- Oral presentation
- Open Access
Competition between protein aggregation and protein complex formation
BMC Bioinformatics volume 9, Article number: O2 (2008)
Interactions between proteins are vital for essentially every process in a living cell. Physico-chemical complementarity, which can be considered as the driving force for molecular recognition, has been found to not consistently explain protein-ligand interactions. As aberrant interactions should be avoided in order to maintain cell viability, promoting complex formation and preventing protein aggregation are two opposite requirements on the physico-chemical properties of protein surfaces.
As a first step, aggregation propensity profiles were calculated using the Zyggregator algorithm [1–3], which takes hydrophobicity, charge, structural propensities and alternating hydrophobic-polar patterns into account. Positive peaks in these profiles indicate regions that promote aggregation while negative peaks identify regions preventing aggregation. These calculations are based on individual aggregation propensities for each amino acid based on their physico-chemical properties and experimentally determined [1–3]. The aggregation propensity profiles were then mapped onto the structures of protein complexes  and aggregation propensity patches of interfaces and surfaces were compared.
We found that interface regions of the analysed protein complexes are on average more aggregation prone than other surface regions (see Figure 1). The aggregation propensity is more effective than hydrophobicity for identifying such interfaces. Our results indicate that the determinants of protein complex formation are similar to those of protein aggregation. We further show that the competition between these two processes is mediated by the presence of disulphide bonds and salt bridges, which have evolved as negative design principles to prevent interfaces from triggering uncontrolled aggregation (see Figure 1).
The specificity in molecular recognition is achieved through a combination of positive and negative design principles, which, respectively, promote the assembly of functional complexes and prevent the formation of potentially dangerous aggregates.
DuBay KF, Pawar AP, Chiti F, Zurdo J, Dobson CM, Vendruscolo M: Prediction of the absolute aggregation rates of amyloidogenic polypeptide chains. J Mol Biol 2004, 341(5):1317–26. 10.1016/j.jmb.2004.06.043
Pawar AP, Dubay KF, Zurdo J, Chiti F, Vendruscolo M, Dobson CM: Prediction of "aggregation-prone" and "aggregation-susceptible" regions in proteins associated with neurodegenerative diseases. J Mol Biol 2005, 350(2):379–92. 10.1016/j.jmb.2005.04.016
Tartaglia GG, Pawar AP, Campioni S, Dobson CM, Chiti F, Vendruscolo M: Prediction of aggregation-prone regions in structured proteins. J Mol Biol 2008, 380(2):425–36. 10.1016/j.jmb.2008.05.013
Levy ED, Pereira-Leal JB, Chothia C, Teichmann SA: 3D complex: a structural classification of protein complexes. PLoS Comput Biol 2006, 2(11):e155. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020155
The molecules in the figure were rendered using PyMOL (W.L. DeLano, http://pymol.sourceforge.net/).
About this article
Cite this article
Pechmann, S., Levy, E.D., Tartaglia, G.G. et al. Competition between protein aggregation and protein complex formation. BMC Bioinformatics 9, O2 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-9-S10-O2
- Protein Aggregation
- Salt Bridge
- Molecular Recognition
- Negative Peak