No abstract is provided for this article.
Since high-resolution structural data are still scarce, different kinds of theoretical structure prediction algorithms are of major importance in membrane protein biochemistry. But how well do the current prediction methods perform? Which structural features can be predicted and which cannot? And what can we expect in the next few years?
Membrane proteins are key molecules in the cell, and are important targets for pharmaceutical drugs. Few three‐dimensional structures of membrane proteins have been obtained, which makes computational prediction of membrane proteins crucial for studies of these key molecules. Here, seven membrane protein topology prediction methods based on different underlying algorithms, such as hidden Markov models, neural networks and support vector machines, have been used for analysis of the protein sequences from the 21 416 annotated genes in the human genome. The number of genes coding for a protein with predicted α‐helical transmembrane region(s) ranged from 5508 to 7651, depending on the method used. Based on a majority decision method, we estimate 5539 human genes to code for membrane proteins, corresponding to approximately 26% of the human protein‐coding genes. The largest fraction of these proteins has only one predicted transmembrane region, but there are also many proteins with seven predicted transmembrane regions, including the G‐protein coupled receptors. A visualization tool displaying the topologies suggested by the eight prediction methods, for all predicted membrane proteins, is available on the public Human Protein Atlas portal ( www.proteinatlas.org ).
No abstract is provided for this article.
No abstract is provided for this article.
Thanks to the rapid progress in membrane protein crystallography and cryogenic electron microscopy in recent years, we have become increasingly accustomed to seeing protein structures characterized by long transmembrane α-helices (TMHs) crisscrossing a lipid bilayer (1). But how is it decided which segments of the polypeptide form the TMHs, and what are the precise sequence requirements for their membrane insertion? The great majority of integral membrane proteins require one or another type of translocon to catalyze insertion into the target membrane. The most commonly used and best understood of these are the universally conserved Sec-type translocons found in the cytoplasmic membrane of bacteria (the SecYEG complex) and the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) membrane in eukaryotes (the Sec61 complex) (2). They mediate cotranslational membrane insertion of the growing polypeptide as it emerges from the exit tunnel of translocon-bound ribosomes (3), and have an evolutionary conserved structure with a central channel through which hydrophilic polypeptide segments can be translocated across the membrane and a dynamic “lateral gate” through which hydrophobic segments in the nascent polypeptide chain can partition into the surrounding lipid bilayer to form TMHs (4, 5). Over the past two decades, statistical and experimental studies have progressively uncovered the sequence characteristics that define the difference between polypeptide segments that can form TMHs and those that cannot. To a first approximation, the efficiency of membrane insertion of a TMH is dictated by its hydrophobicity, although interactions with neighboring TMHs, or sequence variations in segments immediately flanking the TMH, can shift the hydrophobicity threshold (HT) required for … [↵][1]1Email: gunnar{at}dbb.su.se. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1
Membrane proteins currently receive a lot of attention, in large part thanks to a steady stream of high-resolution X-ray structures. Although the first few structures showed proteins composed of tightly packed bundles of very hydrophobic more or less straight transmembrane α-helices, we now know that helix-bundle membrane proteins can be both highly flexible and contain transmembrane segments that are neither very hydrophobic nor necessarily helical throughout their lengths. This raises questions regarding how membrane proteins are inserted into the membrane and fold in vivo, and also complicates life for bioinformaticians trying to predict membrane protein topology and structure.
Membrane proteins present a hydrophobic surface to the surrounding lipid, whereas portions protruding into the aqueous milieu expose a polar surface. But how have proteins evolved to deal with the complex environment at the membrane–water interface? Some insights have been provided by high-resolution structures of membrane proteins, and recent studies of the role of individual amino acids in mediating protein–lipid contacts have shed further light on this issue. It now appears clear that the polar-aromatic residues Trp and Tyr have a specific affinity for a region near the lipid carbonyls, whereas positively charged residues extend into the lipid phosphate region.
The bacterial Sec genes encode a generalized protein export machinery. Although the mitochondria present in eukaryotic cells are derived from bacterial ancestors, a comprehensive search of the complete genomic sequence for the eukaryotic yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae did not reveal any close homologs of the bacterial Sec genes, strongly suggesting that yeast mitochondria lack a generalized bacterial‐type export system. This finding has implications for the sorting of imported mitochondrial proteins to the intermembrane space compartment, and also for the insertion of mitochondrially encoded proteins into the inner membrane.
No abstract is provided for this article.
Integral membrane proteins from a wide variety of sources conform to a positive-inside rule, with many more positively charged amino acids in their cytoplasmic as compared to extracytoplasmic domains. A growing body of experimental work also points to positively charged residues in regions flanking the apolar transmembrane segments as being the main topological determinants. In this paper, we report a systematic comparison of the effects of positively (Arg, Lys, His) as well as negatively (Asp, Glu) charged residues on the membrane topology of a model Escherichia coli inner membrane protein. Our results show that positive charge is indeed the major factor determining the transmembrane topology, with Arg and Lys being of nearly equal efficiency. His, although normally a very weak topological determinant, can be potentiated by a lowering of the cytoplasmic pH. Asp and Glu affect the topology to similar extents and only when present in very high numbers.
No abstract is provided for this article.