2016
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1611861114
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Conservation of coevolving protein interfaces bridges prokaryote–eukaryote homologies in the twilight zone

Abstract: Protein-protein interactions are fundamental for the proper functioning of the cell. As a result, protein interaction surfaces are subject to strong evolutionary constraints. Recent developments have shown that residue coevolution provides accurate predictions of heterodimeric protein interfaces from sequence information. So far these approaches have been limited to the analysis of families of prokaryotic complexes for which large multiple sequence alignments of homologous sequences can be compiled. We explore… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

4
31
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 73 publications
4
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Pairwise graphical models of biological sequences are used to identify evolutionary couplings (ECs) between sites, which frequently correspond to physical contacts between nucleotides or amino acids in the molecule's three-dimensional structure. ECs have been used successfully to predict the tertiary contacts (Marks, et al, 2011;Morcos, et al, 2011) and full 3D structure of proteins (Marks, et al, 2011) and RNA (Weinreb, et al, 2016), as well as protein-protein and protein-RNA interactions, disorder and conformational changes (Weigt, et al, 2009;Hopf, et al, 2012;Hopf, et al, 2014;Ovchinnikov, et al, 2014;Rodriguez-Rivas, et al, 2016;Toth-Petroczy, et al, 2016) and the effects of mutations (Figliuzzi, et al, 2015;Hopf, et al, 2017). More recently, hybrid approaches have integrated ECs with experimental data for improved structure determination using NMR, cryo-EM and X-ray crystallography data (Tang, et al, 2015;Sjodt, et al, 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Pairwise graphical models of biological sequences are used to identify evolutionary couplings (ECs) between sites, which frequently correspond to physical contacts between nucleotides or amino acids in the molecule's three-dimensional structure. ECs have been used successfully to predict the tertiary contacts (Marks, et al, 2011;Morcos, et al, 2011) and full 3D structure of proteins (Marks, et al, 2011) and RNA (Weinreb, et al, 2016), as well as protein-protein and protein-RNA interactions, disorder and conformational changes (Weigt, et al, 2009;Hopf, et al, 2012;Hopf, et al, 2014;Ovchinnikov, et al, 2014;Rodriguez-Rivas, et al, 2016;Toth-Petroczy, et al, 2016) and the effects of mutations (Figliuzzi, et al, 2015;Hopf, et al, 2017). More recently, hybrid approaches have integrated ECs with experimental data for improved structure determination using NMR, cryo-EM and X-ray crystallography data (Tang, et al, 2015;Sjodt, et al, 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Concerning interacting proteins, they have triggered a breakthrough in using sequence covariation for inter-protein residue-residue contact prediction [16,17], which in turn is used to guide computational quaternary structure prediction [22][23][24][25].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is much more challenging to concatenate two individual MSAs for a protein pair in eukaryotes. This is because an individual MSA may contain abundant paralogs and two genes may interact with each other even if they are not close by genomic distance [40,42]. Here we propose to concatenate two individual MSAs using phylogeny and homology information.…”
Section: Concatenating Msas By Phylogeny Informationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This problem becomes more serious for inter-protein contact prediction since it is challenging to find so many interlogs (i.e., interacting homologs) for an interacting protein pair. Because of this, currently DCA for inter-protein contact prediction mainly focuses on prokaryotes and mitochondria [16,25] since it is relatively easy to find interlogs in prokaryotes, but does not fare well on eukaryotes with abundant paralogs because it is challenging to identify correct interlogs [42].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%