Characterization of the folding landscape of monomeric lactose repressor: quantitative comparison of theory and experiment.

Recent theoretical/computational studies based on simplified protein models and experimental investigation have suggested that the native structure of a protein plays a primary role in determining the folding rate and mechanism of relatively small single-domain proteins. Here, we extend the study of the relationship between protein topology and folding mechanism to a larger protein with complex topology, by analyzing the folding process of monomeric lactose repressor (MLAc) computationally by using a Gō-like C(alpha) model. Next, we combine simulation and experimental results (see companion article in this issue) to achieve a comprehensive assessment of the folding landscape of this protein. Remarkably, simulated kinetic and equilibrium analyses show an excellent quantitative agreement with the experimental folding data of this study. The results of this comparison show that a simplified, completely unfrustrated C(alpha) model correctly reproduces the complex folding features of a large multidomain protein with complex topology. The success of this effort underlines the importance of synergistic experimental/theoretical approaches to achieve a broader understanding of the folding landscape.

[1]  J. Onuchic,et al.  How native-state topology affects the folding of dihydrofolate reductase and interleukin-1beta. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  Teresa Head-Gordon,et al.  Matching simulation and experiment (extended abstract): a new simplified model for simulating protein folding , 2000, RECOMB '00.

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

[4]  Teresa Head-Gordon,et al.  Protein Engineering Study of Protein L by Simulation , 2002, J. Comput. Biol..

[5]  Cecilia Clementi,et al.  Optimal combination of theory and experiment for the characterization of the protein folding landscape of S6: how far can a minimalist model go? , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  Kevin W Plaxco,et al.  How the folding rate constant of simple, single-domain proteins depends on the number of native contacts , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[8]  Cristian Micheletti,et al.  Prediction of folding rates and transition‐state placement from native‐state geometry , 2002, Proteins.

[9]  Benjamin A. Shoemaker,et al.  Exploring structures in protein folding funnels with free energy functionals: the transition state ensemble. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[10]  Scott Brown,et al.  Coarse-grained sequences for protein folding and design , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  M. Gromiha,et al.  Comparison between long-range interactions and contact order in determining the folding rate of two-state proteins: application of long-range order to folding rate prediction. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[12]  Cecilia Clementi,et al.  The effects of nonnative interactions on protein folding rates: Theory and simulation , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[13]  N. Go.  Theoretical studies of protein folding. , 1983, Annual review of biophysics and bioengineering.

[14]  E. Shakhnovich,et al.  Topological determinants of protein folding , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  Cecilia Clementi,et al.  Quantifying the roughness on the free energy landscape: entropic bottlenecks and protein folding rates. , 2004, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[16]  C. Brooks,et al.  From folding theories to folding proteins: a review and assessment of simulation studies of protein folding and unfolding. , 2001, Annual review of physical chemistry.

[17]  John Karanicolas,et al.  The structural basis for biphasic kinetics in the folding of the WW domain from a formin-binding protein: Lessons for protein design? , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  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.

[19]  L. Gierasch,et al.  Keeping it in the family: folding studies of related proteins. , 2001, Current opinion in structural biology.

[20]  I. Bahar,et al.  Gaussian Dynamics of Folded Proteins , 1997 .

[21]  E. Shakhnovich,et al.  Constructing, verifying, and dissecting the folding transition state of chymotrypsin inhibitor 2 with all-atom simulations , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  D. Marquardt.  An Algorithm for Least-Squares Estimation of Nonlinear Parameters , 1963 .

[23]  Dmitry N Ivankov,et al.  Chain length is the main determinant of the folding rate for proteins with three‐state folding kinetics , 2003, Proteins.

[24]  D Baker,et al.  Topology, stability, sequence, and length: defining the determinants of two-state protein folding kinetics. , 2000, Biochemistry.

[25]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Navigating the folding routes , 1995, Science.

[26]  S. Takada,et al.  Roles of native topology and chain-length scaling in protein folding: a simulation study with a Go-like model. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[27]  Lindberg,et al.  Dynamic Stark effect of exciton and continuum states in CdS. , 1989, Physical review letters.

[28]  S. Plotkin.  Speeding protein folding beyond the Gō model: How a little frustration sometimes helps , 2000, Proteins.

[29]  P. R. Bevington,et al.  Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences , 1969 .

[30]  D Baker,et al.  Mechanisms of protein folding. , 2001, Current opinion in structural biology.

[31]  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.

[32]  Bengt Nölting,et al.  Protein Folding Kinetics: Biophysical Methods , 1999 .

[33]  S. Plotkin,et al.  Three-body interactions improve the prediction of rate and mechanism in protein folding models. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  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.

[35]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Interplay among tertiary contacts, secondary structure formation and side-chain packing in the protein folding mechanism: all-atom representation study of protein L. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[36]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Prediction of folding mechanism for circular-permuted proteins. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[37]  Kevin W Plaxco,et al.  The topomer search model: A simple, quantitative theory of two‐state protein folding kinetics , 2003, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[38]  A. Atilgan,et al.  Vibrational Dynamics of Folded Proteins: Significance of Slow and Fast Motions in Relation to Function and Stability , 1998 .

[39]  S. Radford,et al.  Protein folding mechanisms: new methods and emerging ideas. , 2000, Current opinion in structural biology.

[40]  Joan-Emma Shea,et al.  Probing the folding free energy landscape of the src-SH3 protein domain , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[41]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Funnels, pathways, and the energy landscape of protein folding: A synthesis , 1994, Proteins.

[42]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Theory of protein folding: the energy landscape perspective. , 1997, Annual review of physical chemistry.

[43]  Vijay S. Pande,et al.  On the role of conformational geometry in protein folding , 1999 .

[44]  H. Chan,et al.  Solvation effects and driving forces for protein thermodynamic and kinetic cooperativity: how adequate is native-centric topological modeling? , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[45]  Cecilia Clementi,et al.  The experimental folding landscape of monomeric lactose repressor, a large two-domain protein, involves two kinetic intermediates. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[46]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Protein folding funnels: a kinetic approach to the sequence-structure relationship. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[47]  Alan M. Ferrenberg,et al.  New Monte Carlo technique for studying phase transitions. , 1988, Physical review letters.

[48]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Theory of Protein Folding This Review Comes from a Themed Issue on Folding and Binding Edited Basic Concepts Perfect Funnel Landscapes and Common Features of Folding Mechanisms , 2022 .

[49]  Sheena E Radford,et al.  Switching two-state to three-state kinetics in the helical protein Im9 via the optimisation of stabilising non-native interactions by design. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.