Were Ancestral Proteins Less Specific?

Some have hypothesized that ancestral proteins were, on average, less specific than their descendants. If true, this would provide a universal axis along which to organize protein evolution and suggests that reconstructed ancestral proteins may be uniquely powerful tools for protein engineering. Ancestral sequence reconstruction studies are one line of evidence used to support this hypothesis. Previously, we performed such a study, investigating the evolution of peptide-binding specificity for the paralogs S100A5 and S100A6. The modern proteins appeared more specific than their last common ancestor (ancA5/A6), as each paralog bound a subset of the peptides bound by ancA5/A6. In this study, we revisit this transition, using quantitative phage display to measure the interactions of 30,533 random peptides with human S100A5, S100A6, and ancA5/A6. This unbiased screen reveals a different picture. While S100A5 and S100A6 do indeed bind to a subset of the peptides recognized by ancA5/A6, they also acquired new peptide partners outside of the set recognized by ancA5/A6. Our previous work showed that ancA5/A6 had lower specificity than its descendants when measured against biological targets; our new work shows that ancA5/A6 has similar specificity to the modern proteins when measured against a random set of peptide targets. This demonstrates that altered biological specificity does not necessarily indicate altered intrinsic specificity, and sounds a cautionary note for using ancestral reconstruction studies with biological targets as a means to infer global evolutionary trends in specificity.

Negative trade-off between neoantigen repertoire breadth and the specificity of HLA-I molecules shapes antitumour immunity

The human leukocyte antigen class I (HLA-I) genes shape our immune response against pathogens and cancer. Certain HLA-I variants can bind a much wider range of peptides than others, a feature that could be favorable against a range of viral diseases. However, the implications of this phenomenon on cancer immune response is unknown. In this paper, we quantified peptide repertoire breadth (or promiscuity) of a representative set of HLA-I alleles, and found that cancer patients that carry HLA-I alleles with high peptide binding promiscuity are characterized by significantly worse prognosis after immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. This trend can be explained by a reduced capacity of promiscuous HLA-I molecules to discriminate between human self and tumour peptides, yielding a shift in regulation of T-cells in the tumour microenvironment from activation to tolerance. In summary, HLA-I peptide binding specificity shapes neopeptide immunogenicity and the self-immunopeptidome repertoire in an antagonistic manner. It could also underlie a negative trade-off between antitumour immunity and the genetic susceptibility to viral infections.

Were ancestral proteins less specific?

Some have hypothesized that ancestral proteins were, on average, less specific than their descendants. If true, this would provide a universal axis along which to organize protein evolution and suggests that reconstructed ancestral proteins may be uniquely powerful tools for protein engineering. Ancestral sequence reconstruction studies are one line of evidence used to support this hypothesis. Previously, we performed such a study, investigating the evolution of peptide binding specificity for the paralogs S100A5 and S100A6. The modern proteins appeared more specific than their last common ancestor (ancA5/A6), as each paralog bound a subset of the peptides bound by ancA5/A6. In the current study, we revisit this transition, using quantitative phage display to measure the interactions of 19,194 random peptides with human S100A5, S100A6, and ancA5/A6. This unbiased screen reveals a different picture. While S100A5 and S100A6 do indeed bind to a subset of the peptides recognized by ancA5/A6, they also acquired new peptide partners outside of the set recognized by ancA5/A6. Our previous work showed that ancA5/A6 had lower specificity than its descendants when measured against biological targets; our new work shows that ancA5/A6 has similar specificity to the modern proteins when measured against a random set of peptide targets. This demonstrates that altered biological specificity does not necessarily indicate altered intrinsic specificity, and sounds a cautionary note for using ancestral reconstruction studies with biological targets as a means to infer global evolutionary trends in specificity.

Conservation of specificity in two low-specificity protein

S100 proteins bind linear peptide regions of target proteins and modulate their activity. The peptide binding interface, however, has remarkably low specificity and can interact with many target peptides. It is not clear if the interface discriminates targets in a biological context, or whether biological specificity is achieved exclusively through external factors such as subcellular localization. To discriminate these possibilities, we used an evolutionary biochemical approach to trace the evolution of paralogs S100A5 and S100A6. We first used isothermal titration calorimetry to study the binding of a collection of peptides with diverse sequence, hydrophobicity, and charge to human S100A5 and S100A6. These proteins bound distinct, but overlapping, sets of peptide targets. We then studied the peptide binding properties of S100A5 and S100A6 orthologs sampled from across five representative amniote species. We found that the pattern of binding specificity was conserved along all lineages, for the last 320 million years, despite the low specificity of each protein. We next used Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction to determine the binding specificity of the last common ancestor of the paralogs. We found the ancestor bound the whole set of peptides bound by modern S100A5 and S100A6 proteins, suggesting that paralog specificity evolved by subfunctionalization. To rule out the possibility that specificity is conserved because it is difficult to modify, we identified a single historical mutation that, when reverted in human S100A5, gave it the ability to bind an S100A6-specific peptide. These results indicate that there are strong evolutionary constraints on peptide binding specificity, and that, despite being able to bind a large number of targets, the specificity of S100 peptide interfaces is indeed important for the biology of these proteins.