Abstract
Pyrococcus furiosus is a hyperthermophilic archaea. A hypothetical protein of this archaea, PF0847, was selected for computational analysis. Basic local alignment search tool and multiple sequence alignment (MSA) tool were employed to search for related proteins. Both the secondary and tertiary structure prediction were obtained for further analysis. Three-dimensional model was assessed by PROCHECK and QMEAN6 programs. To get insights about the physical and functional associations of the protein, STRING network analysis was performed. Binding of the SAM (S-adenosyl-l-methionine) ligand with our protein, fetched from an antibiotic-related methyltransferase (PDB code: 3P2K: D), showed high docking energy and suggested the function of the protein as methyltransferase. Finally, we tried to look for a specific function of the proposed methyltransferase, and binding of the geneticin bound to the eubacterial 16S rRNA A-site (PDB code: 1MWL) in the active site of the PF0847 gave us the indication to predict the protein responsible for aminoglycoside antibiotic resistance.
Keywords: methyltransferase, aminoglycoside antibiotic resistance, 16S rRNA A-site, molecular docking
Introduction
Pyrococcus furiosus is a hyperthermophilic archaea. It is considered a model organism to study the hyperthermophilic extremophiles, mostly because of its capability to thrive best at 100 °C.1 These types of archaea are of special interest because of their evolutionary history and unique physiology, and also for their crucial biotechnological applications associated with their thermostable enzymes.2,3 Recent progresses ensure that P. furiosus is highly recombinogenic and able to take up DNA via natural competence.4–8 With the advancement in sequencing technologies, it is now considerably easier to obtain the whole genome sequence of such single cell organisms. Still there are lots of protein sequences in the public database whose functions are yet to be discovered experimentally.9 There are many open reading frames within the genome sequences on the database, for which we do not have any experimental characterization. In silico analysis of these hypothetical proteins is crucial—to predict the physical properties and biological functions. Here we represent the computational function prediction of the hypothetical protein PF0847 of P. furiosus by using various bioinformatics tools.
Methyltransferases are a large group of proteins, with different subclasses having defined functions. P. furiosus has been reported to contain 43 methyltransferase proteins having various functional specificities. In addition to these 43 characterized proteins, P. furiosus genome contains many other hypothetical proteins that contain methyltransferase domains. We presumed that with such a huge collection of a single class of proteins, we might find out some significant roles for the hypothetical proteins that show sequence similarity with the methyltransferase proteins. Sgm, a methyltransferase from the actinomycete Micromonospora zionensis, was of particular influence to this study.10 This protein had been shown to confer antibiotic resistance to an organism with its ability to interact with the ribosomal A-subunit and methylate specific residues—thereby rendering the ribosome indifferent to the particular antibiotics.
Materials and Methods
Sequence retrieval
Initially, we searched the NCBI ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ ) protein database for proteins containing methyltransferase-like sequences. The hypothetical protein PF0847 (gi|18977219|) of P. furiosus (DSM 3638), consisting of 248 amino acid residues, was selected for the study. Then the sequence was stored as a FASTA format sequence for further analysis.
Physicochemical properties analysis
The ProtParam ( http://web.expasy.org/protparam/ )11 tool of ExPASy was used for the analysis of the physiological and chemical properties of the targeted protein sequence. The properties including aliphatic index (AI), GRAVY (grand average of hydropathy), extinction coefficients, isoelectric point (pI), and molecular weight were analyzed using this tool.
Homology identification and domain analysis
The PSI-BLAST program of NCBI database ( http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi ) was used for searching the homology of PF0847 with the non-redundant database. For the domain analysis, we used the Pfam ( http://pfam.sanger.ac.uk/ ) program of the Sanger Institute.12
Multiple sequence alignment (MSA) and phylogenic tree construction
For the identification of the sequence conservation among different species and strains, MSA was done with BioEdit biological sequence alignment editor,13 and the phylogenetic tree was also constructed by Jalview 2 tool.14
Structure prediction
The secondary structure of the protein was predicted by PSIPRED server of UCL Department of Computer Science ( http://bioinf.cs.ucl.ac.uk/psipred/ ),15 and the tertiary structure was predicted by MODELLER16 through HHpred17,18 tools of the Max Planck Institute for Development Biology.
