Peptides mediating interaction networks: new leads at last

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2006.08.002Get rights and content

A growing number of protein interactions are found to be mediated by a large globular region in one protein binding to a comparatively short, peptide stretch in another. Regions that bind a common protein often show a similar sequence pattern or linear motif that mediates the binding. The past year has seen reports of new techniques that can uncover these motifs directly from interaction data. These studies have suggested that the fraction of interactions mediated by these regions is greater than previously anticipated. Concurrently, other work has demonstrated that it is possible to target these interactions using small molecules. Together these developments hold great promise for future efforts to target chemically precise details of complex systems.

Introduction

Protein–protein interaction networks are having a growing impact on molecular biology. By suggesting details of potential binding partners they provide a cellular context that can be very illuminating about function. These networks also provide a framework for both studying biological systems and suggesting points of intervention to perturb them. However, the picture is currently limited, because techniques for determining interactions at the genome-scale (e.g. [1•, 2•, 3, 4]) lack details as to how they are mediated. Many interactions where details are known (e.g. from three-dimensional structures or predicted by various modelling techniques [5, 6]), show them to occur over large surfaces and this indeed seems to be the prevailing view of how most interactions occur. Interactions between large surfaces are normally difficult to perturb chemically, which has made them rather out of favour among those attempting to design inhibitors to target particular biological processes [7] (although some startling successes are challenging this view, e.g. [8, 9••]).

A growing number of interactions are now known to be mediated by short linear peptides: that is, where a smaller surface on one globular protein (or domain) binds to a short peptide segment in another. These globular proteins (or domains) often bind to different regions in multiple partners, and analysis often reveals an underlying consensus pattern or linear motif that captures the key features of the regions. Exciting recent work has shown that interactions mediated by these peptides are more amenable to chemical targeting than the larger interaction surfaces. This review discusses recent advances in the discovery of peptide/linear motif mediated interactions, and highlights some exciting new developments in their targeting by small molecules.

Section snippets

Linear motif function

Linear motifs are widespread in key biological processes (Table 1 gives several examples). Many of the best-known motifs, such as those interacting with SH2 (Src Homology 2), PTB (phosphotyrosine binding) and 14-3-3 domains, recognize sites of post-translational modification made during signal transduction. Linear motifs also mediate aspects of protein localization (e.g. endoplasmatic retention is mediated by a KDEL [in single-letter amino acid code] motif), and processes like DNA replication

Modes of protein–peptide interaction

There are several hundred know three-dimensional structures of proteins bound to peptides, several dozen of which contain established linear motifs. These structures show that peptides can adopt several conformations when bound to their partners; for example, the nuclear receptor (NR) box II peptide (LxxLL motif; where x is any amino acid), when bound to the ligand-binding domain of oestrogen receptor α, forms a short amphipathic α helix that is recognized by a highly complementary,

Targeting binding sites

The nature of linear motif or peptide interactions — specifically that they involve a relatively small part of a polypeptide chain interacting with a globular protein — suggests that it might be possible to disrupt them with small molecules. Exciting recent work has shown that it is in fact possible to do this. For instance, a ubiquitin protein ligase Mouse Double minute 2 (MDM2) binds to a short amphipathic α helix on the p53 tumor suppressor [30]. Vassilev and co-workers used high-throughput

Conclusions

There is still a certain cynicism regarding the possibility of targeting protein–protein interactions with small molecules (e.g. [7, 37]). However, it is clear that most of the early rationale for dismissing them en masse has stemmed from a perception that they involve large, rather flat contact areas that cannot specifically be blocked by small molecules (although recent work shows that it is indeed possible to chemically target such surfaces [8, 9••]). The situation is clearly better for

References and recommended reading

Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of review, have been highlighted as:

  • • of special interest

  • •• of outstanding interest

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Toby Gibson (EMBL) for helpful comments and to Matthew Betts (EMBL) for a critical reading of the manuscript. This work is supported by the EU-grant: 3D Repertoire, contract number LSHG-CT-2005-512028.

References (40)

  • P. Aloy et al.

    Interrogating protein interaction networks through structural biology

    Proc Natl Acad Sci USA

    (2002)
  • L. Lu et al.

    Multimeric threading-based prediction of protein-protein interactions on a genomic scale: application to the Saccharomyces cerevisiae proteome

    Genome Res

    (2003)
  • P.M. Fischer et al.

    Small-molecule inhibitors of the p53 suppressor HDM2: have protein-protein interactions come of age as drug targets?

    Trends Pharmacol Sci

    (2004)
  • T.R. Gadek et al.

    Generation of an LFA-1 antagonist by the transfer of the ICAM-1 immunoregulatory epitope to a small molecule

    Science

    (2002)
  • B.D. Davis et al.

    The mechanism of protein secretion across membranes

    Nature

    (1980)
  • J.C. Semenza et al.

    ERD2, a yeast gene required for the receptor-mediated retrieval of luminal ER proteins from the secretory pathway

    Cell

    (1990)
  • P. Puntervoll et al.

    ELM server: a new resource for investigating short functional sites in modular eukaryotic proteins

    Nucleic Acids Res

    (2003)
  • J.C. Obenauer et al.

    Scansite 2.0: Proteome-wide prediction of cell signaling interactions using short sequence motifs

    Nucleic Acids Res

    (2003)
  • G.R. Mishra et al.

    Human protein reference database –2006 update

    Nucleic Acids Res

    (2006)
  • C. Landgraf et al.

    Protein interaction networks by proteome peptide scanning

    PLoS Biol

    (2004)
  • Cited by (163)

    • LIM homeodomain proteins and associated partners: Then and now

      2021, Current Topics in Developmental Biology
      Citation Excerpt :

      In general, there are two types of protein–protein interactions: domain–motif interactions (DMIs) and domain–domain interactions (DDIs) (Garamszegi, Franzosa, & Xia, 2013), in which “domain” denotes a structural domain in the protein. In DMIs, protein interaction domains usually recognize short linear motifs of 4–8 amino acids, such as NPxYP (YP, phosphotyrosine) by the SH2 domain, [RKY]xPxxP by the SH3 domain, and Qxx[ILM]xx[DHFM][FMY] by PCNA (proliferating cell nuclear antigen) (Neduva & Russell, 2006). Compared to those short linear motifs, two tandem LIM domains recognize a linear sequence of 26–28 residues (Bhati et al., 2008) (Fig. 2C), which is much longer that those seen in other DMIs, but the mode of protein–protein interactions of LIM domains clearly belong to DMIs.

    • Structured Tandem Repeats in Protein Interactions

      2024, International Journal of Molecular Sciences
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text