Studying the unfolding process of protein G and protein L under physical property space

BackgroundThe studies on protein folding/unfolding indicate that the native state topology is an important determinant of protein folding mechanism. The folding/unfolding behaviors of proteins which have similar topologies have been studied under Cartesian space and the results indicate that some proteins share the similar folding/unfolding characters.ResultsWe construct physical property space with twelve different physical properties. By studying the unfolding process of the protein G and protein L under the property space, we find that the two proteins have the similar unfolding pathways that can be divided into three types and the one which with the umbrella-shape represents the preferred pathway. Moreover, the unfolding simulation time of the two proteins is different and protein L unfolding faster than protein G. Additionally, the distributing area of unfolded state ensemble of protein L is larger than that of protein G.ConclusionUnder the physical property space, the protein G and protein L have the similar folding/unfolding behaviors, which agree with the previous results obtained from the studies under Cartesian coordinate space. At the same time, some different unfolding properties can be detected easily, which can not be analyzed under Cartesian coordinate space.

[1]  T. Straatsma,et al.  THE MISSING TERM IN EFFECTIVE PAIR POTENTIALS , 1987 .

[2]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[3]  Andrew E. Torda,et al.  The GROMOS biomolecular simulation program package , 1999 .

[4]  Luis Serrano,et al.  The folding transition state between SH3 domains is conformationally restricted and evolutionarily conserved , 1999, Nature Structural Biology.

[5]  C L Brooks,et al.  Calculations on folding of segment B1 of streptococcal protein G. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  X. Daura,et al.  Folding–unfolding thermodynamics of a β‐heptapeptide from equilibrium simulations , 1999, Proteins.

[7]  Jihua Wang,et al.  Study of Multiple Unfolding Trajectories and Unfolded States of the Protein GB1 Under the Physical Property Space , 2008, Journal of biomolecular structure & dynamics.

[8]  Alan E. Mark,et al.  The GROMOS96 Manual and User Guide , 1996 .

[9]  L. Björck,et al.  Three-dimensional solution structure of an immunoglobulin light chain-binding domain of protein L. Comparison with the IgG-binding domains of protein G. , 1994, Biochemistry.

[10]  Kevin W Plaxco,et al.  Contact order revisited: Influence of protein size on the folding rate , 2003, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[11]  E. Alm,et al.  Prediction of protein-folding mechanisms from free-energy landscapes derived from native structures. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  D. Baker,et al.  Contact order, transition state placement and the refolding rates of single domain proteins. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[13]  Hongyi Zhou,et al.  Folding rate prediction using total contact distance. , 2002, Biophysical journal.

[14]  X. Daura,et al.  Reversible peptide folding in solution by molecular dynamics simulation. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[15]  L. Björck,et al.  Proton nuclear magnetic resonance sequential assignments and secondary structure of an immunoglobulin light chain-binding domain of protein L. , 1993, Biochemistry.

[16]  D. Baker,et al.  A surprising simplicity to protein folding , 2000, Nature.

[17]  D Baker,et al.  A breakdown of symmetry in the folding transition state of protein L. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[18]  David Baker,et al.  Experiment and theory highlight role of native state topology in SH3 folding , 1999, Nature Structural Biology.

[19]  I D Campbell,et al.  A comparison of the folding kinetics and thermodynamics of two homologous fibronectin type III modules. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[20]  P. Alexander,et al.  Kinetic analysis of folding and unfolding the 56 amino acid IgG-binding domain of streptococcal protein G. , 1992, Biochemistry.

[21]  A. Gronenborn,et al.  A novel, highly stable fold of the immunoglobulin binding domain of streptococcal protein G. , 1993, Science.

[22]  D. Baker,et al.  Critical role of β-hairpin formation in protein G folding , 2000, Nature Structural Biology.

[23]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Topological and energetic factors: what determines the structural details of the transition state ensemble and "en-route" intermediates for protein folding? An investigation for small globular proteins. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[24]  M Karplus,et al.  "New view" of protein folding reconciled with the old through multiple unfolding simulations. , 1997, Science.

[25]  D. Baker,et al.  Matching theory and experiment in protein folding. , 1999, Current opinion in structural biology.

[26]  John Karanicolas,et al.  The origins of asymmetry in the folding transition states of protein L and protein G , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[27]  D Baker,et al.  Kinetics of folding of the IgG binding domain of peptostreptococcal protein L. , 1997, Biochemistry.