Model quality assessment
Finally, the quality of the predicted structure was determined by PROCHECK19 and QMEAN620 programs of ExPASy server of SWISS-MODEL Workspace.21
Protein–protein interaction analysis
Protein residues interact with each other for their accurate functions. Here we used STRING ( http://string-db.org/ ), a database of known and predicted protein interactions that works through physical and functional associations derived from genomic context, high-throughput experiments, coexpression and previous knowledge. This database quantitatively integrates interaction data from above sources. Currently, this database covers 5,214,234 proteins from 1133 organisms.22
Active site detection
Active site of the protein was determined by the computed atlas of surface topography of proteins (CASTp) ( http://sts.bioengr.uic.edu/castp/ ),23 which provides an online resource for locating, delineating, and measuring concave surface regions on three-dimensional structures of proteins. These include pockets located on protein surfaces and voids buried in the interior of proteins. This provides an important means for the prediction of the interacting sites on protein with the ligand molecules.
Docking analysis
Docking analysis was performed by Molegro Virtual Docker (MVD) of CLC bio lab. Docking is performed in an integrated environment for studying and predicting how ligands interact with macromolecules. This offers high-quality docking that depends on a novel optimization technique.24 The combined binding of the target protein PF0847 with SAM (S-adenosyl-l-methionine), genticin and 16S rRNA A-site was obtained using PyMOL (The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, Version 1.5.0.4, Schrödinger, LLC).
Results
Analysis of physicochemical properties and homology searching
Different physicochemical properties of the hypothetical protein PF0847 were analyzed using ProtParam analysis tool (Table 1). The 248 amino acids containing protein was estimated to possess a molecular mass of 27,905.5 and isoelectric pH at 9.36.
Table 1.
ProtParam tool analysis result.
NO. OF AMINO ACID | MW | pI | (ASP + GLU) | (ARG + LYS) | EXT. COEFFICIENT | ALIPHATIC INDEX (AI) | INSTABILITY INDEX (II) | GRAND AVERAGE OF HYDROPATHICITY (GRAVY) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
248 | 27905.5 | 9.36 | 29 | 37 | 25900 | 98.63 | 25.90 | −0.104 |
Non-redundant database was searched for protein sequences homologous with PF0847, and some of the homologs found are listed in Table 2. The Pfam server identified conserved domain in our targeted protein. MSA was done among the homologs from Table 2, and the output is shown in Figure 1. Using the same data, a phylogenic tree was constructed as shown in Figure 2.
Table 2.
Similar proteins obtained from non-redundant database.
ENTRY NAME | ORGANISM | PROTEIN NAME | IDENTITY | SCORE | E-VALUE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
gi|212375063| | Pyrococcus Furiosus | Methyltransferase | 98% | 436 | 1e-152 |
gi|57641719| | Thermococcus kodakarensis KOD1 | SAM-dependent methyltransferase | 72% | 376 | 9e-129 |
gi|389852483| | Pyrococcus sp. ST04 | SAM-dependent methyltransferase | 73% | 373 | 2e-127 |
gi|350525995| | Thermococcus sp. AM4 | Putative RNA methyltransferase | 73% | 370 | 2e-126 |
gi|545713642| | Galdieria sulphuraria | Ribosomal RNA large subunit methyltransferase F | 35% | 70.5 | 3e-11 |
gi|340783590| | Acidithiobacillus caldus SM-1 | Adenine-specific methylase YfcB | 32% | 68.9 | 1e-10 |
Figure 1.
MSA among different methyltransferase proteins with the target protein at the top row (Sources for the sequences: Row 2 – P. furiosus, Row 3 – T. kodakarensis KOD1, Row 4 – Pyrococcus sp. ST04, Row 5 – Thermococcus sp. AM4, Row 6 – P. yayanosii CH1, Row 7– Pyrococcus sp. NA2 and Row 8 – T. barophilus MP).
Figure 2.
Phylogenetic tree showing average distance among different methyltransferase proteins and the target protein.
Structure analysis and model quality assessment
PSIPRED server was used to predict the secondary structure of the protein (Fig. 3). Tertiary structure of the protein was modeled by MODELLER (Fig. 4). Quality assessment of the predicted tertiary structure was obtained from PROCHECK through “Ramachandran plot” where we found 93.4% amino acid residues within the most favored region (Table 3 and Fig. 5A). The quality of our model was further checked by QMEAN6 server where the model was placed inside the dark zone and considered good (Fig. 5B). Active site of our targeted protein was analyzed by CASTp (Fig. 6). The amino acid residues of the active site were also determined.
Figure 3.
Predicted secondary structure of the protein PF0847.
Figure 4.
Predicted three-dimensional structure of the protein PF0847.
Table 3.
Ramachandran plot statistics of the protein PF0847.
RAMACHANDRAN PLOT STATISTICS | NUMBER OF AA RESIDUES | PERCENTAGE (%) |
---|---|---|
Residues in the most favored regions [A, B, L] | 198 | 93.4% |
Residues in the additional allowed regions [a, b, l, p] | 13 | 6.1% |
Residues in the generously allowed regions [a, b, l, p] | 1 | 0.5% |
Residues in the disallowed regions | 0 | 0.0% |
Number of non-glycine and non-proline residues | 212 | 100.0% |
Number of end-residues (excl. Gly and Pro) | 2 | |
Number of glycine residues (shown in triangles) | 24 | |
Number of proline residues | 10 | |
Total number of residues | 248 |
Figure 5.
Model quality assessment. (A) Ramachandran plot of modeled structure validated by PROCHECK program. (B) Graphical presentation of estimation of absolute quality of model.
Figure 6.
Active site determination of the protein PF0847. (A) The green sphere region indicates the most potent active site. (B) The amino acid residues in the active site.
Biological function analysis
Using our analysis thus far on the protein under study, we relied on molecular docking to find out the probable ligand. Molegro Virtual Docker docked the selected ligand SAM with both the hypothetical protein and the reference protein (3P2 K: D) with grid lines X: 21.84; Y: 10.96; Z: −7.07 and X: 21.87; Y: 10.94; Z: −7.12, respectively. The docking results are shown in Figure 7 and Table 4.
Figure 7.
SAM ligand (red stick) docked in the active site of proteins. (A) SAM-bound antibiotic-related methyltransferase protein (PDB code 3P2K: D). (B) SAM-bound hypothetical protein (PF0847). (C) Interacting amino acid residues of the protein (PDB code 3P2K: D) with SAM. (D) Interacting amino acid residues of the protein PF0847 with SAM. Here blue dots indicate hydrogen bond.
Table 4.
Comparative docking study.
PROTEIN | LIGAND | DOCK SCORE[GRID] (KCAL/MOL) | RMSD (Å) | NO. OF H BONDS | INTERACTING RESIDUES |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hypothetical protein PF0847 | SAM | −141.699 | 8.6798 | 5 | Leu63,His91,Thr92,Asn123,Tyr159, Gly90,Gly62,His59,Tyr58,Ile56, Glu57 |
3P2K: D | SAM | −147.907 | 8.4106 | 7 | Gly32,Asp55,Ala87,Thr109,Glu88, Leu110,Ser195,Pro56,Tyr113, Trp107, Phe105,Thr33 |
To visualize the protein–protein interaction network of the protein PF0847, STRING was employed, and the obtained network is shown in Figure 8. Continuing with the STRING results, we found that geneticin bound to the eubacterial 16S rRNA A-site (PDB code: 1MWL) binds with the active site of the target protein PF0847 (Fig. 9). As we could not find an archaeal rRNA A-site 3D structure entry on the database, we tried to look for the similarity between eubacterial and archaeal rRNA with MSA (Fig. 10).
Figure 8.
STRING network representing the predicted functional partners of the protein PF0847.
Figure 9.
A-site of 16S rRNA (blue) bound to the protein PF0847 (cyan). The zoom view shows that geneticin (yellow) binds with the protein very close to the SAM (red) binding site.
Figure 10.
MSA of the 16S rRNA A-site from different organisms (gi|444303952 was taken from P. furiosus DSM 3638, gi|155076 was taken from the eubacteria T. thermophilus, and 1MWL: A and B were from PDB crystal structure of genticin bound to the eubacterial 16S rRNA A-site).
Discussion
Physicochemical properties of the protein were calculated by the ProtParam server including AI, instability index (II), pI, extinction coefficient and average hydropathicity. The AI is the relative volume occupied by the side chains of amino acids (alanine, leucine, valine and isoleucine). Increase in AI denotes increased thermostability of the globular proteins.25 The calculated II of our protein was 25.90, which means it is stable in test tube condition.26 The extinction coefficient indicates the light absorption capacity.27 pI denotes protein net charge. Most of the calculations in this server demonstrate protein stability, because the stability is related to its proper function.28 PSI-BLAST against non-redundant database revealed 98% similarity with methyltransferase protein. It also found similarity with putative RNA methyltransferase and adenine-specific methylase protein. Pfam server identified mostly conserved methyltransferase domain from 79 to 205 amino acid residues. MSA among the related proteins showed higher conservancy with methyltransferase domain and with the whole protein sequences too. Phylogenetic tree also expressed evolutionary relationship among different methyltransferase-related proteins of both archaeal and eubacterial origins. It also indicated that the target protein PF0847 had some evolutionary relation with eubacterial methyltransferases, even though they were very distant.
