How are close residues of protein structures distributed in primary sequence?

Structurally neighboring residues are categorized according to their separation in the primary sequence as proximal (1-4 positions apart) and otherwise distal, which in turn is divided into near (5-20 positions), far (21-50 positions), very far ( > 50 positions), and interchain (from different chains of the same structure). These categories describe the linear distance histogram (LDH) for three-dimensional neighboring residue types. Among the main results are the following: (i) nearest-neighbor hydrophobic residues tend to be increasingly distally separated in the linear sequence, thus most often connecting distinct secondary structure units. (ii) The LDHs of oppositely charged nearest-neighbors emphasize proximal positions with a subsidiary maximum for very far positions. (iii) Cysteine-cysteine structural interactions rarely involve proximal positions. (iv) The greatest numbers of interchain specific nearest-neighbors in protein structures are composed of oppositely charged residues. (v) The largest fraction of side-chain neighboring residues from beta-strands involves near positions, emphasizing associations between consecutive strands. (vi) Exposed residue pairs are predominantly located in proximal linear positions, while buried residue pairs principally correspond to far or very far distal positions. The results are principally invariant to protein sizes, amino acid usages, linear distance normalizations, and over- and underrepresentations among nearest-neighbor types. Interpretations and hypotheses concerning the LDHs, particularly those of hydrophobic and charged pairings, are discussed with respect to protein stability and functionality. The pronounced occurrence of oppositely charged interchain contacts is consistent with many observations on protein complexes where multichain stabilization is facilitated by electrostatic interactions.

The dietary adaptations of European Miocene catarrhines.

European Miocene "apes" have been known for nearly a century and a half but their phylogenetic significance is only now becoming apparent with the recent discovery of many relatively complete remains. Some appear to be close in time and morphology to the last common ancestor of modern great apes and humans. The current study is an attempt to reconstruct the diets of these fossils on the basis of quantitative data. Results suggest that these primates varied more greatly in their diets than modern apes, with adaptations ranging from hard-object feeding to soft-object frugivory to folivory.