Abstract:BackgroundProtein sites evolve at different rates due to functional and biophysical constraints. It is usually considered that the main structural determinant of a site’s rate of evolution is its Relative Solvent Accessibility (RSA). However, a recent comparative study has shown that the main structural determinant is the site’s Local Packing Density (LPD). LPD is related with dynamical flexibility, which has also been shown to correlate with sequence variability. Our purpose is to investigate the mechanism that connects a site’s LPD with its rate of evolution.ResultsWe consider two models: an empirical Flexibility Model and a mechanistic Stress Model. The Flexibility Model postulates a linear increase of site-specific rate of evolution with dynamical flexibility. The Stress Model, introduced here, models mutations as random perturbations of the protein’s potential energy landscape, for which we use simple Elastic Network Models (ENMs). To account for natural selection we assume a single active conformation and use basic statistical physics to derive a linear relationship between site-specific evolutionary rates and the local stress of the mutant’s active conformation.We compare both models on a large and diverse dataset of enzymes. In a protein-by-protein study we found that the Stress Model outperforms the Flexibility Model for most proteins. Pooling all proteins together we show that the Stress Model is strongly supported by the total weight of evidence. Moreover, it accounts for the observed nonlinear dependence of sequence variability on flexibility. Finally, when mutational stress is controlled for, there is very little remaining correlation between sequence variability and dynamical flexibility.ConclusionsWe developed a mechanistic Stress Model of evolution according to which the rate of evolution of a site is predicted to depend linearly on the local mutational stress of the active conformation. Such local stress is proportional to LPD, so that this model explains the relationship between LPD and evolutionary rate. Moreover, the model also accounts for the nonlinear dependence between evolutionary rate and dynamical flexibility.

Protein flexibility prediction by an all-atom mean-field statistical theory

Predicting Protein Flexibility with AlphaFold

Assessment of Four Theoretical Approaches to Predict Protein Flexibility in the Crystal Phase and Solution

Monte Carlo Sampling of Protein Folding by Combining an All-Atom Physics-Based Model with a Native State Bias

Multiscale differential geometry learning for protein flexibility analysis

An Efficient Method to Predict Protein Thermostability in Alanine Mutation

A quantum mechanical computational method for modeling electrostatic and solvation effects of protein

Dimension Conversion and Scaling of Disordered Protein Chains

Significantly Improved Protein Folding Thermodynamics Using a Dispersion-Corrected Water Model and a New Residue-Specific Force Field

Buried and accessible surface area control intrinsic protein flexibility

Accurate Prediction of Protein Structural Flexibility by Deep Learning Integrating Intricate Atomic Structures and Cryo-EM Density Information

Recent Developments in Data-Assisted Modeling of Flexible Proteins

How to describe protein motion without amino acid sequence and atomic coordinates

Protein flexibility upon ligand binding: Docking predictions and statistical analysis

Flexibility of $Α$-Helices: Results of a Statistical Analysis of Database Protein Structures

Improved prediction of site-rates from structure with averaging across homologs

A mechanistic stress model of protein evolution accounts for site-specific evolutionary rates and their relationship with packing density and flexibility

Residue-Speci fi c Force Field Based on the Protein Coil Library

Protein Folding: A Perspective From Statistical Physics

Long-range correlation in protein dynamics: Confirmation by structural data and normal mode analysis

Consistent View of Protein Fluctuations from All-Atom Molecular Dynamics and Coarse-Grained Dynamics with Knowledge-Based Force-Field.