4.6 Article

Native Contact Density and Nonnative Hydrophobic Effects in the Folding of Bacterial Immunity Proteins

期刊

PLOS COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004260

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MOP-84281]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The bacterial colicin-immunity proteins Im7 and Im9 fold by different mechanisms. Experimentally, at pH 7.0 and 10 degrees C, Im7 folds in a three-state manner via an intermediate but Im9 folding is two-state-like. Accordingly, Im7 exhibits a chevron rollover, whereas the chevron arm for Im9 folding is linear. Here we address the biophysical basis of their different behaviors by using native-centric models with and without additional transferrable, sequence-dependent energies. The Im7 chevron rollover is not captured by either a pure native-centric model or a model augmented by nonnative hydrophobic interactions with a uniform strength irrespective of residue type. By contrast, a more realistic nonnative interaction scheme that accounts for the difference in hydrophobicity among residues leads simultaneously to a chevron rollover for Im7 and an essentially linear folding chevron arm for Im9. Hydrophobic residues identified by published experiments to be involved in nonnative interactions during Im7 folding are found to participate in the strongest nonnative contacts in this model. Thus our observations support the experimental perspective that the Im7 folding intermediate is largely underpinned by nonnative interactions involving large hydrophobics. Our simulation suggests further that nonnative effects in Im7 are facilitated by a lower local native contact density relative to that of Im9. In a one-dimensional diffusion picture of Im7 folding with a coordinate-and stability-dependent diffusion coefficient, a significant chevron rollover is consistent with a diffusion coefficient that depends strongly on native stability at the conformational position of the folding intermediate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据