Structural Descriptors for Subunit Interface Regions in Homodimers: Effect of Lipid Membrane and Secondary Structure Type

A total of 1311 homodimers were collected and analyzed in three different categories to highlight the impact of lipid environment and secondary structure type: 422 cytoplasmic α-helix, 411 cytoplasmic β-strand, and 478 membrane complexes. Structural features of the interface connecting two monomers were investigated and compared to those of the non-interface surface. Every residue on the surface of each monomer was explored based on four attributes: solvent-accessible surface area (SASA), protrusion index (C<sub><i>x</i></sub>), surface planarity, and surface roughness. SASA and C<sub><i>x</i></sub> distribution profiles clearly distinguished the interface from the surface in all categories, where the rim of the interface displayed higher SASA and C<sub><i>x</i></sub> values than the rest of the surface. Surface residues in membrane complexes protruded less than cytoplasmic ones due to the hydrophobic environment, and consequently, the difference between surface and interface residues became less noticeable in that category. Cytoplasmic β-strand complexes displayed markedly lower SASA at the interface core than at the surface. The major distinction between the surface and interface was achieved through surface roughness, which displayed significantly higher values for the interface than the surface, especially in cytoplasmic complexes. Clearly, a surface which is relatively rugged favors the association of two monomers through multiple van der Waals interactions and hydrogen-bond formations. Another structural descriptor with strong distinguishing ability was surface planarity, which was higher at the interface than at the non-interface surface. Surface flatness would eventually facilitate the interconnectedness of an interface with a network of residue pairs bridging two complementary surfaces. Analysis of contact pairs revealed that hydrophobic pairs have the highest frequency of occurrence in the lipid environment of membrane complexes. However, despite the scarcity of polar residues at the interface, the likelihood of observing a contact between polar residues was markedly higher than that of hydrophobic ones.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
Published
2025-03-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.4c01233
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Protein Structure and Dynamics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.81

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Structural Descriptors for Subunit Interface Regions in Homodimers: Effect of Lipid Membrane and Secondary Structure Type

Ebru Demet Akten, Aslı Yüksek, Batuhan Yıkınç, İrem Nayır et al.
1 citations
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
Protein Structure and Dynamics
0.81
article

Structural Descriptors for Subunit Interface Regions in Homodimers: Effect of Lipid Membrane and Secondary Structure Type

Ebru Demet Akten, Aslı Yüksek, Batuhan Yıkınç, İrem Nayır, Defne Alnıgeniş, Vahap Gazi Fidan, Tayyip Topuz
article en
1 citations

Abstract

A total of 1311 homodimers were collected and analyzed in three different categories to highlight the impact of lipid environment and secondary structure type: 422 cytoplasmic α-helix, 411 cytoplasmic β-strand, and 478 membrane complexes. Structural features of the interface connecting two monomers were investigated and compared to those of the non-interface surface. Every residue on the surface of each monomer was explored based on four attributes: solvent-accessible surface area (SASA), protrusion index (C<sub><i>x</i></sub>), surface planarity, and surface roughness. SASA and C<sub><i>x</i></sub> distribution profiles clearly distinguished the interface from the surface in all categories, where the rim of the interface displayed higher SASA and C<sub><i>x</i></sub> values than the rest of the surface. Surface residues in membrane complexes protruded less than cytoplasmic ones due to the hydrophobic environment, and consequently, the difference between surface and interface residues became less noticeable in that category. Cytoplasmic β-strand complexes displayed markedly lower SASA at the interface core than at the surface. The major distinction between the surface and interface was achieved through surface roughness, which displayed significantly higher values for the interface than the surface, especially in cytoplasmic complexes. Clearly, a surface which is relatively rugged favors the association of two monomers through multiple van der Waals interactions and hydrogen-bond formations. Another structural descriptor with strong distinguishing ability was surface planarity, which was higher at the interface than at the non-interface surface. Surface flatness would eventually facilitate the interconnectedness of an interface with a network of residue pairs bridging two complementary surfaces. Analysis of contact pairs revealed that hydrophobic pairs have the highest frequency of occurrence in the lipid environment of membrane complexes. However, despite the scarcity of polar residues at the interface, the likelihood of observing a contact between polar residues was markedly higher than that of hydrophobic ones.

Journal of Chemical Information and ModelingVol. 65(7)
Kadir Has University (TR), Pediatrics and Genetics (US), Graduate School USA (US)
Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu
Openalex Percentile: Top 30%
Protein Structure and Dynamics
0.81
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.