Structural comparison of homologous protein-RNA interfaces reveals widespread overall conservation contrasted with versatility in polar contacts
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Protein-RNA interactions play a critical role in many cellular processes and pathologies. However, experimental determination of protein-RNA structures is still challenging, therefore computational tools are needed for the prediction of protein-RNA interfaces. Although evolutionary pressures can be exploited for structural prediction of protein-protein interfaces, and recent deep learning methods using protein multiple sequence alignments have radically improved the performance of protein-protein interface structural prediction, protein-RNA structural prediction is lagging behind, due to the scarcity of structural data and the flexibility involved in these complexes. To study the evolution of protein-RNA interface structures, we first identified a large and diverse dataset of 2,022 pairs of structurally homologous interfaces (termed structural interologs). We leveraged this unique dataset to analyze the conservation of interface contacts among structural interologs based on the properties of involved amino acids and nucleotides. We uncovered that 73% of distance-based contacts and 68% of apolar contacts are conserved on average, and the strong conservation of these contacts occurs even in distant homologs with sequence identity below 20%. Distance-based contacts are also much more conserved compared to what we had found in a previous study of homologous protein-protein interfaces. In contrast, hydrogen bonds, salt bridges, and π-stacking interactions are very versatile in pairs of protein-RNA interologs, even for close homologs with high interface sequence identity. We found that almost half of the non-conserved distance-based contacts are linked to a small proportion of interface residues that no longer make interface contacts in the interolog, a phenomenon we term “interface switching out”. We also examined possible recovery mechanisms for non-conserved hydrogen bonds and salt bridges, uncovering diverse scenarios of switching out, change in amino acid chemical nature, intermolecular and intramolecular compensations. Our findings provide insights for integrating evolutionary signals into predictive protein-RNA structural modeling methods.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764 · see citing works
Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3
Abramson, J., Adler, J., Dunger, J., Evans, R., Green, T., Pritzel, A., Ronneberger, O., Willmore, L., Ballard, A. J., Bambrick, J., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w · Cited by 15,861 · see citing works
ECOD: an evolutionary classification of protein domains
Cheng, H., Schaeffer, R. D., Liao, Y., Kinch, L. N., Pei, J., Shi, S., Kim, B.-H., & Grishin, N. V. (2014) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003926 · Cited by 426 · see citing works
3D RNA and Functional Interactions from Evolutionary Couplings
Weinreb, C., Riesselman, A. J., Ingraham, J. B., Gross, T., Sander, C., & Marks, D. S. (2016) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2016.03.030 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Walia, R. R., Xue, L. C., Wilkins, K., El-Manzalawy, Y., Dobbs, D., & Honavar, V. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097725 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Nithin, C., Ghosh, P., & Bujnicki, J. M. (2018) · Genes · doi:10.3390/genes9090432 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Mahmoudi, I., Quignot, C., Martins, C., & Andreani, J.
- Affiliations
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Venue
- PLOS Computational Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2024-12-03
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- e1012650
- ISSN
- 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
- 1553-7358
- PMC
- PMC11642956
- OpenAlex
- W4404956256
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 0.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- new_version (2024-12-13)
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-18-CE45-0005 ESPRINet)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Research and Splicing
- Keywords
- protein-RNA interface, hydrogen bonding, salt bridges, π-π stacking, evolutionary conservation, distant homologs
- MeSH terms
- Amino Acid Sequence, Models, Molecular, Nucleic Acid Conformation, Protein Binding, Protein Conformation, Proteins, RNA, Sequence Alignment, RNA-Binding Proteins, Conserved Sequence, Computational Biology, Databases, Protein
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review