1Biocomputing Research Unit, Michael Swann Building and 2Biomolecular NMR Unit, Joseph Black Chemistry Building, University of Edinburgh, The King's Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JJ, UK and 3Programs in Genetics and Genomic Biology/Structural Biology and Biochemistry and Departments of Biochemistry/Medical Genetics and Microbiology, University of Toronto, Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X8, Canada
4 To whom correspondence should be addressed E-mail: paul.barlow{at}ed.ac.uk
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Keywords: CCP modules/comparative modelling/complement system/electrostatic surface analysis/protein function prediction
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Complement receptor-type 1 and other members of the regulators of complement activation (RCA) family consist almost entirely of multiple examples of the CCP module (Figure 1). This module-type has also been referred to as the sushi domain, short consensus repeat or SCR (Reid and Day, 1989). A chain of between four and 30 CCP modules, joined by linking sequences of three-to-eight residues, are found within each member of the RCA family. These proteins, which include membrane co-factor protein (MCP, CD46), the factor H (fH) family, C4b-binding protein (C4BP), decay accelerating factor (DAF, CD55), CR1 and complement receptor-type 2 (CR2, CD21), are expressed by a cluster of genes located on the long arm of chromosome 1 (1q32) in humans. With the apparent exception of CR2, their role is to ensure a complement-mediated immune response is both directed against the infectious agent and is proportionate. Complement receptor-type 2 is generally regarded as a member of the RCA family even though it is not involved in complement regulation. The other RCA proteins interact, via binding sites that involve between two and four CCP modules, with the C3b and C4b components of the C3 and C5 convertase complexes (Medof et al., 1982
; Krych et al., 1991
; Brodbeck et al., 1996
; Hardig et al., 1997
; Jokiranta et al., 2000
; Liszewski et al., 2000
; Blom et al., 2001
; Kuttner-Kondo et al., 2001
). By preventing assembly of new convertase complexes, accelerating the dissociation of already-formed convertases and acting as cofactors for proteolytic degradation of the dissociated convertase components, the RCA proteins negatively regulate the complement cascade. All surfaces of self-cells exposed to serum have RCA proteins embedded in, attached to or associated with them, as vital protection against attack by the complement system (review by Walport, 2001a
,b
).
|
The 3D structures of a wide range of CCP modules25 in total, including 14 CCP modules from human RCA proteinshave been determined experimentally over the last decade (http://www.rscb.org/pdb/). Each approximately 60-residue CCP module is characterised by a compact hydrophobic core wrapped in a ß-sheet framework, held together by two strictly conserved disulfide bridges (Kirkitadze and Barlow, 2001). Superposition of solved CCP module structures on the structure of fH
16 using the program CE (Combinatorial Extension) (Shindyalov and Bourne, 1998
) resulted in values for root mean square deviation (r.m.s.d.) for equivalent C
atoms ranging between 1.9 and 3.1 Å.
Because it is time consuming to solve 3D structures by NMR or X-ray crystallography, many attempts to model CCP module structures have been reported (Kuttner-Kondo et al., 1996; Villoutreix et al., 1998
; Liszewski et al., 2000
; Ranganathan et al., 2000
; Aslam and Perkins, 2001
; Perkins and Goodship, 2002
). In most cases, however, the CCP module structures within these models were based on a smaller set of structural templates than are now available. Consequently, there is currently scope for improving the quality of modelled CCP structures.
The extensive use and structural diversity of CCP modules presumably reflects the versatility of a structural scaffold that has been adapted by evolution to suit many purposes: both, architectural, i.e. bestowing on specific proteins an appropriate reach and level of flexibility or rigidity; and functional, i.e. providing specific surfaces for molecular recognition and binding (Kirkitadze and Barlow, 2001). Module deletion and site-directed mutagenesis approaches have revealed the identity of numerous functional CCP modules (Medof et al., 1982
; Krych et al., 1991
; Brodbeck et al., 1996
; Hardig et al., 1997
; Jokiranta et al., 2000
; Liszewski et al., 2000
; Blom et al., 2001
; Kuttner-Kondo et al., 2001
). This list, however, is restricted mainly to the RCAs and is not exhaustive even for this set of proteins. Moreover, at the level of individual side chains, functional site mapping through experiment is still incomplete in most cases.
