Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society logoLink to Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society
. 1994 Dec;3(12):2194–2206. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560031205

Cavities and packing at protein interfaces.

S J Hubbard 1, P Argos 1
PMCID: PMC2142764  PMID: 7756979

Abstract

An analysis of internal packing defects or "cavities" (both empty and water-containing) within protein structures has been undertaken and includes 3 cavity classes: within domains, between domains, and between protein subunits. We confirm several basic features common to all cavity types but also find a number of new characteristics, including those that distinguish the classes. The total cavity volume remains only a small fraction of the total protein volume and yet increases with protein size. Water-filled "cavities" possess a more polar surface and are typically larger. Their constituent waters are necessary to satisfy the local hydrogen bonding potential. Cavity-surrounding atoms are observed to be, on average, less flexible than their environments. Intersubunit and interdomain cavities are on average larger than the intradomain cavities, occupy a larger fraction of their resident surfaces, and are more frequently water-filled. We observe increased cavity volume at domain-domain interfaces involved with shear type domain motions. The significance of interfacial cavities upon subunit and domain shape complementarity and the protein docking problem, as well as in their structural and functional role in oligomeric proteins, will be discussed. The results concerning cavity size, polarity, solvation, general abundance, and residue type constituency should provide useful guidelines for protein modeling and design.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.9 MB).

