So, what exactly are Chi et al. assessing? Well, as I've discussed before on this blog, almost a decade ago Rama Ranganathan published an algorithm that used co-conservation of residues in a protein sequence to identify an energetic pathway in PDZ domains (2). The linkage between residues was defined in terms of a "statistical coupling energy" or ΔΔGstat. As the authors of the present study note, several subsequent papers have criticized the computational approach employed by Lockless and Ranganathan. Chi et al. aim to re-examine this network prediction in the context of the PSD95 PDZ3 domain, which was used by Lockless and Ranganathan in some of their non-computational work. Chi et al. performed double mutant cycle analysis involving several residues in PSD95 PDZ3, some of them predicted to be coupled by Ranganathan's procedure and some of them not.
I should note that when these groups look at identical cycles (K380A, A376V) they generally get different results. Just judging off the raw data shown I am inclined to trust Chi et al., but a detailed inspection of all the raw data would be necessary to judge which approach was more accurate (Lockless and Ranganathan used FRET while Chi et al. used fluorescent emission).
No project of this kind can definitively address the quality of Ranganathan's algorithm. Although the statistical coupling is expressed as an energy, it is best interpreted as a probability. That is, the prediction of Ranganathan's algorithm is not that any protein will display precisely the calculated ΔΔGstat, even assuming we knew what kind of observable to measure that reflected the observed statistical coupling (ligand binding? folding? mechanical disruption?). Rather, ΔΔGstat reflects a predicted probability over the set of all PDZ domains that two sites will be energetically coupled. Thus, finding or not finding energetic coupling in a particular PDZ domain is not evidence for or against the accuracy of the algorithm, just as rolling 6 ones in a row is not evidence that the probability of rolling one on a fair die is anything other than 1/6. Nor is dissimilarity between the energetic network in any PDZ domain (or even in all PDZ domains) and the algorithmic prediction evidence that the algorithm is wrong. To find out if the algorithm is wrong using mutant cycle experiments, you must determine coupling energies in a number of PDZ domains and compare those results back to the prediction.
So, Chi et al. cannot establish whether the algorithm is right, but they can at least tell us whether the predictions of the algorithm are accurate in this particular case. They assert that the predictions are not very good in this instance, and judging on a linear correlation plot they provide this seems to be true. Before we draw any conclusions, however, let's take a look at the results in the context of the structure.
The figure I've made for us on the right is pretty busy, so you may find it helpful to open it in a new window. You can also explore this structure at the PDB. The key residue for this study, H372, is in red, and the peptide ligand is in purple. The backbone and side chains are colored for other residues that were mutated in this study. Residues with blue side chains were not predicted to be part of the energetic network by Lockless and Ranganathan (green side-chains were). Note that G329 was also predicted to be on the network, but of course it has no side chain for me to color. If the detected coupling energy for a mutation was larger than the error (based on Chi et al. Fig. 3A), I painted the backbone ribbon gold; otherwise it is blue. You will note that every mutation producing a coupling energy larger than the error in the measurement lies on the network predicted by Lockless and Ranganathan.To be fair, an A376V mutation did not produce a coupling while A376G did, so the results are equivocal at this residue. Because G has a very low helix propensity it may be significantly altering local secondary structure (ceteris paribus violation). Therefore, the A376V result may be more representative. This highlights a significant weakness of mutational experiments. Because of glycine's quirks, there is no such thing as a conservative mutation of an alanine. Also, because glycine and proline have unusual properties with respect to secondary structure, mutations that have a G or P on either end are virtually impossible to interpret without careful structural studies.
The Ranganathan method gave a substantial number of false positives in this study. It bears mentioning that Lockless and Ranganathan saw substantial correlation between experimental couplings and ΔΔGstat in this domain, though they used different mutations, which if I recall correctly were chosen based on the second most common residue for a given site. However, even in these results, the Ranganathan algorithm did accurately identify a distal residue (V362) which displays a significant coupling energy even though the β carbons of it and H372 are 14.0 Å apart. It is very odd for the authors to say in light of this that the domain has no coupling other than a straightforward distance relationship. From the data they show it is evident that distance from H372 would not be an accurate predictor of coupling. The absence of a coupling at both V428 and A376 (for the V mutation) indicates that very close residues may have no coupling at all. Also, given the A376V results, it seems premature to designate V428A as an outlier.
Of further interest, previous NMR experiments regularly identified a homologous residue (V61) of hPTP1e PDZ2 as having a dynamic response to peptide binding (3). A shamelessly stolen figure to the right shows some of these results. Ligand binding induced a decrease in the S2 and an increase in τe on the side chain of V61. While mutational studies did not indicate a substantial effect of a V61A mutation on ligand binding (4), it would be interesting to check whether non-additivity between H71Y and V61A mutations is observed in hPTP1e. Similarly, it would be of great interest to examine the dynamic response of PSD95 PDZ3 to ligand binding.The data in the Chi et al. paper indicate that there is, in fact, at least one long-range energetic coupling in the PSD95 PDZ3 domain. This coupling, between H372 and V362, was predicted by Ranganathan's algorithm. Moreover, NMR experiments have shown that the homologous residue in hPTP1e experiences dynamic changes in response to ligand binding, further strengthening the case for a functional connection. Clearly, Ranganathan's algorithm produces a substantial number of false positives in the case of this particular domain, supporting the author's contention that it poorly predicts the energetic behavior of any single domain.
Nonetheless, the demonstration of a long-range energetic coupling between H372 and V362, when most other core residues tested showed no coupling, strongly suggests the existence of some sparse energetic network within PSD95 PDZ3, consistent with the findings of Fuentes et al. and the predictions of Lockless and Ranganathan. It is to be hoped that Jemth's group will undertake further studies, perhaps guided by the existing structural and dynamic results, to identify the precise pathway by which energy is transmitted from V362 to H372.
1. Chi, C.N., Elfstrom, L., Shi, Y., Snall, T., Engstrom, A., Jemth, P. (2008). Reassessing a sparse energetic network within a single protein domain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(12), 4679-4684. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0711732105
2. Lockless, S.W., and Ranganathan, R. (1999). Evolutionarily Conserved Pathways of Energetic Connectivity in Protein Families. Science, 286(5438), 295-299. DOI: 10.1126/science.286.5438.295
3. Fuentes, E.J., Der, C.J., and Lee, A.L. (2004). Ligand-dependent Dynamics and Intramolecular Signaling in a PDZ Domain. Journal of Molecular Biology, 335(4), 1105-1115. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2003.11.010
4. Fuentes, E.J., Gilmore, S.A., Mauldin, R.V., and Lee, A.L. (2006). Evaluation of Energetic and Dynamic Coupling Networks in a PDZ Domain Protein. Journal of Molecular Biology, 364(3), 337-351. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2006.08.076
Read the rest...












