The roles of stability and contact order in determining protein folding rates

nature structural biology • volume 8 number 1 • january 2001 21 The mechanism by which a protein folds, like any reaction, is determined by the underlying free energy surface 1. A large separation in energy between the native state and the structurally dissimilar states (an 'energy gap') has been shown to be a thermodynamic and kinetic requirement for folding in both analytical theories 2,3 and simulations of lattice models 4,5. The ability of a sequence to fold rapidly correlates strongly with measures of the stability of its native (ground) state (such as the Z-score or the gap between the ground and first excited compact states). The relationship between the kinetics and the thermodynamics arises from the fact that the transition state involves a subset of the native interactions 1,6. Thus, lowering the (free) energy of the native state also tends to stabilize the transition state. This behavior is consistent with the Hammond effect (the movement of a transition state along a reaction coordinate away from a reactant, intermediate or product state that is stabilized), which has been observed experimentally to hold for certain proteins 7. It was surprising, therefore, that the folding rate constants (k f) of small two-state proteins were found to be essentially independent of the stabilities of their native states (as measured by the free energy of unfolding, ∆G) 8,9. Instead, k f depends strongly on the 'topology' of the native state, in particular, the contact order (the average residue separation of atomic contacts , c) 8–13. For the 33 proteins considered in the present study (listed in the caption to Fig. 1), the Pearson linear correlation coefficient (r) between log k f and c is r c,log k f =-0.73, and that between log k f and ∆G is r ∆G,log k f = 0.29 (normalizing c and ∆G by the sequence lenght, N, as is often done, yields slightly stronger correlations: r c/N,log k f =-0.79 and r ∆G/N,log k f = 0.37). Increasing the fraction of contacts that are short range in the native state (and by assumption, in the transition state) can accelerate folding in two (related) ways if the activation energy is not rate limiting 14 : it facilitates locating the transition state by a diffusive search 15–17 and it lowers the entropic barrier to folding 6. Nevertheless, in addition to the theoretical and simulation results mentioned above, the absence of …

[1]  W. Goddard,et al.  First principles prediction of protein folding rates. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[2]  D. Goldenberg,et al.  Finding the right fold , 1999, Nature Structural Biology.

[3]  Lorna J. Smith,et al.  Understanding protein folding via free-energy surfaces from theory and experiment. , 2000, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[4]  E. Shakhnovich,et al.  Formation of unique structure in polypeptide chains. Theoretical investigation with the aid of a replica approach. , 1989, Biophysical chemistry.

[5]  S. Jackson,et al.  How do small single-domain proteins fold? , 1998, Folding & design.

[6]  Christopher M. Dobson,et al.  Mutational analysis of acylphosphatase suggests the importance of topology and contact order in protein folding , 1999, Nature Structural Biology.

[7]  A. R. Fresht Structure and Mechanism in Protein Science: A Guide to Enzyme Catalysis and Protein Folding , 1999 .

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

[9]  B. Kuhlman,et al.  Cooperative folding of a protein mini domain: the peripheral subunit-binding domain of the pyruvate dehydrogenase multienzyme complex. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[10]  D. Raleigh,et al.  Submillisecond folding of the peripheral subunit-binding domain. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[11]  Martin Karplus,et al.  Aspects of Protein Reaction Dynamics: Deviations from Simple Behavior , 2000 .

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

[13]  M Karplus,et al.  Protein folding dynamics: The diffusion‐collision model and experimental data , 1994, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[14]  B. Kuhlman,et al.  Folding of the multidomain ribosomal protein L9: the two domains fold independently with remarkably different rates. , 1999, Biochemistry.

[15]  K. Dill,et al.  Cooperativity in protein-folding kinetics. , 1993, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[17]  P. Wolynes,et al.  Intermediates and barrier crossing in a random energy model , 1989 .

[18]  B. Jonsson,et al.  Remarkably slow folding of a small protein , 1997, FEBS letters.

[19]  E. Cota,et al.  Folding studies of immunoglobulin-like beta-sandwich proteins suggest that they share a common folding pathway. , 1999, Structure.

[20]  F. Young Biochemistry , 1955, The Indian Medical Gazette.

[21]  S. Radford,et al.  Rapid folding with and without populated intermediates in the homologous four-helix proteins Im7 and Im9. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[22]  M. Karplus,et al.  Genetic neural networks for quantitative structure-activity relationships: improvements and application of benzodiazepine affinity for benzodiazepine/GABAA receptors. , 1996, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[23]  M. Karplus,et al.  Kinetics of protein folding. A lattice model study of the requirements for folding to the native state. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[24]  V. Muñoz,et al.  A simple model for calculating the kinetics of protein folding from three-dimensional structures. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  A. Fersht,et al.  Transition-state structure as a unifying basis in protein-folding mechanisms: contact order, chain topology, stability, and the extended nucleus mechanism. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  M. Karplus,et al.  Use of a quantitative structure-property relationship to design larger model proteins that fold rapidly. , 1999, Protein engineering.

[27]  M Karplus,et al.  The folding mechanism of larger model proteins: role of native structure. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[28]  M Karplus,et al.  Factors that affect the folding ability of proteins , 1998, Proteins.