Three-Dimensional Structure of Human Epididymis Protein 4 (HE4): A Protein Modelling of an Ovarian Cancer Biomarker Through In Silico Approach

HE4 Protein Structure Modelling and Validation

Authors

  • Nur Nadiah Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Kulliyyah of Pharmacy, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bandar Indera Mahkota, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
  • Hamzah Department of Biotechnology, Kulliyyah of Science, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bandar Indera Mahkota, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
  • Nurasyikin Hamzah Department of Chemistry, Kulliyyah of Science, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bandar Indera Mahkota, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
  • Che Muhammad Khairul Hisyam Ismail . Department of Biotechnology, Kulliyyah of Science, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bandar Indera Mahkota, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
  • Siti Aishah Sufira Nor Hishamuddin Department of Biotechnology, Kulliyyah of Science, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bandar Indera Mahkota, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
  • Izzat Fahimuddin Mohamed Suffian Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Kulliyyah of Pharmacy, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bandar Indera Mahkota, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
  • Azzmer Azzar Abdul Hamid International Islamic University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11594/jtls.14.02.13

Keywords:

AlphaFold, De novo, Human Epididymis Protein 4 (HE4), Ramachan-dran plot, threading template

Abstract

The Human Epididymis Protein 4 (HE4) biomarker has been extensively investigated for its potential in diagnosing ovarian cancer (OC). For the application of diagnostic techniques and drug delivery, it is crucial to understand the protein tertiary structure. However, the Protein Data Bank (PDB) does not currently contain the three-dimensional (3D) structure of HE4. Therefore, an in silico analysis was conducted to model the HE4 protein using AlphaFold, I-TASSER, and Robetta servers, with the sequence retrieved from UniProt (ID: Q14508). These three servers employed deep learning algorithms, threading templates, and de novo methods, respectively. Subsequently, Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulation using the GROMACS software package improved each 3D structure model, resulting in optimised and refined structures: RF1, RF2, and RF3. PROCHECK and ERRAT programmes were employed to assess the structure quality. The Ramachandran plots from PROCHECK indicated that 100% of residues were within the allowed regions for all servers except for I-TASSER. For the refined structures, RF1 and RF3, all residues were concentrated within the allowed regions. According to the ERRAT programme, the RF1 model exhibited the highest overall quality factor of 97.701, followed by RF3 and AlphaFold models with scores of 94.643 and 93.750, respectively. After these validations, RF1 emerged as the most accurately predicted 3D structure of HE4 and has one tunnel identified by CAVER 3.0 tool that facilitates the transportation of small particles to the active site, supported by FTsite and PrankWeb binding site predictions. This model holds potential for various computational studies, including the development of OC diagnostic kits. It will enhance our comprehension of the interactions between the protein and other biomolecules.

Author Biographies

  • Nur Nadiah, Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Kulliyyah of Pharmacy, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bandar Indera Mahkota, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
    1. Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Kulliyyah of Pharmacy, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bandar Indera Mahkota, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
    2. Research Unit for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (RUBIC), Kulliyyah of Science, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bandar Indera Mahkota, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
    3. Department of Chemistry, Centre for Foundation Studies, International Islamic University Malaysia, 26300, Gambang, Pahang, Malaysia
  • Hamzah, Department of Biotechnology, Kulliyyah of Science, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bandar Indera Mahkota, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
    1. Department of Biotechnology, Kulliyyah of Science, International Islamic University Malaysia,

    Bandar Indera Mahkota, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia

    1. Research Unit for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (RUBIC), Kulliyyah of Science, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bandar Indera Mahkota, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
  • Nurasyikin Hamzah, Department of Chemistry, Kulliyyah of Science, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bandar Indera Mahkota, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
    1. Department of Chemistry, Kulliyyah of Science, International Islamic University Malaysia,

    Bandar Indera Mahkota, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia

    1. Research Unit for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (RUBIC), Kulliyyah of Science, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bandar Indera Mahkota, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
  • Che Muhammad Khairul Hisyam Ismail, . Department of Biotechnology, Kulliyyah of Science, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bandar Indera Mahkota, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
    1. Department of Biotechnology, Kulliyyah of Science, International Islamic University Malaysia,

