BACK TO CONTENTS   |    PDF   |    PREVIOUS   |    NEXT

Title

Structural features differentiate the mechanisms between 2S (2 state) and 3S (3 state) folding homodimers

 

Authors

Lei Li1, Kannan Gunasekaran2, Jacob Gah-Kok Gan1, Cui Zhanhua1, Paul Shapshak3, Meena Kishore Sakharkar1, and Pandjassarame Kangueane1*

 

Affiliation

1School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798; 2Basic Research Program, SAIC-Frederick, Inc., Laboratory of Experimental and Computational Biology, National Cancer Institute, Frederick, MD 21702, USA; 3Dementia/HIV Laboratory, Elliot Building Room 2013, Department of Psychiatry and Beh Sci, University of Miami Miller Medical School, 1800 NW 10th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33136

 

E-mail*

mpandjassarame@ntu.edu.sg; * Corresponding author

 

Article Type

 

Hypothesis

 

Date

 

received July 07, 2005; revised August 28, 2005; accepted September 2, 2005; published online September 2, 2005

 

Abstract

 

The formation of homodimer complexes for interface stability, catalysis and regulation is intriguing. The mechanisms of homodimer complexations are even more interesting. Some homodimers form without intermediates (two-state (2S)) and others through the formation of stable intermediates (three-state ((3S)). Here, we analyze 41 homodimer (25 `2S` and 16 `3S`) structures determined by X-ray crystallography to estimate structural differences between them. The analysis suggests that a combination of structural properties such as monomer length, subunit interface area, ratio of interface to interior hydrophobicity can predominately distinguish 2S and 3S homodimers. These findings are useful in the prediction of homodimer folding and binding mechanisms using structural data.

 

Keywords

 

Homodimer; structural difference; 2 state; 3 state; stable intermediate; folding mechanisms

 

Abbreviations

 

2S = 2 state homodimer; 3S = 3 state homodimer; 3SMI =  3 state homodimer with monomer intermediate; 3SDI = 3 state homodimer with dimer intermediate; ML =  monomer length; B/2 = subunit interface area; Fhp =  fraction of interface to interior hydrophobicity

 

Citation

 

Li et al., Bioinformation 1(2): 42-49 (2005)

 

Edited by

 

SANDEEP Kumar

 

ISSN

 

0973-2063

 

Publisher

 

Biomedical Informatics

 

License

 

This is an Open Access article which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. This is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.