Right- and left-handed three-helix proteins. I. Experimental and simulation analysis of differences in folding and structure
Anna V. Glyakina
Institute of Protein Research, Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushchino, Moscow Region, 142290 Russia
Institute of Mathematical Problems of Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushchino, Moscow Region, 142290 Russia
Search for more papers by this authorLeonid B. Pereyaslavets
Institute of Protein Research, Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushchino, Moscow Region, 142290 Russia
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Oxana V. Galzitskaya
Institute of Protein Research, Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushchino, Moscow Region, 142290 Russia
Correspondence to: Oxana V. Galzitskaya, Institute of Protein Research, Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushchino, Moscow Region, 142290 Russia. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorAnna V. Glyakina
Institute of Protein Research, Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushchino, Moscow Region, 142290 Russia
Institute of Mathematical Problems of Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushchino, Moscow Region, 142290 Russia
Search for more papers by this authorLeonid B. Pereyaslavets
Institute of Protein Research, Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushchino, Moscow Region, 142290 Russia
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Oxana V. Galzitskaya
Institute of Protein Research, Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushchino, Moscow Region, 142290 Russia
Correspondence to: Oxana V. Galzitskaya, Institute of Protein Research, Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushchino, Moscow Region, 142290 Russia. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorAnna V. Glyakina and Leonid B. Pereyaslavets contributed equally to this work.
ABSTRACT
Despite the large number of publications on three-helix protein folding, there is no study devoted to the influence of handedness on the rate of three-helix protein folding. From the experimental studies, we make a conclusion that the left-handed three-helix proteins fold faster than the right-handed ones. What may explain this difference? An important question arising in this paper is whether the modeling of protein folding can catch the difference between the protein folding rates of proteins with similar structures but with different folding mechanisms. To answer this question, the folding of eight three-helix proteins (four right-handed and four left-handed), which are similar in size, was modeled using the Monte Carlo and dynamic programming methods. The studies allowed us to determine the orders of folding of the secondary-structure elements in these domains and amino acid residues which are important for the folding. The obtained data are in good correlation with each other and with the experimental data. Structural analysis of these proteins demonstrated that the left-handed domains have a lesser number of contacts per residue and a smaller radius of cross section than the right-handed domains. This may be one of the explanations of the observed fact. The same tendency is observed for the large dataset consisting of 332 three-helix proteins (238 right- and 94 left-handed). From our analysis, we found that the left-handed three-helix proteins have some less-dense packing that should result in faster folding for some proteins as compared to the case of right-handed proteins.Proteins 2013; © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article.
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| prot24301-sup-0001-supptable1.pdf29.1 KB | Supplementary Table 1. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
REFERENCES
- 1Dyer RB. Ultrafast and downhill protein folding. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2007; 17: 38–47.
- 2Gianni S, Guydosh NR, Khan F, Caldas TD, Mayor U, White GWN, DeMarco ML, Daggett V, Fersht AR. Unifying features in protein-folding mechanisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003; 100: 13286–13291.
- 3Wang T, Zhu YJ, Gai F. Folding of a three-helix bundle at the folding speed limit. J Phys Chem B 2004; 108: 3694–3697.
- 4Sato S, Religa TL, Daggett V, Fersht AR. Testing protein-folding simulation by experiment: B domain of protein A. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2004; 101: 6952–6956.
- 5Spector S, Raleigh DP. Submillisecond folding of the peripheral subunit-binding domain. J Mol Biol 1999; 293: 763–768.
- 6Islam SA, Karplus M, Weaver DL. Application of the diffusion-collision model to the folding of three-helix bundle proteins. J Mol Biol 2002; 318: 199–215.
- 7Karplus M, Weaver DL. Protein folding dynamics: the diffusion-collision model and experimental data. Protein Sci 1994; 3: 650–668.
- 8Itzhaki LS, Otzen DE, Fersht AR. The structure of the transition state for folding of chymotrypsin inhibitor 2 analyzed by protein engineering methods: evidence for a nucleation-condensation mechanism for protein folding. J Mol Biol 1995; 254: 260–288.
- 9Islam SA, Karplus M, Weaver DL. Application of the diffusion-collision model to the folding of three-helix bundle proteins. J Mol Biol 2002; 318: 199–215.
- 10Munoz V, Serrano L. Elucidating the folding problem of helical peptides using empirical parameters. Nat Struct Biol 1994; 1: 399–409.
