Protein-protein interactions play key roles in many cellular processes and their affinities and specificities are finely tuned to the functions they perform. Here, we present a study on the relationship between binding affinity and the size and chemical nature of protein-protein interfaces. Our analysis focuses on heterodimers and includes curated structural and thermodynamic data for 113 complexes. We observe a direct correlation between binding affinity and the amount of surface area buried at the interface. For a given amount of surface area buried, the binding affinity spans four orders of magnitude in terms of the dissociation constant (K d ). Across the entire dataset, we observe no obvious relationship between binding affinity and the chemical composition of the interface. We also calculate the free energy per unit surface area buried, or ''surface energy density,'' of each heterodimer. For interfacial surface areas between 500 and 2000 Å 2 , the surface energy density decreases as the buried surface area increases. As the buried surface area increases beyond about 2000 Å 2 , the surface energy density levels off to a constant value. We believe that these analyses and data will be useful for researchers with an interest in understanding, designing or inhibiting protein-protein interfaces.

CONSPECTUS Protein–protein interactions (PPIs) are ubiquitous in biological systems and often misregulated in disease. As such, specific PPI modulators are desirable to unravel complex PPI pathways and expand the number of druggable targets available for therapeutic intervention. However, the large size and relative flatness of PPI interfaces make them challenging molecular targets. This Account describes our systematic approach using secondary and tertiary protein domain mimics (PDMs) to specifically modulate PPIs. Our strategy focuses on mimicry of regular secondary and tertiary structure elements from one of the PPI partners to inspire rational PDM design. We have compiled three databases (HIPPDB, SIPPDB, and DIPPDB) of secondary and tertiary structures at PPI interfaces to guide our designs and better understand the energetics of PPI secondary and tertiary structures. Our efforts have focused on three of the most common secondary and tertiary structures: α-helices, β-strands, and helix dimers (e.g., coiled coils). To mimic α-helices, we designed the hydrogen bond surrogate (HBS) as an isosteric PDM and the oligooxopiperazine helix mimetic (OHM) as a topographical PDM. The nucleus of the HBS approach is a peptide macrocycle in which the N-terminal i, i + 4 main-chain hydrogen bond is replaced with a covalent carbon–carbon bond. In mimicking a main-chain hydrogen bond, the HBS approach stabilizes the α-helical conformation while leaving all helical faces available for functionalization to tune binding affinity and specificity. The OHM approach, in contrast, envisions a tetrapeptide to mimic one face of a two-turn helix. We anticipated that placement of ethylene bridges between adjacent amides constrains the tetrapeptide backbone to mimic the i, i + 4, and i + 7 side chains on one face of an α-helix. For β-strands, we developed triazolamers, a topographical PDM where the peptide bonds are replaced by triazoles. The triazoles simultaneously stabilize the extended, zigzag conformation of β-strands and transform an otherwise ideal protease substrate into a stable molecule by replacement of the peptide bonds. We turned to a salt bridge surrogate (SBS) approach as a means for stabilizing very short helix dimers. As with the HBS approach, the SBS strategy replaces a noncovalent interaction with a covalent bond. Specifically, we used a bis-triazole linkage that mimics a salt bridge interaction to drive helix association and folding. Using this approach, we were able to stabilize helix dimers that are less than half of the length required to form a coiled coil from two independent strands. In addition to demonstrating the stabilization of desired structures, we have also shown that our designed PDMs specifically modulate target PPIs in vitro and in vivo. Examples of PPIs successfully targeted include HIF1α/p300, p53/MDM2, Bcl-xL/Bak, Ras/Sos, and HIV gp41. The PPI databases and designed PDMs created in these studies will aid development of a versatile set of molecules to probe complex PPI functions and, potentially, PP...

Repeat proteins composed of tandem arrays of a short structural motif often mediate protein-protein interactions. Past efforts to design repeat protein-based molecular recognition tools have focused on the creation of templates from the consensus of individual repeats, regardless of their natural context. Such an approach assumes that all repeats are essentially equivalent. In this study we present the results of a ‘module-based’ approach, in which modules composed of tandem repeats are aligned to identify repeat-specific features. Using this approach to analyze tetratricopeptide repeat modules that contain 3 tandem repeats (3TPRs), we identify two classes of 3TPR modules with distinct structural signatures that are correlated with different sets of functional residues. Our analyses also reveal a high degree of correlation between positions across the entire ligand-binding surface, indicative of a coordinated, coevolving binding surface. Extension of our analyses to different repeat protein modules reveals more examples of repeat-specific features, especially in armadillio repeat (ARM) modules. In summary, the module-based analyses that we present effectively capture key repeat-specific features that will be important to include in future repeat protein design templates.

Protein secondary and tertiary structure mimics have served as model systems to probe biophysical parameters that guide protein folding and as attractive reagents to modulate protein interactions. Here, we review contemporary methods to reproduce loop, helix, sheet, and coiled‐coil conformations in short peptides.