PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 4843792

Amino acid difference formula to help explain protein evolution.

Abstract

A formula for diference between amino acids combines properties that correlate best with protein residue substitution frequencies: composition, polarity, and molecular volume. Substitution frequencies agree much better with overall chemical difference between exchanging residues than with minimum base changes between their codons. Correlation coefficients show that fixation of mutations between dissimilar amino acids is generally rare.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Grantham. 1974-09-06. Amino acid difference formula to help explain protein evolution.. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4154.862

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Chimeric structural isomer fragments as cost-efficient internal standards for amino acid quantification by mass spectrometry.

Amino acid (AA) profiles from body fluids such as blood and urine are clinical indicators for diagnosing metabolic and hepatic diseases. Current quantitative methods, such as liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) with isotopically labelled internal standards (ISs), are costly and technically demanding. This study proposes a cost-efficient alternative using structural isomers as ISs in a direct liquid infusion (DLI) tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) approach. The method leverages chimeric spectra and fragment intensity ratios to quantify AAs, demonstrating high linearity and precision even with a 3D ion trap mass analyser. This approach offers a viable strategy for AA quantification in preventive medicine, particularly for screening metabolic diseases such as phenylketonuria, diabetes, and liver dysfunction.

Amino Acids↗

Structure-function studies of human deoxyhypusine synthase: identification of amino acid residues critical for the binding of spermidine and NAD.

Deoxyhypusine synthase catalyses the first step in the biosynthesis of hypusine [N(epsilon)-(4-amino-2-hydroxybutyl)lysine]. The crystal structure of human deoxyhypusine synthase in complex with NAD revealed four NAD-binding sites per enzyme tetramer, and led to a prediction of the spermidine-binding pocket. We have replaced each of the seven amino acid residues at the predicted spermidine-binding site, and eleven residues that contact NAD, on an individual basis with alanine. Of the amino acid residues at the spermidine site, substitution of Asp-243, Trp-327, His-288, Asp-316 or Glu-323 with alanine caused an almost complete loss of spermidine binding and enzyme activity; only the mutation Tyr-305-->Ala showed partial binding and activity. His-288-->Ala was also deficient in terms of binding NAD. NAD binding was significantly reduced in all of the NAD-site mutant enzymes, except for Glu-137-->Ala, which showed a normal binding of NAD, but was totally lacking in spermidine binding. Of the NAD-site mutant enzymes, Asp-342-->Ala, Asp-313-->Ala and Asp-238-->Ala displayed the lowest binding of NAD. These enzymes and His-288Ala also showed a reduced binding of spermidine, presumably because spermidine binding is dependent on NAD. These findings permit the positive identification of amino acid residues critical for binding of spermidine and NAD, and provide a new insight into the complex molecular interactions involved in the deoxyhypusine synthase reaction.

Amino Acids↗

Residue frequencies and pairing preferences at protein-protein interfaces.

We used a nonredundant set of 621 protein-protein interfaces of known high-resolution structure to derive residue composition and residue-residue contact preferences. The residue composition at the interfaces, in entire proteins and in whole genomes correlates well, indicating the statistical strength of the data set. Differences between amino acid distributions were observed for interfaces with buried surface area of less than 1,000 A(2) versus interfaces with area of more than 5,000 A(2). Hydrophobic residues were abundant in large interfaces while polar residues were more abundant in small interfaces. The largest residue-residue preferences at the interface were recorded for interactions between pairs of large hydrophobic residues, such as Trp and Leu, and the smallest preferences for pairs of small residues, such as Gly and Ala. On average, contacts between pairs of hydrophobic and polar residues were unfavorable, and the charged residues tended to pair subject to charge complementarity, in agreement with previous reports. A bootstrap procedure, lacking from previous studies, was used for error estimation. It showed that the statistical errors in the set of pairing preferences are generally small; the average standard error is approximately 0.2, i.e., about 8% of the average value of the pairwise index (2.9). However, for a few pairs (e.g., Ser-Ser and Glu-Asp) the standard error is larger in magnitude than the pairing index, which makes it impossible to tell whether contact formation is favorable or unfavorable. The results are interpreted using physicochemical factors and their implications for the energetics of complex formation and for protein docking are discussed. Proteins 2001;43:89-102.

Amino Acids↗