Cieslik, M. & Derewenda, Z. S. The role of entropy and polarity in intermolecular contacts in protein crystals. Acta Crystallogr. D 65, 500-509

Department of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics and the PSI2 Integrated Center for Structure-Function Innovation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA.
Acta Crystallographica Section D Biological Crystallography (Impact Factor: 2.67). 06/2009; 65(Pt 5):500-9. DOI: 10.1107/S0907444909009500
Source: PubMed


The integrity and X-ray diffraction quality of protein crystals depend on the three-dimensional order of relatively weak but reproducible intermolecular contacts. Despite their importance, relatively little attention has been paid to the chemical and physical nature of these contacts, which are often regarded as stochastic and thus not different from randomly selected protein surface patches. Here, logistic regression was used to analyze crystal contacts in a database of 821 unambiguously monomeric proteins with structures determined to 2.5 A resolution or better. It is shown that the propensity of a surface residue for incorporation into a crystal contact is not a linear function of its solvent-accessible surface area and that amino acids with low exposed surfaces, which are typically small and hydrophobic, have been underestimated with respect to their contact-forming potential by earlier area-based calculations. For any given solvent-exposed surface, small and hydrophobic residues are more likely to be involved in crystal contacts than large and charged amino acids. Side-chain entropy is the single physicochemical property that is most negatively correlated with the involvement of amino acids in crystal contacts. It is also shown that crystal contacts with larger buried surfaces containing eight or more amino acids have cores that are depleted of polar amino acids.

Download full-text


Available from: Zygmunt S Derewenda,
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mistranslation arising from confusion of serine for alanine by alanyl-tRNA synthetases (AlaRSs) has profound functional consequences. Throughout evolution, two editing checkpoints prevent disease-causing mistranslation from confusing glycine or serine for alanine at the active site of AlaRS. In both bacteria and mice, Ser poses a bigger challenge than Gly. One checkpoint is the AlaRS editing centre, and the other is from widely distributed AlaXps-free-standing, genome-encoded editing proteins that clear Ser-tRNA(Ala). The paradox of misincorporating both a smaller (glycine) and a larger (serine) amino acid suggests a deep conflict for nature-designed AlaRS. Here we show the chemical basis for this conflict. Nine crystal structures, together with kinetic and mutational analysis, provided snapshots of adenylate formation for each amino acid. An inherent dilemma is posed by constraints of a structural design that pins down the alpha-amino group of the bound amino acid by using an acidic residue. This design, dating back more than 3 billion years, creates a serendipitous interaction with the serine OH that is difficult to avoid. Apparently because no better architecture for the recognition of alanine could be found, the serine misactivation problem was solved through free-standing AlaXps, which appeared contemporaneously with early AlaRSs. The results reveal unconventional problems and solutions arising from the historical design of the protein synthesis machinery.
    Nature 12/2009; 462(7274):808-12. DOI:10.1038/nature08612 · 41.46 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although Escherichia coli alanyl-tRNA synthetase was among the first tRNA synthetases to be sequenced and extensively studied by functional analysis, it has proved to be recalcitrant to crystallization. This challenge remained even for crystallization of the catalytic fragment. By mutationally introducing three stacked leucines onto the solvent-exposed side of an alpha-helix, an engineered catalytic fragment of the synthetase was obtained that yielded multiple high-quality crystals and cocrystals with different ligands. The engineered alpha-helix did not form a leucine zipper that interlocked with the same alpha-helix from another molecule. Instead, using the created hydrophobic spine, it interacted with other surfaces of the protein as a leucine half-zipper (LHZ) to enhance the crystal lattice interactions. The LHZ made crystal lattice contacts in all crystals of different space groups. These results illustrate the power of introducing an LHZ into helices to facilitate crystallization. The authors propose that the method can be unified with surface-entropy reduction and can be broadly used for protein-surface optimization in crystallization.
    Acta Crystallographica Section D Biological Crystallography 03/2010; 66(Pt 3):243-50. DOI:10.1107/S0907444909055462 · 2.67 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Until recently, protein crystallization has mostly been regarded as a stochastic event over which the investigator has little or no control. With the dramatic technological advances in synchrotron-radiation sources and detectors and the equally impressive progress in crystallographic software, including automated model building and validation, crystallization has increasingly become the rate-limiting step in X-ray diffraction studies of macromolecules. However, with the advent of recombinant methods it has also become possible to engineer target proteins and their complexes for higher propensity to form crystals with desirable X-ray diffraction qualities. As most proteins that are under investigation today are obtained by heterologous overexpression, these techniques hold the promise of becoming routine tools with the potential to transform classical crystallization screening into a more rational high-success-rate approach. This article presents an overview of protein-engineering methods designed to enhance crystallizability and discusses a number of examples of their successful application.
    Acta Crystallographica Section D Biological Crystallography 05/2010; 66(Pt 5):604-15. DOI:10.1107/S090744491000644X · 2.67 Impact Factor
Show more