Sequence co-evolution gives 3D contacts and structures of protein complexes

  1. Thomas A Hopf
  2. Charlotta P.I Schärfe
  3. João P.G.L.M Rodrigues
  4. Anna G Green
  5. Oliver Kohlbacher
  6. Chris Sander
  7. Alexandre M.J.J. Bonvin
  8. Debora S Marks  Is a corresponding author
  1. Harvard University, United States
  2. University of Tübingen, Germany
  3. Bijvoet Center for Biomolecular Research, Utrecht University, Netherlands
  4. Harvard Medical School, United States
  5. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, United States

Abstract

Protein-protein interactions are fundamental to many biological processes. Experimental screens have identified tens of thousands of interactions and structural biology has provided detailed functional insight for select 3D protein complexes. An alternative rich source of information about protein interactions is the evolutionary sequence record. Building on earlier work, we show that analysis of correlated evolutionary sequence changes across proteins identifies residues that are close in space with sufficient accuracy to determine the three-dimensional structure of the protein complexes. We evaluate prediction performance in blinded tests on 76 complexes of known 3D structure, predict protein-protein contacts in 32 complexes of unknown structure, and demonstrate how evolutionary couplings can be used to distinguish between interacting and non-interacting protein pairs in a large complex. With the current growth of sequences, we expect that the method can be generalized to genome-wide elucidation of protein-protein interaction networks and used for interaction predictions at residue resolution.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Thomas A Hopf

    Harvard University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Charlotta P.I Schärfe

    University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. João P.G.L.M Rodrigues

    Bijvoet Center for Biomolecular Research, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Anna G Green

    Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Oliver Kohlbacher

    University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Chris Sander

    Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Alexandre M.J.J. Bonvin

    Bijvoet Center for Biomolecular Research, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Debora S Marks

    Harvard University, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    debbie@hms.harvard.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. John Kuriyan, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, Berkeley, United States

Version history

  1. Received: May 21, 2014
  2. Accepted: September 23, 2014
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 25, 2014 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: November 3, 2014 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2014, Hopf et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 15,657
    views
  • 2,746
    downloads
  • 410
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Thomas A Hopf
  2. Charlotta P.I Schärfe
  3. João P.G.L.M Rodrigues
  4. Anna G Green
  5. Oliver Kohlbacher
  6. Chris Sander
  7. Alexandre M.J.J. Bonvin
  8. Debora S Marks
(2014)
Sequence co-evolution gives 3D contacts and structures of protein complexes
eLife 3:e03430.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03430

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03430

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Xiao-Ru Chen, Karuna Dixit ... Tatyana I Igumenova
    Research Article

    Regulated hydrolysis of the phosphoinositide phosphatidylinositol(4,5)-bis-phosphate to diacylglycerol and inositol-1,4,5-P3 defines a major eukaryotic pathway for translation of extracellular cues to intracellular signaling circuits. Members of the lipid-activated protein kinase C isoenzyme family (PKCs) play central roles in this signaling circuit. One of the regulatory mechanisms employed to downregulate stimulated PKC activity is via a proteasome-dependent degradation pathway that is potentiated by peptidyl-prolyl isomerase Pin1. Here, we show that contrary to prevailing models, Pin1 does not regulate conventional PKC isoforms α and βII via a canonical cis-trans isomerization of the peptidyl-prolyl bond. Rather, Pin1 acts as a PKC binding partner that controls PKC activity via sequestration of the C-terminal tail of the kinase. The high-resolution structure of full-length Pin1 complexed to the C-terminal tail of PKCβII reveals that a novel bivalent interaction mode underlies the non-catalytic mode of Pin1 action. Specifically, Pin1 adopts a conformation in which it uses the WW and PPIase domains to engage two conserved phosphorylated PKC motifs, the turn motif and hydrophobic motif, respectively. Hydrophobic motif is a non-canonical Pin1-interacting element. The structural information combined with the results of extensive binding studies and experiments in cultured cells suggest that non-catalytic mechanisms represent unappreciated modes of Pin1-mediated regulation of AGC kinases and other key enzymes/substrates.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Christian Galicia, Giambattista Guaitoli ... Wim Versées
    Research Article

    Roco proteins entered the limelight after mutations in human LRRK2 were identified as a major cause of familial Parkinson’s disease. LRRK2 is a large and complex protein combining a GTPase and protein kinase activity, and disease mutations increase the kinase activity, while presumably decreasing the GTPase activity. Although a cross-communication between both catalytic activities has been suggested, the underlying mechanisms and the regulatory role of the GTPase domain remain unknown. Several structures of LRRK2 have been reported, but structures of Roco proteins in their activated GTP-bound state are lacking. Here, we use single-particle cryo-electron microscopy to solve the structure of a bacterial Roco protein (CtRoco) in its GTP-bound state, aided by two conformation-specific nanobodies: NbRoco1 and NbRoco2. This structure presents CtRoco in an active monomeric state, featuring a very large GTP-induced conformational change using the LRR-Roc linker as a hinge. Furthermore, this structure shows how NbRoco1 and NbRoco2 collaborate to activate CtRoco in an allosteric way. Altogether, our data provide important new insights into the activation mechanism of Roco proteins, with relevance to LRRK2 regulation, and suggest new routes for the allosteric modulation of their GTPase activity.