MIT Libraries logoDSpace@MIT

MIT
View Item 
  • DSpace@MIT Home
  • MIT Open Access Articles
  • MIT Open Access Articles
  • View Item
  • DSpace@MIT Home
  • MIT Open Access Articles
  • MIT Open Access Articles
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Protein binding specificity versus promiscuity

Author(s)
Schreiber, Gideon; Keating, Amy E.
Thumbnail
DownloadKeating_Protein binding.pdf (295.3Kb)
PUBLISHER_CC

Publisher with Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution

Terms of use
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
Interactions between macromolecules in general, and between proteins in particular, are essential for any life process. Examples include transfer of information, inhibition or activation of function, molecular recognition as in the immune system, assembly of macromolecular structures and molecular machines, and more. Proteins interact with affinities ranging from millimolar to femtomolar and, because affinity determines the concentration required to obtain 50% binding, the amount of different complexes formed is very much related to local concentrations. Although the concentration of a specific binding partner is usually quite low in the cell (nanomolar to micromolar), the total concentration of other macromolecules is very high, allowing weak and non-specific interactions to play important roles. In this review we address the question of binding specificity, that is, how do some proteins maintain monogamous relations while others are clearly polygamous. We examine recent work that addresses the molecular and structural basis for specificity versus promiscuity. We show through examples how multiple solutions exist to achieve binding via similar interfaces and how protein specificity can be tuned using both positive and negative selection (specificity by demand). Binding of a protein to numerous partners can be promoted through variation in which residues are used for binding, conformational plasticity and/or post-translational modification. Natively unstructured regions represent the extreme case in which structure is obtained only upon binding. Many natively unstructured proteins serve as hubs in protein–protein interaction networks and such promiscuity can be of functional importance in biology.
Date issued
2010-11
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/99132
Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Biology
Journal
Current Opinion in Structural Biology
Publisher
Elsevier
Citation
Schreiber, Gideon, and Amy E Keating. “Protein Binding Specificity Versus Promiscuity.” Current Opinion in Structural Biology 21, no. 1 (February 2011): 50–61.
Version: Author's final manuscript
ISSN
0959440X

Collections
  • MIT Open Access Articles

Browse

All of DSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

My Account

Login

Statistics

OA StatisticsStatistics by CountryStatistics by Department
MIT Libraries
PrivacyPermissionsAccessibilityContact us
MIT
Content created by the MIT Libraries, CC BY-NC unless otherwise noted. Notify us about copyright concerns.