4.4 Article

Interdependent folding of the N- and C-terminal domains defines the cooperative folding of α-lytic protease

期刊

BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 42, 期 45, 页码 13212-13219

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/bi035409q

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

alpha-Lytic protease (alphaLP) serves as an important model in achieving a quantitative and physical understanding of protein folding reactions. Synthesized as a pro-protease, alphaLP belongs to an interesting class of proteins that require pro regions to facilitate their proper folding. alphaLP's pro region (Pro) acts as a potent folding catalyst for the protease, accelerating alphaLP folding to its native conformation nearly 10(10)-fold. Structural and mutational studies suggested that Pro's considerable foldase activity is directed toward structuring the alphaLP C-terminal domain (CalphaLP), a seemingly folding-impaired domain, which is believed to contribute significantly to the high-energy folding and unfolding transition states of alphaLP. Pro-mediated nucleation of alphaLP folding within CalphaLP was hypothesized to subsequently enable the alphaLP N-terminal domain (NalphaLP) to dock and fold, completing the formation of native protease. In this paper, we find that ternary folding reactions of Pro and noncovalent NalphaLP and CalphaLP domains are unaffected by the order in which the components are added or by the relative concentrations of the alphaLP domains, indicating that neither discrete CalphaLP structuring nor docking of the two alphaLP domains is involved in the folding transition state. Instead, the rate-limiting step of these folding reactions appears to be a slow and concerted rearrangement of the NalphaLP and CalphaLP domains to form active protease. This cooperative and interdependent folding of both protease domains defines the large alphaLP folding barrier and is an apparent extension of the highly cooperative alphaLP unfolding transition that imparts the protease with remarkable kinetic stability and functional longevity.

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

4.4
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