While computational, sequence-based methods exist that screen for residues important for function on the basis of sub-family specific conservation (Lichtarge et al., 1996), such analyses are hampered if the location of functional patches on different modules is not equivalent (with reference to the common structural scaffold). For CCP modules, such non-equivalence is strongly suggested by the observation that in most cases several neighbouring modules are implicated in interactions with a single asymmetric partner protein.
One approach to suggesting the location of functional sites in this case is to examine the properties of CCP module surfaces. In this paper, we present a large-scale modelling strategy targeted at individual modules, with the aim of providing surface information for a large number of modules with the highest possible precision. The strategy makes optimal use of the current set of available experimentally derived CCP module structures. The database of models was subsequently used in a multiple surface comparison of 28 CCP modules from CR1. Functionally critical surface residues are likely to be under different evolutionary pressures compared with non-critical residues. Despite highly conserved sequences, the two functional sites in CR1 display radically different surface features. This observation is entirely consistent with previous studies of CR1 that show distinct functional profiles for the two sites (Krych et al., 1994, 1998
). Further analysis demonstrated that in this example, surface comparison readily highlighted functionally important surfaces.
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Previous work (Kirkitadze and Barlow, 2001) revealed that the residue before the first cysteine and two or three residues after the fourth and last cysteine of the consensus sequence commonly contribute to the 3D structure of a CCP module. Consequently, in the current study, one residue prior to the first consensus cysteine and three residues following the fourth consensus cysteine were included in the sequence selected to represent each CCP module.
Using this approach, sequences representing 243 CCP modules from 48 proteins [47 human proteins plus one from vaccinia virus (VCP)] were extracted from the SMART database (http://smart.embl-heidelberg.de/; Schultz et al., 1998; Letunic et al., 2004
). The vaccinia virus protein, VCP, with four CCP modules, was included along with the human sequences in this process because its structure has been experimentally determined (Wiles et al., 1997
; Henderson et al., 2001
; Murthy et al., 2001
; Ganesh et al., 2004
). It therefore provides valuable additional templates for modelling purposes. The sequences were then classified by means of a clustering procedure. Initial cluster assignments were produced according to the unweighted paired-group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA) using a program that implements Corpet's MULTALIN algorithm (Corpet, 1988
), concomitantly with rounds of multiple sequence alignment and subsequent manual removal of individual sequences that impeded convergence. Nine stable groups or clusters, (labelled AI) were identified in this manner. A hidden Markov model (HMM) was then built for each of these nine clusters using the software package HMMer version 2.0 (http://hmmer.wustl.edu/; Durbin et al., 1998
). All sequences (including the initial set) were then scanned with the HMMs and module sequences were assigned to clusters using cut-off expectancy values (E-values) of 1010 for strong and 105 for weak assignments. Sequences that failed to be matched to an HMM were labelled as unassigned. Weak HMM assignments were further investigated by pairwise similarity comparisons of the respective module sequences with the stably assigned set using MPSrch (Collins and Coulson, 1990
). They were accepted only if corroborated by predominance of the HMM assignment in the MPSrch list of the five most similar module sequences. If sequences were matched to more than one HMM with E-value <1010, they were either: labelled as ambiguous if the E-value of the second match was within one order of magnitude, or assigned to the cluster with the higher score. Of 243 module sequences, 169 were strongly assigned by HMM, 30 were weakly assigned and six were ambiguously assigned, while 38 could not be assigned to a cluster at all (Figure 1).
Each cluster was subsequently aligned separately using ClustalX version 1.81 (Thompson et al., 1997). The automated alignments were edited manually placing strong emphasis on conserving the CysCysCysTrpCys signature pattern (Kirkitadze and Barlow, 2001
) and positioning alignment gaps plausibly considering the experimentally solved 3D structures within the cluster.
Automated comparative modelling of each cluster
A sequence of programs to carry out the step-wise modelling task as described below were called from a PERL script as summarised in Figure 2. Eighty-three sequences out of the original set of 243 were not modelled because either they were not assigned to a cluster or they belong to clusters D, E and I for which no templates are yet available.
|
Surface electrostatic analysis
The CCP modules of CR1 were selected to illustrate the utility of a surface-comparison approach because they have been the subject of extensive functional and mutagenesis studies in the past (Krych et al., 1994, 1998
). The set of experimentally determined and modelled 3D structures representing the N-terminal 28 CR1 CCP modules (out of 30 in total) was pulled from the database and subjected to a comparative analysis of electrostatic properties using a combination of the programs; PIPSA version 1.0 (Blomberg et al., 1999
), NMRClust version 1.2 (Kelley et al., 1996
) and GRASP (Nicholls et al., 1991
).
A structural alignment was obtained using Multiprot (Shatsky et al., 2004) to ensure that surfaces at equivalent locations were compared. The aligned structures were then analysed using PIPSA, to find similarities within this set of CCP modules based on their surface electrostatic properties. PIPSA computes the molecular potentials of the model surfaces analytically as a multipole expansion that permits comparison of large datasets (Blomberg et al., 1999
). The modules were then clustered by submitting the dissimilarity matrix generated by PIPSA to NMRClust. Surface electrostatic property-based cluster diagrams were derived manually by successive joining of closest neighbours based on similarity threshold values provided to NMRClust. To help assess the validity of the clusters derived in this way, electrostatic surface images were also generated by GRASP and inspected and grouped manually.
![]() |
Results and discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
A reliable procedure for cluster assignment enhances the value of the large-scale modelling procedure used in this study because it ensures that the most appropriate set of templates will be employed in each case. Using an implementation of the hierarchical cluster assignment method of Corpet (1988), which was extended through subsequent sequence comparisons using hidden Markov models and exhaustive similarity comparisons, a total of 205 out of the original set of 243 CCP module sequences were each assigned to one of nine clusters (labelled AI). Standard phylogenetic methods have drawbacks when applied to this family as alternative approaches to clustering, as is often observed with shorter protein sequences (Rokas et al., 2003
). The main problem is that estimates of evolutionary distances are at lower levels of precision than with longer sequences. This low signal-to-noise ratio problem is addressed more satisfactorily by a protocol such as the one we applied here to produce the initial set of clusters, since only stable assignments are reported. The additional HMM-based assignments (shown in Figure 1) are more tentative, but all of them are corroborated independently by sequence comparisons.
The clusters to which the modules of the RCA proteins are assigned are shown in Figure 1. In such a representation, the four heptad or long homologous repeats (LHRs)HCAFACAthat comprise the N-terminal 28 modules of CR1 are readily apparent. The LHRs of CR1 were recognised previously (Klickstein et al., 1987, 1988
; Hourcade et al., 1988
) and are thought to have an evolutionary origin involving exon duplication and shuffling (Hourcade et al., 1990
). The triad CAF additionally appears twice in CR2 and once each in C4BP and MCP for a total of eight occurrences. Also apparent in Figure 1 are imperfect tetrad repeats in CR2: from the N-terminusAFAC, AFAX, AF
C and AFAF [X = unassigned,
is the site of an inserted module in the 16-module splice variants (Moore et al., 1987
; Barel et al., 1998
), which in independent sequence comparisons using MPSrch, displays strong similarity with other A-cluster members]. With the exception of factor H and factor H-related proteins, CCP modules from just a few clustersA, F, C and Haccount for all but one of the assigned modules of the RCA family (MCP has a G-cluster member at its N-terminus).
Interestingly, the majority of N-terminal CCP modules from amongst the RCA proteins either remained unassigned (fH, VCP and C4BPß), or were only weakly assigned (MCP and C4BP) to a cluster. This might imply varying rates of evolution and, intriguingly, coincides with a requirement of these modules for functional viability of the respective proteins. Moreover, in the first, second and third LHRs of CR1 and in DAF, C4BP
and MCP, a triad of modules comprise a binding site for components within the convertase enzymes of complement and facilitates the dissociation or destruction of these proteolytic complexes (Medof et al., 1982
; Krych et al., 1991
; Brodbeck et al., 1996
; Hardig et al., 1997
; Liszewski et al., 2000
; Blom et al., 2001
; Kuttner-Kondo et al., 2001
). The cluster assignments for these functional units all seem to follow a motif XCA (where X = A, G, H or unassigned).
