Mesoscopic theories for protein crystal growth

Fractal symmetry of protein interior: what have we learned?

The application of fractal dimension-based constructs to probe the protein interior dates back to the development of the concept of fractal dimension itself. Numerous approaches have been tried and tested over a course of (almost) 30 years with the aim of elucidating the various facets of symmetry of self-similarity prevalent in the protein interior. In the last 5 years especially, there has been a startling upsurge of research that innovatively stretches the limits of fractal-based studies to present an array of unexpected results on the biophysical properties of protein interior. In this article, we introduce readers to the fundamentals of fractals, reviewing the commonality (and the lack of it) between these approaches before exploring the patterns in the results that they produced. Clustering the approaches in major schools of protein self-similarity studies, we describe the evolution of fractal dimension-based methodologies. The genealogy of approaches (and results) presented here portrays a clear picture of the contemporary state of fractal-based studies in the context of the protein interior. To underline the utility of fractal dimension-based measures further, we have performed a correlation dimension analysis on all of the available non-redundant protein structures, both at the level of an individual protein and at the level of structural domains. In this investigation, we were able to separately quantify the self-similar symmetries in spatial correlation patterns amongst peptide-dipole units, charged amino acids, residues with the π-electron cloud and hydrophobic amino acids. The results revealed that electrostatic environments in the interiors of proteins belonging to 'α/α toroid' (all-α class) and 'PLP-dependent transferase-like' domains (α/β class) are highly conducive. In contrast, the interiors of 'zinc finger design' ('designed proteins') and 'knottins' ('small proteins') were identified as folds with the least conducive electrostatic environments. The fold 'conotoxins' (peptides) could be unambiguously identified as one type with the least stability. The same analyses revealed that peptide-dipoles in the α/β class of proteins, in general, are more correlated to each other than are the peptide-dipoles in proteins belonging to the all-α class. Highly favorable electrostatic milieu in the interiors of TIM-barrel, α/β-hydrolase structures could explain their remarkably conserved (evolutionary) stability from a new light. Finally, we point out certain inherent limitations of fractal constructs before attempting to identify the areas and problems where the implementation of fractal dimension-based constructs can be of paramount help to unearth latent information on protein structural properties.

Revisiting the myths of protein interior: studying proteins with mass-fractal hydrophobicity-fractal and polarizability-fractal dimensions

A robust marker to describe mass, hydrophobicity and polarizability distribution holds the key to deciphering structural and folding constraints within proteins. Since each of these distributions is inhomogeneous in nature, the construct should be sensitive in describing the patterns therein. We show, for the first time, that the hydrophobicity and polarizability distributions in protein interior follow fractal scaling. It is found that (barring ‘all-α’) all the major structural classes of proteins have an amount of unused hydrophobicity left in them. This amount of untapped hydrophobicity is observed to be greater in thermophilic proteins, than that in their (structurally aligned) mesophilic counterparts. ‘All-β’(thermophilic, mesophilic alike) proteins are found to have maximum amount of unused hydrophobicity, while ‘all-α’ proteins have been found to have minimum polarizability. A non-trivial dependency is observed between dielectric constant and hydrophobicity distributions within (α+β) and ‘all-α’ proteins, whereas absolutely no dependency is found between them in the ‘all-β’ class. This study proves that proteins are not as optimally packed as they are supposed to be. It is also proved that origin of α-helices are possibly not hydrophobic but electrostatic; whereas β-sheets are predominantly hydrophobic in nature. Significance of this study lies in protein engineering studies; because it quantifies the extent of packing that ensures protein functionality. It shows that myths regarding protein interior organization might obfuscate our knowledge of actual reality. However, if the later is studied with a robust marker of strong mathematical basis, unknown correlations can still be unearthed; which help us to understand the nature of hydrophobicity, causality behind protein folding, and the importance of anisotropic electrostatics in stabilizing a highly complex structure named ‘proteins’.