    Bandar Indera Mahkota, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia

    1. Research Unit for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (RUBIC), Kulliyyah of Science, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bandar Indera Mahkota, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
  • Siti Aishah Sufira Nor Hishamuddin, Department of Biotechnology, Kulliyyah of Science, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bandar Indera Mahkota, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
    1. Department of Biotechnology, Kulliyyah of Science, International Islamic University Malaysia,

    Bandar Indera Mahkota, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia

    1. Research Unit for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (RUBIC), Kulliyyah of Science, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bandar Indera Mahkota,25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
  • Izzat Fahimuddin Mohamed Suffian, Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Kulliyyah of Pharmacy, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bandar Indera Mahkota, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia

    Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Kulliyyah of Pharmacy, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bandar Indera Mahkota, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia

References

Ferlay J, Ervik M, Lam F et al. (2024) Malaysia Fact Sheets. France: International Agency for Research on Cancer 1–2.

Ferlay J, Ervik M, Lam F et al. (2024) World Fact Sheets. France: International Agency for Research on Cancer 1–2.

Reid BM, Permuth JB, Sellers TA (2017) Epidemiology of ovarian cancer: a review. Cancer biology & medicine 14 (1): 9–32. doi: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2016.0084.

Charkhchi P, Cybulski C, Gronwald J et al. (2020) CA125 and Ovarian Cancer: A Comprehensive Review. Cancers 12 (12): 3730. doi: 10.3390/cancers12123730.

Barr CE, Funston G, Jeevan D et al. (2022) The Performance of HE4 Alone and in Combination with CA125 for the Detection of Ovarian Cancer in an Enriched Primary Care Population. Cancers 14 (9): 1–18. doi: 10.3390/cancers14092124.

James NE, Chichester C, Ribeiro JR (2018) Beyond the Biomarker: Understanding the Diverse Roles of Human Epididymis Protein 4 in the Pathogenesis of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Frontiers in Oncology 8: 124. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2018.00124

Schummer M, Ng W V, Bumgarner RE et al. (1999) Comparative hybridization of an array of 21,500 ovarian cDNAs for the discovery of genes overexpressed in ovarian carcinomas. Gene 238 (2): 375–385. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1119(99)00342-x.

Dochez V, Caillon H, Vaucel E et al. (2019) Biomarkers and algorithms for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: CA125, HE4, RMI and ROMA, a review. Journal of Ovarian Research 12 (1): 1–9. doi: 10.1186/s13048-019-0503-7.

Ren X, Zhang H, Cong H et al. (2018) Diagnostic Model of Serum miR-193a-5p, HE4 and CA125 Improves the Diagnostic Efficacy of Epithelium Ovarian Cancer. Pathology & Oncology Research 24 (4): 739–744. doi: 10.1007/s12253-018-0392-x.

Yao S, Xiao W, Chen H et al. (2019) The combined detection of ovarian cancer biomarkers HE4 and CA125 by a fluorescence and quantum dot dual-signal immunoassay. Analytical Methods 11 (37): 4814–4821. doi: 10.1039/c9ay01454c.

Woods RJ (2018) Predicting the Structures of Glycans, Glycoproteins, and Their Complexes. Chemical Reviews 118 (17): 8005–8024. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00032.

Jisna VA, Jayaraj PB (2021) Protein Structure Prediction: Conventional and Deep Learning Perspectives. The Protein Journal 40 (4): 522–544. doi: 10.1007/s10930-021-10003-y.

Haim A, Neubacher S, Grossmann TN (2021) Protein Macrocyclization for Tertiary Structure Stabilization. ChemBioChem 22 (17): 2672–2679. doi: 10.1002/cbic.202100111.

Yang J, Zhang Y (2016) Protein Structure and Function Prediction Using I-TASSER. Current Protocols in Bioinformatics 52 5.8.1-5.815. doi: 10.1002/0471250953.bi0508s52.

Agnihotry S, Pathak RK, Singh DB et al. (2022) Chapter 11 - Protein structure prediction. In: Singh DB, Pathak RKBT-B eds. Academic Press. 177–188.

Gupta Y, Savytskyi O V, Coban M et al. (2022) Protein structure-based in-silico approaches to drug discovery: Guide to COVID-19 therapeutics. Molecular Aspects of Medicine 101151. doi: 10.1016/j.mam.2022.101151.

