Quantitative criteria for native energetic heterogeneity influences in the prediction of protein folding kinetics

Energy landscape theory requires that the protein-folding mechanism is generally globally directed or funneled toward the native state. The collective nature of transition state ensembles further suggests that sufficient averaging of the native interactions can occur so that the knowledge of the native topology may suffice for predicting the mechanism. Nevertheless, while simple homogeneously weighted native topology-based models predict the folding mechanisms for many proteins, for other proteins knowledge of the native topology, by itself, seems not to suffice in determining the folding mechanism. Simulations of proteins with differing topologies reveal that the failure of homogeneously weighted topology-based models can, however, be completely understood within the framework of a funneled energy landscape and can be quantified by comparing the fluctuation of entropy cost for forming contacts to the expected fluctuations in contact energy. To be precise, we find the transition state ensembles of proteins with all-α topologies, which are more uniform in the specific entropy cost of contact formation, have transition state ensembles that are more readily perturbed by differences in energetic weights than are the transition state ensembles of proteins with significant amounts of β-structure, where the specific entropy costs of contact formation are more widely distributed. This behavior is consistent with a random-field Ising model analogy that follows from the free energy functional approach to folding.

[1]  Peter G Wolynes,et al.  Consequences of localized frustration for the folding mechanism of the IM7 protein , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[3]  J. Villain Equilibrium critical properties of random field systems: new conjectures , 1985 .

[4]  A. Zarrine-Afsar,et al.  The family feud: do proteins with similar structures fold via the same pathway? , 2005, Current opinion in structural biology.

[5]  George M Whitesides,et al.  Designing ligands to bind proteins , 2005, Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics.

[6]  P. Wolynes,et al.  Statistical mechanics of a correlated energy landscape model for protein folding funnels , 1996, cond-mat/9606159.

[7]  Peter G Wolynes,et al.  A survey of flexible protein binding mechanisms and their transition states using native topology based energy landscapes. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[8]  P. Wolynes,et al.  Water in protein structure prediction. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  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.

[10]  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.

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

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

[13]  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.

[14]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Modeling the interplay between geometrical and energetic effects in protein folding. , 2005, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[15]  P. Wolynes,et al.  Backbone dynamics, fast folding, and secondary structure formation in helical proteins and peptides , 1999, Proteins.

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

[17]  Peter G Wolynes,et al.  Origins of barriers and barrierless folding in BBL , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  Jane Clarke,et al.  The folding of spectrin domains I: wild-type domains have the same stability but very different kinetic properties. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[20]  P. Wolynes,et al.  Spin glasses and the statistical mechanics of protein folding. , 1987, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  Eugene I Shakhnovich,et al.  Nucleation and the transition state of the SH3 domain. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[22]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Investigation of routes and funnels in protein folding by free energy functional methods. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[23]  Terrence G. Oas,et al.  The energy landscape of a fast-folding protein mapped by Ala→Gly Substitutions , 1997, Nature Structural Biology.

[24]  Peter G Wolynes,et al.  Protein topology determines binding mechanism. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  Homer Jacobson,et al.  Intramolecular Reaction in Polycondensations. I. The Theory of Linear Systems , 1950 .

[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]  Leslie L. Chavez,et al.  Topological frustration and the folding of interleukin-1 beta. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[28]  John Karanicolas,et al.  Improved Gō-like models demonstrate the robustness of protein folding mechanisms towards non-native interactions. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[29]  Benjamin A. Shoemaker,et al.  Structural correlations in protein folding funnels. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[30]  Peter G Wolynes,et al.  P versus Q: structural reaction coordinates capture protein folding on smooth landscapes. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[31]  Initial events of protein folding from an information-processing viewpoint. , 1992, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[32]  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.

[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]  R. Jernigan,et al.  Residue-residue potentials with a favorable contact pair term and an unfavorable high packing density term, for simulation and threading. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[35]  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 .

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

[37]  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.

[38]  James E. Bray,et al.  The CATH database: an extended protein family resource for structural and functional genomics , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[39]  J. E. Rubio,et al.  The Theory of Linear Systems , 1971 .

[40]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Understanding protein folding with energy landscape theory Part II: Quantitative aspects , 2002, Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics.

[41]  Sheena E Radford,et al.  Structural analysis of the rate-limiting transition states in the folding of Im7 and Im9: similarities and differences in the folding of homologous proteins. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.