A membrane insertion code for intrinsically disordered proteins

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This work investigates the membrane insertion of aromatic-centered sequences in IDPs. Using a combination of all-atom MD simulations, the PPM method, and development of the sequence-based predictor AroMIP, the authors aim to establish a quantitative membrane insertion role for aromatic-centered motifs. The study demonstrates that flanking aliphatic and basic residues promote membrane insertion, whereas acidic and polar residues suppress insertion, and further reveals a difference between F/W-centered motifs and Y-centered motifs. The resulting AroMIP model achieves high predictive accuracy on human IDPs and is implemented as a publicly accessible web server.

Strengths:

This work addresses an important biological problem, as aromatic-driven membrane insertion remains poorly characterized despite mediating diverse functions like membrane remodeling and signaling. A key strength is the combination of complementary approaches, e.g., MD simulations provide mechanistic insight into insertion pathways, while PPM enables exhaustive sequence space exploration. The large-scale analysis clearly establishes L and R as promoters and E, N, and G as suppressors. The work also provides valuable mechanistic insight into how aromatic, aliphatic, and basic residues cooperate to stabilize membrane insertion states. Another important strength is the development of AroMIP as a practical prediction tool with a user-friendly online server that appears computationally efficient and broadly accessible to the community. The work is also well connected to prior experimental and computational literature, and the authors carefully position their findings within existing knowledge of membrane-associated IDPs.

Weaknesses:

A primary limitation is the heavy reliance on computational modeling. Training for AroMIP is generated using PPM rather than direct experimental measurements, and so the model may primarily reproduce PPM behavior rather than true membrane insertion thermodynamics. Moreover, all simulations use a single lipid composition (POPC:POPS:PIP₂ 70:25:5), but biological membranes vary substantially in cholesterol, cardiolipin, and acidic lipid content. Whether AroMIP's predictions transfer to diverse lipid environments remains untested. The 5% PIP₂ concentration used in the simulations is higher than that of a normal mammalian cell and may therefore overemphasize electrostatic contributions. Applicability beyond short 9-residue motifs is unclear, as longer-range interactions or secondary structure in full-length IDRs could modulate insertion in ways the current model does not capture. This could be considered for future development.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper addresses an interesting problem. The authors develop a method to assess the probability of insertion of aromatic residues in intrinsically disordered regions of proteins, to insert in the interfacial regions of membranes.

Strengths:

(1) The idea of the article seems very interesting. The problem of membrane association mediated by aromatic residues is definitely worth studying. Aromatic residues, especially Tryptophan (W), but also, albeit to a lesser extent, Phenylalanine (F), and Tyrosine (Y), are well known to partition preferentially to the headgroup region of the lipid bilayer.

(2) The authors propose to decipher the sequence code for insertion of sequences containing aromatic residues in the membrane employing three types of calculation methods with decreasing order of detail and complexity, but increasing order of efficiency. First, all-atom MD simulations; second, the PPM method (protein positioning in membranes) from Lomize et al (2006), Protein Sci 15, 1318; and third, AroMIP, a mathematical model developed by the authors. The results obtained with the different simulations and mathematical methods are internally consistent.

Weaknesses:

(1) Aromatic residues have been shown to partition preferentially to the headgroup region of the lipid bilayer. Most of the papers on this problem were published in the mid 1990s to early 2000s. Some of the most important papers in this regard are the following: von Heijne, Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 1994, 23, 167-192; Doyle et al. Science 1998, 280, 69-77; Landolt-Marticorena, et al. J. Mol. Biol. 1993, 229, 602-608; Killian & von Heijne, TIBS 2000, 25, 429-434; Marx & Fleming J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2021, 143, 764-772. Strangely enough, none of these articles is cited.

(2) This is the most important point and the most serious weakness. The authors find that the PPM method is able to reproduce the results from MD simulations, and the AroMIP model is able to perform well in comparison with PPM and MD, after training AroMIP on a large set of IDR sequences (intrinsically disordered protein regions) of the human proteome. The defining feature of the AroMIP calculation is the recognition of the importance of flanking residues in the membrane-insertion propensity of a sequence containing a central aromatic residue. All this sounds good. However, this is all theoretical. There is no connection to experiment or to any method that draws from experiment. The entire approach relies on the assumption that the MD simulations produce the correct results. There is no proof of the correctness of anything. As one of the greatest physicists of our times, Richard Feynman, wrote, "The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth"."

(3) The drawings in Figures 2 and 3 are incorrect and misleading. The size of the Tryptophan side chain is about 5.5 Å, whereas one-half of the bilayer ("a monolayer") thickness is about 15 Å. But in the figures, the lipid length and the Trp side chain seem about the same size. This is incorrect even in a qualitative sense.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a well-written manuscript that describes three robust and complementary computational approaches to unravel the sequence determinants of membrane insertion, specifically of intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) containing aromatic-centered insertion motifs.

