Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is this an ID article?

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Emergence of protein fold families through rational design
Feng Ding1, Nikolay V Dokholyan1¤

1 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Biochemistry and Biophysics, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America

PROVISIONAL ABSTRACT
Diverse proteins with similar structures are grouped into families of homologs and analogs if their sequence similarity is correspondingly higher or lower than 20-30%. It was suggested that protein homologs and analogs originate from a common ancestor and diverge in their distinct evolutionary time scales, emerging as a consequence of the physical properties of the protein sequence space. Although a number of studies have determined key signatures of protein family organization, the sequence-structure factors that differentiate the two evolution-related protein families remain unknown. Here, we stipulate that subtle structural changes, which appear due to accumulating mutations in the homologous families, lead to distinct packing of the protein core and, thus, novel compositions of core residues. The latter process leads to the formation of distinct families of homologs. We propose that such differentiation results in the formation of analogous families. To test our postulate, we develop a molecular modeling and design toolkit, Medusa, to computationally design protein sequences that correspond to the same fold family. We find that analogous proteins emerge when a backbone structure deviate only 1-2 Ã… root-mean-square deviation from the original structure. For close homologs, core residues are highly conserved. However, when the overall sequence similarity drops to ~25-30%, the composition of core residues starts to diverge, thereby forming novel families of protein homologs. This direct observation of the formation of protein homologs within a specific fold family supports our hypothesis. The conservation of amino acids in designed sequences recapitulates that of the naturally occurring sequences, thereby validating our computational design methodology.

http://compbiol.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020085.eor

Comments
This is an absolutely stunning hypothesus. Application of this technique to homologous families of pigmentation as they are known to occur on flat canvas surfaces, we should soon be able to determine the exact sequence of evolutionary steps that occurred in the formation of the painting of Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa".glennj
July 15, 2006
July
07
Jul
15
15
2006
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
I don't see the disclaimer there ("This paper in no way endorses Intelligent Design"), so you may be onto something, Bill.Mats
July 15, 2006
July
07
Jul
15
15
2006
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT

As best as I can determine, no. However, the writing is so awkward that one can not be entirely certain. I *think* they are trying to account for the two basic flavors of "related" proteins. There are those that share sequence identity of a certain level (homologues)and those that have common fold structures but no discernable sequence identity (analogues). Homologues are pretty much accepted as derived from a common ancestral protein that has diverged. Many believe analogues are just very deeply diverged yet still share common ancestry deep in the past. Others, however, believe they have, via convergent evolution (a la placentals/marsupials) independently settled upon these common fold forms because there is a limited amount of protein "niche-space" that is biologically useful...

I *think* the authors are trying to support the former view, arguing that the lack of sequence identity found among analogues is due to a re-shuffling of core fold-determining amino acids resulting from modest perturbations in the backbone angles. To accomplish this, they create some initial proteins, subject them to a mutation regiment (in this case structural) combined with a reasonable energy function (i.e. how stable is the fold), pick amino acids substitutions to accomodate the structural mutations, and just see what happens to the overall sequence identity. What they find is that when the backbone structure is kept within certain bounds, sequence homology is retained (i.e. homologue protein families) but if the backbone is allowed to deviate a modest amount, the core sequence diverges appreciably and identity is lost (analogues) even though the essential fold structure remains present. Bottom line: proteins that fold differently have different amino acids. Not very earthshattering. But the usefulness here is in the details, the ranges of parameters. How much structural change amounts to x% sequence identity change? This takes a stab at that question.
The bottom line: a little bit of wandering in backbone structure space can take you
over the edge" in terms of sequence identity space. As a result, after such wandering, proteins that had a common ancestor would often still be able to be grouped via common fold (as analogues) but not by sequence identity (as homologues).

"rational design," a name used for the protein sequence determination process, is I think an unfortunate label for the concept. They are trying to hype the notion that we have or will have the power to design proteins from scratch--via these and similar computational methods--that will conform to some structural and, and presumably functional, specification. Aside from antibodies and a few other minor exceptions, I wouldn't bank on this happening any time soon.

A lot of words to say there's more than one way to skin a cat. -ds great_ape
July 14, 2006
July
07
Jul
14
14
2006
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT