Skip to main content
PMC home page
Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society logoLink to Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society
. 1992 Feb;1(2):216–226. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560010203

Environment-specific amino acid substitution tables: tertiary templates and prediction of protein folds.

J Overington 1, D Donnelly 1, M S Johnson 1, A Sali 1, T L Blundell 1
PMCID: PMC2142193  PMID: 1304904

Abstract

The local environment of an amino acid in a folded protein determines the acceptability of mutations at that position. In order to characterize and quantify these structural constraints, we have made a comparative analysis of families of homologous proteins. Residues in each structure are classified according to amino acid type, secondary structure, accessibility of the side chain, and existence of hydrogen bonds from the side chains. Analysis of the pattern of observed substitutions as a function of local environment shows that there are distinct patterns, especially for buried polar residues. The substitution data tables are available on diskette with Protein Science. Given the fold of a protein, one is able to predict sequences compatible with the fold (profiles or templates) and potentially to discriminate between a correctly folded and misfolded protein. Conversely, analysis of residue variation across a family of aligned sequences in terms of substitution profiles can allow prediction of secondary structure or tertiary environment.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (905.1 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Baumann G., Frömmel C., Sander C. Polarity as a criterion in protein design. Protein Eng. 1989 Jan;2(5):329–334. doi: 10.1093/protein/2.5.329. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bernstein F. C., Koetzle T. F., Williams G. J., Meyer E. F., Jr, Brice M. D., Rodgers J. R., Kennard O., Shimanouchi T., Tasumi M. The Protein Data Bank: a computer-based archival file for macromolecular structures. J Mol Biol. 1977 May 25;112(3):535–542. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2836(77)80200-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hubbard T. J., Blundell T. L. Comparison of solvent-inaccessible cores of homologous proteins: definitions useful for protein modelling. Protein Eng. 1987 Jun;1(3):159–171. doi: 10.1093/protein/1.3.159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Kabsch W., Sander C. Dictionary of protein secondary structure: pattern recognition of hydrogen-bonded and geometrical features. Biopolymers. 1983 Dec;22(12):2577–2637. doi: 10.1002/bip.360221211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kissinger C. R., Liu B. S., Martin-Blanco E., Kornberg T. B., Pabo C. O. Crystal structure of an engrailed homeodomain-DNA complex at 2.8 A resolution: a framework for understanding homeodomain-DNA interactions. Cell. 1990 Nov 2;63(3):579–590. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(90)90453-l. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lee B., Richards F. M. The interpretation of protein structures: estimation of static accessibility. J Mol Biol. 1971 Feb 14;55(3):379–400. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(71)90324-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lüthy R., McLachlan A. D., Eisenberg D. Secondary structure-based profiles: use of structure-conserving scoring tables in searching protein sequence databases for structural similarities. Proteins. 1991;10(3):229–239. doi: 10.1002/prot.340100307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. McLachlan A. D. Tests for comparing related amino-acid sequences. Cytochrome c and cytochrome c 551 . J Mol Biol. 1971 Oct 28;61(2):409–424. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(71)90390-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Novotný J., Bruccoleri R., Karplus M. An analysis of incorrectly folded protein models. Implications for structure predictions. J Mol Biol. 1984 Aug 25;177(4):787–818. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(84)90049-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Novotný J., Rashin A. A., Bruccoleri R. E. Criteria that discriminate between native proteins and incorrectly folded models. Proteins. 1988;4(1):19–30. doi: 10.1002/prot.340040105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Overington J., Johnson M. S., Sali A., Blundell T. L. Tertiary structural constraints on protein evolutionary diversity: templates, key residues and structure prediction. Proc Biol Sci. 1990 Aug 22;241(1301):132–145. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1990.0077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Ponder J. W., Richards F. M. Tertiary templates for proteins. Use of packing criteria in the enumeration of allowed sequences for different structural classes. J Mol Biol. 1987 Feb 20;193(4):775–791. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(87)90358-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ramachandran G. N., Sasisekharan V. Conformation of polypeptides and proteins. Adv Protein Chem. 1968;23:283–438. doi: 10.1016/s0065-3233(08)60402-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Steigemann W., Weber E. Structure of erythrocruorin in different ligand states refined at 1.4 A resolution. J Mol Biol. 1979 Jan 25;127(3):309–338. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(79)90332-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society are provided here courtesy of The Protein Society

RESOURCES