquitin and the ligands showed general trends of rotations and translations. Moreover, we observed that the rotational motions of ubiquitin were correlated to the ligand orientations. We also identified ubiquitin atomic vibrations that differentiated the orientation of the ligand molecule. We observed that the extents of coupling were correlated to the shapes of the ligands, and this trend was more pronounced when the coupling involved vibrational motions of the ligand. In conclusion, an intricate interplay between internal and external motions of ubiquitin and the ligands help understand the dynamics of multispecificity, which is mostly guided by the shapes of the ligands and the complex.