The folding and evolution of multidomain proteins

Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 319-330

  Han, Jung Hoon ^a   Batey, Sarah ^b   Nickson, Adrian A ^b   Teichmann, Sarah A ^a   Clarke, Jane ^b  

^a MRC LABORATORY OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COLICIN; CONNECTIN; FERREDOXIN; FIBRONECTIN; PHOSPHOGLYCERATE KINASE; PROTEIN S; PROTEIN SH3; PROTEIN TYROSINE KINASE; RNA BINDING PROTEIN; SPECTRIN;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; AMINO TERMINAL SEQUENCE; CARBOXY TERMINAL SEQUENCE; GENOME; HUMAN; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN DOMAIN; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; PROTEIN FAMILY; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN FUNCTION; PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN ISOLATION; PROTEIN LOCALIZATION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; REVIEW; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY; TANDEM REPEAT; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; X RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ANIMALS; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; HUMANS; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, TERTIARY; PROTEINS;

EUKARYOTA;

EID: 33947501381     PISSN: 14710072     EISSN: 14710080     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrm2144     Document Type: Review

References (88)

1. Chothia, C. & Lesk, A. M. The relation between the divergence of sequence and structure in proteins. EMBO J. 5, 823-826 (1986).
2. Davis, F. P. & Sali, A. PIBASE: a comprehensive database of structurally defined protein interfaces. Bioinformatics 21, 1901-1907 (2005).
3. Stein, A., Russell, R. B. & Aloy, P. 3Did: interacting protein domains of known three-dimensional structure. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, D413-D417 (2005).
4. Winter, C., Henschel, A., Kim, W. K. & Schroeder, M. SCOPPI: a structural classification of protein-protein interfaces. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, D310-D314 (2006).
5. Murzin, A. G., Brenner, S. E., Hubbard, T. & Chothia, C. SCOP: a structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures. J. Mol. Biol. 247, 536-540 (1995). This paper describes the SCOP database - a seminal advance in the classification of protein structures. All the analyses of structures in our manuscript depend on this database.
6. Apic, G., Gough, J. & Teichmann, S. A. Domain combinations in archaeal, eubacterial and eukaryotic proteomes. J. Mol. Biol. 310, 311-325 (2001). The first comprehensive survey of multidomain proteins and domain-superfamily combinations across all three kingdoms of life. Showed the preponderance of multidomain proteins in genomes.
7. Ekman, D., Bjorklund, A. K., Frey-Skott, J. & Elofsson, A. Multi-domain proteins in the three kingdoms of life: orphan domains and other unassigned regions. J. Mol. Biol. 348, 231-243 (2005). An update on reference 6 that includes domain predictions for domains of unknown structure, achieving a much higher coverage of annotation. This includes an analysis of repeated domains and disordered regions, as well as identifying putative novel domains.
8. Gerstein, M. How representative are the known structures of the proteins in a complete genome? A comprehensive structural census. Fold. Des. 3, 497-512 (1998).
9. Liu, J. & Rost, B. CHOP proteins into structural domain-like fragments. Proteins 55, 678-688 (2004).
10. Teichmann, S. A., Park, J. & Chothia, C. Structural assignments to the Mycoplasma genitalium proteins show extensive gene duplications and domain rearrangements. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 14658-14663 (1998).
11. Anfinsen, C. B. The rules that govern the folding of protein chains. Science 181, 223-230 (1973).
12. Plaxco, K. W., Simons, K. T. & Baker, D. Contact order, transition state placement and the refolding rates of single domain proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 277, 985-994 (1998).
13. Fersht, A. R. Transition-state structure as a unifying basis in protein-folding mechanisms: contact order, chain topology, stability and the extended nucleus mechanism. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 1525-1529 (2000).
14. Lindberg, M., Tangrot, J. & Oliveberg, M. Complete change of the protein folding transition state upon circular permutation. Nature Struct. Biol. 9, 818-822 (2002).
15. Zarrine-Asfar, A., Larson, S. M. & Davidson, A. R. The family feud: do proteins with similar structures fold via the same pathway? Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 15, 42-49 (2005). A recent thorough review of the study of the folding of homologous proteins. An excellent introduction to the field of single-domain-protein folding.
