Position of helical kinks in membrane protein crystal structures and the accuracy of computational prediction

Abstract

The structural features of helical transmembrane (TM) proteins, such as helical kinks, tilts, and rotational orientations are important in modulation of their function and these structural features give rise to functional diversity in membrane proteins with similar topology. In particular, the helical kinks caused by breaking of the backbone hydrogen bonds lead to hinge bending flexibility in these helices. Therefore it is important to understand the nature of the helical kinks and to be able to reproduce these kinks in structural models of membrane proteins. We have analyzed the position and extent of helical kinks in the transmembrane helices of all the crystal structures of membrane proteins taken from the MPtopo database, which are about 405 individual helices of length between 19 and 35 residues. 44% of the crystal structures of TM helices showed a significant helical kink, and 35% of these kinks are caused by prolines. Many of the non-proline helical kinks are caused by other residues like Ser and Gly that are located at the center of helical kinks. The side chain of Ser makes a hydrogen bond with the main chain carbonyl of the i − 4th or i + 4th residue thus making a kink. We have also studied how well molecular dynamics (MD) simulations on isolated helices can reproduce the position of the helical kinks in TM helices. Such a method is useful for structure prediction of membrane proteins. We performed MD simulations, starting from a canonical helix for the 405 TM helices. 1 ns of MD simulation results show that we can reproduce about 79% of the proline kinks, only 59% of the vestigial proline kinks and 18% of the non-proline helical kinks. We found that similar results can be obtained from choosing the lowest potential energy structure from the MD simulation. 4–14% more of the vestigial prolines were reproduced by replacing them with prolines before performing MD simulations, and changing the amino acid back to proline after the MD simulations. From these results we conclude that the position of the helical kinks is dependent on the TM sequence. However the extent of helical kinking may depend on the packing of the rest of the protein and the lipid bilayer.