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

  • 15,673
    views
  • 2,761
    downloads
  • 417
    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
    Hitendra Negi, Aravind Ravichandran ... Ranabir Das
    Research Article

    The proteasome controls levels of most cellular proteins, and its activity is regulated under stress, quiescence, and inflammation. However, factors determining the proteasomal degradation rate remain poorly understood. Proteasome substrates are conjugated with small proteins (tags) like ubiquitin and Fat10 to target them to the proteasome. It is unclear if the structural plasticity of proteasome-targeting tags can influence substrate degradation. Fat10 is upregulated during inflammation, and its substrates undergo rapid proteasomal degradation. We report that the degradation rate of Fat10 substrates critically depends on the structural plasticity of Fat10. While the ubiquitin tag is recycled at the proteasome, Fat10 is degraded with the substrate. Our results suggest significantly lower thermodynamic stability and faster mechanical unfolding in Fat10 compared to ubiquitin. Long-range salt bridges are absent in the Fat10 structure, creating a plastic protein with partially unstructured regions suitable for proteasome engagement. Fat10 plasticity destabilizes substrates significantly and creates partially unstructured regions in the substrate to enhance degradation. NMR-relaxation-derived order parameters and temperature dependence of chemical shifts identify the Fat10-induced partially unstructured regions in the substrate, which correlated excellently to Fat10-substrate contacts, suggesting that the tag-substrate collision destabilizes the substrate. These results highlight a strong dependence of proteasomal degradation on the structural plasticity and thermodynamic properties of the proteasome-targeting tags.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Amy H Andreotti, Volker Dötsch
    Editorial

    The articles in this special issue highlight how modern cellular, biochemical, biophysical and computational techniques are allowing deeper and more detailed studies of allosteric kinase regulation.