16. Hamill, S. J., Steward, A. & Clarke, J. The folding of an immunoglobulin-like Greek key protein is defined by a common-core nucleus and regions constrained by topology. J. Mol. Biol. 297, 165-178 (2000).
17. Capaldi, A. P., Kleanthous, C. & Radford, S. E. Im7 folding mechanism: misfolding on a path to the native state. Nature Struct. Biol. 9, 209-216 (2002).
18. Friel, C. T., Capaldi, A. P. & Radford, S. E. Structural analysis of the rate-limiting transition states in the folding of Im7 and Im9: similarities and differences in the folding of homologous proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 326, 293-305 (2003).
19. Gianni, S. et al. Unifying features in protein-folding mechanisms. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 13286-13291 (2003).
20. Wuchty, S. Scale-free behavior in protein domain networks. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18, 1694-1702 (2001).
21. Apic, G., Huber, W. & Teichmann, S. A. Multi-domain protein families and domain pairs: comparison with known structures and a random model of domain recombination. J. Struct. Funct. Genomics 4, 67-78 (2003).
22. Vogel, C., Berzuini, C., Bashton, M., Gough, J. & Teichmann, S. A. Supra-domains: evolutionary units larger than single protein domains. J. Mol. Biol. 336, 809-823 (2004).
23. Bashton, M. & Chothia, C. The geometry of domain combination in proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 315, 927-939 (2002).
24. Aloy, P., Ceulemans, H., Stark, A. & Russell, R. B. The relationship between sequence and interaction divergence in proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 332, 989-998 (2003). The first large-scale analysis of domain-domain interactions within and between polypeptide chains of known 3D structure. This showed a trend for more closely related domain pairs to be more conserved in their relative 3D orientation to each other than are divergent sequences.
25. Kim, W. K. & Ison, J. C. Survey of the geometric association of domain-domain interfaces. Proteins 61, 1075-1088 (2005).
26. Littler, S. J. & Hubbard, S. J. Conservation of orientation and sequence in protein domain-domain interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 345, 1265-1279 (2005).
27. Han, J. -H., Kerrison, N., Chothia, C. & Teichmann, S. A. Divergence of inter-domain geometry in two-domain proteins. Structure 14, 935-945 (2006). A careful analysis of over 100 2-domain multidomain families of known 3D structure. This showed that domain orientation is conserved in under two-thirds of the families, and that domain geometry can change across proteins of all different levels of sequence conservation.
28. Batey, S., Scott, K. A. & Clarke, J. Complex folding kinetics of a multidomain protein. Biophys. J. 90, 2120-2130 (2006).
29. Batey, S. & Clarke, J. Apparent cooperativity in the folding of multidomain proteins depends on the relative rates of folding of the constituent domains. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 18113-18118 (2006). A study spelling out the complexity of experimental studies of multidomain-protein folding. It emphasizes the need to use both kinetics and thermodynamics methods.
30. Arora, P., Hammes, G. G. & Oas, T. G. Folding mechanism of a multiple independently-folding domain protein: double B domain of protein A. Biochemistry 45, 12312-12324 (2006).
31. Hamill, S. J., Meekhof, A. E. & Clarke, J. The effect of boundary selection on the stability and folding of the third fibronectin type III domain from human tenascin. Biochemistry 37, 8071-8079 (1998).
32. Politou, A. S., Gautel, M., Joseph, C. & Pastore, A. Immunoglobulin-type domains of titin are stabilized by amino-terminal extension. FEBS Lett. 352, 27-31 (1994).
33. Gay, G. D. et al. Conformational pathway of the polypeptide-chain of chymotrypsin inhibitor-2 growing from its N terminus in vitro. Parallels with the proteinfolding pathway. J. Mol. Biol. 254, 968-979 (1995).
34. Bahadur, R. P., Chakrabarti, P., Rodier, F. & Janin, J. A dissection of specific and non-specific protein-protein interfaces. J. Mol. Biol. 336, 943-955 (2004).
35. Jones, S. & Thornton, J. Principles of protein-protein interactions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 13-20 (1996).
36. Grum, V. L., Li, D., Macdonald, R. I. & Mondragon, A. Structures of two repeats of spectrin suggest models of flexibility. Cell 98, 523-535 (1999).
37. Rothlisberger, D., Honegger, A. & Pluckthun, A. Domain interactions in the Fab fragment: a comparative evaluation of the single-chain Fv and Fab format engineered with variable domains of different stability. J. Mol. Biol. 347, 773-789 (2005).
38. Jackson, S. E. How do small single-domain proteins fold? Fold. Des. 3, R81-R91 (1998).
39. Sanchez, I. E., Morillas, M., Zobeley, E., Kiefhaber, T. & Glockshuber, R. Fast folding of the two-domain semliki forest virus capsid protein explains co-translational proteolytic activity. J. Mol. Biol. 338, 159-167 (2004).
40. Dobson, C. M. Protein folding and misfolding. Nature 426, 884-890 (2003).
41. Selkoe, D. J. Folding proteins in fatal ways. Nature 426, 900-904 (2003).
42. Pepys, M. B. Pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment of systemic amyloidosis. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 356, 203-211 (2001).
43. Barral, J. M., Broadley, S. A., Schaffar, G. F. & Hartl, F. U. Roles of molecular chaperones in protein misfolding diseases. Semin. Cell. Dev. Biol. 15, 17-29 (2004).
44. Netzer, W. J. & Hartl, F. U. Recombination of protein domains facilitated by co-translational folding in eukaryotes. Nature 388, 343-349 (1997).
45. Rivenzon-Segal, D., Wolf, S. G., Shimon, L., Willson, K. R. & Horovitz, A. Sequential ATP-induced allosteric transitions of the cytplasmic chaperonin containing TCP-1 revealed by EM analysis. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 12, 233-237 (2005).
46. Carrion-Vazquez, M. et al. Mechanical and chemical unfolding of a single protein: a comparison. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 3694-3699 (1999).
47. Oberhauser, A. F., Marszalek, P. E., Carrion-Vazquez, M. & Fernandez, J. M. Single protein misfolding events captured by atomic force microscopy. Nature Struct. Biol. 6, 1025-1028 (1999). An important paper that demonstrated the power of single-molecule studies to identify rare misfolded species in multidomain proteins.
48. Bjorklund, A. K., Ekman, D. & Elofsson, A. Expansion of protein domain repeats. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2, 959-970 (2006).
49. Weiner, J., 3rd, Beaussart, F. & Bornberg-Bauer, E. Domain deletions and substitutions in the modular protein evolution. FEBS J. 273, 2037-2047 (2006).
50. Ponting, C. P., Mott, R., Bork, P. & Copley, R. R. Novel protein domains and repeats in Drosophila melanogaster: insights into structure, function, and evolution. Genome Res. 11, 1996-2008 (2001).
51. Rajan, R. S., Illing, M. E., Bence, N. F. & Kopito, R. Specificity in intracellular protein aggregation and inclusion body formation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 13060-13065 (2001).
52. Wright, C. F., Teichmann, S. A., Clarke, J. & Dobson, C. M. The importance of sequence diversity in the aggregation and evolution of proteins. Nature 438, 878-881 (2005). The first study to investigate the potential problem of interdomain misfolding in multidomain proteins. This identifies the diversification of neighbouring domain sequences as an evolutionary mechanism for avoiding misfolding and aggregation.
53. Forman, J. R., Qamar, S., Paci, E., Sandford, R. N. & Clarke, J. The remarkable mechanical strength of polycystin-1 supports a direct role in mechanotransduction. J. Mol. Biol. 349, 861-871 (2005).
54. Best, R. B., Li, B., Steward, A., Daggett, V. & Clarke, J. Can non-mechanical proteins withstand force? Stretching barnase by atomic force microscopy and molecular dynamics simulation. Biophys. J. 81, 2344-2356 (2001).
55. Otzen, D. E., Kristensen, O. & Oliveberg, M. Designed protein tetramer zipped together with a hydrophobic Alzheimer homology: a structural clue to amyloid assembly. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 9907-9912 (2000).
56. Parrini, C. et al. Glycine residues appear to be evolutionarily conserved for their ability to inhibit aggregation. Structure 13, 1143-1151 (2005).
57. Richardson, J. S. & Richardson, D. C. Natural β-sheet proteins use negative design to avoid edge-to-edge aggregation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 2754-2759 (2002).
58. Steward, A., Adhya, S. & Clarke, J. Sequence conservation in Ig-like domains: the role of highly conserved proline residues in the fibronecting type III superfamily. J. Mol. Biol. 318, 935-940 (2002).
59. Pearl, F. M. et al. The CATH database: an extended protein family resource for structural and functional genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 452-455 (2003).
60. Gough, J., Karplus, K., Hughey, R. & Chothia, C. Assignment of homology to genome sequences using a library of hidden Markov models that represent all proteins of known structure. J. Mol. Biol. 313, 903-919 (2001).
61. Finn, R. D. et al. Pfam: clans, web tools, and services. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, D247-D251 (2006).
62. Fersht, A. R. Structure and Mechanism in Protein Science: a Guide to Enzyme Catalysis and Protein Folding (W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1999).
63. Batey, S., Randles, L. G., Steward, A. & Clarke, J. Cooperative folding in a multi-domain protein. J. Mol. Biol. 349, 1045-1059 (2005).
64. Randles, L. G., Rounsevell, R. W. S. & Clarke, J. Spectrin domains lose cooperativity in forced unfolding. Biophys. J. 92, 571-577 (2007).
65. Mayor, U. et al. The complete folding pathway of a protein from nanoseconds to microseconds. Nature 421, 863-867 (2003).
66. Religa, T. L., Markson, J. S., Mayor, U., Freund, S. M. & Fersht, A. R. Solution structure of a protein denatured state and folding intermediate. Nature 437, 1053-1056 (2005).
67. Chiti, F. et al. Mutational analysis of acylphosphatase suggests the importance of topology and contact order in protein folding. Nature Struct. Biol. 6, 1005-1009 (1999).
68. Villegas, V., Martinez, J. C., Aviles, F. X. & Serrano, L. Structure of the transition state in the folding process of human procarboxypeptidase A2 activation domain. J. Mol. Biol. 283, 1027-1036 (1998).
69. Otzen, D. E. & Oliveberg, M. Conformational plasticity in folding of the split β-α-β protein S6: Evidence for burst-phase disruption of the native state. J. Mol. Biol. 317, 613-627 (2002).
70. Ternstrom, T., Mayor, U., Akke, M. & Oliveberg, M. From snapshot to movie: φ analysis of protein folding transition states taken one step further. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 14854-14859 (1999).
71. Cota, E., Steward, A., Fowler, S. B. & Clarke, J. The folding nucleus of a fibronectin type III domain is composed of core residues of the immunoglobulin-like fold. J. Mol. Biol. 305, 1185-1194 (2001).
72. Fowler, S. B. & Clarke, J. Mapping the folding pathway of an immunoglobulin domain: structural detail from φ value analysis and movement of the transition state. Structure 9, 355-366 (2001).
73. Lorch, M., Mason, J. M., Clarke, A. R. & Parker, M. J. Effects of core mutations on the folding of a β-sheet protein: implications for backbone organization in the I-state. Biochemistry 38, 1377-1385 (1999).
74. Guerois, R. & Serrano, L. The SH3-fold family: experimental evidence and prediction of variations in the folding pathways. J. Mol. Biol. 304, 967-982 (2000).
75. Martinez, J. C. & Serrano, L. The folding transition state between SH3 domains is conformationally restricted and evolutionarily conserved. Nature Struct. Biol. 6, 1010-1016 (1999).
76. Ventura, S. et al. Conformational strain in the hydrophobic core and its implications for protein folding and design. Nature Struct. Biol. 9, 485-493 (2002).
77. Northey, J. G., Di Nardo, A. A. & Davidson, A. R. Hydrophobic core packing in the SH3 domain folding transition state. Nature Struct. Biol. 9, 126-130 (2002).
78. Northey, J. G., Maxwell, K. L. & Davidson, A. R. Protein folding kinetics beyond the φ value: using multiple amino acid substitutions to investigate the structure of the SH3 domain folding transition state. J. Mol. Biol. 320, 389-402 (2002).
79. Guijarro, J. I., Morton, C. J., Plaxco, K. W., Campbell, I. D. & Dobson, C. M. Folding kinetics of the SH3 domain of PI3 kinase by real-time NMR combined with optical spectroscopy. J. Mol. Biol. 276, 657-667 (1998).
80. Riddle, D. S. et al. Experiment and theory highlight role of native state topology in SH3 folding. Nature Struct. Biol. 6, 1016-1024 (1999).
81. Osvath, S., Kohler, G., Zavodszky, P. & Fidy, J. Asymmetric effect of domain interactions on the kinetics of folding in yeast phosphoglycerate kinase. Protein Sci. 14, 1609-1616 (2005).
82. Wenk, M., Jaenicke, R. & Mayr, E. M. Kinetic stabilisation of a modular protein by domain interactions. FEBS Lett. 438, 127-130 (1998). One of the first studies to systematically characterize the folding of multidomain proteins using both kinetics and thermodynamics methods - a textbook example of how these studies should be done.
83. Chothia, C., Novotny, J., Bruccoleri, R. & Karplus, K. Domain association in immunoglobulin molecules. The packing of variable domains. J. Mol. Biol. 186, 651-663 (1985).
84. Jager, M., Gehrig, P. & Pluckthun, A. The scFv fragment of the antibody hu4D5-8: evidence for early premature domain interaction in refolding. J. Mol. Biol. 305, 1111-1129 (2001).
85. Improta, S. et al. The assembly of immunoglobulin-like modules in titin: implications for muscle assembly. J. Mol. Biol. 284, 761-777 (1998).
86. Politou, A. S., Gautel, M., Improta, S., Vangelista, L. & Pastore, A. The elastic I-band region of titin is assembled in a "modular" fashion by weakly interacting Ig-like domains. J. Mol. Biol. 255, 604-616 (1996).
87. Scott, K. A., Steward, A., Fowler, S. B. & Clarke, J. Titin; a multidomain protein that behaves as the sum of its parts. J. Mol. Biol. 315, 819-829 (2002).
88. Robertsson, J., Petzold, K., Lofvenberg, L. & Backman, L. Folding of spectrin's SH3 domain in the presence of spectrin repeats. Cell. Mol. Biol. Lett. 10, 595-612 (2005).