4.7 Article

Cooperativity, smooth energy landscapes and the origins of topology-dependent protein folding rates

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 326, 期 1, 页码 247-253

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-2836(02)01356-6

关键词

contact order; non-additivity; topological frustration

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01GM62868-01A2] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The relative folding rates of simple, single-domain proteins, proteins whose folding energy landscapes are smooth, are highly dispersed and strongly correlated with native-state topology. In contrast, the relative folding rates of small, G (o) over bar -potential lattice polymers, which also exhibit smooth energy landscapes, are poorly dispersed and insignificantly correlated with native-state topology. Here, we investigate this discrepancy in light of a recent, quantitative theory of two-state folding kinetics, the topo, mer search model. This model stipulates that the topology-dependence of two-state folding rates is a direct consequence of the extraordinarily cooperative equilibrium folding of simple proteins. We demonstrate that traditional G (o) over bar polymers lack the extreme cooperativity that characterizes the folding of naturally occurring, two-state proteins and confirm that the folding rates of a diverse set of G (o) over bar 27-mers are poorly dispersed and effectively uncorrelated with native state topology. Upon modestly increasing the cooperativity of the G (o) over bar -potential, however, significantly increased dispersion and strongly topology-dependent kinetics are observed. These results support previous arguments that the cooperative folding of simple, single-domain proteins gives rise to their topology-dependent folding rates. We speculate that this cooperativity, and thus, indirectly, the topology-rate relationship, may have arisen in order to generate the smooth energetic landscapes upon which rapid folding can occur. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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