Strengths:

A robust, multifaceted computational approach employing aromatic-centered model membrane-insertion peptides, which provides critical insights into the determinants of membrane insertion.

Weaknesses:

I only have specific concerns about some of the models used for this purpose.

(1) Membrane composition and lipid shape characteristics: The authors chose to use a model membrane bilayer of a distinct lipid composition, POPC: POPS: PI4,5P2 (70:25:5 molar ratio), for their all-atom simulations of the various model peptides. While this may be pertinent for some of these peptides, it is not for many, such as sequence 2 derived from Drp1, which preferentially binds target conical lipids such as cardiolipin (CL) and phosphatidic acid (PA). The rationale behind using PI4,5P2, which can induce positive membrane curvature when sequestered, versus CL and PA, which both induce negative membrane curvature, is not explained.

(2) Parallel vs. perpendicular peptide orientation of sequence 2 in peripheral Drp1-lipid interactions: On page 11, the authors state that their simulation results of sequence 2 derived from Drp1 "contrasts with a transmembrane orientation proposed by Mahajan et al." However, upon review, a transmembrane orientation for this region has never been proposed anywhere. Drp1 is a peripheral membrane protein that reversibly binds CL- and PA-containing membranes via its intrinsically disordered variable domain containing an aromatic-centered WRG motif. Indeed, the model presented in Figure 9 of Mahajan et al. displays a peripheral and parallel orientation of the transiently helical WRG-containing motif rather than a transmembrane (i.e., across the bilayer) orientation. While the authors can distinguish between a parallel vs. perpendicular orientation of this sequence relative to the plane of the membrane bilayer surface from their simulations, suggesting that previous studies indicated a transmembrane orientation for Drp1 is disingenuous and misleading. The term "transmembrane" should be removed or replaced, as it presents a wrong image.

(3) Mutational analysis of W vs. F in membrane insertion of W-centered insertion motifs and vice versa: The PPM-based workflow suggests that F-centered sequences have the highest membrane insertion properties as opposed to W-centered ones. A W552F mutation in the WRGML sequence of Drp1 was, however, found to impair function. How do the authors rationalize this? A cross-mutational analysis of W vs. F in W-centered motifs and F-centered motifs is warranted.

Author response:

eLife Assessment

This study provides a valuable advance in understanding how disordered proteins interact with cell membranes by identifying the sequence rules that enable aromatic residues to penetrate deeply into the membrane interior. The integration of complementary computational approaches, including molecular simulations, large-scale sequence analysis, and the development of an online prediction server, makes the work potentially impactful for the membrane protein and intrinsically disordered protein communities. The evidence supporting the main conclusions is generally convincing, although its transferability across diverse membrane compositions and its validity as a prediction tool for real protein-membrane systems remain to be further established.

We thank the editors for recognizing our study as a valuable advance. This work lays a solid foundation for future developments to account for diverse membrane compositions and further refinements after additional experimental tests.

Public review:

Reviewer #1:

A primary limitation is the heavy reliance on computational modeling. Training for AroMIP is generated using PPM rather than direct experimental measurements, and so the model may primarily reproduce PPM behavior rather than true membrane insertion thermodynamics. Moreover, all simulations use a single lipid composition (POPC:POPS:PIP₂ 70:25:5), but biological membranes vary substantially in cholesterol, cardiolipin, and acidic lipid content. Whether AroMIP's predictions transfer to diverse lipid environments remains untested. The 5% PIP₂ concentration used in the simulations is higher than that of a normal mammalian cell and may therefore overemphasize electrostatic contributions. Applicability beyond short 9-residue motifs is unclear, as longer-range interactions or secondary structure in full-length IDRs could modulate insertion in ways the current model does not capture. This could be considered for future development.

The reviewer’s point on our reliance on PPM for training, a single lipid composition, and potential effects beyond a 9-residue motif is well taken. Regarding PPM, we chose it as the optimal compromise for high-throughput data. However, we complemented the high-throughput PPM data with experimental data on an initial set of 10 peptides. Moreover, we validate AroMIP on an additional 12 IDRs (intrinsically disordered regions; Table S2). On membrane composition, we now acknowledge the limitation of our work based on a single composition and point to future developments of AroMIP involving membrane-specific parameterization (p. 19, 3rd paragraph). On potential effects beyond a 9-residue motif, we now add justification and note neglected factors for future developments (paragraph running from p. 19-20), as suggested by the reviewer.

Reviewer #2:

(1) Aromatic residues have been shown to partition preferentially to the headgroup region of the lipid bilayer. Most of the papers on this problem were published in the mid 1990s to early 2000s. Some of the most important papers in this regard are the following: von Heijne, Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 1994, 23, 167-192; Doyle et al. Science 1998, 280, 69-77; Landolt-Marticorena, et al. J. Mol. Biol. 1993, 229, 602-608; Killian & von Heijne, TIBS 2000, 25, 429-434; Marx & Fleming J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2021, 143, 764-772. Strangely enough, none of these articles is cited.

