1 / 52

Simple toy models (An experimentalist’s perspective)

Simple toy models (An experimentalist’s perspective) . Lattice Polymers. Lattice Polymers. Do they predict absolute folding rates?. Lattice Polymers. Do they predict relative folding rates?. Two-state folding rates. k f = 2 x 10 5 s -1 k f = 2 x 10 -1 s -1.

draco
Download Presentation

Simple toy models (An experimentalist’s perspective)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Simple toy models(An experimentalist’s perspective)

  2. Lattice Polymers

  3. Lattice Polymers Do they predict absolute folding rates?

  4. Lattice Polymers Do they predict relative folding rates?

  5. Two-state folding rates kf = 2 x105 s-1 kf = 2 x 10-1 s-1

  6. Putative rate-defining criterion Landscape Roughness Energy Gap Collapse Cooperativity

  7. Landscape Roughness Bryngelson & Wolynes (1987) PNAS, 84, 7524

  8. Kinetics switch from single exponential: A(t) = A0 exp(-t·kf)1/h To stretched exponential: A(t) = A0 exp(-t·kf)1/h When Landscape Roughness Dominates Kinetics Socci, Onuchic & Wolynes (1998) Prot. Struc. Func. Gen.32, 136 Nymeyer, García & Onuchic (1998) PNAS, 95, 5921 Skorobogatiy, Guo & Zuckermann (1998) JCP,109, 2528 Onuchic (1998)PNAS, 95, 5921

  9. The energy landscape of protein L h = 0.98  0.08 Gillespie & Plaxco (2000) PNAS, 97, 12014

  10. h = 1.04±0.07

  11. The pI3K SH3 domain Gillespie & Plaxco (2004) Ann. Rev. Bioch. Biophy, In press

  12. The Energy Gap “The necessary and sufficient condition for [rapid] folding in this model is that the native state be a pronounced global minimum [relative to other maximally compact structures].” Sali, Shakhnovich & Karplus (1994) Nature, 369, 248

  13. Gap Size Correlates with theFolding Rates of Simple Models Dinner, Abkevich, Shakhnovich & Karplus (1999) Proteins, 35, 34

  14. The uniqueness of the native state indicates that it is significantly more stable than any other compact state: the energy gap is generally too large to measure experimentally.

  15. An Indirect Test For many simple models, Tm correlates with Energy Gap size 15-mers (B0 = -2.0) r = 0.73 15-mers (B0 = -0.1) r = 0.92 27-mers (B0 = -2.0) r = 0.89 27-mers (B0 = -0.1) r = 0.97 Dinner, Abkevich, Shakhnovich & Karplus (1999) Proteins, 35, 34 Dinner & Karplus (2001) NSB,7, 321

  16. Gillespie & Plaxco (2004) Ann. Rev. Bioch. Biophy., In press

  17. Collapse cooperativity “The key factor that determines the foldability of sequences is the single, dimensionless parameter s …folding rates are determined by s.”””” Thirumalai & Klimov (1999) Curr. Op. Struc. Biol., 9, 197

  18. Thirumalai & Klimov (1999) Curr. Op. Struc. Biol., 9, 197

  19. Cytochrome C 

  20. Protein Rate Reference Cytochrome C 6400 s-1Gray & Winkler, pers com. Ubiquitin 1530 s-1 Khorasanizadeh et al., 1993 Protein L 62 s-1 Scalley et al., 1997 Lysozyme 37 s-1 Townsley & Plaxco, unpublished Acylphosphatase 0.2 s-1 Chiti et al., 1997 See also: Jaby et al., (2004) JMB, in press

  21. Millet, Townsley, Chiti, Doniach & Plaxco (2002) Biochemistry, 41, 321

  22. All “foldability” criterion optimal Energy landscapes unmeasurably smooth Energy gaps unmeasurably large All s within error of zero

  23. Plaxco, Simons & Baker (1998) JMB, 277, 985

  24. When the energy gap dominates folding kinetics, none of a long list of putatively important parameters, including the “number of short- versus long-range contacts in the native state*”, plays any measurable role in defining lattice polymers folding rates. *Sali, Shacknovich & Karplus (1994) “How does a protein fold?” Nature, 369, 248

  25. Do subtle, topology-dependent kinetic effects appear only in the absence of confounding energy landscape issues?

  26. Go Polymers • Native-centric energy potential • Extremely smooth energy landscape • Topologically complex

  27. Topology-dependence of Go folding r = 0.2; p = 0.06

  28. The topomer search model The chain is covalent Rates largely defined by native topology Local structure formation is rapid Equilibrium folding is highly two-state

  29. Oh, Heeger & Plaxco, unpublished

  30. Protein folding is highly two-state Fyn SH3 domain

  31. 55 residue protein ∆Gu = -3 kcal/mol Kohn, Gillespie & Plaxco, unpublished

  32. 4 residue truncation ∆Gu ~ 2 kcal/mol Kohn, Gillespie & Plaxco, unpublished

  33. The Topomer Search Model Makarov & Plaxco (2003) Prot. Sci., 12, 17

  34. P(QD)  <K>QD kf = k QD g <K>QD

  35. Testing the topomer search model We can test the model if we assume that all sequence- distant residues in contact in the NATIVE STATE must be in proximity in the TRANSITION STATE Sequence-distant: > 4-12 residues Native contact: Ca-Ca < 6 - 8 Å

  36. kf QD<K>QD r = 0.88

  37. Crowding Effects Gaussian Chains Real Polymers Persistence length Excluded volume

  38. kf QD<K>QD/N r = 0.92 Makarov & Plaxco (2003) Prot. Sci., 12, 17

  39. “It is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in observational results that are put forward until they have been confirmed by theory.”Paraphrasing Sir Arthur Eddington theoretical simulation

  40. Minimum requirements for topology-dependent kinetics • Connectivity • Rapid local structure formation • Smooth landscapes • Cooperativity

  41. Go polymers are not cooperative

  42. -eQ Q(1 - s)/QN + sQ E =

  43. s = 2 r = 0.71; p = 10-16

  44. s = 3 r = 0.76; p = 10-18 Jewett, Pande & Plaxco(2003) JMB,326, 247 See also: Kaya & Chan (2003) Proteins,52, 524

  45. Acknowledgements UCSB Blake Gillespie Lara Townsley Jonathan Kohn Andrew Jewett Horia Metiu UT Austin Dima Makarov Stanford Seb Doniach Ian Millet Vijay Pande Universita di Firenze Fabrizio Chiti NIH, UC BioSTAR, ONR

More Related