Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Antiparallel and parallel β-strands differ in amino acid residue preferences

Abstract

A β-strand is a particular type of extended sequence of amino acid residues, an element of secondary structure of proteins. β-sheets are an assembly of strands, often bringing together parts of the protein which are separated along the backbone. As such, β-sheets are an element of tertiary structure. Parallel βP) and antiparallel (βA) arrangements of strands in a sheet differ in the hydrogen bond pattern between strands, as shown schematically in Fig. 1, and in the type of chain connectivity they allow: short reverse turn connections for βA and longer crossover connections for βP (refs 1–3). Most present secondary structure prediction methods (for reviews refs 4–6) use a four-state distinction of secondary structure: α-helix, β-strand or extended, reverse turn, and ‘random coil’ (everything else). With a data base of 30–40 different protein structures, the conformational preferences for all amino acid residues in these four states seem to have converged7. However, the steadily increasing data base of structurally known proteins makes a refinement of the four-state description feasible. Although more refined classifications of conformational states based on finer subdivisions of (φ,Ψ)-space have been made8,9, we prefer making distinctions based on structural environment. Using a novel definition of β-sheet structure in terms of the tertiary structure juxtaposition of strands, we have analysed residue contacts in known β-sheets and report here secondary structure preferences for the 20 amino acids, separately for antiparallel and parallel arrangements of strands. The distinction between the two arrangements results in strikingly different and sharpened sets of preference parameters, including some of the largest values reported so far for any substructure. These results point the way towards a basic improvement of secondary structure predictions by further distinction of secondary structure elements according to tertiary structure environment. Beyond secondary structure prediction, the different preferences for βA and βP may aid in predicting the tertiary interaction between strands.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Levitt, M. & Chothia, C. Nature 261, 552–558 (1976).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Richardson, J. S. Nature 268, 495–500 (1977).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sternberg, M. J. E. & Thornton, J. M. J. molec. Biol. 115, 1–17 (1977).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Chou, P. Y. & Fasman, F. D. A. Rev. Biochem. 47, 251–276 (1978).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sternberg, M. J. E. & Thornton, J. M. Nature 271, 15–20 (1978).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Schulz, G. E. & Schirmer, R. H. Principles of Protein Structure (Springer, New York, 1979).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Robson, B. & Suzuki, E. J. molec. Biol. 107, 327–356 (1976).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Robson, B. & Pain, R. H. Biochem. J. 141, 869–882 (1974).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Burgess, A. W., Ponnuswamy, P. K. & Scheraga, H. A. Israel J. Chem. 12, 239–286 (1975).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lifson, S. & Sander, C. J. molec. Biol. (submitted).

  11. Feldman, R. J. AMSOM Atlas of Molecular Structures on Microfiche (U.S. NIH, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Levitt, M. Biochemistry 17, 4277–4285 (1978).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Chou, P. Y. & Fasman, G. D. Biochemistry 13, 222–245 (1974).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gamier, J., Osguthorpe, D. J. & Robson, B. J. molec. Biol. 120, 97–120 (1978).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Levitt, M. & Greer, J. J. molec. Biol. 114, 181–239 (1977).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Chou, P. Y. & Fasman, G. D. J. molec. Biol. 115, 135–175 (1977).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Sander, C. & Schulz, G. E. J. molec. Evolut. (in the press).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lifson, S., Sander, C. Antiparallel and parallel β-strands differ in amino acid residue preferences. Nature 282, 109–111 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1038/282109a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/282109a0

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing