PSI Structural Biology Knowledgebase

PSI | Structural Biology Knowledgebase
Header Icons

Related Articles
Signaling: A Platform for Opposing Functions
May 2015
Protein Folding and Misfolding: It's the Journey, Not the Destination
March 2015
Molecular Portraits of the Cell
February 2015
Nuclear Pore Complex: A Flexible Transporter
February 2015
Nuclear Pore Complex: Higher Resolution of Macromolecules
February 2015
Nuclear Pore Complex: Integrative Approach to Probe Nup133
February 2015
Piecing Together the Nuclear Pore Complex
February 2015
Updating ModBase
January 2015
Transmembrane Spans
December 2014
Mining Protein Dynamics
May 2014
Novel Proteins and Networks: Assigning Function
May 2014
Cancer Networks: Predicting Catalytic Residues from 3D Protein Structures
November 2013
The Immune System: A Brotherhood of Immunoglobulins
June 2013
The Immune System: Super Cytokines
June 2013
Infectious Diseases: Targeting Meningitis
May 2013
PDZ Domains
April 2013
Protein Interaction Networks: Adding Structure to Protein Networks
April 2013
Design and Discovery: Flexible Backbone Protein Redesign
February 2013
Pocket changes
July 2012
Predictive protein origami
July 2012
Refining protein structure prediction
March 2012
Metal mates
February 2012
Devil is in the details
January 2012
Playing while you work
November 2011
Docking and rolling
October 2011
Fit to serve
October 2011
Rosetta hone
July 2011
Structure from sequence
July 2011
An easier solution for symmetry
June 2011
Solutions in the solution
June 2011
Regulating nitrogen assimilation
January 2011
Guard cells pick up the SLAC
December 2010
Alpha/Beta Barrels
October 2010
Modeling RNA structures
May 2010
Deducing function from small structural clues
February 2010
Spot the pore
January 2010
Network coverage
November 2009
GPCR modeling: any good?
August 2009
Protein modeling made easy
July 2009
Model proteins in your lunch break
April 2009
Click for cancer-protein interactions
December 2008
Modeling with SAXS
October 2008
Designing activity
September 2008

Technology Topics Modeling

Protein Folding and Misfolding: It's the Journey, Not the Destination

SBKB [doi:10.1038/sbkb.2015.4]
Technical Highlight - March 2015
Short description: Computational analysis suggests ∼10% of pathogenic mutations interfere with membrane integration.

10% of pathogenic mutations in transmembrane helices are predicted to disrupt membrane integration or orientation. Figure adapted from Schlebach and Sanders 1 with kind permission from Springer Science and Business Media.

Protein maturation requires several steps to reach correct localization and active conformation. For membrane proteins, one of these steps is the cotranslational insertion of transmembrane helices into the endoplasmic reticulum membrane, as mediated by the translocon. This process is sensitive to environmental conditions and other factors, meaning that even native sequences can sometimes fail to insert properly. The extent to which pathogenic mutations in membrane proteins might exacerbate the challenges of membrane insertion is not well understood.

To gain insight into this question, Schlebach and Sanders (PSI MPSbyNMR) identified five transmembrane proteins for which clinical data on pathogenic mutations are available, including rhodopsin. The authors then used the ΔG prediction algorithm, published in 2007 by the von Heijne group, to determine the energetics of inserting each of the 36 individual transmembrane helices from these proteins into the membrane and to confirm the location of transmembrane sequences within each full protein.

With a baseline set for the wild-type sequences, the authors parsed the known pathogenic mutations in these proteins to identify 470 amino acid changes in or near the transmembrane helices. Analysis of this collection with the prediction algorithm identified both membrane insertion-stabilizing and destabilizing mutations. The location scan also identified several mutations that were predicted to cause a shift in the placement of the helix, with the largest shift calculated at 11 residues.

Finally, the authors compared published data on the cellular behavior of 22 rhodopsin mutants with their predictions to determine if the computationally destabilizing mutations correlated with delays in trafficking or increased degradation. Indeed, 15 of the mutants, as predicted, had minimal impact on the folding pathway, whereas 6 other mutations predicted to destabilize membrane integration caused retention of the protein in the endoplasmic reticulum and less activity overall. However, the L125R mutant, predicted to destabilize helix insertion, seemed to traffic normally; upon re-inspection of the sequence, the authors suspect an intra- or interhelical salt bridge could explain this result.

While the authors note that these predictions should be examined biochemically, their results highlight the importance of membrane insertion in disease etiology and point to new opportunities to resolve mutant phenotypes via early intervention.

Catherine Goodman


  1. J.P. Schlebach & C.R. Sanders Influence of pathogenic mutations on the energetics of translocon-mediated bilayer integration of transmembrane helices.
    J. Membrane Biol. (6 September 2014). doi:10.1007/s00232-014-9726-0

  2. T. Hessa et al. Molecular code for transmembrane-helix recognition by the Sec61 translocon.
    Nature. 450, 1026-1030 (2007). doi:10.1038/nature06387

Structural Biology Knowledgebase ISSN: 1758-1338
Funded by a grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health