Upload
anastasia-harrell
View
227
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
9. Protein interface Alanine Scanning and Design
1
Interface manipulation and design
1. Computational Alanine scanning2. Computational binding prediction3. Interface design
– Specificity switch– Negative design– Multistate design– De novo design
2
Interface design is difficult• very diverse shape and chemical character at interfaces• electrostatics are difficult to model at the interface
– balance between electrostatic and hydrogen-bonding and unfavorable de-solvation of polar groups at protein–protein interfaces
• water molecules at protein interfaces• dynamical behavior of a protein upon binding
– Considerable entropy–enthalpy compensation– Changes can be dramatic
… But it is possible! Let’s start from small: predict effect of mutation to alanine….
3
1. Computational Alanine Scanning
A small number of residues at interface contribute most of the binding energy: Interface hotspots
•Given: structure of a protein complex •Wanted: detect hotspots
Approach: experimental or computational alanine scanning
4
A hotspot of binding energy in a hormone-receptor interface Clackson & Wells, Science 1995
Experimental alanine scanning of HGH – HGHr interface• 30 residues• only 2-10 residues contribute• complementary in structure
5
Computational alanine scanning
• Given: Structure of protein complex
• Wanted: list of interface hotspot residues
• Approach: – compute loss in binding
energy upon mutation to alanine (for each interface residue)
– Select positions with large effect (e.g. Gbind>1kcal/mol)
• Binding energy: Gbind
Gbind = GAB - GA – GB
GbindWT = GAB
WT - GAWT - GB
WT GbindALAX =
GABALAX - GA
ALAX – GBALAX
GbindALAX = Gbind
WT - GbindALAX
6
Kortemme et al; Sci. STKE, Vol. 2004
Rosetta computational
alanine scanning - flowchart
Possibilities1.just remove side chain2.repack neighboring residues3.preminimize structure4.…..
Just removing side chain works usually best
7
Rosetta alanine scanning: energy function
• ELJattr , ELJrep Lennard-Jones potential • EHB(sc−bb) , EHB(sc−sc) Hydrogen bond potential • Esol Implicit solvation model Stability of monomers: • Eφ/ψ(aa) aa-dependent phi-psi propensity • Eaa ref aa-dependent reference energy
W Relative weights of the different energy terms• optimized on monomer mutations (minimizing Gexp-Gpred with conjugate gradient minimization) 8
Rosetta computational alanine scanning Kortemme & Baker,
PNAS 2002
ProteinG – IgG Fc Barnase - Barstar
HEL – Ab1 HEL – Ab2
Red: water-mediated interactions
• Calculate change in interface energy Gcalc
• Compare to experimental value Gobs
Significant correlation Water not modeled
9
FOLDX alanine scanning Guerois, 2002
• Calibration & validation on experimental values of effect of mutation in monomers (n=339 & 1000)
• Application to prediction of effect on binding of two proteins
• Energy function similar to Rosetta score
Gvdw van der Waals.GsolvH / GsolvP solvation energy apolar/ polar groupsGhbond hydrogen-bond energy Gwb water bridges at the interfaceGel electrostatic energySmc entropy cost for fixing the backbone in the folded state. (tendency of a particular amino acid to adopt certain dihedral angles)Ssc is the entropic cost of fixing a sidechain in a particular conformation.
Energy scaled according to exposure.10
FOLDX performance
Test on Gbind values for
▲ X-ALA mutationso ALA-X mutationsin T4 Lysozyme.
Good correlation Reliable prediction of
effect of point mutation
11
G prediction: effect of mutation on binding
Different protocols are assessed for their ability to reproduce the experimentaleffect of mutation
Kellogg et al. (2011). Proteins, 79: 830
12
2. Prediction of binding energy
Step1: single mutations FOLDX & Rosetta Alanine
scanning indicate that the effect of single amino acid changes on binding can be predicted
Extension: Binding specificity predict the relative binding
energy of different protein-protein interactions
Step2: who binds?? predict binding partners that
involve binding between given pair of domains
Domain A Domain B
13
Computer-based definition of interacting pairs – in short:
• Multiple mutations more difficult to model• No general scheme available – approaches are
system-specific• Prediction of binding for given sequence pairs
is difficult: subtle differences from the homolog template are not predicted
• Alternative: Find possible sequence pairs: Computational Interface Design
14
3. Computational interface design
• Flavors of interface design
Mandell & Kortemme Nat Chem Biol 200915
Computational interface design
• Enhance binding
• Perturb binding & Recover binding
(2nd site suppressor strategy)
E
AWT BWT ADES BDES AWT BDES ADES BDES ADES BWT
• Specificity switch
(no binding to original partners)
16
Increasing binding affinityUse• Inhibitors• Therapeutics
Strategies• Increase hydrophobic buried surface area in interface• Add polar interaction at periphery• Increase on-rate by electrostatic steering• Hydrogen bonding network: multi-residue problem –
achieved, but not with increasing affinity
17
• Given: Interacting protein pair (known structure)
• Wanted: new protein pair that does not bind to original partners
Computational redesign of protein specificity
18
Approach: “Second site suppressor design”
• Identify perturbations in one monomer that destabilize the interaction (negative design)
• Compensate by redesigning the other monomer (positive design)
–Screen each position for detrimental mutation that can be compensated by mutations in partner
–Optimize region by repacking adjacent residues
Computational redesign of protein specificity Kortemme, …, Baker, NSB 2004
19
E7
Im7
Computational redesign of protein specificity Kortemme, …, Baker, NSB 2004
System: E7-Im7: Colicin (DNase)-Immunity protein
–Crystal structures solved–Remarkably specific, bind with high
affinity–Easily assayed – protects cells from
death–Active site distinct from binding–Bonus: altered specificity might be
used to make antibiotics
20
Selected Mutations• Three mutations were selected by the
protocol in E7, 6 mutations were proposed on the Im7 to accommodate those.
