4.6 Article

Demonstration of a Folding after Binding Mechanism in the Recognition between the Measles Virus NTAIL and X Domains

期刊

ACS CHEMICAL BIOLOGY
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 795-802

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/cb5008579

关键词

-

资金

  1. CNRS
  2. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-05-MIIM-035-02, ANR-08-PCVI-0020-01]
  3. Ministero dell'Istruzione dell'Universita e della Ricerca (PNR-CNR)
  4. Sapienza University of Rome [C26A13T9NB]
  5. EMBO

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the past decade, a wealth of experimental data has demonstrated that a large fraction of proteins, while functional, are intrinsically disordered at physiological conditions. Many intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) undergo a disorder-to-order transition upon binding to their biological targets, a phenomenon known as induced folding. Induced folding may occur through two extreme mechanisms, namely conformational selection and folding after binding. Although the pre-existence of ordered structures in IDPs is a prerequisite for conformational selection, it does not necessarily commit to this latter mechanism, and kinetic studies are needed to discriminate between the two possible scenarios. So far, relatively few studies have addressed this issue from an experimental perspective. Here, we analyze the interaction kinetics between the intrinsically disordered C-terminal domain of the measles virus nucleoprotein (NTAIL) and the X domain (XD) of the viral phosphoprotein. Data reveal that NTAIL recognizes XD by first forming a weak encounter complex in a disordered conformation, which is subsequently locked-in by a folding step; i.e., binding precedes folding. The implications of our kinetic results, in the context of previously reported equilibrium data, are discussed. These results contribute to enhancing our understanding of the molecular mechanisms by which IDPs recognize their partners and represent a paradigmatic example of the need of kinetic methods to discriminate between reaction mechanisms.

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

4.6
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