The proposed secondary structure predicted by PSIPRED has a good confidence of prediction. Tertiary structure was modeled by MODELLER with multiple templates to cover the whole sequence. Quality of the model was assessed by PROCHECK and is represented by Ramachandran plot (Fig. 5A). According to the plot statistics, 93.4% residues are in the most favored regions [A, B, L], 6.1% residues are in the additional allowed regions [a, b, l, p], and 0.0% residues are in the disallowed regions – a statistics that reveals a good model. QMEAN6 server assessment (Fig. 5B) result showed that the Z score of the predicted model was 0.18, which indicates a high-quality model. Active site of the protein predicted by CASTp server (Fig. 6) gives insight about the active site cleft and the amino acid residues that interact with different ligands.
STRING interaction network revealed that our targeted protein (PF0847) interacted with four different proteins for its functioning. The protein flpA (PF0059) from P. furiosus, which is involved in pre-rRNA and tRNA processing, interacted experimentally with our protein.22 The protein flpA utilizes the methyl donor SAM to catalyze the site-specific 2′-hydroxyl methylation of ribose moieties in rRNA and tRNA. Site specificity is provided by a guide RNA that base pairs with the substrate. Methylation occurs at a characteristic distance from the sequence involved in base pairing with the guide RNA.29,30 The target protein also showed interactions with hypothetical proteins PF0213, PF0848 and radA, which are involved in DNA repair and recombination pathways.
Molegro Virtual Docker (MVD) performed docking between SAM ligand and our targeted protein within an integrated environment. The ligand SAM was fetched from an antibiotic-related methyltransferase protein (PDB code 3P2K: D). SAM ligand docked with both reference and targeted proteins active site (Fig. 7), and the docking results revealed that for both the bindings, the binding energy was similar (Table 4). RMSD value is an indication of how significant the computer-derived docking is, and smaller values indicate better docking. The RMSD values for the docking of SAM ligand to PF0847 and the reference protein were very close, which suggests a significant binding of SAM with PF0847.
From the insights of the STRING interaction network, we found that our targeted protein also binds with the geneticin bound to the eubacterial 16S rRNA A-site (Fig. 9). It has been reported that P. furiosus confers antibiotic resistance through the modification of their 23S rRNA31 and as a highly recombinogenic4–8 organism, there is significant similarity between the bacterial and archeal ribosome.32 The crystal structure of an archaeal 16S rRNA A-site would be more convenient to compare the binding to PF0847, but no such archaeal structures were available on the database and we had to use the eubacterial structure. To further support our use of an eubacterial structure in the context of archaeal study, we showed the MSA of 16S rRNA A-site from archea (P. furiosus), eubacteria (Thermus thermophilus), and our bound crystal structure, which showed a strong alignment (Fig. 10). Resistance mechanism of many bacteria against aminoglycoside antibiotics through 16S rRNA methyltransferase has been reported in many articles.33–37
Conclusion
The study was designed to predict the three-dimensional structure and biological function of the hypothetical protein PF0847 of P. furiosus DSM 3638. All the above findings suggested the function of the target protein to be a SAM-dependent methyltransferase. The interaction of the protein with ribosomal A-site of bacteria further proposed its function as an aminoglycoside antibiotic resistance conferring protein. It needs further verification through laboratory experiments to validate the proposed function of the protein PF0847. But with the strong correlation that we showed in our in silico study, this protein will surely be of some interest—especially for those who are working with aminoglycoside resistance conferring proteins. We also encourage similar studies on other hypothetical proteins. We feel that extensive studies on this path might produce some breakthrough leads for future biomedical research.
Footnotes
ACADEMIC EDITOR: J.T. Efird, Associate Editor
FUNDING: Author(s) disclose no funding sources.
COMPETING INTERESTS: Author(s) disclose no potential conflicts of interest.
Author Contributions
ARO and SAIA conceived and designed the experiments. ARO and TPJ analyzed the data. ARO wrote the first draft of the manuscript. ARO, TPJ, and SAIA agreed with manuscript results and conclusions. ARO and SAIA jointly developed the structure and arguments for the paper. SAIA made critical revisions and approved the final version. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
DISCLOSURES AND ETHICS
As a requirement of publication the authors have provided signed confirmation of their compliance with ethical and legal obligations including but not limited to compliance with ICMJE authorship and competing interests guidelines, that the article is neither under consideration for publication nor published elsewhere, of their compliance with legal and ethical guidelines concerning human and animal research participants (if applicable), and that permission has been obtained for reproduction of any copyrighted material. This article was subject to blind, independent, expert peer review. The reviewers reported no competing interests.
References
- 1.Robb FT, Maeder DL, Brown JR, DiRuggiero J, Stump MD, Yeh RK, et al. Genomic sequence of hyperthermophile, Pyrococcus furiosus: implications for physiology and enzymology. Methods Enzymol. 2001;330:134–57. doi: 10.1016/s0076-6879(01)30372-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Blumer-Schuette SE, Kataeva I, Westpheling J, Adams MWW, Kelly RM. Extremely thermophilic microorganisms for biomass conversion: status and prospects. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2008;19(3):210–7. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2008.04.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Stetter KO. Hyperthermophilic procaryotes. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 1996;18(2–3):149–58. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Deng L, Zhu H, Chen Z, Liang YX, She Q. Unmarked gene deletion and host-vector system for the hyperthermophilic crenarchaeon. Sulfolobus islandicus. Extremophiles. 2009;13(4):735–46. doi: 10.1007/s00792-009-0254-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Grogan DW, Stengel KR. Recombination of synthetic oligonucleotides with prokaryotic chromosomes: substrate requirements of the Escherichia coli/λRed and Sulfolobus acidocaldarius recombination systems. Mol Microbiol. 2008;69(5):1255–65. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2008.06356.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kurosawa N, Grogan DW. Homologous recombination of exogenous DNA with the Sulfolobus acidocaldarius genome: properties and uses. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2005;253(1):141–9. doi: 10.1016/j.femsle.2005.09.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Lipscomb GL, Stirrett K, Schut GJ, Yang F, Jenney FE, Scott RA, et al. Natural competence in the hyperthermophilic archaeon Pyrococcus furiosus facilitates genetic manipulation: construction of markerless deletions of genes encoding the two cytoplasmic hydrogenases. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77(7):2232–8. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02624-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Sato T, Fukui T, Atomi H, Imanaka T. Targeted gene disruption by homologous recombination in the hyperthermophilic archaeon Thermococcus kodakaraensis KOD1. J Bacteriol. 2003;185(1):210–20. doi: 10.1128/JB.185.1.210-220.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Bhatia U, Robison K, Gilbert W. Dealing with database explosion: a cautionary note. Science. 1997;276(5319):1724–5. doi: 10.1126/science.276.5319.1724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Cubrilo S, Babic F, Douthwaite S, Maravić Vlahovicek G. The aminoglycoside resistance methyltransferase Sgm impedes RsmF methylation at an adjacent rRNA nucleotide in the ribosomal A site. RNA. 2009;15(8):1492–7. doi: 10.1261/rna.1618809. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Gasteiger E, Hoogland C, Gattiker A, Wilkins MR, Appel RD, Bairoch A. Protein identification and analysis tools on the ExPASy server. In: Walker JM, editor. The Proteomics Protocols Handbook. Springer; 2005. pp. 571–607. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Punta M, Coggill PC, Eberhardt RY, Mistry J, Tate J, Boursnell C, et al. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(Database issue):D290–D301. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr1065. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Hall TA. BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp Ser. 1999;41:95–8. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Waterhouse AM, Procter JB, Martin DMA, Clamp MI, Barton GJ. Jalview Version 2 – a multiple sequence alignment editor and analysis workbench. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:1189–91. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Jones DT. Protein secondary structure prediction based on position-specific scoring matrices. J Mol Biol. 1999;292(2):195–202. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1999.3091. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Sali A, Potterton L, Yuan F, van Vlijmen H, Karplus M. Evaluation of comparative protein modeling by MODELLER. Proteins. 1995;23(3):318–26. doi: 10.1002/prot.340230306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Söding J. Protein homology detection by HMM-HMM comparison. Bioinformatics. 2005;21(7):951–60. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Söding J, Biegert A, Lupas AN. The HHpred interactive server for protein homology detection and structure prediction. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33(suppl 2):W244–8. doi: 10.1093/nar/gki408. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Laskowski RA, Rullmann JAC, MacArthur MW, Kaptein R, Thornton JM. AQUA and PROCHECK-NMR: programs for checking the quality of protein structures solved by NMR. J Biomol NMR. 1996;8(4):477–86. doi: 10.1007/BF00228148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Benkert P, Biasini M, Schwede T. Toward the estimation of the absolute quality of individual protein structure models. Bioinformatics. 2011;27(3):343–50. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq662. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Arnold K, Bordoli L, Kopp J, Schwede T. The SWISS-MODEL workspace: a web-based environment for protein structure homology modelling. Bioinformatics. 2006;22(2):195–201. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti770. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Franceschini A, Szklarczyk D, Frankild S, Kuhn M, Simonovic M, Roth A, et al. STRING v9. 1: protein-protein interaction networks, with increased coverage and integration. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(Database issue):D808–15. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1094. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Dundas J, Ouyang Z, Tseng J, Binkowski A, Turpaz Y, Liang J. CASTp: computed atlas of surface topography of proteins with structural and topographical mapping of functionally annotated residues. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34(suppl 2):W116–8. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkl282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Thomsen R, Christensen MH. MolDock: a new technique for high-accuracy molecular docking. J Med Chem. 2006;49(11):3315–21. doi: 10.1021/jm051197e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Atsushi I. Thermostability and aliphatic index of globular proteins. J Biochem. 1980;88(6):1895–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Guruprasad K, Reddy BVB, Pandit MW. Correlation between stability of a protein and its dipeptide composition: a novel approach for predicting in vivo stability of a protein from its primary sequence. Protein Eng. 1990;4(2):155–61. doi: 10.1093/protein/4.2.155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Gill SC, Von Hippel PH. Calculation of protein extinction coefficients from amino acid sequence data. Anal Biochem. 1989;182(2):319–26. doi: 10.1016/0003-2697(89)90602-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Shoichet BK, Baase WA, Kuroki R, Matthews BW. A relationship between protein stability and protein function. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995;92(2):452–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.92.2.452. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Xue S, Wang R, Yang F, Terns RM, Terns MP, Zhang X, et al. Structural basis for substrate placement by an archaeal box C/D ribonucleoprotein particle. Mol Cell. 2010;39(6):939–49. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.08.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Lapinaite A, Simon B, Skjaerven L, Rakwalska-Bange M, Gabel F, Carlomagno T. The structure of the box C/D enzyme reveals regulation of RNA methylation. Nature. 2013;502(7472):519–23. doi: 10.1038/nature12581. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Aagaard C, Leviev I, Aravalli RN, Forterre P, Prieur D, Garrett RA. General vectors for archaeal hyperthermophiles: strategies based on a mobile intron and a plasmid. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 1996;18(2–3):93–104. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.1996.tb00229.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Lee JC, Gutell RR. A comparison of the crystal structures of eukaryotic and bacterial SSU ribosomal RNAs reveals common structural features in the hypervariable regions. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e38203. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Macmaster R, Zelinskaya N, Savic M, Rankin CR, Conn GL. Structural insights into the function of aminoglycoside-resistance A1408 16S rRNA methyltransferases from antibiotic-producing and human pathogenic bacteria. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38(21):7791–9. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq627. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Liou GF, Yoshizawa S, Courvalin P, Galimand M. Aminoglycoside resistance by ArmA-mediated ribosomal 16S methylation in human bacterial pathogens. J Mol Biol. 2006;359(2):358–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2006.03.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Wachino J-I, Shibayama K, Kurokawa H, Kimura K, Yamane K, Suzuki S, et al. Novel plasmid-mediated 16S rRNA m1 A1408 methyltransferase, NpmA, found in a clinically isolated Escherichia coli strain resistant to structurally diverse aminoglycosides. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51(12):4401–9. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00926-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Doi Y, Arakawa Y. 16S ribosomal RNA methylation: emerging resistance mechanism against aminoglycosides. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45(1):88–94. doi: 10.1086/518605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Vicens Q, Westhof E. Crystal structure of geneticin bound to a bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA A site oligonucleotide. J Mol Biol. 2003;326(4):1175–88. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2836(02)01435-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]