HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Supplemental Research Data Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bradford, J. R. Articles by Westhead, D. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bradford, J. R. Articles by Westhead, D. R. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

FOR THE RECORD

Asymmetric mutation rates at enzyme–inhibitor interfaces: Implications for the protein–protein docking problem

School of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

Reprint requests to: David R. Westhead, School of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK; e-mail: westhead{at}bmb.leeds.ac.uk; fax: 44-113-2333167.

We have carried out a thorough and systematic sequence-structure study on how the pattern of conservation at the interface differs from the noninteracting surface in seven proteases and their inhibitors. As expected, the interface of a protease could be easily distinguished from the noninteracting surface by a concentrated area of conservation. In contrast, there was less distinction to be made between the interface and the noninteracting surface of inhibitors, and in five of the seven cases, a higher proportion of the interface area was variable compared to the rest of the surface. This is likely to cause a problem for binding-site prediction methods that assume the largest cluster of highly conserved residues on the surface of a protein corresponds to the interface. We conclude that such methods would succeed when applied to our protease test cases, but complications could arise with the inhibitors. These results also impact on methods to solve the protein–protein docking problem that use conservation at the interface to provide the location of the two protein binding sites prior to application of the docking algorithm.

Keywords: Evolution; conservation; protein surface; protein interactions; bioinformatics; computational

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Liang, C. Zhang, S. Liu, and Y. Zhou Protein binding site prediction using an empirical scoring function Nucleic Acids Res., August 7, 2006; 34(13): 3698 - 3707. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. J. Burgoyne and R. M. Jackson Predicting protein interaction sites: binding hot-spots in protein-protein and protein-ligand interfaces Bioinformatics, June 1, 2006; 22(11): 1335 - 1342. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. R. Bradford and D. R. Westhead Improved prediction of protein-protein binding sites using a support vector machines approach Bioinformatics, April 15, 2005; 21(8): 1487 - 1494. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Lei and Y. Duan Incorporating intermolecular distance into protein-protein docking Protein Eng. Des. Sel., December 1, 2004; 17(12): 837 - 845. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]