- 11Mayor U, Guydosh NR, Johnson CM, Grossmann JG, Sato S, Jas GS, Freund SM, Alonso DO, Daggett V, Fersht AR. The complete folding pathway of a protein from nanoseconds to microseconds. Nature 2003; 421: 863–867.
- 12Bai Y, Karimi A, Dyson HJ, Wright PE. Absence of a stable intermediate on the folding pathway of protein A. Protein Sci 1997; 6: 1449–1457.
- 13Galzitskaya OV, Reifsnyder DC, Bogatyreva NS, Ivankov DN, Garbuzynskiy SO. More compact protein globules exhibit slower folding rates. Proteins 2008; 70: 329–332.
- 14Galzitskaya OV, Finkelstein AV. A theoretical search for folding/unfolding nuclei in three-dimensional protein structures. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999; 96: 11299–11304.
- 15Alm E, Baker D. Prediction of protein-folding mechanisms from free-energy landscapes derived from native structures. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999; 96: 11305–11310.
- 16Clementi C. Coarse-grained models of protein folding: toy models or predictive tools? Curr Opin Struct Biol 2008; 18: 10–15.
- 17Munoz V, Eaton WA. A simple model for calculating the kinetics of protein folding from three-dimensional structures. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999; 96: 11311–11316.
- 18Badasyan A, Liu Z, Chan HS. Probing possible downhill folding: native contact topology likely places a significant constraint on the folding co-operativity of proteins with ∼40 residues. J Mol Biol 2008; 384: 512–530.
- 19Taketomi H, Ueda Y, Gō N. Studies on protein folding, unfolding and fluctuations by computer simulation. I. The effect of specific amino acid sequence represented by specific inter-unit interactions. Int J Pept Protein Res 1975; 7: 445–459.
- 20Zhang Z, Chan HS. Transition paths, diffusive processes, and preequilibria of protein folding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012; 109: 20919–20924.
- 21Ferguson A, Liu Z, Chan HS. Desolvation barrier effects are a likely contributor to the remarkable diversity in the folding rates of small proteins. J Mol Biol 2009; 389: 619–636. Erratum in: J Mol Biol 2010; 401: 153.
- 22Wallin S, Chan HS. Conformational entropic barriers in topologydependent protein folding: perspectives from a simple native-centric polymer model. J Phys Condens Matter 2006; 18: S307–S328.
- 23Chan HS, Zhang Z, Wallin S, Liu Z. Cooperativity, local-nonlocal coupling, and nonnative interactions: principles of protein folding from coarse-grained models. Annu Rev Phys Chem 2011; 62: 301–326.
- 24Micheletti C. Prediction of folding rates and transition-state placement from native-state geometry. Proteins 2003; 51: 74–84.
- 25Ivankov DN, Bogatyreva NS, Lobanov MY, Galzitskaya OV. Coupling between properties of the protein shape and the rate of protein folding. PLoS One 2009; 4: e6476.
- 26Galzitskaya OV, Glyakina AV. Nucleation-based prediction of the protein folding rate and its correlation with the folding nucleus size. Proteins 2012; 80: 2711–2727.
- 27Murzin AG, Brenner SE, Hubbard T, Chothia C. SCOP: a structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures. J Mol Biol 1995; 247: 536–540.
- 28Andreeva A, Howorth D, Chandonia J-M, Brenner SE, Hubbard TJP, Chothia C, Murzin AG. Data growth and its impact on the SCOP database: new developments. Nucleic Acids Res 2008; 36: D419–D425.
- 29Kabsch W, Sander C. Dictionary of protein secondary structure: pattern recognition of hydrogen-bonded and geometrical features. Biopolymers 1983; 22: 2577–2637.
- 30Galzitskaya OV, Surin AK, Nakamura H. Optimal region of average side-chain entropy for fast protein folding. Protein Sci 2000; 9: 580–586.
- 31Galzitskaya OV, Garbuzynskiy SO, Finkelstein AV. Theoretical study of protein folding: outlining folding nuclei and estimation of protein folding rates. J Phys Condens Matter 2005; 17: S1539–S1551.
- 32Privalov PL. Stability of proteins: small globular proteins. Adv Protein Chem 1979; 33: 167.
- 33Finkelstein AV, Badretdinov AYa. Rate of protein folding near the point of thermodynamic equilibrium between the coil and the most stable chain fold. Fold Des 1997; 2: 115–121.
- 34Flory PJ. Statistical mechanics of chain molecules. New York: Interscience; 1969.
10.1002/bip.1969.360080514 Google Scholar
- 35Metropolis N, Rosenbluth A, Rosenbluth M, Teller A, Teller E. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. J Chem Phys 1953; 21: 1087–1092.
- 36Galzitskaya OV, Finkelstein AV. Folding rate dependence on the chain length of RNA-like heteropolymers. Fold Des 1998; 3: 69–78.
- 37Galzitskaya OV, Finkelstein AV. Folding of chains with random and edited sequences: similarities and differences. Protein Eng 1995; 8: 883–892.
- 38Galzitskaya OV, Finkelstein AV. A theoretical study of the dependence of rate of winding of RNA-like heteropolymers on the length of the chain. Mol Biol (Mosk) 1997; 31: 478–487.
- 39Matouschek JT, Kellis Jr, Serrano L, Fersht AR. Mapping the transition state and pathway of protein folding by protein engineering. Nature 1989; 340: 122–126.
- 40Matouschek JT, Kellis Jr, Serrano L, Bycroft M, Fersht AR. Transient folding intermediates characterized by protein engineering. Nature 1990; 346: 440–445.
- 41Finkelstein AV, Ivankov DN, Garbuzynskiy SO, Galzitskaya OV. Understanding the folding rates and folding nuclei of globular proteins. Curr Protein Pept Sci 2007; 8: 521–536.
- 42Li L, Mirny LA, Shakhnovich EI. Kinetics, thermodynamics and evolution of non-native interactions in a protein folding nucleus. Nat Struct Biol 2000; 7: 336–342.
- 43Shental-Bechor D, Smith MT, Mackenzie D, Broom A, Marcovitz A, Ghashut F, Go C, Bralha F, Meiering EM, Levy Y. Nonnative interactions regulate folding and switching of myristoylated protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012; 109: 17839–17844.
- 44Garbuzynskiy SO, Finkelstein AV, Galzitskaya OV. Outlining folding nuclei in globular proteins. J Mol Biol 2004; 336: 509–525.
- 45Shimada J, Shakhnovich EI. The ensemble folding kinetics of protein G from an all-atom Monte Carlo simulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002; 99: 11175–11180.
- 46Shaw DE, Maragakis P, Lindorff-Larsen K, Piana S, Dror RO, Eastwood MP, Bank JA, Jumper JM, Salmon JK, Shah Y, Wriggers W. Atomic-level characterization of the structural dynamics of proteins. Science 2010; 330: 341–346.
- 47Voelz VA, Bowman GR, Beauchamp K, Pande VS. Molecular simulation of ab initio protein folding for a millisecond folder NTL9(1–39). J Am Chem Soc 2010; 132: 1526–1528.
- 48Lindorff-Larsen K, Piana S, Dror RO, Shaw DE. How fast-folding proteins fold. Science 2011; 334: 517–520.
- 49Voelz VA, Jager M, Yao S, Chen Y, Zhu L, Waldauer SA, Bowman GR, Friedrichs M, Bakajin O, Lapidus JL, Weiss S, Pande VS. Slow unfolded-state structuring in Acyl-CoA binding protein folding revealed by simulation and experiment. J Am Chem Soc 2012; 134: 12565–12577.
- 50Hornak V, Abel R, Okur A, Strockbine B, Roitberg A, Simmerling C. Comparison of multiple Amber force fields and development of improved protein backbone parameters. Proteins 2006; 65: 712–725.
- 51Cole BJ, Bystroff Ch. Alpha helical crossovers favor right-handed supersecondary structures by kinetic trapping: the phone cord effect in protein folding. Protein Sci 2009; 18: 1602–1608.
- 52Gibaud T, Barry E, Zakhary MJ, Henglin M, Ward A, Yang Y, Berciu C, Oldenbourg R, Hagan MF, Nicastro D, Meyer RB, Dogic Z. Reconfigurable self-assembly through chiral control of interfacial tension. Nature 2012; 481: 348–351.
- 53Schaller V, Bausch AR. A fresh twist for self-assembly. Nature 2012; 481: 268–269.
- 54Galzitskaya OV. Estimation of protein folding rate from Monte Carlo simulations and entropy capacity. Curr Protein Pept Sci 2010; 11: 523–537.
Citing Literature
