Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 19, 2026

Identifying Protein-protein Interaction Sites Using Peptide Arrays
Published on: November 18, 2014
Residue frequencies and pairing preferences at protein-protein interfaces
F Glaser1, D M Steinberg, I A Vakser
1Department of Biochemistry, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv 69978, Israel.
Abstract:
We used a nonredundant set of 621 protein-protein interfaces of known high-resolution structure to derive residue composition and residue-residue contact preferences. The residue composition at the interfaces, in entire proteins and in whole genomes correlates well, indicating the statistical strength of the data set. Differences between amino acid distributions were observed for interfaces with buried surface area of less than 1,000 A(2) versus interfaces with area of more than 5,000 A(2). Hydrophobic residues were abundant in large interfaces while polar residues were more abundant in small interfaces. The largest residue-residue preferences at the interface were recorded for interactions between pairs of large hydrophobic residues, such as Trp and Leu, and the smallest preferences for pairs of small residues, such as Gly and Ala. On average, contacts between pairs of hydrophobic and polar residues were unfavorable, and the charged residues tended to pair subject to charge complementarity, in agreement with previous reports. A bootstrap procedure, lacking from previous studies, was used for error estimation. It showed that the statistical errors in the set of pairing preferences are generally small; the average standard error is approximately 0.2, i.e., about 8% of the average value of the pairwise index (2.9). However, for a few pairs (e.g., Ser-Ser and Glu-Asp) the standard error is larger in magnitude than the pairing index, which makes it impossible to tell whether contact formation is favorable or unfavorable. The results are interpreted using physicochemical factors and their implications for the energetics of complex formation and for protein docking are discussed. Proteins 2001;43:89-102.
More Related Videos
07:08Optimization of Synthetic Proteins: Identification of Interpositional Dependencies Indicating Structurally and/or Functionally Linked Residues
Published on: July 14, 2015
06:50Computational Prediction of Amino Acid Preferences of Potentially Multispecific Peptide-Binding Domains Involved in Protein-Protein Interactions
Published on: January 26, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Protein-protein Interfaces
Conserved Binding Sites
Binding sites are often located in large pockets, and if their location on a protein’s surface is unknown, it can be predicted using various approaches. The energetic method computationally analyses the...
Protein Networks
These interactions can be represented through maps depicting protein-protein interaction networks, represented as nodes and edges. Nodes are circles that are representative of a protein,...
Protein-Protein Interfaces
Conserved Binding Sites
Binding sites are often located in large pockets, and if their location on a protein’s surface is unknown, it can be predicted using various approaches. The energetic method computationally analyses the...
Protein Complexes with Interchangeable Parts
The SCF ubiquitin ligase is a protein complex of five individual proteins. This complex attaches ubiquitin to other target proteins to mark them for degradation. In order to...