Understanding Membrane Proteins. How to Design Inhibitors of Transmembrane Protein—Protein Interactions

  • J. S. Slusky
  • H. Yin
  • W. F. DeGrado
Part of the Nucleic Acids and Molecular Biology book series (NUCLEIC, volume 22)

Recent experiments demonstrated that buried membrane-protein hydrogen-bonding is less energetically favorable than the values that are discussed in section 3.3 of this chapter 1. Double mutant cycle analysis allows for the analysis of the interaction of two particular amino acids to the exclusion of their interaction with the rest of the protein. Such analysis of bacteriarhodopsin showed that amino acids in the correct orientation for hydrogen bonding contribute stabilization energies between −1.7 and +0.4 kcal mol−1 with an average over 8 pairs of −0.6 kcal mol−1. This is approximately the same value as that of a hydrogen bond in a soluble protein, and is consistent with the notion that the core of membrane proteins and soluble proteins are biochemically similar. However, it should be noted that the burial of polar amino acids exerts a stablizing effect on membrane proteins beyond hydrogen bonding as well. Though hydrogen bonds may contribute less to the stability of a membrane protein than previously understood, this does not necessarily argue against the importance of the membrane protein hydrogen bond. The membrane protein's unfolded state is more similar-and therefore closer in energy-to its folded state than the unfolded soluble protein is to its folded state. Therefore, although the energy of the hydrogen bond is the same, the relative contribution of the hydrogen bond to the stability of the fold is greater in membrane proteins.

This same study also showed a disparity between hydrogen bonding at lipid-exposed positions and at positions in the core of the protein. Distances between atoms and the strength of the bond between those atoms are tightly correlated. Analysis of the distance of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors in membrane proteins and in soluble proteins revealed that hydrogen bonding in buried positions of membrane proteins have a similar distance distribution to that of solvent exposed positions on soluble proteins. However, lipid-exposed hydrogen bonds are shorter, and thus likely exert a greater stabilizing effect than buried hydrogen bonds in the membrane. This is consistent with the change in dielectric constant for the two environments.

Protein—protein interactions in the membrane are just beginning to be explored. Recently, significant advances have been made in disrupting protein—protein interactions in the membrane through protein design. These advances have allowed for the manipulation of biological processes in vivo, and have been shown to be useful probes for understanding the features that stabilize protein—protein interaction in the membrane. By bringing together information on how individual amino acids modulate transmembrane structure, what forces are responsible for oligomerization in the membrane, and how to computationally encode those concepts, a method has been established to create and disrupt protein—protein interactions in the membrane. This review aims to describe the necessity and utility of such probes, as well as provide a “how-to manual” for the design of such probes.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acharya A, Ruvinov SB, Gal J, Moll JR, Vinson C (2002) A heterodimerizing leucine zipper coiled coil system for examining the specificity of a position interactions: amino acids I, V, L, N, A, and K. Biochemistry 41:14122–14131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adamian L, Liang J (2001) Helix—helix packing and interfacial pairwise interactions of residues in membrane proteins. J Mol Biol 311:891–907PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adamian L, Liang J (2002) Interhelical hydrogen bonds and spatial motifs in membrane proteins: polar clamps and serine zippers. Proteins Struct Funct Genet 47:209–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adamian L, Nanda V, DeGrado WF, Liang J (2005) Empirical lipid propensities of amino acid residues in multispan alpha helical membrane proteins. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinformat 59:496–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arbely E, Arkin IT (2004) Experimental measurement of the strength of a Ca—H…O bond in a lipid bilayer. J Am Chem Soc 126:5362–5363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arselin G, Giraud MF, Dautant A, Vaillier J, Brethes D, Coulary-Salin B, Schaeffer J et al (2003) The GxxxG motif of the transmembrane domain of subunit e is involved in the dimerization/ oligomerization of the yeast ATP synthase complex in the mitochondrial membrane. Eur J Biochem 270:1875–1884PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ash WL, Stockner T, MacCallum JL, Tieleman DP (2004) Computer modeling of polyleucine-based coiled coil dimers in a realistic membrane environment: insight into helix—helix interactions in membrane proteins. Biochemistry 43:9050–9060PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barth P, Schonbrun J, Baker D (2007) Toward high-resolution prediction and design of transmem-brane helical protein structures. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:15682–15687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berneche S, Nina M, Roux B (1998) Molecular dynamics simulation of melittin in a dimyristoyl-phosphatidylcholine bilayer membrane. Biophys J 75:1603–1618PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowie JU (1997) Helix packing in membrane proteins. J Mol Biol 272:780–789PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caputo GA, London E (2003a) Cumulative effects of amino acid substitutions and hydrophobic mismatch upon the transmembrane stability and conformation of hydrophobic alpha-helices. Biochemistry 42:3275–3285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caputo GA, London E (2003b) Using a novel dual fluorescence quenching assay for measurement of tryptophan depth within lipid bilayers to determine hydrophobic alpha-helix locations within membranes. Biochemistry 42:3265–3274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Choma C, Gratkowski H, Lear JD, DeGrado WF (2000) Asparagine-mediated self-association of a model transmembrane helix. Nat Struct Biol 7:161–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chung LA, Lear JD, Degrado WF (1992) Fluorescence studies of the secondary structure and orientation of a model ion channel peptide in phospholipid-vesicles. Biochemistry 31: 6608–6616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Constantinescu SN, Liu XD, Beyer W, Fallon A, Shekar S, Henis YI, Smith SO et al (1999) Activation of the erythropoietin receptor by the gp55-P viral envelope protein is determined by a single amino acid in its transmembrane domain. EMBO J 18:3334–3347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dawson JP, Weinger JS, Engelman DM (2002) Motifs of serine and threonine can drive association of transmembrane helices. J Mol Biol 316:799–805PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doura AK, Fleming KG (2004) Complex interactions at the helix—helix interface stabilize the glycophorin A transmembrane dimer. J Mol Biol 343:1487–1497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eilers M, Shekar SC, Shieh T, Smith SO, Fleming PJ (2000) Internal packing of helical membrane proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:5796–5801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eisenberg D, Weiss RM, Terwilliger TC (1982) The helical hydrophobic moment - A measure of the amphiphilicity of a helix. Nature 299(5881):371–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eisenberg D, McLachlan AD (1986) Solvation energy in protein folding and binding. Nature 319:199–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fleishman SJ, Ben-Tal N (2002) A novel scoring function for predicting the conformations of tightly packed pairs of transmembrane alpha-helices. J Mol Biol 321:363–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freeman-Cook LL, Dixon AM, Frank JB, Xia Y, Ely L, Gerstein M, Engelman DM et al (2004) Selection and characterization of small random transmembrane proteins that bind and activate the platelet-derived growth factor beta receptor. J Mol Biol 338:907–920PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garrity D, Call ME, Feng J, Wucherpfennig KW (2005) The activating NKG2D receptor assembles in the membrane with two signaling dimers into a hexameric structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:7641–7646PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gerber D, Sal-Man N, Shai Y (2004) Two motifs within a transmembrane domain, one for homodimerization and the other for heterodimerization. J Biol Chem 279(20): 21177–21182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gerber D, Quintana FJ, Bloch I, Cohen IR, Shai Y (2005) D-enantiomer peptide of the TCRα; transmembrane domain inhibits T-cell activation in vitro and in vivo. FASEB J 19:1190–1192PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Gordon DB, Marshall SA, Mayo SL (1999) Energy functions for protein design. Curr Opin Struct Biol 9:509–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gratkowski H, Lear JD, DeGrado WF (2001) Polar side chains drive the association of model transmembrane peptides. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:880–885PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harris JM, Martin NE, Modi M (2001) Pegylation - A novel process for modifying pharmacokinet-ics. Clinical Pharmacokinetics 40(7):539–551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hessa T, Kim H, Bihlmaier K, Lundin C, Boekel J, Andersson H, Nilsson I et al (2005) Recognition of transmembrane helices by the endoplasmic reticulum translocon. Nature 433: 377–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Im W, Brooks CL (2005) Interfacial folding and membrane insertion of designed peptides studied by molecular dynamics simulations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:6771–6776PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Im W, Feig M, Brooks CL (2003) An implicit membrane generalized born theory for the study of structure, stability, and interactions of membrane proteins. Biophys