{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028151774785801713, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.818505338078292, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Dissecting water binding sites at protein–protein interfaces: a lesson from the atomic structures in the Protein Data Bank

We dissect the protein–protein interfaces into water preservation (WP), water hydration (WH) and water dehydration (WD) sites by comparing the water-mediated hydrogen bonds (H-bond) in the bound and unbound states of the interacting subunits. Upon subunit complexation, if a H-bond between an interface water and a protein polar group is retained, we assign it as WP site; if it is lost, we assign it as WD site and if a new H-bond is created, we assign it as WH site. We find that the density of WD sites is highest followed by WH and WP sites except in antigen and (or) antibody complexes, where the density of WH sites is highest followed by WD and WP sites. Furthermore, we find that WP sites are the most conserved followed by WD and WH sites in all class of complexes except in antigen and (or) antibody complexes, where WD sites are the most conserved followed by WH and WP sites. A significant number of WP and WH sites are involved in water bridges that stabilize the subunit interactions. At WH sites, the residues involved in water bridges are significantly better conserved than the other residues. However, no such difference is observed at WP sites. Interestingly, WD sites are generally replaced with direct H-bonds upon subunit complexation. Significantly, we observe many water-mediated H-bonds remain preserved in spite of large conformational changes upon subunit complexation. These findings have implications in predicting and engineering water binding sites at protein–protein interfaces.