4.5 Article

Quantitative characterization of intrinsic disorder in polyglutamine: Insights from analysis based on polymer theories

期刊

BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 93, 期 6, 页码 1923-1937

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1529/biophysj.107.110080

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) are unfolded under physiological conditions. Here we ask if archetypal IDPs in aqueous milieus are best described as swollen disordered coils in a good solvent or collapsed disordered globules in a poor solvent. To answer this question, we analyzed data from molecular simulations for a 20-residue polyglutamine peptide and concluded, in accord with experimental results, that water is a poor solvent for this system. The relevance of monomeric polyglutamine is twofold: It is an archetypal IDP sequence and its aggregation is associated with nine neurodegenerative diseases. The main advance in this work lies in our ability to make accurate assessments of solvent quality from analysis of simulations for a single, rather than multiple chain lengths. We achieved this through the proper design of simulations and analysis of order parameters that are used to describe conformational equilibria in polymer physics theories. Despite the preference for collapsed structures, we find that polyglutamine is disordered because a heterogeneous ensemble of conformations of equivalent compactness is populated at equilibrium. It is surprising that water is a poor solvent for polar polyglutamine and the question is: why? Our preliminary analysis suggests that intrabackbone interactions provide at least part of the driving force for the collapse of polyglutamine in water. We also show that dynamics for conversion between distinct conformations resemble structural relaxation in disordered, glassy systems, i.e., the energy landscape for monomeric polyglutamine is rugged. We end by discussing generalizations of our methods to quantitative studies of conformational equilibria of other low-complexity IDP sequences.

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

4.5
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