Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSchreiber, Gideon
dc.contributor.authorKeating, Amy E.
dc.date.accessioned2015-10-02T17:11:25Z
dc.date.available2015-10-02T17:11:25Z
dc.date.issued2010-11
dc.identifier.issn0959440X
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/99132
dc.description.abstractInteractions 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.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Award GM084181)en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Award GM067681)en_US
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2010.10.002en_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivativesen_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en_US
dc.sourcePMCen_US
dc.titleProtein binding specificity versus promiscuityen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.citationSchreiber, Gideon, and Amy E Keating. “Protein Binding Specificity Versus Promiscuity.” Current Opinion in Structural Biology 21, no. 1 (February 2011): 50–61.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Biologyen_US
dc.contributor.mitauthorKeating, Amy E.en_US
dc.relation.journalCurrent Opinion in Structural Biologyen_US
dc.eprint.versionAuthor's final manuscripten_US
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticleen_US
eprint.statushttp://purl.org/eprint/status/PeerRevieweden_US
dspace.orderedauthorsSchreiber, Gideon; Keating, Amy Een_US
dc.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-4074-8980
mit.licensePUBLISHER_CCen_US
mit.metadata.statusComplete


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record