A1 vs A2
Site I
Site II
21
Site 1 – polar switch
Site 2 – steric switch
Cognate wt Cognate mutant – 1 site Cognate mutant – 2 sites 22
In Vitro DNase Activity Assay
Cognate wt Cognate mutant – 1 site Cognate mutant – 2 sites
Non-cognate mutants
c
A1 vs A2A1 vs A2
cont
rol
Site 1 Site 2
cont
rol
23
Measuring binding affinity with Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR)
Kastritis, P. L., & Bonvin, A. M. J. J. (2013). Journal of the Royal Society, Interface 10:835.
24
In Vitro Binding Assay (SPR)
►Differences in dissociationWT :• Very slow dissociation rates (cannot be measured
with SPR/ Trp fluorescence) • Similar association rates
Cognate mutant – 1 site
Non-cognate mutants
association
dissociation
25
E7C/Im7C crystal structure
• RMSD of 0.6Å over all IF atoms• RMSD of 0.5Å over backbone 26
Design of E-Im specificity switch: Conclusions
Structural: well-modeled side chains with hydrogen
bonds – accurate energy function solvation effects are poorly described, water at interface important, but not
modeled. General: Full switch not achieved
27
Computational design failed to create full switch – why?
• Nature developed full E-Im switches:E7-Im7 bindsE9-Im9 bindsE7-Im9 does not bind• So why does computational design fail? Too
restricted to starting structure• Followup study addresses this drawback (Kortemme,
Joachimiak, Stoddard & Baker JMB 2007)Alternative approach: experimental – in vitro evolution
approaches (e.g. work by group of Dan Tawfik at WIS*)
*Bernath, Magdassi & Tawfik, JMB 2005. Evolution of protein inhibitors of DNA-nucleases by in vitro compartmentalization (IVC) and nano-droplet delivery.*Levin, et al. NSMB 2009. Following evolutionary paths to protein-protein interactions with high affinity and selectivity .
28
Design of new Endonuclease Ashworth 2006
• Apply second site suppressor strategy to protein-dna interactions
DNAWT
-6C:G, +6A:T
DNADES
-6G:C, +6C:G
MsoIWT
61 nM
(0.0)
>25 M
(+3.2)
MsoIDES
K28L T83R
6.1 M
(+1.6)
192 nM
(-4.2)
KD (Gcalc)
29
Negative design
• Problem: optimization for a given fold / interaction does not guarantee that other alternative folds / interactions are not more favorable for a sequence
• Solubility: prevent aggregation• Compactness: prevent molten globule states• Specificity: Negative design prevents
alternative conformations / interactions30
Negative design against hetero-dimer
Sequence 2 is better than Sequence 1: specific, even though higher in energy
Design of Homo-dimeric coiled-coils(Havranek & Harbury NSB 2003)
31
Design of protein-interaction specificity gives selective bZIP-binding peptides
(Grigoryan et al, Nature 2009)
bZip transcription factor family:– Leucine zipper: Coiled-coil– Homodimerize, heterodimerize– Human: ~53 bZip, 20 different classes
• Challenge: design of inhibitor specific leucine zippers (prevent side-effects due to binding of inhibitor to other bZips in genome)
32
Bzip proteins
Basic regionBasic region Zipper regionZipper region
33
Leucine zipper is responsible for dimerization specificity
GCN4- GCN4 Jun- Jun Fos- Jun Fos- Fos
Jun- Jun
Bzip region alone acts as inhibitor
34
Hydrophobic packing at a-d,Salt bridge at e-g positions
35
Design of protein-interaction specificity gives selective bZIP-binding peptides
(Grigoryan et al, Nature 2009)
• Challenge: design specific inhibitors to 46 human bzips
• Scheme:+ Binding to target- No binding to self- No binding to 19 other classes of humanbzip proteins
Tradeoff: maximize affinity & optimize specificity 36
Design of protein-interaction specificity gives selective bZIP-binding peptides
CLASSY (cluster expansion and linear programming- based analysis of specificity and stability )
• integer linear programming (ILP) – find optimal sequence• cluster expansion - convert a structure-based interaction
model into sequence-based scoring function (very fast)simultaneous consideration of many different competing
sequences possible (efficient negative design) Here: include additional constrain: compatibility with bzip PSSM
37
CLASSY setup for Bzip
38
Sparse interaction scheme – simple system
Design of protein-interaction specificity gives selective bZIP-binding peptides
Approach: “Specificity Sweep” - minimize sacrifice in stability when increasing energy
gaps from competing complexes
11 22 33 44
39
Design of protein-interaction specificity gives selective bZIP-binding peptides
(Grigoryan et al, Nature 2009)
40
Design of protein-interaction specificity gives selective bZIP-binding peptides
(Grigoryan et al, Nature 2009)
Results:• Specific design:
highest affinity to target (or target sibling)
• Good inhibitors: target binds better to design than to its original partner
41
Design of protein-interaction specificity gives selective bZIP-binding peptides
(Grigoryan et al, Nature 2009)
Analysis of sequence diversity and specificity• designed sequencesare less diverse, but• contribute many moreInteractions
• Conclusion: interaction space was not fully sampled by
evolution: 1900 new possible interactions• Excellent for synthetic biology!!
natural
designs
42
Multistate design: binding to many partners
Humphris & Kortemme (2007) PLoS CB
• What are the restrictions of evolution on protein binding? • How is promiscuity achieved?
43
Multistate design: binding to many partners
2. redesign interface sequence using
All structures together (use genetic algorithm to propagate sequence changes to all structural templates)
•each structure separately
3. Compare outcome
Protocol:
1.select set of proteins that bind to multiple partners (solved structures; n=20)
44
Multi-faceted binding in Hub protein RAN
Humphris & Kortemme (2007) PLoS CB (grey –not at interface in that structure)45
Two strategies
Humphris & Kortemme (2007) PLoS CB
• Group I: distinct patches at interface– No improvement in sequence
recovery by using multiple constraints
• Group II: same interface for different partners– Multiple constraints improve
sequence recovery
46
Difference in binding contribution
Humphris & Kortemme (2007) PLoS CB
• Group I: distinct patches at interface• Group II: same interface for different partners
“tradeoff value”: improvement in energy of single design compared to multi design.
Highly shared residues:residues with low tradeoff values
47
Difference in binding contribution
Humphris & Kortemme (2007) PLoS CB
High compromise: Ran
Medium compromise: CheY Low compromise:
Ovomucoid inhibitor
48
What next? De novo design of interaction (Fleishman 2011, Science)
•Aim: design a new interaction from stratch•System: high-affinity binder to constant region of Influenza Hemagglutinin (1918 pandemic)
– could help for general vaccine – eradication of influenza– broadly neutralizing antibody known (CR6261) 49
Overview of approach (Fleishman 2011, Science)
50
1. Hotspot library design
•Dock single amino acids onto defined surface patches of the target:
–HS1–HS2–HS3
•Create libraries (inverse rotamer approach)
51
2. Find shape complementary scaffolds•Search set of 865 proteins
–Easy to express
•Use Patchdock to find loose matches to 3 hotspots•Refine with RosettaDock with constraints
–C-distance;
–C-C and N-C angles
•Filter>1000A2 buried surface area< -15 REU> 0.65 shape complementary
• replace all interface residues in scaffold with Ala (except Gly & Pro) to increase chance of match
52
3. Incorporate hotspot residues •Replace matching positions on scaffold with hotspot residues from library:For each position near hotspot in scaffold
For each rotamer in library1. attach scaffold to hotspot2. optimize structure
•Applied to:– HS1 -> HS2 (2 residue strategy)– HS3 ->HS1 &HS2 (three residue strategy
53
4. Design scaffold residues around hotspots
•Several rounds of design/structure optimization• Minimize mutations: Residues with improvement of <0.5REU are reverted back to wt•Manual intervention – improve electrostatics
54
5. Results88 designs, derived from 79 different protein scaffolds,average of 11 mutations• Importance of structural genomics – provides good scaffolds
Experimental assessment: yeast display
–Allows for fast validation of many candidates
• Specificity of binding assessed by competition with Cr6261 neutralizing antibody
55
2/88 bound with medium affinity
56
6. What next? Affinity maturation with yeast surface display
• Express protein of interest on surface
• Identify rapidly binding partners
➜fast in vitro evolution• Simultaneous
detection of expression and binding
biotinbiotin
strepavidin
phycoerythrin
57
Affinity maturation
• few mutations increase affinity dramatically,….. and identify weaknesses of computational approach 58
7. Proof: crystal structure
59
8. What can we improve?
Steric interactions Salt bridges Solvation
60
Challenges ahead: challenging interfaces in nature
Networks of hydrogen bonds and waters
Strand pairing
Antibodies: Considerable loop flexibility allows creation of binding partners using Y/S alone
Sheet interactions61
Interface design - summary
Binding Prediction• Effect of point mutations
effectively predicted• Prediction of binding
specificity of different protein pairs is difficult
• Polar effects are modeled less well than hydrophobic interactions
Design of binding• Creation of specificity switches is
difficult, but possible• Combine computational design
with experimental refinement (e.g. in vitro evolution)
• Negative design can be important to achieve binding specificity
• De novo design of interaction achieved!!
62