Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2017 (2017), Article ID 2617629, 9 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2617629
Research Article

Dissection of Factors Affecting the Variability of the Peptide Bond Geometry and Planarity

1Istituto di Biostrutture e Bioimmagini, CNR, Napoli, Italy
2Istituto di Calcolo e Reti ad Alte Prestazioni, CNR, Napoli, Italy

Correspondence should be addressed to Nicole Balasco and Luigi Vitagliano

Received 3 July 2017; Accepted 5 September 2017; Published 15 October 2017

Academic Editor: Rita Casadio

Copyright © 2017 Nicole Balasco et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. K. A. Dill and J. L. MacCallum, “The protein-folding problem, 50 years on,” Science, vol. 338, no. 6110, pp. 1042–1046, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. G. D. Rose, P. J. Fleming, J. R. Banavar, and A. Maritan, “A backbone-based theory of protein folding,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 103, no. 45, pp. 16623–16633, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. R. Casadio, P. Fariselli, P. L. Martelli, and G. Tasco, “Thinking the impossible: How to solve the protein folding problem with and without homologous structures and more,” Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 350, pp. 305–320, 2006. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. R. W. Newberry and R. T. Raines, “A prevalent intraresidue hydrogen bond stabilizes proteins,” Nature Chemical Biology, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. G. J. Bartlett, A. Choudhary, R. T. Raines, and D. N. Woolfson, “ interactions in proteins,” Nature Chemical Biology, vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 615–620, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  6. L. Esposito, N. Balasco, A. De Simone, R. Berisio, and L. Vitagliano, “Interplay between peptide bond geometrical parameters in nonglobular structural contexts,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2013, Article ID 326914, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. R. Improta, L. Vitagliano, and L. Esposito, “The determinants of bond angle variability in protein/peptide backbones: A comprehensive statistical/quantum mechanics analysis,” Proteins: Structure, Function and Bioinformatics, vol. 83, no. 11, pp. 1973–1986, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. R. Improta, L. Vitagliano, and L. Esposito, “Bond distances in polypeptide backbones depend on the local conformation,” Acta Crystallographica Section D: Biological Crystallography, vol. 71, pp. 1272–1283, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. P. A. Karplus, “Experimentally observed conformation-dependent geometry and hidden strain in proteins,” Protein Science, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 1406–1420, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. L. Esposito, L. Vitagliano, A. Zagari, and L. Mazzarella, “Experimental evidence for the correlation of bond distances in peptide groups detected in ultrahigh-resolution protein structures,” Protein Engineering, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 825–828, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. L. Esposito, L. Vitagliano, A. Zagari, and L. Mazzarella, “Pyramidalization of backbone carbonyl carbon atoms in proteins,” Protein Science, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 2038–2042, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. L. Esposito, A. De Simone, A. Zagari, and L. Vitagliano, “Correlation between ω and ψ dihedral angles in protein structures,” Journal of Molecular Biology, vol. 347, no. 3, pp. 483–487, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. R. Improta, L. Vitagliano, and L. Esposito, “Peptide bond distortions from planarity: New insights from quantum mechanical calculations and peptide/protein crystal structures,” PLoS ONE, vol. 6, no. 9, Article ID e24533, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. D. S. Berkholz, M. V. Shapovalov, R. L. Dunbrack Jr., and P. A. Karplus, “Conformation Dependence of Backbone Geometry in Proteins,” Structure, vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 1316–1325, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. M. W. MacArthur and J. M. Thornton, “Deviations from planarity of the peptide bond in peptides and proteins,” Journal of Molecular Biology, vol. 264, no. 5, pp. 1180–1195, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. D. S. Berkholz, P. B. Krenesky, J. R. Davidson, and P. A. Karplus, “Protein Geometry Database: A flexible engine to explore backbone conformations and their relationships to covalent geometry,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 38, no. 1, Article ID gkp1013, pp. D320–D325, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. D. E. Tronrud, D. S. Berkholz, and P. A. Karplus, “Using a conformation-dependent stereochemical library improves crystallographic refinement of proteins,” Acta Crystallographica Section D: Biological Crystallography, vol. 66, no. 7, pp. 834–842, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. D. S. Berkholz, C. M. Driggers, M. V. Shapovalov, R. L. Dunbrack Jr., and P. A. Karplus, “Nonplanar peptide bonds in proteins are common and conserved but not biased toward active sites,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 449–453, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. E. I. Howard, R. Sanishvili, R. E. Cachau et al., “Ultrahigh resolution drug design I: Details of interactions in human aldose reductase-inhibitor complex at 0.66 Å,” Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 792–804, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. P. A. Karplus, M. V. Shapovalov, R. L. Dunbrack, and D. S. Berkholz, “A forward-looking suggestion for resolving the stereochemical restraints debate: Ideal geometry functions,” Acta Crystallographica Section D: Biological Crystallography, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 335-336, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. M. Jaskolski, M. Gilski, Z. Dauter, and A. Wlodawer, “Stereochemical restraints revisited: How accurate are refinement targets and how much should protein structures be allowed to deviate from them?” Acta Crystallographica Section D: Biological Crystallography, vol. 63, no. 5, Article ID wd5076, pp. 611–620, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. I. J. Tickle, “Experimental determination of optimal root-mean-square deviations of macromolecular bond lengths and angles from their restrained ideal values,” Acta Crystallographica Section D: Biological Crystallography, vol. 63, no. 12, pp. 1274–1281, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. A. Q. Zhou, C. S. O'Hern, and L. Regan, “Revisiting the Ramachandran plot from a new angle,” Protein Science, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 1166–1171, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. D. Caballero, J. Määttä, A. Q. Zhou, M. Sammalkorpi, C. S. O'Hern, and L. Regan, “Intrinsic α-helical and β-sheet conformational preferences: A computational case study of Alanine,” Protein Science, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 970–980, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. P. Conway, M. D. Tyka, F. DiMaio, D. E. Konerding, and D. Baker, “Relaxation of backbone bond geometry improves protein energy landscape modeling,” Protein Science, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 47–55, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. P. Bradley, K. M. S. Misura, and D. Baker, “Toward high-resolution de novo structure prediction for small proteins,” Science, vol. 309, no. 5742, pp. 1868–1871, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. S. M. Malathy Sony, K. Saraboji, N. Sukumar, and M. N. Ponnuswamy, “Role of amino acid properties to determine backbone τ(N-Cα-C) stretching angle in peptides and proteins,” Biophysical Chemistry, vol. 120, no. 1, pp. 24–31, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. W. G. Touw and G. Vriend, “On the complexity of Engh and Huber refinement restraints: The angle τ as example,” Acta Crystallographica Section D: Biological Crystallography, vol. 66, no. 12, pp. 1341–1350, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. N. Balasco, L. Esposito, and L. Vitagliano, “Factors affecting the amplitude of the τ angle in proteins: a revisitation,” Acta Crystallographica, vol. D73, pp. 618–625, 2017. View at Google Scholar
  30. G. Wang and R. L. Dunbrack Jr., “PISCES: a protein sequence culling server,” Bioinformatics, vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 1589–1591, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. W. Kabsch and C. Sander, “Dictionary of protein secondary structure: pattern recognition of hydrogen-bonded and geometrical features,” Biopolymers—Peptide Science Section, vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 2577–2637, 1983. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. R. A. Engh and R. Huber, “Accurate bond and angle parameters for X‐ray protein structure refinement,” Acta Crystallographica Section A, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 392–400, 1991. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. R. L. Dunbrack and M. Karplus, “Conformational analysis of the backbone-dependent rotamer preferences of protein sidechains,” Nature Structural Biology, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 334–340, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. R. L. Dunbrack Jr., “Rotamer libraries in the 21st century,” Current Opinion in Structural Biology, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 431–440, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus