Amino acids types

There is some confusion in using Bayes rule on what are sometimes called explanatory variables. As an example, we can try to use Bayesian statistics to derive the probabilities of each secondary structure type for each amino acid type, that is p( x r), where J. is a, P, or Y (for coil) secondary strucmres and r is one of the 20 amino acids. It is tempting to writep( x r) = p(r x)p( x)lp(r) using Bayes rule. This expression is, of course, correct and can be used on PDB data to relate these probabilities. But this is not Bayesian statistics, which relate parameters that represent underlying properties with (limited) data that are manifestations of those parameters in some way. In this case, the parameters we are after are 0 i(r) = p( x r). The data from the PDB are in the form of counts for y i(r), the number of amino acids of type r in the PDB that have secondary structure J.. There are 60 such numbers (20 amino acid types X 3 secondary structure types). We then have for each amino acid type a Bayesian expression for the posterior distribution for the values of xiiry. 

Use very informative priors, where perhaps the prior could be based on the product of individual probabilities for each secondary structure type and amino acid type. 

A similar formalism is used by Thompson and Goldstein [90] to predict residue accessibilities. What they derive would be a very useful prior distribution based on multiplying out independent probabilities to which data could be added to form a Bayesian posterior distribution. The work of Arnold et al. [87] is also not Bayesian statistics but rather the calculation of conditional distributions based on the simple counting argument that p(G r) = p(a, r)lp(r), where a is some property of interest (secondary structure, accessibility) and r is the amino acid type or some property of the amino acid type (hydro-phobicity) or of an amino acid segment (helical moment, etc). 

An effective method for localizing causes of redox potentials is to plot the total backbone and side chain contributions to ( ) per residue for homologous proteins as functions of the residue number using a consensus sequence, with insertions treated by summing the contribution of the entire insertion as one residue. The results for homologous proteins should be examined for differences in the contributions to ( ) per residue that correlate with observed redox potential differences. These differences can then be correlated with any other sequence-redox potential data for proteins that lack crystal or NMR structures. In addition, any sequences of homologous proteins that lack both redox potentials and structures should be examined, because residues important in defining the redox potential are likely to have semi-sequence conservation of a few key amino acid types. 

If the sequence of a protein has more than 90% identity to a protein with known experimental 3D-stmcture, then it is an optimal case to build a homologous structural model based on that structural template. The margins of error for the model and for the experimental method are in similar ranges. The different amino acids have to be mutated virtually. The conformations of the new side chains can be derived either from residues of structurally characterized amino acids in a similar spatial environment or from side chain rotamer libraries for each amino acid type which are stored for different structural environments like beta-strands or alpha-helices. 

Natural mutation of amino acids in the core of a protein can stabilize the same fold with different complementary amino acid types, but they can also cause a different fold of that particular portion. If the sequence identity is lower than 30% it is much more difficult to identify a homologous structure. Other strategies like secondary structure predictions combined with knowledge-based rules about reciprocal exchange of residues are necessary. If there is a reliable assumption for common fold then it is possible to identify intra- and intermolecular interacting residues by search for correlated complementary mutations of residues by correlated mutation analysis, CMA (see e.g., http //www.fmp-berlin.de/SSFA). 

Recently, a novel class of type 1-like human IFNs, named 1FN-A,1 or lL-29,1FN-A.2 (1F-28A) and 1FN-X3 (1F-28B), was identified (Dumoutier et al. 2003 Sheppard et al. 2003). The three IFN-A, genes cluster on human chromosome 19 and comprise 5 exons for 1FN-A,1 and 6 for 1FN-A.2 and 1FN-A.3, and several introns (Table 1). They encode 20- to 22-kDa secreted monomeric proteins of 196 to 200 amino acids. Type 111 IFNs have also been identified in other species such as mice, birds, and fish. 

An affinity label is a molecule that contains a functionality that is chemically reactive and will therefore form a covalent bond with other molecules containing a complementary functionality. Generally, affinity labels contain electrophilic functionalities that form covalent bonds with protein nucleophiles, leading to protein alkylation or protein acylation. In some cases affinity labels interact selectively with specific amino acid side chains, and this feature of the molecule can make them useful reagents for defining the importance of certain amino acid types in enzyme function. For example, iodoacetate and A-ethyl maleimide are two compounds that selectively modify the sulfur atom of cysteine side chains. These compounds can therefore be used to test the functional importance of cysteine residues for an enzyme s activity. This topic is covered in more detail below in Section 8.4. 

However, just considering the individual properties of each amino acid type is not enough to determine its accessibility to the surrounding aqueous environment. There have been many attempts at developing analytical models with predictive value for determining buried or surface accessible amino acids in a folded polypeptide chain. These studies have concluded fractional assignments for each residue that relate to its accessible surface area (ASA) or its solvent exposed area (SEA). 

It is noteworthy that there is another limiting factor in the choice of amino acid types at the junction sites which affect the enzymatic process of the intein. For example, in the case of SceVMA (also called PI-Seel) from the IMPACT system, proline, cysteine, asparagine, aspartic acid, and arginine cannot be at the C-terminus of the N-terminal target protein just before the intein sequence. The presence of these residues at this position would either slow down the N-S acyl shift dramatically or lead to immediate hydrolysis of the product from the N-S acyl shift [66]. The compatibility of amino acid types at the proximal sites depends on the specific inteins and needs to be carefully considered during the design of the required expression vectors. The specific amino acid requirements at a particular splicing site depends on the specific intein used and is thus a crucial point in this approach. 

Fig. 4.4 Example of amino acid-type selective labeling. A [ H,15N]-HSQC spectrum obtained with the fully 15N-labeled monomeric form of the KSHV protease. B and C [nH,15N]-l-ISQC spectra...

If specific amino acid-type labeling is required, the labeled amino acid is added to the fermentation of the expression host (topic 1 above, see Sect. 1.2.3). In this case, a thorough isotope analysis of the expressed protein is advisable prior to NMR spectroscopic investigations. This is preferentially achieved by GC-MS analyses of the hydrolyzed amino acids from the protein product. 

Note that if only a single amino acid type was observed in any profile position among the defining set, the posterior conditional probabilities can be approximated simply by the prior conditional probabilities of observing each of the other 19 amino acid types given that one was observed, i.e.,... 

Here Ft is the cardinality of the defining set of amino acid types, Fj. The Pdt f(X) is either one over Fj, if amino type X is found at... 

Instead of using amino acid-type selective labeling suppression of high background signals can also be achieved by selective expression of the protein of interest with the concomitant suppression of the expression of all other (host-) proteins. In principle, this suppression of host gene expres-... 

---