Refine
Year of publication
- 2016 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Alternate hydrophobicity (1)
- Amino acid pattern (1)
- Beta-sheet (1)
- Hydrophobicity scale (1)
- Mitochondria (1)
- Proteins (1)
- Transmembrane helix (1)
- Transmembrane sheets (1)
Institute
- Biowissenschaften (3) (remove)
50 years of amino acid hydrophobicity scales : revisiting the capacity for peptide classification
(2016)
Background: Physicochemical properties are frequently analyzed to characterize protein-sequences of known and unknown function. Especially the hydrophobicity of amino acids is often used for structural prediction or for the detection of membrane associated or embedded β-sheets and α-helices. For this purpose many scales classifying amino acids according to their physicochemical properties have been defined over the past decades. In parallel, several hydrophobicity parameters have been defined for calculation of peptide properties. We analyzed the performance of separating sequence pools using 98 hydrophobicity scales and five different hydrophobicity parameters, namely the overall hydrophobicity, the hydrophobic moment for detection of the α-helical and β-sheet membrane segments, the alternating hydrophobicity and the exact ß-strand score.
Results: Most of the scales are capable of discriminating between transmembrane α-helices and transmembrane β-sheets, but assignment of peptides to pools of soluble peptides of different secondary structures is not achieved at the same quality. The separation capacity as measure of the discrimination between different structural elements is best by using the five different hydrophobicity parameters, but addition of the alternating hydrophobicity does not provide a large benefit. An in silico evolutionary approach shows that scales have limitation in separation capacity with a maximal threshold of 0.6 in general. We observed that scales derived from the evolutionary approach performed best in separating the different peptide pools when values for arginine and tyrosine were largely distinct from the value of glutamate. Finally, the separation of secondary structure pools via hydrophobicity can be supported by specific detectable patterns of four amino acids.
Conclusion: It could be assumed that the quality of separation capacity of a certain scale depends on the spacing of the hydrophobicity value of certain amino acids. Irrespective of the wealth of hydrophobicity scales a scale separating all different kinds of secondary structures or between soluble and transmembrane peptides does not exist reflecting that properties other than hydrophobicity affect secondary structure formation as well. Nevertheless, application of hydrophobicity scales allows distinguishing between peptides with transmembrane α-helices and β-sheets. Furthermore, the overall separation capacity score of 0.6 using different hydrophobicity parameters could be assisted by pattern search on the protein sequence level for specific peptides with a length of four amino acids.
The endoplasmic reticulum–mitochondria encounter structure (ERMES) connects the mitochondrial outer membrane with the ER. Multiple functions have been linked to ERMES, including maintenance of mitochondrial morphology, protein assembly and phospholipid homeostasis. Since the mitochondrial distribution and morphology protein Mdm10 is present in both ERMES and the mitochondrial sorting and assembly machinery (SAM), it is unknown how the ERMES functions are connected on a molecular level. Here we report that conserved surface areas on opposite sides of the Mdm10 β-barrel interact with SAM and ERMES, respectively. We generated point mutants to separate protein assembly (SAM) from morphology and phospholipid homeostasis (ERMES). Our study reveals that the β-barrel channel of Mdm10 serves different functions. Mdm10 promotes the biogenesis of α-helical and β-barrel proteins at SAM and functions as integral membrane anchor of ERMES, demonstrating that SAM-mediated protein assembly is distinct from ER-mitochondria contact sites.
Relative orientation of POTRA domains from cyanobacterial Omp85 studied by pulsed EPR spectroscopy
(2016)
Many proteins of the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria and of the outer envelope of the endosymbiotically derived organelles mitochondria and plastids have a β-barrel fold. Their insertion is assisted by membrane proteins of the Omp85-TpsB superfamily. These proteins are composed of a C-terminal β-barrel and a different number of N-terminal POTRA domains, three in the case of cyanobacterial Omp85. Based on structural studies of Omp85 proteins, including the five POTRA-domain-containing BamA protein of Escherichia coli, it is predicted that anaP2 and anaP3 bear a fixed orientation, whereas anaP1 and anaP2 are connected via a flexible hinge. We challenged this proposal by investigating the conformational space of the N-terminal POTRA domains of Omp85 from the cyanobacterium Anabaena sp. PCC 7120 using pulsed electron-electron double resonance (PELDOR, or DEER) spectroscopy. The pronounced dipolar oscillations observed for most of the double spin-labeled positions indicate a rather rigid orientation of the POTRA domains in frozen liquid solution. Based on the PELDOR distance data, structure refinement of the POTRA domains was performed taking two different approaches: 1) treating the individual POTRA domains as rigid bodies; and 2) using an all-atom refinement of the structure. Both refinement approaches yielded ensembles of model structures that are more restricted compared to the conformational ensemble obtained by molecular dynamics simulations, with only a slightly different orientation of N-terminal POTRA domains anaP1 and anaP2 compared with the x-ray structure. The results are discussed in the context of the native environment of the POTRA domains in the periplasm.