Jumper J, Evans R, Pritzel A et al. (2021) Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 596 (7873): 583–589. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2.

Zhang C, Mortuza SM, He B et al. (2018) Template-based and free modeling of I-TASSER and QUARK pipelines using predicted contact maps in CASP12. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 86 (S1): 136–151. doi: 10.1002/prot.25414.

Park H, Kim DE, Ovchinnikov S et al. (2018) Automatic structure prediction of oligomeric assemblies using Robetta in CASP12. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 86 (S1): 283–291. doi: 10.1002/prot.25387.

Yang J, Yan R, Roy A et al. (2014) The I-TASSER suite: Protein structure and function prediction. Nature Methods 12 (1): 7–8. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3213.

Baek M, DiMaio F, Anishchenko I et al. (2021) Accurate prediction of protein structures and interactions using a three-track neural network. Science (New York, NY) 373 (6557): 871–876. doi: 10.1126/science.abj8754.

Baker Lab (2023) Robetta. https://robetta.bakerlab.org/. (2023) Accessed date: February 2023.

Tunyasuvunakool K, Adler J, Wu Z et al. (2021) Highly accurate protein structure prediction for the human proteome. Nature 596 (7873): 590–596. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03828-1.

Lengths M, Angles M (2018) Limitations of structure evaluation tools errat. Quick Guideline Comput Drug Des 16: 75.

Williams CJ, Headd JJ, Moriarty NW et al. (2018) MolProbity: More and better reference data for improved all-atom structure validation. Protein Science 27 (1): 293–315. doi: 10.1002/pro.3330.

Rashmi D (2018) In Silico Homology Modeling and Validation of a-Glucosidase Enzyme. Journal of Drug Delivery & Therapeutics 8 (6): 124–8.

Laskowski RA, Jabłońska J, Pravda L et al. (2018) PDBsum: Structural summaries of PDB entries. Protein Science 27 (1): 129–134. doi: 10.1002/pro.3289.

Pradeepkiran JA, Sainath SB, Balne PK, Bhaskar M (2021) Chapter 3 - Computational modeling and evaluation of best potential drug targets through comparative modeling. In: Pradeepkiran JA, Sainath SBBT-BM eds. Academic Press. 39–78.

L. S, Vasu P (2017) In silico designing of therapeutic protein enriched with branched-chain amino acids for the dietary treatment of chronic liver disease. Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling 76 192–204. doi: 10.1016/j.jmgm.2017.06.015.

Saikat ASM, Islam R, Mahmud S et al. (2020) Structural and Functional Annotation of Uncharacterized Protein NCGM946K2_146 of Mycobacterium Tuberculosis: An In-Silico Approach. Proceedings. doi: 10.3390/proceedings2020066013

Yin R, Feng BY, Varshney A, Pierce BG (2022) Benchmarking AlphaFold for protein complex modeling reveals accuracy determinants. Protein Science 31 (8): e4379. doi: 10.1002/pro.4379.

Zhang Y (2008) I-TASSER server for protein 3D structure prediction. BMC Bioinformatics 9 (1): 40. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-9-40.

Guo H-B, Perminov A, Bekele S et al. (2022) AlphaFold2 models indicate that protein sequence determines both structure and dynamics. Scientific reports 12 (1): 10696. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-14382-9.

Barber RD (2021) Software to Visualize Proteins and Perform Structural Alignments. Current Protocols 1 (11): e292. doi: 10.1002/cpz1.292.

Bauer P, Hess B, Lindahl E (2022) GROMACS 2022 Source code. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6103835

Aier I, Varadwaj PK, Raj U (2016) Structural insights into conformational stability of both wild-type and mutant EZH2 receptor. Scientific Reports 6 (1): 34984. doi: 10.1038/srep34984.

Pitera JW (2014) Expected Distributions of Root-Mean-Square Positional Deviations in Proteins. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 118 (24): 6526–6530. doi: 10.1021/jp412776d.

Mangolini F, Hilbert J, McClimon JB et al. (2018) Thermally Induced Structural Evolution of Silicon- and Oxygen-Containing Hydrogenated Amorphous Carbon: A Combined Spectroscopic and Molecular Dynamics Simulation Investigation. Langmuir 34 (9): 2989–2995. doi: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.7b04266.

