These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Residue frequencies and pairing preferences at protein-protein interfaces.
    Author: Glaser F, Steinberg DM, Vakser IA, Ben-Tal N.
    Journal: Proteins; 2001 May 01; 43(2):89-102. PubMed ID: 11276079.
    Abstract:
    We used a nonredundant set of 621 protein-protein interfaces of known high-resolution structure to derive residue composition and residue-residue contact preferences. The residue composition at the interfaces, in entire proteins and in whole genomes correlates well, indicating the statistical strength of the data set. Differences between amino acid distributions were observed for interfaces with buried surface area of less than 1,000 A(2) versus interfaces with area of more than 5,000 A(2). Hydrophobic residues were abundant in large interfaces while polar residues were more abundant in small interfaces. The largest residue-residue preferences at the interface were recorded for interactions between pairs of large hydrophobic residues, such as Trp and Leu, and the smallest preferences for pairs of small residues, such as Gly and Ala. On average, contacts between pairs of hydrophobic and polar residues were unfavorable, and the charged residues tended to pair subject to charge complementarity, in agreement with previous reports. A bootstrap procedure, lacking from previous studies, was used for error estimation. It showed that the statistical errors in the set of pairing preferences are generally small; the average standard error is approximately 0.2, i.e., about 8% of the average value of the pairwise index (2.9). However, for a few pairs (e.g., Ser-Ser and Glu-Asp) the standard error is larger in magnitude than the pairing index, which makes it impossible to tell whether contact formation is favorable or unfavorable. The results are interpreted using physicochemical factors and their implications for the energetics of complex formation and for protein docking are discussed. Proteins 2001;43:89-102.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]