A Critical Evaluation of Correlated Mutation Algorithms and Coevolution Within Allosteric Mechanisms
The notion of using the evolutionary history encoded within multiple sequence alignments to predict allosteric mechanisms is appealing. In this approach, correlated mutations are expected to reflect coordinated changes that maintain intramolecular coupling between residue pairs. Despite much early fanfare, the general suitability of correlated mutations to predict allosteric couplings has not yet been established. Lack of progress along these lines has been hindered by several algorithmic limitations including phylogenetic artifacts within alignments masking true covariance and the computational intractability of consideration of more than two correlated residues at a time. Recent progress in algorithm development, however, has been substantial with a new generation of correlated mutation algorithms that have made fundamental progress toward solving these difficult problems. Despite these encouraging results, there remains little evidence to suggest that the evolutionary constraints acting on allosteric couplings are sufficient to be recovered from multiple sequence alignments. In this review, we argue that due to the exquisite sensitivity of protein dynamics, and hence that of allosteric mechanisms, the latter vary widely within protein families. If it turns out to be generally true that even very similar homologs display a wide divergence of allosteric mechanisms, then even a perfect correlated mutation algorithm could not be reliably used as a general mechanism for discovery of allosteric pathways.
Key wordsAllostery Thermodynamic coupling Correlated mutation Covariance Coevolution Mutual information
The authors would like to thank Richard W. Aldrich and Gregory B. Gloor for helpful comments on the manuscript, and Donald J. Jacobs for numerous insightful discussions related to the correlated mutation algorithms, allostery, and the relationships therein.
- 16.Ashkenazy, H., and Kliger, Y. Reducing phylogenetic bias in correlated mutation analysis. Protein Eng Des Sel 23, 321–6.Google Scholar
- 32.Fernandes, A. D., and Gloor, G. B. Mutual information is critically dependent on prior assumptions: would the correct estimate of mutual information please identify itself? Bioinformatics 26, 1135–9.Google Scholar
- 33.Brown, C. A., and Brown, K. S. Validation of coevolving residue algorithms via pipeline sensitivity analysis: ELSC and OMES and ZNMI, oh my! PLoS One 5, e10779.Google Scholar
- 34.Burger, L., and van Nimwegen, E. Disentangling direct from indirect co-evolution of residues in protein alignments. PLoS Comput Biol 6, e1000633.Google Scholar