Bahaman AH, Wahab RA, Abdul Hamid AA et al. (2021) Molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulations studies on β-glucosidase and xylanase Trichoderma asperellum to predict degradation order of cellulosic components in oil palm leaves for nanocellulose preparation. Journal of biomolecular structure & dynamics 39 (7): 2628–2641. doi: 10.1080/07391102.2020.1751713.

Frenkel D, Smit B (1996) Understanding molecular simulation : from algorithms to applications. 2nd ed. Physics Today. doi: 10.1063/1.881812

Peng J, Wang W, Yu Y et al. (2018) Clustering algorithms to analyze molecular dynamics simulation trajectories for complex chemical and biological systems†. Chinese Journal of Chemical Physics 31 (4): 404–420. doi: 10.1063/1674-0068/31/cjcp1806147.

Liu Y, Amzel LM (2018) Conformation Clustering of Long MD Protein Dynamics with an Adversarial Autoencoder. https://www.academia.edu/95826900/Conformation_Clustering_of_Long_MD_Protein_Dynamics_with_an_Adversarial_Autoencoder?uc-sb-sw=87388001. Accessed date: November 2023

Narayan M (2021) Securing Native Disulfide Bonds in Disulfide-Coupled Protein Folding Reactions: The Role of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Elements vis-à-vis Protein Aggregation and Neurodegeneration. ACS Omega 6 (47): 31404–31410. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.1c05269.

Raschle T, Rios Flores P, Opitz C et al. (2016) Monitoring Backbone Hydrogen-Bond Formation in β-Barrel Membrane Protein Folding. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 55 (20): 5952–5955. doi: 10.1002/anie.201509910.

Li J, Wang Y, An L et al. (2018) Direct Observation of CH/CH van der Waals Interactions in Proteins by NMR. Journal of the American Chemical Society 140 (9): 3194–3197. doi: 10.1021/jacs.7b13345.

Kumar DD, Pandian L et al. (2017) A Molecular Docking and Dynamics Approach to Screen Potent Inhibitors Against Fosfomycin Resistant Enzyme in Clinical Klebsiella pneumoniae. Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 118. doi: 10.1002/jcb.26064

Aizawa H (2018) Allosteric effect by synchronized resonance of amide bonds through alpha-helix. Trends in Research 1 (2): 1–2. doi: 10.15761/tr.1000109.

Tam B, Sinha S, Wang SM (2020) Combining Ramachandran plot and molecular dynamics simulation for structural-based variant classification: Using TP53 variants as model. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 18: 4033–4039. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2020.11.041.

Spencer RK, Butterfoss GL, Edison JR et al. (2019) Stereochemistry of polypeptoid chain configurations. Biopolymers 110 (6): e23266. doi: 10.1002/bip.23266.

Mohammed S, Sa’idu H, Manzo JO et al. (2022) Prediction and Validation of 3-Dimensional Structure of Rice OsTHIC Abiotic Stress Responsive Gene. Asian Journal of Plant Biology 4 (1): 1–4. doi: 10.54987/ajpb.v4i1.671.

Al-Khayyat MZS, Al-Dabbagh AGA (2016) In silico Prediction and Docking of Tertiary Structure of LuxI, an Inducer Synthase of Vibrio fischeri. Reports of biochemistry & molecular biology 4 (2): 66–75.

Stourac J, Vavra O, Kokkonen P et al. (2019) Caver Web 1.0: identification of tunnels and channels in proteins and analysis of ligand transport. Nucleic Acids Research 47 (W1): W414–W422. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz378.

Jendele L, Krivak R, Skoda P et al. (2019) PrankWeb: a web server for ligand binding site prediction and visualization. Nucleic Acids Research 47 (W1): W345–W349. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz424.

Downloads

Published

2024-06-30

Issue

Vol. 14 No. 2 (2024)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of Tropical Life Science

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

The work has not been published before (except in the form of an abstract or part of a published lecture or thesis) and it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. When the manuscript is accepted for publication in this journal, the authors agree to automatic transfer of the copyright to the publisher.

Creative Commons License
Journal of Tropical Life Science is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License