J 85:2900–2918PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Javadpour MM, Eilers M, Groesbeek M, Smith SO (1999) Helix packing in polytopic membrane proteins: role of glycine in transmembrane helix association. Biophys J 77:1609–1618PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Jayasinghe S, Hristova K, White SH (2001) Energetics, stability, and prediction of transmembrane helices. J Mol Biol 312:927–934PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Joh NH et al (2002) Modest stabilization by most hydrogen-bonded side-chain interactions in membrane proteins. Nature 453(7199):1266–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kessel A, Cafiso DS, Ben-Tal N (2000) Continuum solvent model calculations of alamethicin-membrane interactions: thermodynamic aspects. Biophys J 78:571–583PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kleiger G, Perry J, Eisenberg D (2001) 3D structure and significance of the G Phi XXG helix packing motif in tetramers of the E1 beta subunit of pyruvate dehydrogenase from the archeon Pyrobaculum aerophilum. Biochemistry 40(48):14484–14492PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kleiger G et al (2002) GXXXG and AXXXA: Common alpha-helical interaction motifs in proteins, particularly in extremophiles. Biochemistry 41(19):5990–5997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Killian JA (1998) Hydrophobic mismatch between proteins and lipids in membranes. Biochim Biophys Acta 1376:401–415PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Lazaridis T (2003) Effective energy function for proteins in lipid membranes. Proteins Struct Funct Genet 52:176–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lazaridis T (2005) Implicit solvent simulations of peptide interactions with anionic lipid membranes. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinformat 58:518–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lear JD, Wasserman ZR, Degrado WF (1988) Synthetic amphiphilic peptide models for protein ion channels. Science 240:1177–1181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lear JD, Gratkowski H, Adamian L, Liang J, DeGrado WF (2003) Position-dependence of stabilizing polar interactions of asparagine in transmembrane helical bundles. Biochemistry 42: 6400–6407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lee AG (2002) Ca2+-ATPase structure in the E1 and E2 conformations: mechanism, helix— helix and helix-lipid interactions. Biochim Biophys Acta-Biomembr 1565:246–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lee SF, Shah S, Yu C, Wigley WC, Li H, Lim M, Pedersen K et al (2004) A conserved GXXXG motif in APH-1 is critical for assembly and activity of the γ-secretase complex. J Biol Chem 279:4144–4152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lew S, Ren J, London E (2000) The effects of polar and/or ionizable residues in the core and flanking regions of hydrophobic helices on transmembrane conformation and oligomerization. Biochemistry 39:9632–9640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Li SC, Deber CM (1994) A measure of helical propensity for amino acids in membrane environments. Nat Struct Biol 1:368–373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Liu W, Eilers M, Patel AB, Smith SO (2004) Helix packing moments reveal diversity and conservation in membrane protein structure. J Mol Biol 337:713–729PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Loll B et al (2003) Functional role of C-alpha-H center dot center dot center dot O hydrogen bonds between transmembrane alpha-helices in photosystem I. J Mol Biol 328(3):737–747PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lopez de la Paz M, Serrano L (2004) Sequence determinants of amyloid fibril formation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:87–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lu H, Skolnick J (2001) A distance-dependent atomic knowledge-based potential for improved protein structure selection. Proteins-Structure Function and Genetics 44(3):223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McConkey BJ, Sobolev V, Edelman M (2003) Discrimination of native protein structures using atom-atom contact scoring. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(6):3215–3220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Manolios N, Collier S, Taylor J, Pollard J, Harrison LC, Bender V (1997) T-cell antigen receptor transmembrane peptides modulate T-cell function and T-cell-mediated disease. Nature Med 3:84–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Meindl-Beinker NM, Lundin C, Nilsson I, White SH, von Heijne G (2006) Asn- and Asp-mediated interactions between transmembrane helices during translocon-mediated membrane protein assembly. EMBO Rep 7:1111–1116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mendrola JM, Berger MB, King MC, Lemmon MA (2002) The single transmembrane domains of ErbB receptors self-associate in cell membranes. J Biol Chem 277:4704–4712PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Metcalf DG, Law PB, DeGrado WF (2007) Mutagenesis data in the automated prediction of transmembrane helix dimers. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinformat 67:375–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mitchell JBO, et al (1999) BLEEP- potential of mean force describing protein-ligand interactions: I. Generating potential. J Computational Chem 20(11):1165–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Milligan G (2004) G protein-coupled receptor dimerization: function and ligand pharmacology. Mol Pharmacol 66:1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL (1996) Residue-residue potentials with a favorable contact pair term and an unfavorable high packing density term, for simulation and threading. J Mol Biol 256(3):623–644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mottamal M, Lazaridis T (2005) The contribution of C—H O hydrogen bonds to membrane protein stability depends on the position of the amide. Biochemistry 44:1607–1613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. North B, Cristian L, Fu Stowell X, Lear JD, Saven JG, DeGrado WF (2006) Characterization of a membrane protein folding motif, the Ser zipper, using designed peptides. J Mol Biol 359:930PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Overton MC, Chinault SL, Blumer KJ (2003) Oligomerization, biogenesis, and signaling is promoted by a glycophorin A-like dimerization motif in transmembrane domain 1 of a yeast G protein-coupled receptor. J Biol Chem 278:49369–49377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ozdirekcan S, Rijkers DTS, Liskamp RMJ, Killian JA (2005) Influence of flanking residues on tilt and rotation angles of transmembrane peptides in lipid bilayers. A solid-state 2H NMR study. Biochemistry 44:1004–1012PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Park SH, Opella SJ (2005) Tilt angle of a trans-membrane helix is determined by hydrophobic mismatch. J Mol Biol 350:310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Partridge AW, Melnyk RA, Yang D, Bowie JU, Deber CM (2003) A transmembrane segment mimic derived from Escherichia coli diacylglycerol kinase inhibits protein activity. J Biol Chem 278:22056–22060PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Popot JL, Engelman DM (1990) Membrane-protein folding and oligomerization — the 2-stage model. Biochemistry 29:4031–4037PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Quintana FJ, Gerber D, Bloch I, Cohen IR, Shai Y (2007) A structurally altered D,L-amino acid TCRα transmembrane peptide interacts with the TCRα and inhibits T-cell activation in vitro and in an animal model. Biochemistry 46:2317–2325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rees DC, Deantonio L, Eisenberg D (1989) Hydrophobic organization of membrane-proteins. Science 245:510–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ren J, Lew S, Wang Z, London E (1997) Transmembrane orientation of hydrophobic alpha-helices is regulated both by the relationship of helix length to bilayer thickness and by the cholesterol concentration. Biochemistry 36:10213–10220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rohl CA, Strauss CEM, Misura KMS, Baker D (2004) Protein structure prediction using Rosetta numerical computer methods, Pt D, vol. 383. Methods Enzymol 383:66–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rost B, et al (1995) Transmembrane Helices Predicted at 95-Percent Accuracy. Protein Science 4(3):521–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rost B, Fariselli P, Casadio R (1996) Topology prediction for helical transmembrane proteins at 86% accuracy. Protein Science 5(8):1704–1718PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Russ WP, Engelman DM (2000) The GxxxG motif: A framework for transmembrane helix—helix association. J Mol Biol 296:911–919PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sansom MSP, Son HS, Sankararamakrishnan R, Kerr ID, Breed J (1995) 7-Helix bundles — molecular modeling via restrained molecular-dynamics. Biophys J 68:1295–1310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Schneider D, Engelman DM (2004) Involvement of transmembrane domain interactions in signal transduction by alpha/beta integrins. J Biol Chem 279:9840–9846PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Senes A, Gerstein M, Engelman DM (2000) Statistical analysis of amino acid patterns in trans-membrane helices: the GxxxG motif occurs frequently and in association with beta-branched residues at neighboring positions. J Mol Biol 296:921–936PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Senes A, Ubarretxena-Belandia I, Engelman DM (2001) The C alpha-H center dot center dot center dot O hydrogen bond: A determinant of stability and specificity in transmembrane helix interactions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98(16):9056–9061PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Senes A, Engel DE, DeGrado WF (2004) Folding of helical membrane proteins: the role of polar, GxxxG-like and proline motifs. Curr Opin Struct Biol 14:465–479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Senes A, Chadi DC, Law PB, Walters RFS, Nanda V, DeGrado WF (2007) E-z, a depth-dependent potential for assessing the energies of insertion of amino acid side-chains into membranes: derivation and applications to determining