Design of protein-interaction specificity gives selective bZIP-binding peptides


Interaction specificity is a required feature of biological networks and a necessary characteristic of protein or small-molecule reagents and therapeutics. The ability to alter or inhibit protein interactions selectively would advance basic and applied molecular science. Assessing or modelling interaction specificity requires treating multiple competing complexes, which presents computational and experimental challenges. Here we present a computational framework for designing protein-interaction specificity and use it to identify specific peptide partners for human basic-region leucine zipper (bZIP) transcription factors. Protein microarrays were used to characterize designed, synthetic ligands for all but one of 20 bZIP families. The bZIP proteins share strong sequence and structural similarities and thus are challenging targets to bind specifically. Nevertheless, many of the designs, including examples that bind the oncoproteins c-Jun, c-Fos and c-Maf (also called JUN, FOS and MAF, respectively), were selective for their targets over all 19 other families. Collectively, the designs exhibit a wide range of interaction profiles and demonstrate that human bZIPs have only sparsely sampled the possible interaction space accessible to them. Our computational method provides a way to systematically analyse trade-offs between stability and specificity and is suitable for use with many types of structure-scoring functions; thus, it may prove broadly useful as a tool for protein design.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Designing specific peptides using CLASSY.
Figure 2: Experimental testing of anti-bZIP designs.
Figure 3: Properties of designed peptides compared to human bZIP leucine zippers.


  1. 1

    Stiffler, M. A. et al. PDZ domain binding selectivity is optimized across the mouse proteome. Science 317, 364–369 (2007)

  2. 2

    Jones, R. B., Gordus, A., Krall, J. A. & MacBeath, G. A quantitative protein interaction network for the ErbB receptors using protein microarrays. Nature 439, 168–174 (2006)

  3. 3

    Wiedemann, U. et al. Quantification of PDZ domain specificity, prediction of ligand affinity and rational design of super-binding peptides. J. Mol. Biol. 343, 703–718 (2004)

  4. 4

    Newman, J. R. & Keating, A. E. Comprehensive identification of human bZIP interactions with coiled-coil arrays. Science 300, 2097–2101 (2003)

  5. 5

    Landgraf, C. et al. Protein interaction networks by proteome peptide scanning. PLoS Biol. 2, E14 (2004)

  6. 6

    Skerker, J. M., Prasol, M. S., Perchuk, B. S., Biondi, E. G. & Laub, M. T. Two-component signal transduction pathways regulating growth and cell cycle progression in a bacterium: a system-level analysis. PLoS Biol. 3, e334 (2005)

  7. 7

    Havranek, J. J. & Harbury, P. B. Automated design of specificity in molecular recognition. Nature Struct. Biol. 10, 45–52 (2003)

  8. 8

    Kortemme, T. et al. Computational redesign of protein–protein interaction specificity. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 11, 371–379 (2004)

  9. 9

    Ali, M. H. et al. Design of a heterospecific, tetrameric, 21-residue miniprotein with mixed α/β structure. Structure 13, 225–234 (2005)

  10. 10

    van der Sloot, A. M. et al. Designed tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand variants initiating apoptosis exclusively via the DR5 receptor. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 8634–8639 (2006)

  11. 11

    Yin, H. et al. Computational design of peptides that target transmembrane helices. Science 315, 1817–1822 (2007)

  12. 12

    Reina, J. et al. Computer-aided design of a PDZ domain to recognize new target sequences. Nature Struct. Biol. 9, 621–627 (2002)

  13. 13

    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)

  14. 14

    Fu, X., Apgar, J. R. & Keating, A. E. Modeling backbone flexibility to achieve sequence diversity: the design of novel α-helical ligands for Bcl-xL. J. Mol. Biol. 371, 1099–1117 (2007)

  15. 15

    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)

  16. 16

    Kangas, E. & Tidor, B. Electrostatic specificity in molecular ligand design. J. Comput. Phys. 112, 9120–9131 (2000)

  17. 17

    Deutsch, J. M. & Kurosky, T. New algorithm for protein design. Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 323–326 (1996)

  18. 18

    Mason, J. M., Schmitz, M. A., Muller, K. M. & Arndt, K. M. Semirational design of Jun-Fos coiled coils with increased affinity: universal implications for leucine zipper prediction and design. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 8989–8994 (2006)

  19. 19

    Vinson, C., Acharya, A. & Taparowsky, E. J. Deciphering B-ZIP transcription factor interactions in vitro and in vivo . Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1759, 4–12 (2006)

  20. 20

    Gerdes, M. J. et al. Activator protein-1 activity regulates epithelial tumor cell identity. Cancer Res. 66, 7578–7588 (2006)

