Skip Navigation


Bioinformatics Advance Access originally published online on May 17, 2007
Bioinformatics 2007 23(15):1909-1918; doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm274
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (Print PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
23/15/1909    most recent
btm274v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Guharoy, M.
Right arrow Articles by Chakrabarti, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Guharoy, M.
Right arrow Articles by Chakrabarti, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Secondary structure based analysis and classification of biological interfaces: identification of binding motifs in protein–protein interactions

Mainak Guharoy and Pinak Chakrabarti *

Department of Biochemistry, Bose Institute, P-1/12 CIT Scheme VIIM, Kolkata 700054, India

*To whom correspondence should be addressed.


  Abstract

Motivation: The increasing amount of data on protein–protein interaction needs to be rationalized for deriving guidelines for the alteration or design of an interface between two proteins.

Results: We present a detaild structural analysis and comparison of homo- versus heterodimeric protein–protein interfaces. Regular secondary structures (helices and strands) are the main components of the former, whereas non-regular structures (turns, loops, etc.) frequently mediate interactions in the latter. Interface helices get longer with increasing interface area, but only in heterocomplexes. On average, the homodimers have longer helical segments and prominent helix–helix pairs. There is a surprising distinction in the relative orientation of interface helices, with a tendency for aligned packing in homodimers and a clear preference for packing at 90° in heterodimers. Arg and the aromatic residues have a higher preference to occur in all secondary structural elements (SSEs) in the interface. Based on the dominant SSE, the interfaces have been grouped into four classes: {alpha}, ß, {alpha}ß and non-regular. Identity between protein and interface classes is the maximum for {alpha} proteins, but rather mediocre for the other protein classes. The interface classes of the two chains forming a heterodimer are often dissimilar. Eleven binding motifs can capture the prominent architectural features of most of the interfaces.

Contact: pinak{at}boseinst.ernet.in

Supplementary information: A separate file is provided with 3 tables and 2 figures, which are referred to with a prefix ‘S’ in text.

Associate Editor: Martin Bishop

Received on February 13, 2007; revised on May 8, 2007; accepted on May 14, 2007

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.