How do cofactors modulate protein folding?

Cofactors are essential components of many proteins for biological activity. Characterization of several cofactor-binding proteins has shown that cofactors often have the ability to interact specifically with the unfolded polypeptides. This suggests that cofactor-coordination prior to polypeptide folding may be a relevant path in vivo. By binding before folding, the cofactor may affect both the mechanism and speed of folding. Here, we discuss three different cofactors that modulate protein-folding processes in vitro.     

How cooperative are protein folding and unfolding transitions?

A thermodynamically and kinetically simple picture of protein folding envisages only two states, native (N) and unfolded (U), separated by a single activation free energy barrier, and interconverting by cooperative two‐state transitions. The folding/unfolding transitions of many proteins occur, however, in multiple discrete steps associated with the formation of intermediates, which is indicative of reduced cooperativity. Furthermore, much advancement in experimental and computational approaches has demonstrated entirely non‐cooperative (gradual) transitions via a continuum of states and a multitude of small energetic barriers between the N and U states of some proteins. These findings have been instrumental towards providing a structural rationale for cooperative versus noncooperative transitions, based on the coupling between interaction networks in proteins. The cooperativity inherent in a folding/unfolding reaction appears to be context dependent, and can be tuned via experimental conditions which change the stabilities of N and U. The evolution of cooperativity in protein folding transitions is linked closely to the evolution of function as well as the aggregation propensity of the protein. A large activation energy barrier in a fully cooperative transition can provide the kinetic control required to prevent the accumulation of partially unfolded forms, which may promote aggregation. Nevertheless, increasing evidence for barrier‐less “downhill” folding, as well as for continuous “uphill” unfolding transitions, indicate that gradual non‐cooperative processes may be ubiquitous features on the free energy landscape of protein folding.     

Is there a unifying mechanism for protein folding?

Proteins appear to fold by diverse pathways, but variations of a simple mechanism - nucleation-condensation - describe the overall features of folding of most domains. In general, secondary structure is inherently unstable and its stability is enhanced by tertiary interactions. Consequently, an extensive interplay of secondary and tertiary interactions determines the transition-state for folding, which is structurally similar to the native state, being formed in a general collapse (condensation) around a diffuse nucleus. As the propensity for stable secondary structure increases, folding becomes more hierarchical and eventually follows a framework mechanism where the transition state is assembled from pre-formed secondary structural elements.     

Are residues in a protein folding nucleus evolutionarily conserved?

Protein is the working molecule of the cell, and evolution is the hallmark of life. It is important to understand how protein folding and evolution influence each other. Several studies correlating experimental measurement of residue participation in folding nucleus and sequence conservation have reached different conclusions. These studies are based on assessment of sequence conservation at folding nucleus sites using entropy or relative entropy measurement derived from multiple sequence alignment. Here we report analysis of conservation of folding nucleus using an evolutionary model alternative to entropy-based approaches. We employ a continuous time Markov model of codon substitution to distinguish mutation fixed by evolution and mutation fixed by chance. This model takes into account bias in codon frequency, bias-favoring transition over transversion, as well as explicit phylogenetic information. We measure selection pressure using the ratio omega of synonymous versus non-synonymous substitution at individual residue site. The omega-values are estimated using the PAML method, a maximum-likelihood estimator. Our results show that there is little correlation between the extent of kinetic participation in protein folding nucleus as measured by experimental phi-value and selection pressure as measured by omega-value. In addition, two randomization tests failed to show that folding nucleus residues are significantly more conserved than the whole protein, or the median omega value of all residues in the protein. These results suggest that at the level of codon substitution, there is no indication that folding nucleus residues are significantly more conserved than other residues. We further reconstruct candidate ancestral residues of the folding nucleus and suggest possible test tube mutation studies for testing folding behavior of ancient folding nucleus.     

Native topology or specific interactions: what is more important for protein folding?

Fifty-five molecular dynamics runs of two three-stranded antiparallel beta-sheet peptides were performed to investigate the relative importance of amino acid sequence and native topology. The two peptides consist of 20 residues each and have a sequence identity of 15 %. One peptide has Gly-Ser (GS) at both turns, while the other has d-Pro-Gly ((D)PG). The simulations successfully reproduce the NMR solution conformations, irrespective of the starting structure. The large number of folding events sampled along the trajectories at 360 K (total simulation time of about 5 micros) yield a projection of the free-energy landscape onto two significant progress variables. The two peptides have compact denatured states, similar free-energy surfaces, and folding pathways that involve the formation of a beta-hairpin followed by consolidation of the unstructured strand. For the GS peptide, there are 33 folding events that start by the formation of the 2-3 beta-hairpin and 17 with first the 1-2 beta-hairpin. For the (D)PG peptide, the statistical predominance is opposite, 16 and 47 folding events start from the 2-3 beta-hairpin and the 1-2 beta-hairpin, respectively. These simulation results indicate that the overall shape of the free-energy surface is defined primarily by the native-state topology, in agreement with an ever-increasing amount of experimental and theoretical evidence, while the amino acid sequence determines the statistically predominant order of the events.     

Is protein folding rate dependent on number of folding stages? Modeling of protein folding with ferredoxin-like fold

Statistical analysis of protein folding rates has been done for 84 proteins with available experimental data. A surprising result is that the proteins with multi-state kinetics from the size range of 50–100 amino acid residues (a.a.) fold as fast as proteins with two-state kinetics from the same size range. At the same time, the proteins with two-state kinetics from the size range 101–151 a.a. fold faster than those from the size range 50–100 a.a. Moreover, it turns out unexpectedly that usually in the group of structural homologs from the size range 50–100 a.a., proteins with multi-state kinetics fold faster than those with two-state kinetics. The protein folding for six proteins with a ferredoxin-like fold and with a similar size has been modeled using Monte Carlo simulations and dynamic programming. Good correlation between experimental folding rates, some structural parameters, and the number of Monte Carlo steps has been obtained. It is shown that a protein with multi-state kinetics actually folds three times faster than its structural homologs.     

How is actin polymerization nucleated in vivo?

Actin polymerization in vivo is dependent on free barbed ends that act as nuclei. Free barbed ends can arise in vivo by nucleation from the Arp2/3 complex, uncapping of barbed ends on pre-existing filaments or severing of filaments by cofilin. There is evidence that each mechanism operates in cells. However, different cell types use different combinations of these processes to generate barbed ends during stimulated cell motility. Here, I describe recent attempts to define the relative contributions of these three mechanisms to actin nucleation in vivo. The rapid increase in the number of barbed ends during stimulation is not due to any single mechanism. Cooperation between capping proteins, cofilin and the Arp2/3 complex is necessary for the development of protrusive force at the leading edge of the cell: uncapping and cofilin severing contributing barbed ends, whereas activity of the Arp2/3 complex is necessary, but not sufficient, for lamellipod extension. These results highlight the need for new methods that enable the direct observation of actin nucleation and so define precisely the relative contributions of the three processes to stimulated cell motility.     

Who solved the protein folding problem?

For the third time, techniques for the prediction of three-dimensional structures of proteins were critically assessed in a worldwide blind test. Steady progress is undeniable. How did this happen and what are the implications?     

Early events in protein folding: Is there something more than hydrophobic burst?

The presence of native contacts in the denatured state of many proteins suggests that elements of the biologically active structure of these molecules are formed during the initial stage of the folding process. The rapidity with which these events take place makes it difficult to study them in vitro, but, by the same token, suitable for studies in silico. With the help of all-atom, explicit solvent, molecular dynamics simulations we have followed in time, starting from elongated structureless conformations, the early events in the folding of src-SH3 domain and of proteins G, L, and CI2. It is observed that within the first 50 ns two important events take place, essentially independent of each other: hydrophobic collapse and formation of a few selected native contacts. The same contacts are also found in simulations carried out in the presence of guanidinium chloride in order to reproduce the conditions used to characterize experimentally the denatured state and testify to the fact that these contacts are to be considered a resilient characterizing property of the denaturated state.     

Membrane protein folding: how important are hydrogen bonds?

Water is an inhospitable environment for protein hydrogen bonds because it is polarizable and capable of forming competitive hydrogen bonds. In contrast, the apolar core of a biological membrane seems like an ideal environment for hydrogen bonds, and it has long been assumed that hydrogen bonding should be a powerful force driving membrane protein folding. Nevertheless, while backbone hydrogen bonds may be much stronger in membrane proteins, experimental measurements indicate that side chain hydrogen bond strengths are not strikingly different in membrane and water soluble proteins. How is this possible? I argue that model compounds in apolar solvents do not adequately describe the system because the protein itself is ignored. The protein chain provides a rich source of competitive hydrogen bonds and a polarizable environment that can weaken hydrogen bonds. Thus, just like water soluble proteins, evolution can drive the creation of potent hydrogen bonds in membrane proteins where necessary, but mitigating forces in their environment must still be overcome.     

Does mRNA structure contain genetic information for regulating co-translational protein folding?

Currently many facets of genetic information are illdefined.In particular,how protein folding is genetically regulated has been a long-standing issue for genetics and protein biology.And a generic mechanistic model with supports of genomic data is still lacking.Recent technological advances have enabled much needed genome-wide experiments.While putting the effect of codon optimality on debate,these studies have supplied mounting evidence suggesting a role of mRNA structure in the regulation of protein folding by modulating translational elongation rate.In conjunctions with previous theories,this mechanistic model of protein folding guided by mRNA structure shall expand our understandings of genetic information and offer new insights into various biomedical puzzles.     

Nucleic acid sequences coding for internal antisense peptides: are there implications for protein folding and evolution?

We have asked whether coding segments of nucleic acids generate amino acid sequences which have an antisense relationship to other amino acid sequences in the same chain (i.e. ''Internal Antisense''), and if so, could the internal antisense content be related to the structure of the encoded protein? Computer searches were conducted with the coding sequences for 132 proteins. The result for each search of a specific sequence was compared to the mean result obtained from 1000 randomly assembled nucleic acid chains whose length and base composition were identical to that of the native sequences. The study was conducted in all three reading frames. The normal reading frame (frame one) was found to be contain lower amounts of internal antisense than the randomly assembled chains, whereas the frame two results were much higher. The internal antisense content in frame three was not significantly different from that in the random chains. The amount of internal antisense in frames two and three was correlated with the GC content at the center position of the codons in that frame, but this correlation was absent in frame one. No correlation with chain length was found. Qualitatively similar results were obtained when the random model was limited to retain the same purine/pyrimidine ratio as the native chains at each position in the codons, but in this case the internal antisense in frame three was also significantly greater than the computer-generated sequences. The results suggest that the internal antisense content in the correct reading frame has a qualitatively different origin from that in the other two frames. The high amount in frames two and three is apparently an artifact resulting from the asymmetric distribution of G and C in the codons, while the low amount in frame one may suggest evolutionary selection against internal antisense. Thus, the results do not support a relationship between internal antisense and protein structure.     

Is protein folding hierarchic? I. Local structure and peptide folding

The folding reactions of some small proteins show clear evidence of a hierarchic process, whereas others, lacking detectable intermediates, do not. Nevertheless, we argue that both classes fold hierarchically and that folding begins locally. If this is the case, then the secondary structure of a protein is determined largely by local sequence information. Experimental data and theoretical considerations support this argument. Part I of this article reviews the relationship between secondary structures in proteins and their counterparts in peptides.