4.8 Article

Kinetics of chain motions within a protein-folding intermediate

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1011666107

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_U105484373] Funding Source: Medline
  2. MRC [MC_U105484373] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_U105484373] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Small proteins can fold remarkably rapidly, even in mu s. What limits their rate of folding? The Engrailed homeodomain is a particularly well-characterized example, which folds ultrafast via an intermediate, I, of solved structure. It is a puzzle that the helix2-turn-helix3 motif of the 3-helix bundle forms in approximately 2 mu s, but the final docking of preformed helix1 in I requires approximately 20 mu s. Simulation and structural data suggest that nonnative interactions may slow down helix docking. Here we report the direct measurement of chain motions in I by using photoinduced electron transfer fluorescence-quenching correlation spectroscopy (PET-FCS). We use a mutant that traps I at physiological ionic strength but refolds at higher ionic strength. A single Trp in helix3 quenches the fluorescence of an extrinsic label on contact with it. We placed the label along the sequence to probe segmental chain motions. At high ionic strength, we found two relaxations for all probed positions on the 2- and 20-mu s time scale, corresponding to the known folding processes, and a 200-ns phase attributable to loop closure kinetics in the unfolded state. At low ionic strength, we found only the 2-mu s and 200-ns phase for labels in the helix2-turn-helix3 motif of I, because the native state is not significantly populated. But for labels in helix1 we observed an additional approximately 10-mu s phase showing that it was moving slowly, with a rate constant similar to that for overall folding under native conditions. Folding was rate-limited by chain motions on a rough energy surface where nonnative interactions constrain motion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据