the orientation of transmembrane and interfacial helices. J Mol Biol 366:436–448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Shepherd CM, Vogel HJ, Tieleman DP (2003) Interactions of the designed antimicrobial peptide MB21 and truncated dermaseptin S3 with lipid bilayers: molecular-dynamics simulations. Biochem J 370:233–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Simons KT, Kooperberg C, Huang E, Baker D (1997) Assembly of protein tertiary structures from fragments with similar local sequences using simulated annealing and Bayesian scoring functions. J Mol Biol 268:209–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Spassov VZ, Yan L, Szalma S (2002) Introducing an implicit membrane in generalized Born/solvent accessibility continuum solvent models. J Phys Chem B 106:8726–8738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Summa CM, Levitt M, DeGrado WF (2005) An Atomic Environment Potential for use in Protein Structure Prediction. J Mol Biol 352(4):986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ulmschneider MB, Sansom MSP, Di Nola A (2005) Properties of integral membrane protein structures: Derivation of an implicit membrane potential. Proteins-Structure Function And Bioinformatics 59(2):252–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Ulmschneider, M.B., M.S.P. Sansom, and A. Di Nola (2006) Evaluating tilt angles of membrane-associated helices: Comparison of computational and NMR techniques. Biophy J. 90(5): 1650–1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. von Heijne G (1999) A day in the life of Dr K. or how I learned to stop worrying and love lysozyme: a tragedy in six acts. J Mol Biol 293:367–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Walters RF, DeGrado WF (2006) Helix-packing motifs in membrane proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:13658–13663PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Walters RF, DeGrado WF (2006) Helix-packing motifs in membrane proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:13658–13663PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wimley WC, Creamer TP, White SH (1996) Solvation energies of amino acid side chains and backbone in a family of host—guest pentapeptides. Biochemistry 35:5109–5124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Yan-Chun Tang CMD (2004) Aqueous solubility and membrane interactions of hydrophobic pep-tides with peptoid tags. Peptide Science 76(2):110–118PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Yarov-Yarovoy V, Schonbrun J, Baker D (2006) Multipass membrane protein structure prediction using Rosetta. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinformat 62:1010–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Yin H, Litvinov RI, Vilaire G, Zhu H, Li W, Caputo GA, Moore DT et al (2006) Activation of platelet αIIbβ3 by an exogenous peptide corresponding to the transmembrane domain of αIIb. J Biol Chem 281:36732–36741PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Yin H, Slusky JS, Berger BW, Walters RS, Vilaire G, Litvinov RI, Lear JD et al (2007) Computational design of peptides that target transmembrane helices. Science 315:1817–1822PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Yohannan S, Faham S, Yang D, Grosfeld D, Chamberlain AK, Bowie JU (2004) A Ca—H…O hydrogen bond in a membrane protein is not stabilizing. J Am Chem Soc 126:2284–2285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zhang J, Chen R, Liang J (2006) Empirical potential function for simplified protein models: Combining contact and local sequence-structure descriptors. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 63(4):949–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Zhang Y, Skolnick J (2004) Automated structure prediction of weakly homologous proteins on a genomic scale. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:7594–7599PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Zhang YP, Lewis RN, Hodges RS, McElhaney RN (1992) FTIR spectroscopic studies of the conformation and amide hydrogen exchange of a peptide model of the hydrophobic transmem-brane alpha-helices of membrane proteins. Biochemistry 31:11572–11578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Zhang YP, Lewis RN, Hodges RS, McElhaney RN (2001) Peptide models of the helical hydro-phobic transmembrane segments of membrane proteins: interactions of acetyl-K2-(LA)12-K2-amide with phosphatidylethanolamine bilayer membranes. Biochemistry 40:474–482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zhang Y, DeVries ME, Skolnick J (2006) Structure modeling of all identified G protein-coupled receptors in the human genome. Plos Computat Biol 2:88–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Zhou FX, Merianos HJ, Brunger AT, Engelman DM (2001) Polar residues drive association of polyleucine transmembrane helices. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:2250–2255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. S. Slusky
    • 1
  • H. Yin
    • 1
  • W. F. DeGrado
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biochemistry and BiophysicsSchool of Medicine, University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations