Dataset Information

Peptidase specificity from the substrate cleavage collection in the MEROPS database and a tool to measure cleavage site conservation.

ABSTRACT: One peptidase can usually be distinguished from another biochemically by its action on proteins, peptides and synthetic substrates. Since 1996, the MEROPS database (http://merops.sanger.ac.uk) has accumulated a collection of cleavages in substrates that now amounts to 66,615 cleavages. The total number of peptidases for which at least one cleavage is known is 1700 out of a total of 2457 different peptidases. This paper describes how the cleavages are obtained from the scientific literature, how they are annotated and how cleavages in peptides and proteins are cross-referenced to entries in the UniProt protein sequence database. The specificity profiles of 556 peptidases are shown for which ten or more substrate cleavages are known. However, it has been proposed that at least 40 cleavages in disparate proteins are required for specificity analysis to be meaningful, and only 163 peptidases (6.6%) fulfil this criterion. Also described are the various displays shown on the website to aid with the understanding of peptidase specificity, which are derived from the substrate cleavage collection. These displays include a logo, distribution matrix, and tables to summarize which amino acids or groups of amino acids are acceptable (or not acceptable) in each substrate binding pocket. For each protein substrate, there is a display to show how it is processed and degraded. Also described are tools on the website to help with the assessment of the physiological relevance of cleavages in a substrate. These tools rely on the hypothesis that a cleavage site that is conserved in orthologues is likely to be physiologically relevant, and alignments of substrate protein sequences are made utilizing the UniRef50 database, in which in each entry sequences are 50% or more identical. Conservation in this case means substitutions are permitted only if the amino acid is known to occupy the same substrate binding pocket from at least one other substrate cleaved by the same peptidase.

SUBMITTER: Rawlings ND

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4756867 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Peptidase specificity from the substrate cleavage collection in the MEROPS database and a tool to measure cleavage site conservation.

Rawlings Neil D ND

Biochimie 20151021

One peptidase can usually be distinguished from another biochemically by its action on proteins, peptides and synthetic substrates. Since 1996, the MEROPS database (http://merops.sanger.ac.uk) has accumulated a collection of cleavages in substrates that now amounts to 66,615 cleavages. The total number of peptidases for which at least one cleavage is known is 1700 out of a total of 2457 different peptidases. This paper describes how the cleavages are obtained from the scientific literature, how ...[more]

PMID: 26455268

Similar Datasets

Project description:Peptidases are enzymes that hydrolyse peptide bonds in proteins and peptides. Peptidases are important in pathological conditions such as Alzheimer's disease, tumour and parasite invasion, and for processing viral polyproteins. The MEROPS database is an Internet resource containing information on peptidases, their substrates and inhibitors. The database now includes details of cleavage positions in substrates, both physiological and non-physiological, natural and synthetic. There are 39 118 cleavages in the collection; including 34 606 from a total of 10 513 different proteins and 2677 cleavages in synthetic substrates. The number of cleavages designated as 'physiological' is 13 307. The data are derived from 6095 publications. At least one substrate cleavage is known for 45% of the 2415 different peptidases recognized in the MEROPS database. The website now has three new displays: two showing peptidase specificity as a logo and a frequency matrix, the third showing a dynamically generated alignment between each protein substrate and its most closely related homologues. Many of the proteins described in the literature as peptidase substrates have been studied only in vitro. On the assumption that a physiologically relevant cleavage site would be conserved between species, the conservation of every site in terms of peptidase preference has been examined and a number have been identified that are not conserved. There are a number of cogent reasons why a site might not be conserved. Each poorly conserved site has been examined and a reason postulated. Some sites are identified that are very poorly conserved where cleavage is more likely to be fortuitous than of physiological relevance. This data-set is freely available via the Internet and is a useful training set for algorithms to predict substrates for peptidases and cleavage positions within those substrates. The data may also be useful for the design of inhibitors and for engineering novel specificities into peptidases.Database URL:http://merops.sanger.ac.uk.

Project description:Escherichia coli signal peptidase I (LepB) has been shown to inefficiently cleave secreted proteins with aromatic amino acids at the second position after the signal peptidase cleavage site (P2'). The Bacillus subtilis exported protein TasA contains a phenylalanine at P2', which in B. subtilis is cleaved by a dedicated archaeal-organism-like signal peptidase, SipW. We have previously shown that when the TasA signal peptide is fused to maltose binding protein (MBP) up to the P2' position, the TasA-MBP fusion protein is cleaved very inefficiently by LepB. However, the precise reason why the TasA signal peptide hinders cleavage by LepB is not known. In this study, a set of 11 peptides were designed to mimic the inefficiently cleaved secreted proteins, wild-type TasA and TasA-MBP fusions, to determine whether the peptides interact with and inhibit the function of LepB. The binding affinity and inhibitory potential of the peptides against LepB were assessed by surface plasmon resonance (SPR) and a LepB enzyme activity assay. Molecular modeling of the interaction between TasA signal peptide and LepB indicated that the tryptophan residue at P2 (two amino acids before the cleavage site) inhibited the active site serine-90 residue on LepB from accessing the cleavage site. Replacing the P2 tryptophan with alanine (W26A) allowed for more efficient processing of the signal peptide when the TasA-MBP fusion was expressed in E. coli. The importance of this residue to inhibit signal peptide cleavage and the potential to design LepB inhibitors based on the TasA signal peptide are discussed. IMPORTANCE Signal peptidase I is an important drug target, and understanding its substrate is critically important to develop new bacterium-specific drugs. To that end, we have a unique signal peptide that we have shown is refractory to processing by LepB, the essential signal peptidase I in E. coli, but previously has been shown to be processed by a more human-like signal peptidase found in some bacteria. In this study, we demonstrate how the signal peptide can bind but is unable to be processed by LepB, using a variety of methods. This can inform the field on how to better design drugs that can target LepB and understand the differences between bacterial and human-like signal peptidases.

Dataset Information

Peptidase specificity from the substrate cleavage collection in the MEROPS database and a tool to measure cleavage site conservation.

Publications

Peptidase specificity from the substrate cleavage collection in the MEROPS database and a tool to measure cleavage site conservation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets