TABLE 2.
Comparison of concave-to-concave dimerization interfaces in CcmP, CsoS1D, and CcmK2 structures
| Concave-to-concave interface of two (pseudo)hexamers | Shape complementarity |
Concave-to-concave interactionb |
θ (° angle)c | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sca | Area included in calculation | No. of residues | Interface area | No. of hydrogen bonds | No. of non-bond contacts | ||
| Å2 | Å2 | ||||||
| CcmP hexamer | 0.677 | 2583:2599 | 73:85 | 4171:4120 | 48 | 418 | 14 |
| CsoS1D (3F56) hexamer | 0.709 | 2096:2083 | 70:73 | 3642:3642 | 42 | 310 | 15 |
| CcmK2 (3SSQ) dodecamer | 0.762 | 547:543 | 26:26 | 1363:1363 | 0 (12)d | 216 | 5 |
a Sc indicates the shape correlation statistic (31) for quantifying the shape complementarity of the protein:protein interface was calculated by using program Sc, which is distributed in the CCP4 suite.
b Data were calculated by PROFUNC.
c The angle θ is the rotation required to perfectly align one trimer (pseudohexamer) on top of the other (also see supplemental Fig. S2).
d Date were described as low barrier hydrogen bonds for 3SSQ dodecamer (9) but were not detected by PROFUNC or PDBePISA.