  21. 21

    Krylov, D., Olive, M. & Vinson, C. Extending dimerization interfaces: the bZIP basic region can form a coiled coil. EMBO J. 14, 5329–5337 (1995)

  22. 22

    Acharya, A., Rishi, V. & Vinson, C. Stability of 100 homo and heterotypic coiled-coil a–a′ pairs for ten amino acids (A, L, I, V, N, K, S, T, E, and R). Biochemistry 45, 11324–11332 (2006)

  23. 23

    Krylov, D., Barchi, J. & Vinson, C. Inter-helical interactions in the leucine zipper coiled coil dimer: pH and salt dependence of coupling energy between charged amino acids. J. Mol. Biol. 279, 959–972 (1998)

  24. 24

    Lupas, A. N. & Gruber, M. The structure of α-helical coiled coils. Adv. Protein Chem. 70, 37–78 (2005)

  25. 25

    Fong, J. H., Keating, A. E. & Singh, M. Predicting specificity in bZIP coiled-coil protein interactions. Genome Biol. 5, R11 (2004)

  26. 26

    Grigoryan, G. & Keating, A. E. Structure-based prediction of bZIP partnering specificity. J. Mol. Biol. 355, 1125–1142 (2006)

  27. 27

    Kingsford, C. L., Chazelle, B. & Singh, M. Solving and analyzing side-chain positioning problems using linear and integer programming. Bioinformatics 21, 1028–1036 (2005)

  28. 28

    Grigoryan, G. et al. Ultra-fast evaluation of protein energies directly from sequence. PLOS Comput. Biol. 2, e63 (2006)

  29. 29

    Zhou, F. et al. Coarse-graining protein energetics in sequence variables. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 148103 (2005)

  30. 30

    Mason, J. M., Muller, K. M. & Arndt, K. M. Positive aspects of negative design: simultaneous selection of specificity and interaction stability. Biochemistry 46, 4804–4814 (2007)

  31. 31

    Hadley, E. B., Testa, O. D., Woolfson, D. N. & Gellman, S. H. Preferred side-chain constellations at antiparallel coiled-coil interfaces. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 530–535 (2008)

  32. 32

    Apgar, J. R., Hahn, S., Grigoryan, G. & Keating, A. E. Cluster-expansion models flexible-backbone protein energetics. J. Comput. Chem. (in the press)

  33. 33

    Sanchez, I. E. et al. Genome-wide prediction of SH2 domain targets using structural information and the FoldX algorithm. PLOS Comput. Biol. 4, e1000052 (2008)

  34. 34

    Kaplan, T., Friedman, N. & Margalit, H. Ab initio prediction of transcription factor targets using structural knowledge. PLOS Comput. Biol. 1, e1 (2005)

  35. 35

    Boas, F. E. & Harbury, P. B. Potential energy functions for protein design. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 17, 199–204 (2007)

  36. 36

    Das, R. & Baker, D. Macromolecular modeling with ROSETTA. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 77, 363–382 (2008)

  37. 37

    Zhou, H. & Zhou, Y. Distance-scaled, finite ideal-gas reference state improves structure-derived potentials of mean force for structure selection and stability prediction. Protein Sci. 11, 2714–2726 (2002)

  38. 38

    Hoover, D. M. & Lubkowski, J. DNAWorks: an automated method for designing oligonucleotides for PCR-based gene synthesis. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, e43 (2002)

Download references


This work was supported by the NIH award GM67681 and used computer equipment purchased under the NSF award 0216437. We thank the MIT BioMicro center for arraying instrumentation and R. T. Sauer, M. Singh, B. Tidor, M. Laub, T. A. Baker, J. H. Davis, M. S. Kay, J. R. S. Newman, W. F. DeGrado and members of the Keating laboratory, especially O. Ashenberg and T. C. S. Chen, for comments on the manuscript.

Author Contributions G.G., A.W.R. and A.E.K. conceived the project. G.G. developed, implemented and applied the CLASSY formalism and carried out all computational analyses. A.W.R. designed and performed all experiments. All authors analysed data and guided the research plan. G.G. and A.E.K. wrote the paper, in consultation with A.W.R.

Author information

Correspondence to Amy E. Keating.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Data, a Supplementary Discussion, Supplementary Figures 1-17 with Legends, Supplementary Tables 1-6 and Supplementary References. (PDF 7986 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grigoryan, G., Reinke, A. & Keating, A. Design of protein-interaction specificity gives selective bZIP-binding peptides. Nature 458, 859–864 (2009).

Download citation

Further reading


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.