title: Protein binding hot spots and the residue-residue pairing preference: a water exclusion perspective.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  A protein binding hot spot is a small cluster of residues tightly packed at the center of the interface between two interacting proteins. Though a hot spot constitutes a small fraction of the interface, it is vital to the stability of protein complexes. Recently, there are a series of hypotheses proposed to characterize binding hot spots, including the pioneering O-ring theory, the insightful 'coupling' and 'hot region' principle, and our 'double water exclusion' (DWE) hypothesis. As the perspective changes from the O-ring theory to the DWE hypothesis, we examine the physicochemical properties of the binding hot spots under the new hypothesis and compare with those under the O-ring theory.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The requirements for a cluster of residues to form a hot spot under the DWE hypothesis can be mathematically satisfied by a biclique subgraph if a vertex is used to represent a residue, an edge to indicate a close distance between two residues, and a bipartite graph to represent a pair of interacting proteins. We term these hot spots as DWE bicliques. We identified DWE bicliques from crystal packing contacts, obligate and non-obligate interactions. Our comparative study revealed that there are abundant unique bicliques to the biological interactions, indicating specific biological binding behaviors in contrast to crystal packing. The two sub-types of biological interactions also have their own signature bicliques. In our analysis on residue compositions and residue pairing preferences in DWE bicliques, the focus was on interaction-preferred residues (ipRs) and interaction-preferred residue pairs (ipRPs). It is observed that hydrophobic residues are heavily involved in the ipRs and ipRPs of the obligate interactions; and that aromatic residues are in favor in the ipRs and ipRPs of the biological interactions, especially in those of the non-obligate interactions. In contrast, the ipRs and ipRPs in crystal packing are dominated by hydrophilic residues, and most of the anti-ipRs of crystal packing are the ipRs of the obligate or non-obligate interactions.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  These ipRs and ipRPs in our DWE bicliques describe a diverse binding features among the three types of interactions. They also highlight the specific binding behaviors of the biological interactions, sharply differing from the artifact interfaces in the crystal packing. It can be noted that DWE bicliques, especially the unique bicliques, can capture deep insights into the binding characteristics of protein interfaces.
authors.affiliation: Bioinformatics Research Center & School of Computer Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798.
authors.forename: Qian
authors.initials: Q
authors.lastname: Liu
authors.forename: Jinyan
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Li
mesh_terms: D001665:Binding Sites; D030562:Databases, Protein; D008958:Models, Molecular; D011487:Protein Conformation; D017510:Protein Folding; D011506:Proteins / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000378:metabolism; D014867:Water / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000378:metabolism
chemical_list: D011506:Proteins; D014867:Water
references.citation: Proteins. 2008 Nov 15;73(3):672-89
references.pmid: 18491388
references.citation: J Mol Biol. 1996 Mar 1;256(3):623-44
references.pmid: 8604144
references.citation: BMC Struct Biol. 2005 Aug 16;5:15
references.pmid: 16105176
references.citation: Nucleic Acids Res. 2008 Jan;36(Database issue):D662-6
references.pmid: 17959648
references.citation: J Mol Biol. 2007 Jan 5;365(1):1-9
references.pmid: 17055530
references.citation: BMC Bioinformatics. 2006 Jan 19;7:27
references.pmid: 16423290
references.citation: Brief Bioinform. 2009 May;10(3):217-32
references.pmid: 19240123
references.citation: J Proteome Res. 2005 Sep-Oct;4(5):1600-9
references.pmid: 16212412
references.citation: Proteins. 2003 Nov 15;53(3):708-19
references.pmid: 14579361
references.citation: Biophys J. 2003 Sep;85(3):1914-28
references.pmid: 12944304
references.citation: Proteins. 2007 Sep 1;68(4):803-12
references.pmid: 17546660
references.citation: Proteins. 2000 Oct 1;41(1):47-57
references.pmid: 10944393
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2002;18 Suppl 1:S71-7
references.pmid: 12169533
references.citation: J Mol Biol. 2003 Jan 10;325(2):377-87
references.pmid: 12488102
references.citation: Proteins. 2001 May 1;43(2):89-102
references.pmid: 11276079
references.citation: Proteins. 1999 May 15;35(3):364-73
references.pmid: 10328272
references.citation: Structure. 2004 Jun;12(6):1027-38
references.pmid: 15274922
references.citation: Proteins. 2010 Feb 15;78(3):589-602
references.pmid: 19768686
references.citation: J Mol Biol. 1999 Feb 5;285(5):2177-98
references.pmid: 9925793
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2001 Mar;17(3):284-5
references.pmid: 11294795
references.citation: J Mol Biol. 2005 Feb 4;345(5):1281-94
references.pmid: 15644221
references.citation: J Mol Biol. 2004 Feb 27;336(4):943-55
references.pmid: 15095871
references.citation: Proteins. 2002 May 15;47(3):334-43
references.pmid: 11948787
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2006 Aug 15;22(16):2012-9
references.pmid: 16787977
references.citation: J Mol Biol. 1996 Jul 26;260(4):604-20
references.pmid: 8759323
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Jan 9;93(1):13-20
references.pmid: 8552589
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2009 Mar 15;25(6):743-50
references.pmid: 19179356
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Aug 2;102(31):10930-5
references.pmid: 16043700
references.citation: Science. 1995 Jan 20;267(5196):383-6
references.pmid: 7529940
references.citation: EMBO J. 2003 Jul 15;22(14):3486-92
references.pmid: 12853464
references.citation: J Mol Biol. 1998 Jul 3;280(1):1-9
references.pmid: 9653027
references.citation: J Mol Biol. 2001 Oct 19;313(2):399-416
references.pmid: 11800565
references.citation: Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2002 Feb;12(1):14-20
references.pmid: 11839484