Use of computational biology to compare the theoretical tertiary structures of the most common forms of RhCE and RhD

Abstract

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesComputational biology analyses the theoretical tertiary structure of proteins and identifies the ‘topological’ differences between RhD and RhCE. Our aim was to identify the theoretical structural differences between the four isoforms of RhCE and RhD using computational biological tools.Materials and MethodsPhysicochemical profile was determined by hydrophobicity and electrostatic potential analysis. Secondary and tertiary structures were generated using computational biology tools. The structures were evaluated and validated using Ramachandran algorithm, which calculates the single score, p‐value and root mean square deviation (RMSD). Structures were overlaid on local refinement of ‘RhAG‐RhCE‐ANK’ (PBDID 7uzq) and RhAG to compare their spatial distribution within the membrane.ResultsAll proteins differed in surface area and electrostatic distance due to variations in hydrophobicity and electrostatic potential. The RMSD between RhD and RhCE was 0.46 ± 0.04 Å, and the comparison within RhCE was 0.57 ± 0.08 Å. The percentage of amino acids in the hydrophobic thickness was 50.24% for RhD while for RhCE it ranged between 73.08% and 76.68%. The RHAG hydrophobic thickness was 34.2 Å, and RhCE's hydrophobic thickness was 33.83 Å. We suggest that the C/c antigens differ exofacially at loops L1 and L2. For the E/e antigens, the difference lies in L6. By contrast, L4 is the same for all proteins except Rhce.ConclusionThe physicochemical properties of Rh proteins made them different, although their genes are homologous. Using computational biology, we model structures with sufficient precision, similar to those obtained experimentally. An amino acid variation alters the folding of the tertiary structure and the interactions with other proteins, modifying the electrostatic environment, the spatial conformations and therefore the antigenic recognition.