scholarly journals Intrinsically Disordered Proteins Evolve Differently from Ordered (Structured) Proteins

2011 ◽  
Vol 100 (3) ◽  
pp. 519a
Author(s):  
Celeste J. Brown ◽  
Gary W. Daughdrill ◽  
A. Keith Dunker
eLife ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Li ◽  
Jordan T White ◽  
Harry Saavedra ◽  
James O Wrabl ◽  
Hesam N Motlagh ◽  
...  

Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) present a functional paradox because they lack stable tertiary structure, but nonetheless play a central role in signaling, utilizing a process known as allostery. Historically, allostery in structured proteins has been interpreted in terms of propagated structural changes that are induced by effector binding. Thus, it is not clear how IDPs, lacking such well-defined structures, can allosterically affect function. Here, we show a mechanism by which an IDP can allosterically control function by simultaneously tuning transcriptional activation and repression, using a novel strategy that relies on the principle of ‘energetic frustration’. We demonstrate that human glucocorticoid receptor tunes this signaling in vivo by producing translational isoforms differing only in the length of the disordered region, which modulates the degree of frustration. We expect this frustration-based model of allostery will prove to be generally important in explaining signaling in other IDPs.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Deiana ◽  
Sergio Forcelloni ◽  
Alessandro Porrello ◽  
Andrea Giansanti

AbstractMany studies about classification and the functional annotation of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) are based on either the occurrence of long disordered regions or the fraction of disordered residues in the sequence. Taking into account both criteria we separate the human proteome, taken as a case study, into three variants of proteins: i) ordered proteins (ORDPs), ii) structured proteins with intrinsically disordered regions (IDPRs), and iii) intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs). The focus of this work is on the different functional roles of IDPs and IDPRs, which up until now have been generally considered as a whole. Previous studies assigned a large set of functional roles to the general category of IDPs. We show here that IDPs and IDPRs have non-overlapping functional spectra, play different roles in human diseases, and deserve to be treated as distinct categories of proteins. IDPs enrich only a few classes, functions, and processes: nucleic acid binding proteins, chromatin binding proteins, transcription factors, and developmental processes. In contrast, IDPRs are spread over several functional protein classes and GO annotations which they partly share with ORDPs. As regards to diseases, we observe that IDPs enrich only cancer-related proteins, at variance with previous results reporting that IDPs are widespread also in cardiovascular and neurodegenerative pathologies. Overall, the operational separation of IDPRs from IDPs is relevant towards correct estimates of the occurrence of intrinsically disordered proteins in genome-wide studies and in the understanding of the functional spectra associated to different flavors of protein disorder.


2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Bondos ◽  
A. Keith Dunker ◽  
Vladimir N. Uversky

AbstractFor proteins, the sequence → structure → function paradigm applies primarily to enzymes, transmembrane proteins, and signaling domains. This paradigm is not universal, but rather, in addition to structured proteins, intrinsically disordered proteins and regions (IDPs and IDRs) also carry out crucial biological functions. For these proteins, the sequence → IDP/IDR ensemble → function paradigm applies primarily to signaling and regulatory proteins and regions. Often, in order to carry out function, IDPs or IDRs cooperatively interact, either intra- or inter-molecularly, with structured proteins or other IDPs or intermolecularly with nucleic acids. In this IDP/IDR thematic collection published in Cell Communication and Signaling, thirteen articles are presented that describe IDP/IDR signaling molecules from a variety of organisms from humans to fruit flies and tardigrades (“water bears”) and that describe how these proteins and regions contribute to the function and regulation of cell signaling. Collectively, these papers exhibit the diverse roles of disorder in responding to a wide range of signals as to orchestrate an array of organismal processes. They also show that disorder contributes to signaling in a broad spectrum of species, ranging from micro-organisms to plants and animals.


Genes ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zamora-Briseño ◽  
Pereira-Santana ◽  
Reyes-Hernández ◽  
Castaño ◽  
Rodríguez-Zapata

Intrinsic protein disorder is a physicochemical attribute of some proteins lacking tridimensional structure and is collectively known as intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs). Interestingly, several IDPs have been associated with protective functions in plants and with their response to external stimuli. To correlate the modulation of the IDPs content with the developmental progression in seed, we describe the expression of transcripts according to the disorder content of the proteins that they codify during seed development, from the early embryogenesis to the beginning of the desiccation tolerance acquisition stage. We found that the total expression profile of transcripts encoding for structured proteins is highly increased during middle phase. However, the relative content of protein disorder is increased as seed development progresses. We identified several intrinsically disordered transcription factors that seem to play important roles throughout seed development. On the other hand, we detected a gene cluster encoding for IDPs at the end of the late phase, which coincides with the beginning of the acquisition of desiccation tolerance. In conclusion, the expression pattern of IDPs is highly dependent on the developmental stage, and there is a general reduction in the expression of transcripts encoding for structured proteins as seed development progresses. We proposed maize seeds as a model to study the regulation of protein disorder in plant development and its involvement in the acquisition of desiccation tolerance in plants.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruchi Lohia ◽  
Reza Salari ◽  
Grace Brannigan

<div>The role of electrostatic interactions and mutations that change charge states in intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) is well-established, but many disease-associated mutations in IDPs are charge-neutral. The Val66Met single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) encodes a hydrophobic-to-hydrophobic mutation at the midpoint of the prodomain of precursor brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), one of the earliest SNPs to be associated with neuropsychiatric disorders, for which the underlying molecular mechanism is unknown. Here we report on over 250 μs of fully-atomistic, explicit solvent, temperature replica exchange molecular dynamics simulations of the 91 residue BDNF prodomain, for both the V66 and M66 sequence.</div><div>The simulations were able to correctly reproduce the location of both local and non-local secondary changes due to the Val66Met mutation when compared with NMR spectroscopy. We find that the local structure change is mediated via entropic and sequence specific effects. We show that the highly disordered prodomain can be meaningfully divided into domains based on sequence alone. Monte Carlo simulations of a self-excluding heterogeneous polymer, with monomers representing each domain, suggest the sequence would be effectively segmented by the long, highly disordered polyampholyte near the sequence midpoint. This is qualitatively consistent with observed interdomain contacts within the BDNF prodomain, although contacts between the two segments are enriched relative to the self-excluding polymer. The Val66Met mutation increases interactions across the boundary between the two segments, due in part to a specific Met-Met interaction with a Methionine in the other segment. This effect propagates to cause the non-local change in secondary structure around the second methionine, previously observed in NMR. The effect is not mediated simply via changes in inter-domain contacts but is also dependent on secondary structure formation around residue 66, indicating a mechanism for secondary structure coupling in disordered proteins. </div>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document