* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Structural comparison of three viral fusion proteins
Cell membrane wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression wikipedia , lookup
Protein (nutrient) wikipedia , lookup
Biochemistry wikipedia , lookup
Magnesium transporter wikipedia , lookup
Ribosomally synthesized and post-translationally modified peptides wikipedia , lookup
SNARE (protein) wikipedia , lookup
Endomembrane system wikipedia , lookup
G protein–coupled receptor wikipedia , lookup
Protein folding wikipedia , lookup
Protein moonlighting wikipedia , lookup
Cell-penetrating peptide wikipedia , lookup
Circular dichroism wikipedia , lookup
Interactome wikipedia , lookup
Ancestral sequence reconstruction wikipedia , lookup
Metalloprotein wikipedia , lookup
List of types of proteins wikipedia , lookup
Protein domain wikipedia , lookup
Protein adsorption wikipedia , lookup
Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy of proteins wikipedia , lookup
Homology modeling wikipedia , lookup
Intrinsically disordered proteins wikipedia , lookup
Western blot wikipedia , lookup
31 25 Biochemical SocietyTransactions ( 1 99 1 ) 19 Structural comparison of three viral "fusion" proteins BRUCE H NICHOLSON and MAHMOUD NAASE Department of Biochemistry & Physiology, AMS Building, University of Reading, Whiteknights, P 0 Box 228, Reading RG6 2AJ Recently the role for the 14 kD protein of vaccinia has become more clearly defined [l]. Originally thought to be concerned in the process whereby viral particles are attached to the target cell it has subsequently been shown to assist in the passage outwards from the cell, where it is essential for the envelopment of intracellular virions by the fusion of the outermost of the two Golgi derived membranes with the plasma-membrane, and release of mature extracellular viral particles. Homologues of the vaccinia protein have been found in capripox [2] and in orf, a parapox virus [3]. The degree of homology, when determined by amino acid identity, is low. Depending on the number of gaps introduced, it ranges from 26-39% when orf is compared to either of the other two viruses. In addition, the proteins are widely divergent in length, being 148 residues (capripox) 110 residues (vaccinia) and 89 (orf). The alignment of the sequences to demonstrate homology can be tested independently using the core prediction method [4]. Thus for example, despite the wide disparity in length of sequences, of the total of 70 core residues present in the three sequences, over 50% align with core residues in one or both of the other sequences. The conservation of core residues, that is to say those residues in contact with three other hydrophobic residues (or two in the case of ILE or LEU) [ 5 ] is indicative of a conserved tertiary structure, since the core, as defined, is a tertiary feature. Thus the homologous proteins will generally have a similar tertiary structure, so that the residues forming the core would be in similar positions. This is so even though the rules which predict the core/non-core status may be different in each case, due to either the core residue being different, and/or the sequence either side which forms the basis for the prediction. The core volume is lower in the orf protein, and to a lesser extent the vaccinia protein, compared to the capripox protein. This is partly due to the large deletions, but the numbers of core predicted residues for the regions where all three sequences overlap are 14 (orf) 18 (vaccinia) and 24 (capripox). This probably reflects the increasing difficulty in shielding the core in smaller molecules. The data base for predictive algorithms is drawn almost entirely from globular proteins, and although this may be of significance in considering membrane bound proteins as in the present case, it is noteworthy that integral membrane proteins show strong helix formation. The combined secondary structure methods (Leeds suite) predict essentially four alpha helices for both capripox and vaccinia. These might be expected to adopt either a crossed helix pattern or an antiparallel helix bundle, with some accommodation for membrane attachment. In orf only the C-terminal helix remains intact, and the rest of the structure is Schematic structure of the homologous proteins The solid line represents the predicted structure of the largest protein (capripox, 148 residues), with side chains of core residues ( ). The regions deleted are ---- , orf). shown bypassed (...., vaccinia; Regions of high antigenic propensity are shown dotted (capripox), cross-hatched ( / / / , vaccinia; \ \ \ , orf) or in combination where overlapping. . drastically modified. A hydrophobic region in the helix nearest the C-terminal shows a relatively high (compared to the rest of the sequence) degree of conservation between the three species. Leading into this helix are the two adjacent cysteines (one substituted in capripox) thought to be essential in the vaccinia protein, possibly in formation of trimers. It would seem likely that this region is exposed, and that the area of membrane attachment is relatively small, leaving the rest of the molecule free to function. All three sequences were scanned [6] for potential B-cell epitopes, since the 14 kD 'fusion' protein of vaccinia was first detected by its reactivity to monoclonal antibodies produced against vaccinia virus virions [ 7 ] and polyclonal antibodies raised in sheep exposed to orf (the gift of Dr Hugh Reid, Moredun Research Institute, Edinburgh) cross-reacted with the orf protein [Naase et al, unpublished observation]. The regions of antigenic propensity are situated in the connecting sequences between helices, and at the N 6 C terminal sequences. The second helix (deleted in orf) showed a strong propensity in both vaccinia (res 20-33, 37-41) and capripox (res 40-44, 51-55) and in general for all three proteins the highest antigenic propensity occurs in the N-terminal half of the molecules. 1. Rodriguez, J.F. & Smith, G.L. (1990) Nucleic Acids Research 18, 5347-5351. 2. Gershon, P.D., Ansell, D.M. & Black, D.N. (1989) J. Virol. 63, 4703-4708. 3. Naase, M. & Nicholson, B.H. (1991) J. Gen. Virol. (in press). 4. Nicholson, B.H. (1982) Biochem. SOC. Trans. 10, 386-388. 5. Crampin, J., Nicholson, B.H. & Robson, B. (1978) Nature 272, 558-560. 6. Nicholson, B.H. (1989) Biochem. SOC. Trans. 17, 398-399. 7. Rodriguez, J.F., Janeczko, R. and Esteban, M. (1985) J. Virol. 56, 482-488.