The unit XCA is not, however, seen in fH even though this protein regulates the convertases in a similar way to the other RCAs and its N-terminal three CCP modules are critical for this function (Jokiranta et al., 2000). Factor H contains six modules not assigned to clusters, consecutive runs of six B-cluster members and three modules of cluster I. Members of these clusters are unique to fH and the fH-related proteins amongst the RCA proteins, but blood-clotting factor FXIIIb also contains B- and I-cluster members. These proteins are closely linked and located within 650 kb2.2 Mb in chromosome 1 (Rey-Campos et al., 1990
; Skerka et al., 1995
). This observation of a clear distinction between fH and the other RCAs is consistent with one made by Krushkal et al., who constructed a phylogenetic tree for 132 individual module sequences of the RCA gene cluster. Factor H is thought to have diverged from CR1, CR2, MCP and DAF at an early point in evolutionary history (Krushkal et al., 2000
).
Modelling
Three-dimensional (3D) structure modelling was accomplished for 135 individual human CCP module sequences, in each case based on the most similar homologues or set of homologues for which experimentally determined structures were available. At the start of this procedure (outlined schematically in Figure 2), each of the nine sequence clusters was aligned separately. The multiple alignments were subsequently used to guide the automated modelling of individual CCP modules of unknown structure using the program Modeller (Sali and Blundell, 1993). When the large-scale modelling process was first run, a total of 16 experimentally solved 3D CCP module structures were available as templates. The experimentally determined 3D structures of the four DAF CCP modules were unavailable at the time and therefore not included. Subsequently, these served as a very useful means of validating the structural models (see below). A further five experimentally determined module structures, fH
5, ß2GPI
1, ß2GPI
3, C1 s
2 and VCP
1, were not assigned to any of the nine clusters and therefore not used as templates.
The total of 135 modelled structures resulting from the first run included those of 63 RCA CCP modules (27 from CR1, nine from factor H, four from DAF, two from MCP, nine from C4BP and ß, 12 from CR2). All models are available at http://www.bru.ed.ac.uk/~dinesh/ccp-db.html. This database is updated as necessary, to reflect the growing number of available CCP module sequences and as more template structures are deposited. Fifty sequences, assigned to clusters D, E and I, were not modelled since no template structures were available. While models for these modules could be obtained by modelling based on sequence similarity with the closest template identified using programs such as BLAST (Altschul et al., 1997
) or MPSrch, they would be expected to be less reliable. We decided to refrain from such attempts also because I-cluster sequences stand out, compared (for example) with B- and A-cluster sequences which are hard to distinguish by visual inspection, in that they appear to lack the conserved or conservatively replaced hydrophobic residues in predicted ß-strands 2 and 3. Similarly, cluster E members are characterized by short hypervariable loops and a lack of insertions between ß-strands 5 and 6 or 7 and 8, using Wiles et al.'s convention for numbering the strands (Wiles et al., 1997
) and D-cluster members have an extra pair of cysteines, allowing an additional putative disulfide bond (modelled in Norman et al., 1991
).
The models generated in the current work may be compared with those reported previously from the other RCAs, namely C4BP (Villoutreix et al., 1998
), MCP (Liszewski et al., 2000
) and fH (Aslam and Perkins, 2001
; Perkins and Goodship, 2002
), for which no experimental structures are yet available. In the case of C4BP
, the r.m.s.d. values over C
atoms range from 2.6 Å (C4BP
5) to 3.2 Å (C4BP
4) for MCP
3 and MCP
4 the values are 2.2 and 2.7 Å, respectively; for fH they range from 1.6 Å (fH
12) to 3.4 Å (fH
2). The new models are thus significantly different from previously published models, but how do they compare with experimentally determined structures?
Validation of models against known structures
The coordinates for the experimentally determined structures (Uhrinova et al., 2003; Williams et al., 2003
; Lukacik et al., 2004
) of the DAF CCP modules became available after the first run of the modelling procedure described above had been completed. This allowed a comparison of modelled and experimental structures. A high level of structural similarityr.m.s.d.s (C
) of 1.7, 2.0, 1.2 and 1.9 Å for DAF modules 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectivelywas observed, supporting the modelling strategy used in this work (Figure 3a). Previously reported models of DAF, built when only fH
15 and fH
16 were available as templates (Kuttner-Kondo et al., 1996
), exhibit a lower level of similarity with the crystal structurer.m.s.d.s (C
) of 2.1, 2.6, 3.3 and 2.5 Å for DAF modules 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Models of DAF
2 and DAF
3 that were built (Kuttner-Kondo et al., 2001
) after MCP
1 and MCP
2 also became available as templates, display r.m.s.d.s (C
) of 2.0 and 1.6 Å compared with the equivalent modules of the crystal structure, i.e. were no more accurate than those obtained using the cluster-based modelling procedure described here. These data suggest that the current set of modelled structures are generally likely to be in the same range of accuracy or more accurate than previous ones. In addition, the advantages of an automated modelling procedure for straightforward updating of the database are evident.
|
Model of CR125 sheds light on haplotypic variants in malaria-exposed populations
The database of modelled CCP structures is valuable in its own right. This is illustrated when the modelled structure of CR125 was examined in the context of single nucleotide polymorphisms (resulting in R1601G and K1590E) that occur with greatly increased frequencies in certain malaria-exposed populations in Africa (Moulds et al., 2000
). Complement receptor type 1 is a receptor on the surface of uninfected erythrocytes for the Plasmodium falciparum erythrocyte membrane protein 1 (PfEmp1) expressed on the surfaces of infected erythrocytes. This interaction promotes agglutination and erythrocyte rosetting, contributors to malarial pathogenesis (Rowe et al., 1997
, 2000
). Hence these polymorphisms might impart a degree of resistance to severe forms of malaria. The modelled structure (data not shown) reveals that the side chains of R1601 and K1590 are surface exposed and proximal to one another, implying that substitution with Gly and Glu (respectively) will result in drastic change in electrostatic properties in this region. In addition, this suggests further mutagenesis experiments for understanding the CR1PfEmp1 interaction that would target surrounding surface residues.
Surface electrostatic analysis of CR1
Surface electrostatics play a key role in proteinligand binding and proteinprotein interactions. Electrostatic properties determine the relative orientation during molecular recognition, whereas chargecharge and hydrogen bonding interactions contribute to binding specificity and affinity (for a review, see Honig and Nicholls, 1995). It has been demonstrated that where similar electrostatic properties are shared by a set of proteins, this may indicate similar behaviour and function (Ullman et al., 1997
; Botti et al., 1998
; Wade et al., 1998
; Blomberg et al., 1999
). There is plenty of evidence for the involvement of electrostatic interactions in the recognition by RCA proteins of C3b and C4b (Krych et al., 1998
; Blom et al., 1999
, 2000
; Liszewski et al., 2000
; Kuttner-Kondo et al., 2001
). Surface electrostatic similarity amongst CCP modules was therefore examined using CR1 as an example.
The program PIPSA (Blomberg et al., 1999) was employed to compare electrostatic properties of the N-terminal 28 CR1 modules (25 modelled structures plus three experimentally determined ones). The PIPSA-generated cluster diagram (Figure 4a) was compared with manually grouped GRASP-generated electrostatic surface images of the CR1 modules. Reassuringly, most module associations made by PIPSA showed good agreement with the GRASP images. This implies that PIPSA could be applied to a larger set of CCP modules and used to compare module surfaces between proteins.
|
Surface comparisons can identify modules important for function
According to the sequence-based clustering, CR12 is most similar to CR1
9, CR1
16 and CR1
23, with all four modules belonging to cluster C. For example, CR1
2 has
67% pairwise sequence identity with both CR1
9 and CR1
16. In the cluster diagram based on electrostatic surface-properties, however, CR1
2 is instead grouped with CR1
3, CR1
10 and CR1
17, which were all assigned to sequence cluster A (Figure 4a). Note that no significant sequence similarity was found through a pairwise BLAST comparison of CR1
2 and CR1
3. From inspection of Figure 4a, it is evident that the electrostatic surface of CR1
2 does indeed resemble more closely that of CR1
3 than it does those of CR1
9 or CR1
16 (see below). Thus a comparison of relationships based on surfaces versus those based on sequences readily identified a case where two modules (CR1
2 and CR1
9) had clearly diverged significantly in terms of their surface properties, but not in overall sequence. Given the close evolutionary relatedness of these modules as judged by their equivalent positions within the four LHRs in CR1 (Hourcade et al., 1990
), this observation implies that some surface-exposed residues have been the subject of adaptive mutation while the remainder of the sequence has undergone predominantly neutral variation. Therefore, the modules affected are candidates for being functionally important ones, with their non-conserved residues representing possible sites of interaction with binding partners.