We have now citations to the Landolt-Marticorena paper and the von Heijne reviews (refs 25-27). The Doyle paper is not particularly relevant. As for the Fleming paper, we cited a 2016 JACS paper (original ref 27; now ref 30) that specifically dealt with aromatic residues.

(2) This is the most important point and the most serious weakness. The authors find that the PPM method is able to reproduce the results from MD simulations, and the AroMIP model is able to perform well in comparison with PPM and MD, after training AroMIP on a large set of IDR sequences (intrinsically disordered protein regions) of the human proteome. The defining feature of the AroMIP calculation is the recognition of the importance of flanking residues in the membrane-insertion propensity of a sequence containing a central aromatic residue. All this sounds good. However, this is all theoretical. There is no connection to experiment or to any method that draws from experiment. The entire approach relies on the assumption that the MD simulations produce the correct results. There is no proof of the correctness of anything. As one of the greatest physicists of our times, Richard Feynman, wrote, "The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth".”

We emphasize that we have presented substantial experimental support for AroMIP. It correctly predicts the membrane insertion status of the initial set of 10 peptides, which were characterized experimentally. In addition, we validated AroMIP on an additional set of 12 IDRs (Table S2), most of which were characterized by experimental techniques including solution and solid-state NMR, fluorescence, H/D exchange, and cryo-EM. Lastly, we now show good correlation between our insertion scores and binding free energies calculated from the scale determined experimentally by White and co-workers (new Figure S10; p. 15, second paragraph).

(3) The drawings in Figures 2 and 3 are incorrect and misleading. The size of the Tryptophan side chain is about 5.5 Å, whereas one-half of the bilayer ("a monolayer") thickness is about 15 Å. But in the figures, the lipid length and the Trp side chain seem about the same size. This is incorrect even in a qualitative sense.

We have now revised these figures.

Reviewer 3:

(1) Membrane composition and lipid shape characteristics: The authors chose to use a model membrane bilayer of a distinct lipid composition, POPC: POPS: PI4,5P2 (70:25:5 molar ratio), for their all-atom simulations of the various model peptides. While this may be pertinent for some of these peptides, it is not for many, such as sequence 2 derived from Drp1, which preferentially binds target conical lipids such as cardiolipin (CL) and phosphatidic acid (PA). The rationale behind using PI4,5P2, which can induce positive membrane curvature when sequestered, versus CL and PA, which both induce negative membrane curvature, is not explained.

We now acknowledge the limitation of our work based on a single composition and point to future developments of AroMIP involving membrane-specific parameterization (p. 19, 3rd paragraph). In this Discussion paragraph, we also speculate that conical lipids, by promoting membrane defects, may facilitate membrane insertion.

(2) Parallel vs. perpendicular peptide orientation of sequence 2 in peripheral Drp1-lipid interactions: On page 11, the authors state that their simulation results of sequence 2 derived from Drp1 "contrasts with a transmembrane orientation proposed by Mahajan et al." However, upon review, a transmembrane orientation for this region has never been proposed anywhere. Drp1 is a peripheral membrane protein that reversibly binds CL- and PA-containing membranes via its intrinsically disordered variable domain containing an aromatic-centered WRG motif. Indeed, the model presented in Figure 9 of Mahajan et al. displays a peripheral and parallel orientation of the transiently helical WRG-containing motif rather than a transmembrane (i.e., across the bilayer) orientation. While the authors can distinguish between a parallel vs. perpendicular orientation of this sequence relative to the plane of the membrane bilayer surface from their simulations, suggesting that previous studies indicated a transmembrane orientation for Drp1 is disingenuous and misleading. The term "transmembrane" should be removed or replaced, as it presents a wrong image.

We have now deleted the sentence mentioning “transmembrane orientation”.

(3) Mutational analysis of W vs. F in membrane insertion of W-centered insertion motifs and vice versa: The PPM-based workflow suggests that F-centered sequences have the highest membrane insertion properties as opposed to W-centered ones. A W552F mutation in the WRGML sequence of Drp1 was, however, found to impair function. How do the authors rationalize this? A cross-mutational analysis of W vs. F in W-centered motifs and F-centered motifs is warranted.

AroMIP predicts a membrane insertion propensity of 0.782 for the WRGML sequence and a moderately higher propensity, 0.837, with a W552F mutation. This increase contradicts the experimental observation of a 3.6-fold increase in membrane binding affinity by Mahajan et al. We now speculate that the specific lipid, cardiolipin, as the reason for the discrepancy (p. 19, 3rd paragraph). This discrepancy provides a concrete example for the need to account for membrane composition in future developments.