Selected References

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

  1. Argos P. An investigation of protein subunit and domain interfaces. Protein Eng. 1988 Jul;2(2):101–113. doi: 10.1093/protein/2.2.101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bacon D. J., Moult J. Docking by least-squares fitting of molecular surface patterns. J Mol Biol. 1992 Jun 5;225(3):849–858. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(92)90405-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker E. N., Hubbard R. E. Hydrogen bonding in globular proteins. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 1984;44(2):97–179. doi: 10.1016/0079-6107(84)90007-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. 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]
  5. Chothia C., Janin J. Principles of protein-protein recognition. Nature. 1975 Aug 28;256(5520):705–708. doi: 10.1038/256705a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Connolly M. L. Atomic size packing defects in proteins. Int J Pept Protein Res. 1986 Oct;28(4):360–363. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3011.1986.tb03266.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Connolly M. L. Shape complementarity at the hemoglobin alpha 1 beta 1 subunit interface. Biopolymers. 1986 Jul;25(7):1229–1247. doi: 10.1002/bip.360250705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Connolly M. L. Solvent-accessible surfaces of proteins and nucleic acids. Science. 1983 Aug 19;221(4612):709–713. doi: 10.1126/science.6879170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Eisenmenger F., Argos P., Abagyan R. A method to configure protein side-chains from the main-chain trace in homology modelling. J Mol Biol. 1993 Jun 5;231(3):849–860. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1993.1331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Eriksson A. E., Baase W. A., Matthews B. W. Similar hydrophobic replacements of Leu99 and Phe153 within the core of T4 lysozyme have different structural and thermodynamic consequences. J Mol Biol. 1993 Feb 5;229(3):747–769. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1993.1077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Eriksson A. E., Baase W. A., Zhang X. J., Heinz D. W., Blaber M., Baldwin E. P., Matthews B. W. Response of a protein structure to cavity-creating mutations and its relation to the hydrophobic effect. Science. 1992 Jan 10;255(5041):178–183. doi: 10.1126/science.1553543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Finer-Moore J. S., Kossiakoff A. A., Hurley J. H., Earnest T., Stroud R. M. Solvent structure in crystals of trypsin determined by X-ray and neutron diffraction. Proteins. 1992 Mar;12(3):203–222. doi: 10.1002/prot.340120302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gerstein M., Lesk A. M., Chothia C. Structural mechanisms for domain movements in proteins. Biochemistry. 1994 Jun 7;33(22):6739–6749. doi: 10.1021/bi00188a001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Helmer-Citterich M., Tramontano A. PUZZLE: a new method for automated protein docking based on surface shape complementarity. J Mol Biol. 1994 Jan 21;235(3):1021–1031. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1994.1054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Holm L., Sander C. Database algorithm for generating protein backbone and side-chain co-ordinates from a C alpha trace application to model building and detection of co-ordinate errors. J Mol Biol. 1991 Mar 5;218(1):183–194. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(91)90883-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hubbard S. J., Gross K. H., Argos P. Intramolecular cavities in globular proteins. Protein Eng. 1994 May;7(5):613–626. doi: 10.1093/protein/7.5.613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Janin J., Miller S., Chothia C. Surface, subunit interfaces and interior of oligomeric proteins. J Mol Biol. 1988 Nov 5;204(1):155–164. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(88)90606-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Jiang F., Kim S. H. "Soft docking": matching of molecular surface cubes. J Mol Biol. 1991 May 5;219(1):79–102. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(91)90859-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. Karpusas M., Baase W. A., Matsumura M., Matthews B. W. Hydrophobic packing in T4 lysozyme probed by cavity-filling mutants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989 Nov;86(21):8237–8241. doi: 10.1073/pnas.86.21.8237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kellis J. T., Jr, Nyberg K., Fersht A. R. Energetics of complementary side-chain packing in a protein hydrophobic core. Biochemistry. 1989 May 30;28(11):4914–4922. doi: 10.1021/bi00437a058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kellis J. T., Jr, Nyberg K., Sali D., Fersht A. R. Contribution of hydrophobic interactions to protein stability. Nature. 1988 Jun 23;333(6175):784–786. doi: 10.1038/333784a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Korn A. P., Burnett R. M. Distribution and complementarity of hydropathy in multisubunit proteins. Proteins. 1991;9(1):37–55. doi: 10.1002/prot.340090106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kossiakoff A. A., Sintchak M. D., Shpungin J., Presta L. G. Analysis of solvent structure in proteins using neutron D2O-H2O solvent maps: pattern of primary and secondary hydration of trypsin. Proteins. 1992 Mar;12(3):223–236. doi: 10.1002/prot.340120303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Lambright D. G., Balasubramanian S., Decatur S. M., Boxer S. G. Anatomy and dynamics of a ligand-binding pathway in myoglobin: the roles of residues 45, 60, 64, and 68. Biochemistry. 1994 May 10;33(18):5518–5525. doi: 10.1021/bi00184a021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lawrence M. C., Colman P. M. Shape complementarity at protein/protein interfaces. J Mol Biol. 1993 Dec 20;234(4):946–950. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1993.1648. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lee B. Estimation of the maximum change in stability of globular proteins upon mutation of a hydrophobic residue to another of smaller size. Protein Sci. 1993 May;2(5):733–738. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560020505. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lee C., Subbiah S. Prediction of protein side-chain conformation by packing optimization. J Mol Biol. 1991 Jan 20;217(2):373–388. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(91)90550-p. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Miller S. The structure of interfaces between subunits of dimeric and tetrameric proteins. Protein Eng. 1989 Nov;3(2):77–83. doi: 10.1093/protein/3.2.77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Norel R., Lin S. L., Wolfson H. J., Nussinov R. Shape complementarity at protein-protein interfaces. Biopolymers. 1994 Jul;34(7):933–940. doi: 10.1002/bip.360340711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. 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]
  32. 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]
  33. Rashin A. A., Iofin M., Honig B. Internal cavities and buried waters in globular proteins. Biochemistry. 1986 Jun 17;25(12):3619–3625. doi: 10.1021/bi00360a021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Richards F. M. Areas, volumes, packing and protein structure. Annu Rev Biophys Bioeng. 1977;6:151–176. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bb.06.060177.001055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Richards F. M., Lim W. A. An analysis of packing in the protein folding problem. Q Rev Biophys. 1993 Nov;26(4):423–498. doi: 10.1017/s0033583500002845. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Richards F. M. The interpretation of protein structures: total volume, group volume distributions and packing density. J Mol Biol. 1974 Jan 5;82(1):1–14. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(74)90570-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Walls P. H., Sternberg M. J. New algorithm to model protein-protein recognition based on surface complementarity. Applications to antibody-antigen docking. J Mol Biol. 1992 Nov 5;228(1):277–297. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(92)90506-f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Wodak S. J., De Crombrugghe M., Janin J. Computer studies of interactions between macromolecules. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 1987;49(1):29–63. doi: 10.1016/0079-6107(87)90008-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Young L., Jernigan R. L., Covell D. G. A role for surface hydrophobicity in protein-protein recognition. Protein Sci. 1994 May;3(5):717–729. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560030501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Zielenkiewicz P., Rabczenko A. Protein-protein recognition: method for finding complementary surfaces of interacting proteins. J Theor Biol. 1984 Nov 7;111(1):17–30. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5193(84)80193-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES