Unusual binding interactions in PDZ domain crystal structures help explain binding mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PDZ domains most commonly bind the C-terminus of their protein targets. Typically the C-terminal four residues of the protein target are considered as the binding motif, particularly the C-terminal residue (P0) and third-last residue (P-2) that form the major contacts with the PDZ domain's "binding groove". We solved crystal structures of seven human PDZ domains, including five of the seven PDLIM family members. The structures of GRASP, PDLIM2, PDLIM5, and PDLIM7 show a binding mode with only the C-terminal P0 residue bound in the binding groove. Importantly, in some cases, the P-2 residue formed interactions outside of the binding groove, providing insight into the influence of residues remote from the binding groove on selectivity. In the GRASP structure, we observed both canonical and noncanonical binding in the two molecules present in the asymmetric unit making a direct comparison of these binding modes possible. In addition, structures of the PDZ domains from PDLIM1 and PDLIM4 also presented here allow comparison with canonical binding for the PDLIM PDZ domain family. Although influenced by crystal packing arrangements, the structures nevertheless show that changes in the positions of PDZ domain side-chains and the alpha B helix allow noncanonical binding interactions. These interactions may be indicative of intermediate states between unbound and fully bound PDZ domain and target protein. The noncanonical "perpendicular" binding observed potentially represents the general form of a kinetic intermediate. Comparison with canonical binding suggests that the rearrangement during binding involves both the PDZ domain and its ligand.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".