Methods for Molecular Modelling of Protein Complexes

Protein Interactome Profiling of Stable Molecular Complexes in Biomaterial Lysate

Most proteins function as part of various complexes, forming via stable and dynamic protein-protein interactions (PPIs). The profiling of PPIs expands the fundamental knowledge about the structures, functions, and regulation patterns of protein complexes and intracellular molecular machineries. Protein interactomics aims at solving three main tasks: (1) identification of protein partners and parts of complex intracellular structures; (2) analysis of PPIs parameters (affinity, molecular-recognition specificity, kinetic rate constants, and thermodynamic-parameters determination); (3) the study of the functional role of novel PPIs. The purpose of this work is to update the current state and prospects of multi-omics approaches to profiling of proteins involved in the formation of stable complexes. Methodological paradigm includes a development of protein-extraction and -separation techniques from tissues or cellular lysates and subsequent identification of proteins using mass-spectrometry analysis. In addition, some aspects of authors' experimental platforms, based on high-performance size-exclusion chromatography, procedures of molecular fishing, and protein identification, as well as the possibilities of interactomic taxonomy of each protein, are discussed.

Characterizing and explaining the impact of disease-associated mutations in proteins without known structures or structural homologs

Mutations in human proteins lead to diseases. The structure of these proteins can help understand the mechanism of such diseases and develop therapeutics against them. With improved deep learning techniques, such as RoseTTAFold and AlphaFold, we can predict the structure of proteins even in the absence of structural homologs. We modeled and extracted the domains from 553 disease-associated human proteins without known protein structures or close homologs in the Protein Databank. We noticed that the model quality was higher and the Root mean square deviation (RMSD) lower between AlphaFold and RoseTTAFold models for domains that could be assigned to CATH families as compared to those which could only be assigned to Pfam families of unknown structure or could not be assigned to either. We predicted ligand-binding sites, protein–protein interfaces and conserved residues in these predicted structures. We then explored whether the disease-associated missense mutations were in the proximity of these predicted functional sites, whether they destabilized the protein structure based on ddG calculations or whether they were predicted to be pathogenic. We could explain 80% of these disease-associated mutations based on proximity to functional sites, structural destabilization or pathogenicity. When compared to polymorphisms, a larger percentage of disease-associated missense mutations were buried, closer to predicted functional sites, predicted as destabilizing and pathogenic. Usage of models from the two state-of-the-art techniques provide better confidence in our predictions, and we explain 93 additional mutations based on RoseTTAFold models which could not be explained based solely on AlphaFold models.

How much metagenome data is needed for protein structure prediction: The advantages of targeted approach from the ecological and evolutionary perspectives

It has been proven that three-dimensional protein structures could be modeled by supplementing homologous sequences with metagenome sequences. Even though a large volume of metagenome data is utilized for such purposes, a significant proportion of proteins remain unsolved. In this review, we focus on identifying ecological and evolutionary patterns in metagenome data, decoding the complicated relationships of these patterns with protein structures, and investigating how these patterns can be effectively used to improve protein structure prediction. First, we proposed the metagenome utilization efficiency and marginal effect model to quantify the divergent distribution of homologous sequences for the protein family. Second, we proposed that the targeted approach effectively identifies homologous sequences from specified biomes compared with the untargeted approach's blind search. Finally, we determined the lower bound for metagenome data required for predicting all the protein structures in the Pfam database and showed that the present metagenome data is insufficient for this purpose. In summary, we discovered ecological and evolutionary patterns in the metagenome data that may be used to predict protein structures effectively. The targeted approach is promising in terms of effectively extracting homologous sequences and predicting protein structures using these patterns.