Abstract
Predictive methods for the computational design of proteins search for amino acid sequences adopting desired structures that perform specific functions. Typically, design of 'function' is formulated as engineering new and altered binding activities into proteins. Progress in the design of functional protein-protein interactions is directed toward engineering proteins to precisely control biological processes by specifically recognizing desired interaction partners while avoiding competitors. The field is aiming for strategies to harness recent advances in high-resolution computational modeling—particularly those exploiting protein conformational variability—to engineer new functions and incorporate many functional requirements simultaneously.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $21.58 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ponder, J.W. & Richards, F.M. Tertiary templates for proteins. Use of packing criteria in the enumeration of allowed sequences for different structural classes. J. Mol. Biol. 193, 775–791 (1987).
Hellinga, H.W. & Richards, F.M. Construction of new ligand binding sites in proteins of known structure. I. Computer-aided modeling of sites with pre-defined geometry. J. Mol. Biol. 222, 763–785 (1991).
Richardson, J.S. & Richardson, D.C. The de novo design of protein structures. Trends Biochem. Sci. 14, 304–309 (1989).
Bolon, D.N., Marcus, J.S., Ross, S.A. & Mayo, S.L. Prudent modeling of core polar residues in computational protein design. J. Mol. Biol. 329, 611–622 (2003).
Dahiyat, B.I. & Mayo, S.L. Probing the role of packing specificity in protein design. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 10172–10177 (1997).
Desjarlais, J.R. & Handel, T.M. De novo design of the hydrophobic cores of proteins. Protein Sci. 4, 2006–2018 (1995).
Desjarlais, J.R. & Handel, T.M. Side-chain and backbone flexibility in protein core design. J. Mol. Biol. 290, 305–318 (1999).
Kuhlman, B. & Baker, D. Exploring folding free energy landscapes using computational protein design. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 14, 89–95 (2004).
Dahiyat, B.I. & Mayo, S.L. De novo protein design: fully automated sequence selection. Science 278, 82–87 (1997).
Harbury, P.B., Plecs, J.J., Tidor, B., Alber, T. & Kim, P.S. High-resolution protein design with backbone freedom. Science 282, 1462–1467 (1998).
Kuhlman, B. et al. Design of a novel globular protein fold with atomic-level accuracy. Science 302, 1364–1368 (2003).
Hellinga, H.W. Metalloprotein design. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 7, 437–441 (1996).
Hellinga, H.W., Caradonna, J.P. & Richards, F.M. Construction of new ligand binding sites in proteins of known structure. II. Grafting of a buried transition metal binding site into Escherichia coli thioredoxin. J. Mol. Biol. 222, 787–803 (1991).
Chevalier, B.S. et al. Design, activity, and structure of a highly specific artificial endonuclease. Mol. Cell 10, 895–905 (2002).
Grigoryan, G., Reinke, A.W. & Keating, A.E. Design of protein-interaction specificity gives selective bZIP-binding peptides. Nature 458, 859–864 (2009).
Kortemme, T. et al. Computational redesign of protein-protein interaction specificity. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 11, 371–379 (2004).
Reina, J. et al. Computer-aided design of a PDZ domain to recognize new target sequences. Nat. Struct. Biol. 9, 621–627 (2002).
Shifman, J.M. & Mayo, S.L. Modulating calmodulin binding specificity through computational protein design. J. Mol. Biol. 323, 417–423 (2002).
Shifman, J.M. & Mayo, S.L. Exploring the origins of binding specificity through the computational redesign of calmodulin. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 13274–13279 (2003).
Palmer, A.E. et al. Ca2+ indicators based on computationally redesigned calmodulin-peptide pairs. Chem. Biol. 13, 521–530 (2006).
Looger, L.L., Dwyer, M.A., Smith, J.J. & Hellinga, H.W. Computational design of receptor and sensor proteins with novel functions. Nature 423, 185–190 (2003).
Ashworth, J. et al. Computational redesign of endonuclease DNA binding and cleavage specificity. Nature 441, 656–659 (2006).
Jiang, L. et al. De novo computational design of retro-aldol enzymes. Science 319, 1387–1391 (2008).
Röthlisberger, D. et al. Kemp elimination catalysts by computational enzyme design. Nature 453, 190–195 (2008).
Bloom, J.D. & Arnold, F.H. In the light of directed evolution: pathways of adaptive protein evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106 (suppl. 1), 9995–10000 (2009).
Kortemme, T. & Baker, D. Computational design of protein-protein interactions. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 8, 91–97 (2004).
Lippow, S.M. & Tidor, B. Progress in computational protein design. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 18, 305–311 (2007).
Karanicolas, J. & Kuhlman, B. Computational design of affinity and specificity at protein-protein interfaces. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 19, 458–463 (2009).
Schueler-Furman, O., Wang, C., Bradley, P., Misura, K. & Baker, D. Progress in modeling of protein structures and interactions. Science 310, 638–642 (2005).
Street, A.G. & Mayo, S.L. Pairwise calculation of protein solvent-accessible surface areas. Fold. Des. 3, 253–258 (1998).
Marshall, S.A., Vizcarra, C.L. & Mayo, S.L. One- and two-body decomposable Poisson-Boltzmann methods for protein design calculations. Protein Sci. 14, 1293–1304 (2005).
Pokala, N. & Handel, T.M. Energy functions for protein design I: efficient and accurate continuum electrostatics and solvation. Protein Sci. 13, 925–936 (2004).
Wisz, M.S. & Hellinga, H.W. An empirical model for electrostatic interactions in proteins incorporating multiple geometry-dependent dielectric constants. Proteins 51, 360–377 (2003).
Lazaridis, T. & Karplus, M. Effective energy function for proteins in solution. Proteins 35, 133–152 (1999).
Butterfoss, G.L. & Kuhlman, B. Computer-based design of novel protein structures. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 35, 49–65 (2006).
Boas, F.E. & Harbury, P.B. Potential energy functions for protein design. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 17, 199–204 (2007).
Vizcarra, C.L. & Mayo, S.L. Electrostatics in computational protein design. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 9, 622–626 (2005).
Haidar, J. et al. Structure-based design of a T-cell receptor leads to nearly 100-fold improvement in binding affinity for pepMHC. Proteins 74, 948–960 (2009).
Lippow, S.M., Wittrup, K.D. & Tidor, B. Computational design of antibody-affinity improvement beyond in vivo maturation. Nat. Biotechnol. 25, 1171–1176 (2007).
Sammond, D.W. et al. Structure-based protocol for identifying mutations that enhance protein-protein binding affinities. J. Mol. Biol. 371, 1392–1404 (2007).
Song, G. et al. Rational design of intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1) variants for antagonizing integrin lymphocyte function-associated antigen-1-dependent adhesion. J. Biol. Chem. 281, 5042–5049 (2006).
Reynolds, K.A. et al. Computational redesign of the SHV-1 beta-lactamase/beta-lactamase inhibitor protein interface. J. Mol. Biol. 382, 1265–1275 (2008).
Hao, J. et al. Identification and rational redesign of peptide ligands to CRIP1, a novel biomarker for cancers. PLoS Comput. Biol. 4, e1000138 (2008).
Schreiber, G., Shaul, Y. & Gottschalk, K.E. Electrostatic design of protein-protein association rates. Methods Mol. Biol. 340, 235–249 (2006).
Joachimiak, L.A., Kortemme, T., Stoddard, B.L. & Baker, D. Computational design of a new hydrogen bond network and at least a 300-fold specificity switch at a protein-protein interface. J. Mol. Biol. 361, 195–208 (2006).
Havranek, J.J. & Harbury, P.B. Automated design of specificity in molecular recognition. Nat. Struct. Biol. 10, 45–52 (2003).
Bolon, D.N., Grant, R.A., Baker, T.A. & Sauer, R.T. Specificity versus stability in computational protein design. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 12724–12729 (2005).
Bishop, A.C. et al. A chemical switch for inhibitor-sensitive alleles of any protein kinase. Nature 407, 395–401 (2000).
Han, J.D. et al. Evidence for dynamically organized modularity in the yeast protein-protein interaction network. Nature 430, 88–93 (2004).
Humphris, E.L. & Kortemme, T. Design of multi-specificity in protein interfaces. PLoS Comput. Biol. 3, e164 (2007).
Huang, P.S., Love, J.J. & Mayo, S.L. A de novo designed protein protein interface. Protein Sci. 16, 2770–2774 (2007).
Sidhu, S.S. & Koide, S. Phage display for engineering and analyzing protein interaction interfaces. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 17, 481–487 (2007).
Mandell, D.J. & Kortemme, T. Backbone flexibility in computational protein design. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. published online, doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2009.07.006 (24 August 2009).
Bordner, A.J. & Abagyan, R.A. Large-scale prediction of protein geometry and stability changes for arbitrary single point mutations. Proteins 57, 400–413 (2004).
Pal, G., Kouadio, J.L., Artis, D.R., Kossiakoff, A.A. & Sidhu, S.S. Comprehensive and quantitative mapping of energy landscapes for protein-protein interactions by rapid combinatorial scanning. J. Biol. Chem. 281, 22378–22385 (2006).
Tonikian, R. et al. A specificity map for the PDZ domain family. PLoS Biol. 6, e239 (2008).
Ambroggio, X.I. & Kuhlman, B. Design of protein conformational switches. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 16, 525–530 (2006).
Fu, X., Apgar, J.R. & Keating, A.E. Modeling backbone flexibility to achieve sequence diversity: the design of novel alpha-helical ligands for Bcl-xL. J. Mol. Biol. 371, 1099–1117 (2007).
Larson, S.M., England, J.L., Desjarlais, J.R. & Pande, V.S. Thoroughly sampling sequence space: large-scale protein design of structural ensembles. Protein Sci. 11, 2804–2813 (2002).
Ding, F. & Dokholyan, N.V. Emergence of protein fold families through rational design. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2, e85 (2006).
Humphris, E.L. & Kortemme, T. Prediction of protein-protein interface sequence diversity using flexible backbone computational protein design. Structure 16, 1777–1788 (2008).
Friedland, G.D., Lakomek, N.A., Griesinger, C., Meiler, J. & Kortemme, T. A correspondence between solution-state dynamics of an individual protein and the sequence and conformational diversity of its family. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5, e1000393 (2009).
Ambroggio, X.I. & Kuhlman, B. Computational design of a single amino acid sequence that can switch between two distinct protein folds. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128, 1154–1161 (2006).
Hu, X., Wang, H., Ke, H. & Kuhlman, B. High-resolution design of a protein loop. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 17668–17673 (2007).
Saunders, C.T. & Baker, D. Recapitulation of protein family divergence using flexible backbone protein design. J. Mol. Biol. 346, 631–644 (2005).
Smith, C.A. & Kortemme, T. Backrub-like backbone simulation recapitulates natural protein conformational variability and improves mutant side-chain prediction. J. Mol. Biol. 380, 742–756 (2008).
Yin, S., Ding, F. & Dokholyan, N.V. Eris: an automated estimator of protein stability. Nat. Methods 4, 466–467 (2007).
Georgiev, I. & Donald, B.R. Dead-end elimination with backbone flexibility. Bioinformatics 23, i185–i194 (2007).
Georgiev, I., Lilien, R.H. & Donald, B.R. The minimized dead-end elimination criterion and its application to protein redesign in a hybrid scoring and search algorithm for computing partition functions over molecular ensembles. J. Comput. Chem. 29, 1527–1542 (2008).
Friedland, G.D., Linares, A.J., Smith, C.A. & Kortemme, T. A simple model of backbone flexibility improves modeling of side-chain conformational variability. J. Mol. Biol. 380, 757–774 (2008).
Treynor, T.P., Vizcarra, C.L., Nedelcu, D. & Mayo, S.L. Computationally designed libraries of fluorescent proteins evaluated by preservation and diversity of function. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 48–53 (2007).
Domingues, H., Cregut, D., Sebald, W., Oschkinat, H. & Serrano, L. Rational design of a GCN4-derived mimetic of interleukin-4. Nat. Struct. Biol. 6, 652–656 (1999).
Liu, S. et al. Nonnatural protein-protein interaction-pair design by key residues grafting. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 5330–5335 (2007).
Potapov, V. et al. Computational redesign of a protein-protein interface for high affinity and binding specificity using modular architecture and naturally occurring template fragments. J. Mol. Biol. 384, 109–119 (2008).
Zanghellini, A. et al. New algorithms and an in silico benchmark for computational enzyme design. Protein Sci. 15, 2785–2794 (2006).
Havranek, J.J. & Baker, D. Motif-directed flexible backbone design of functional interactions. Protein Sci. 18, 1293–1305 (2009).
Murphy, P.M., Bolduc, J.M., Gallaher, J.L., Stoddard, B.L. & Baker, D. Alteration of enzyme specificity by computational loop remodeling and design. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 9215–9220 (2009).
Mandell, D.J., Coutsias, E.A. & Kortemme, T. Sub-angstrom accuracy in protein loop reconstruction by robotics-inspired conformational sampling. Nat. Methods 6, 551–552 (2009).
Allen, B.D. & Mayo, S.L. An efficient algorithm for multistate protein design based on FASTER. J. Comput. Chem. published online, doi: 10.1002/jcc.21375 (27 July 2009).
Grigoryan, G. et al. Ultra-fast evaluation of protein energies directly from sequence. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2, e63 (2006).
Gavin, A.C. et al. Proteome survey reveals modularity of the yeast cell machinery. Nature 440, 631–636 (2006).
Krogan, N.J. et al. Global landscape of protein complexes in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 440, 637–643 (2006).
Schuldiner, M. et al. Exploration of the function and organization of the yeast early secretory pathway through an epistatic miniarray profile. Cell 123, 507–519 (2005).
Keating, A.E., Malashkevich, V.N., Tidor, B. & Kim, P.S. Side-chain repacking calculations for predicting structures and stabilities of heterodimeric coiled coils. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 14825–14830 (2001).
Altman, M.D., Nalivaika, E.A., Prabu-Jeyabalan, M., Schiffer, C.A. & Tidor, B. Computational design and experimental study of tighter binding peptides to an inactivated mutant of HIV-1 protease. Proteins 70, 678–694 (2008).
Simons, K.T., Bonneau, R., Ruczinski, I. & Baker, D. Ab initio protein structure prediction of CASP III targets using ROSETTA. Proteins 37 (suppl. 3), 171–176 (1999).
Simons, K.T., Kooperberg, C., Huang, E. & Baker, D. Assembly of protein tertiary structures from fragments with similar local sequences using simulated annealing and Bayesian scoring functions. J. Mol. Biol. 268, 209–225 (1997).
Rohl, C.A., Strauss, C.E.M., Chivian, D. & Baker, D. Modeling structurally variable regions in homologous proteins with rosetta. Proteins 55, 656–677 (2004).
Wang, C., Bradley, P. & Baker, D. Protein-protein docking with backbone flexibility. J. Mol. Biol. 373, 503–519 (2007).
Fung, H.K., Floudas, C.A., Taylor, M.S., Zhang, L. & Morikis, D. Toward full-sequence de novo protein design with flexible templates for human beta-defensin-2. Biophys. J. 94, 584–599 (2008).
Davis, I.W., Arendall, W.B., Richardson, D.C. & Richardson, J.S. The backrub motion: how protein backbone shrugs when a sidechain dances. Structure 14, 265–274 (2006).
Georgiev, I., Keedy, D., Richardson, J.S., Richardson, D.C. & Donald, B.R. Algorithm for backrub motions in protein design. Bioinformatics 24, i196–i204 (2008).
Dunbrack, R.L. Jr. Rotamer libraries in the 21st century. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 12, 431–440 (2002).
Desjarlais, J.R. & Clarke, N.D. Computer search algorithms in protein modification and design. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 8, 471–475 (1998).
Desmet, J., De Maeyer, M., Hazes, B. & Lasters, I. The dead-end elimination theorem and its use in protein side-chain positioning. Nature 356, 539–542 (1992).
Kuhlman, B. & Baker, D. Native protein sequences are close to optimal for their structures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 10383–10388 (2000).
Allen, B.D. & Mayo, S.L. Dramatic performance enhancements for the FASTER optimization algorithm. J. Comput. Chem. 27, 1071–1075 (2006).
Desmet, J., Spriet, J. & Lasters, I. Fast and accurate side-chain topology and energy refinement (FASTER) as a new method for protein structure optimization. Proteins 48, 31–43 (2002).
Voigt, C.A., Gordon, D.B. & Mayo, S.L. Trading accuracy for speed: A quantitative comparison of search algorithms in protein sequence design. J. Mol. Biol. 299, 789–803 (2000).
Gordon, D.B., Marshall, S.A. & Mayo, S.L. Energy functions for protein design. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 9, 509–513 (1999).
Kortemme, T., Morozov, A.V. & Baker, D. An orientation-dependent hydrogen bonding potential improves prediction of specificity and structure for proteins and protein-protein complexes. J. Mol. Biol. 326, 1239–1259 (2003).
Pokala, N. & Handel, T.M. Energy functions for protein design: adjustment with protein-protein complex affinities, models for the unfolded state, and negative design of solubility and specificity. J. Mol. Biol. 347, 203–227 (2005).
Acknowledgements
We thank members of the Kortemme group and the Rosetta developers community for many stimulating discussions and important contributions. This work was supported by a CAREER award from the US National Science Foundation (T.K.) and a PhRMA Foundation Predoctoral Fellowship (D.J.M.).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mandell, D., Kortemme, T. Computer-aided design of functional protein interactions. Nat Chem Biol 5, 797–807 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.251
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.251
This article is cited by
-
DIP/Dpr interactions and the evolutionary design of specificity in protein families
Nature Communications (2020)
-
Comparing proteins and nucleic acids for next-generation biomolecular engineering
Nature Reviews Chemistry (2018)
-
Surface energetics and protein-protein interactions: analysis and mechanistic implications
Scientific Reports (2016)
-
Molecular dynamics simulations and docking enable to explore the biophysical factors controlling the yields of engineered nanobodies
Scientific Reports (2016)
-
Iron depletion strategy for targeted cancer therapy: utilizing the dual roles of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin protein
Journal of Molecular Modeling (2016)