4.7 Article

Relation between sequence and structure in membrane proteins

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 29, 期 13, 页码 1589-1592

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt249

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion [SAF2010-22198-C02-02]
  2. Instituto de Salud Carlos III [RD07/0067/0008]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) [31003A_132815]
  4. ETH Zurich within the framework of the National Center for Competence in Research in Structural Biology Program
  5. Agencia de Gestio d'Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca (AGAUR) [2009SGR-581]
  6. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [31003A_132815] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivation: Integral polytopic membrane proteins contain only two types of folds in their transmembrane domains: alpha-helix bundles and beta-barrels. The increasing number of available crystal structures of these proteins permits an initial estimation of how sequence variability affects the structure conservation in their transmembrane domains. We, thus, aim to determine the pairwise sequence identity necessary to maintain the transmembrane molecular architectures compatible with the hydrophobic nature of the lipid bilayer. Results: Root-mean-square deviation (rmsd) and sequence identity were calculated from the structural alignments of pairs of homologous polytopic membrane proteins sharing the same fold. Analysis of these data reveals that transmembrane segment pairs with sequence identity in the so-called 'twilight zone' (20-35%) display high-structural similarity (rmsd < 1.5 angstrom). Moreover, a large group of beta-barrel pairs with low-sequence identity (< 20%) still maintain a close structural similarity (rmsd < 2.5 angstrom). Thus, we conclude that fold preservation in transmembrane regions requires less sequence conservation than for globular proteins. These findings have direct implications in homology modeling of evolutionary-related membrane proteins.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据