This notion is borne out by previously reported functional studies (Klickstein et al., 1988; Krych et al., 1991
, 1994
) showing that CR1
2 and CR1
9 (and the nearly identical CR1
16) contribute to two different multimodular binding sites, called functional sites 1 and 2, respectively. These sites have different, although related, functional profiles. CR1 binds to C3b and C4b, via its two functional sites 1 and 2 (Klickstein et al., 1988
; Krych et al., 1991
, 1994
). Site 1 was shown to be composed of CCP modules 13; it primarily binds C4b, whereas C3b is only weakly bound and is the primary locus of convertase decay accelerating activity in CR1. Site 2of which there are two copies, one formed by CCP modules 810 and the other by CCP modules 1517binds both C4b and C3b and is a key contributor to cofactor activity.
Surface comparisons pinpoint functional sites
While CR12 and CR1
9/CR1
16 do not cluster together on the basis of their electrostatic surfaces, the differences between them lie primarily on one facethat presented in the right-hand frame of Figure 4b. This face of CR1
16 is dominated by electropositive side chains while the equivalent face of CR1
2 displays significantly less positive charge and a substantial amount of negative charge. The remainder of the module surfaces on the other hand appear similar and those charged residues present are conserved or conservatively replaced (R64 is conservatively replaced with K964, D is conserved at positions 68 and 968 and R is conserved at 122 and 1022). Thus further inspection of a pair of modules that have diverged in terms of surface properties, but not in sequence, immediately suggests a binding face that could be explored using mutagenesis.
In fact, residues lying on the divergent faces of these two modules have, in previous work (Krych et al., 1994, 1998
), already been substituted for one another. In CR1
16, two such individual substitutionsN1009D and K1016E (Figure 4b)brought about in functional site 2 the loss of iC3-binding (iC3 is a form of C3 that, as a result of hydrolysis of the thioester bond, has a conformation and reactivity similar to that of C3b) and C4b-binding, as well as a loss of cofactor activity directed towards both these ligands. Strikingly, the reciprocal mutation D109N increased C3b-binding, while mutation E116K also conferred C3b-binding on site 1 and increased its cofactor activity with respect to C3b and C4b. These experimental results thus fully support the notion that the divergence in surface charge between these modules has occurred amongst functionally critical residues and has arisen through the need for the different sites to perform different functions. Therefore, at least in this example, the approach of multiple surface comparisons is remarkable in its ability to quickly pinpoint important regions. The extent to which such comparisons identify functional sites more generally thus warrants further investigation.
![]() |
Acknowledgements |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Aslam,M. and Perkins,S.J. (2001) J. Mol. Biol., 309, 11171138.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Baker,D. and Sali,A. (2001) Science, 294, 9396.
Barel,M., Balbo,M. and Frade,R. (1998) Mol. Immunol., 35, 10251031.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Blom,A.M., Kask,L. and Dahlback,B. (2001) J. Biol. Chem., 276, 2713627144.
Blom,A.M., Webb,J., Villoutreix,B.O. and Dahlback,B. (1999) J. Biol. Chem., 274, 1923719245.
Blom,A.M., Zadura,A.F., Villoutreix,B.O. and Dahlback,B. (2000) Mol. Immunol., 37, 445453.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Blomberg,N., Gabdoulline,R.R., Nilges,M. and Wade,R.C. (1999) Proteins, 37, 379387.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Bork,P., Downing,A.K., Kieffer,B. and Campbell,I.D. (1996) Q. Rev. Biophys., 29, 119167.[ISI][Medline]
Botti,S.A., Felder,C.E., Sussman,J.L. and Silman,I. (1998) Protein Eng., 11, 415420.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Brodbeck,W.G., Liu,D., Sperry,J., Mold,C. and Medof,M.E. (1996) J. Immunol., 156, 25282533.[Abstract]
Casasnovas,J.M., Larvie,M. and Stehle,T. (1999) EMBO J., 18, 29112922.
Collins,J.F. and Coulson,A.F. (1990) Methods Enzymol., 183, 474487.[ISI][Medline]
Copley,R.R., Doerks,T., Letunic,I. and Bork,P. (2002) FEBS Lett., 513, 129134.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Corpet,F. (1988) Nucleic Acids Res., 16, 1088110890.[Abstract]
Durbin,R., Eddy,S., Krogh,A. and Mitchison,G. (eds) (1998) Biological Sequence Analysis: Probabilistic Models of Proteins and Nucleic Acids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ganesh,V.K., Smith,S.A., Kotwal,G.J. and Murthy,K.H. (2004) Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 101, 89248929.
Hardig,Y., Hillarp,A. and Dahlback,B. (1997) Biochem. J., 323, 469475.[ISI][Medline]
Heiden,W., Moeckel,G. and Brickmann,J. (1993) J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 7, 503514.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Henderson,C.E., Bromek,K., Mullin,N.P., Smith,B.O., Uhrin,D. and Barlow,P.N. (2001) J. Mol. Biol., 307, 323339.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Honig,B. and Nicholls,A. (1995) Science, 268, 11441149.[ISI][Medline]
Hourcade,D., Miesner,D.R., Atkinson,J.P. and Holers,V.M. (1988) J. Exp. Med., 168, 12551270.
Hourcade,D., Miesner,D.R., Bee,C., Zeldes,W. and Atkinson,J.P. (1990) J. Biol. Chem., 265, 974980.
Jokiranta,T.S., Hellwage,J., Koistinen,V., Zipfel,P.F. and Meri,S. (2000) J. Biol. Chem., 275, 2765727662.
Kelley,L.A., Gardner,S.P. and Sutcliffe,M.J. (1996) Protein Eng., 9, 10631065.[ISI][Medline]
Kirkitadze,M.D. and Barlow,P.N. (2001) Immunol. Rev., 180, 146161.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Klickstein,L.B., Bartow,T.J., Miletic,V., Rabson,L.D., Smith,J.A. and Fearon,D.T. (1988) J. Exp. Med., 168, 16991717.
Klickstein,L.B., Wong,W.W., Smith,J.A., Weis,J.H., Wilson,J.G. and Fearon,D.T. (1987) J. Exp. Med., 165, 10951112.
Krushkal,J., Bat,O. and Gigli,I. (2000) Mol. Biol. Evol., 17, 17181730.
Krych,M., Clemenza,L., Howdeshell,D., Hauhart,R., Hourcade,D. and Atkinson,J.P. (1994) J. Biol. Chem., 269, 1327313278.
Krych,M., Hauhart,R. and Atkinson,J.P. (1998) J. Biol. Chem., 273, 86238629.
Krych,M., Hourcade,D. and Atkinson,J.P. (1991) Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 88, 43534357.
Kuttner-Kondo,L., Medof,M.E., Brodbeck,W. and Shoham,M. (1996) Protein Eng., 9, 11431149.[ISI][Medline]
Kuttner-Kondo,L.A., Mitchell,L., Hourcade,D.E. and Medof,M.E. (2001) J. Immunol., 167, 21642171.
Laskowski,R.A., MacArthur,M.W., Moss,D.S. and Thornton,J.M. (1993) J. Appl. Crystallogr., 26, 283291.[CrossRef][ISI]
Letunic,I., Copley,R.R., Schmidt,S., Ciccarelli,F.D., Doerks,T., Schultz,J., Ponting,C.P. and Bork,P. (2004) Nucleic Acids Res., 32, D142D144.
Lichtarge,O., Bourne,H.R. and Cohen,F.E. (1996) J. Mol. Biol., 29, 342358.[CrossRef]
Liszewski,M.K., Leung,M., Cui,W., Subramanian,V.B., Parkinson,J., Barlow,P.N., Manchester,M. and Atkinson,J.P. (2000) J. Biol. Chem., 275, 3769237701.
Lukacik,P. et al. (2004) Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 101, 12791284.
Medof,M.E., Iida,K., Mold,C. and Nussenzweig,V. (1982) J. Exp. Med., 156, 17391754.
Moore,M.D., Cooper,N.R., Tack,B.F. and Nemerow,G.R. (1987) Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 84, 91949198.
Moulds,J.M. et al. (2000) Genes Immun., 1, 325329.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Murthy,K.H., Smith,S.A., Ganesh,V.K., Judge,K.W., Mullin,N., Barlow,P.N., Ogata,C.M. and Kotwal,G.J. (2001) Cell, 104, 301311.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Nicholls,A., Sharp,K.A. and Honig,B. (1991) Proteins, 11, 281296.[ISI][Medline]
Norman,D.G., Barlow,P.N., Baron,M., Day,A.J., Sim,R.B. and Campbell,I.D. (1991) J. Mol. Biol., 219, 717725.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Pawlowski,K. and Godzik,A. (2001) J. Mol. Biol., 309, 793806.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Peitsch,M.C. (2002) Bioinformatics, 18, 934938.
Perkins,S.J. and Goodship,T.H. (2002) J. Mol. Biol., 316, 217224.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Ranganathan,S., Male,D.A., Ormsby,R.J., Giannakis,E. and Gordon,D.L. (2000) Pac. Symp. Biocomput., 5, 155167.
Reid,K.B. and Day,A.J. (1989) Immunol. Today, 10, 177180.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Rey-Campos,J., Baeza-Sanz,D. and Rodriguez de Cordoba,S. (1990) Genomics, 7, 644646.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Rokas,A., Williams,B.L., King,N. and Carroll,S.B. (2003) Nature, 425, 798804.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Rowe,J.A., Moulds,J.M., Newbold,C.I. and Miller,L.H. (1997) Nature, 388, 292295.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Rowe,J.A., Rogerson,S.J., Raza,A., Moulds,J.M., Kazatchkine,M.D., Marsh,K., Newbold,C.I., Atkinson,J.P. and Miller,L.H. (2000) J. Immunol., 165, 63416346.
Sali,A. and Blundell,T.L. (1993) J. Mol. Biol., 234, 779815.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Schultz,J., Milpetz,F., Bork,P. and Ponting,C.P. (1998) Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 95, 58575864.
Shatsky,M., Nussinov,R. and Wolfson,H.J. (2004) Proteins, 56, 143156.[CrossRef][Medline]
Shindyalov,I.N. and Bourne,P.E. (1998) Protein Eng., 11, 739747.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Skerka,C., Moulds,J.M., Taillon-Miller,P., Hourcade,D. and Zipfel,P.F. (1995) Immunogenetics, 42, 268274.[ISI][Medline]
Smith,B.O., Mallin,R.L., Krych-Goldberg,M., Wang,X., Hauhart,R.E., Bromek,K., Uhrin,D., Atkinson,J.P. and Barlow,P.N. (2002) Cell, 108, 769780.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Thompson,J.D., Gibson,T.J., Plewniak,F., Jeanmougin,F. and Higgins,D.G. (1997) Nucleic Acids Res., 25, 48764882.
Thompson,J.D., Higgins,D.G. and Gibson,T.J. (1994) Nucleic Acids Res., 22, 46734680.[Abstract]
Uhrinova,S., Lin,F., Ball,G., Bromek,K., Uhrin,D., Medof,M.E. and Barlow,P.N. (2003) Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 100, 47184723.
Ullmann,G.M., Hauswald,M., Jensen,A., Kostic,N.M. and Knapp,E.W. (1997) Biochemistry, 36, 1618716196.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Villoutreix,B.O., Hardig,Y., Wallqvist,A., Covell,D.G., Garcia de Frutos,P. and Dahlback,B. (1998) Proteins, 31, 391405.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wade,R.C., Gabdoulline,R.R. and Luty,B.A. (1998) Proteins, 31, 406416.[CrossRef][Medline]
Walport,M.J. (2001) N. Engl. J. Med., 344, 11401144.
Walport,M.J. (2001) N. Engl. J. Med., 344, 10581066.
Wiles,A.P., Shaw,G., Bright,J., Perczel,A., Campbell,I.D. and Barlow,P.N. (1997) J. Mol. Biol., 272, 253265.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Williams,P., Chaudhry,Y., Goodfellow,I.G., Billington,J., Powell,R., Spiller,O.B., Evans,D.J. and Lea,S. (2003) J. Biol. Chem., 278, 1069110696.
Received January 18, 2005; revised May 6, 2005; accepted May 20, 2005.
Edited by Michael Sternberg