4.5 Article

Flexibility vs Preorganization: Direct Comparison of Binding Kinetics for a Disordered Peptide and Its Exact Preorganized Analogues

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B
卷 121, 期 43, 页码 10046-10054

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.7b08486

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF CAREER [MCB-0845216]
  2. NIH [1R01GM115805-01]
  3. DAAD
  4. University of Pittsburgh
  5. University of Pittsburgh Arts Sciences
  6. Mellon Fellowships
  7. Honors College

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many intrinsically disordered proteins, which are prevalent in nature, fold only upon binding their structured partner proteins. Such proteins have been hypothesized to have a kinetic advantage over their folded, preorganized analogues in binding their partner proteins. Here we determined the effects of ligand preorganization on the k(on) for a biomedically important system: an intrinsically disordered p53 peptide ligand and the MDM2 protein receptor. Based on direct simulations of binding pathways, computed k(on) values for fully disordered and preorganized p53 peptide analogues were within error of each other, indicating little if any kinetic advantage to being disordered or preorganized for binding the MDM2 protein. We also examined the effects of increasing the concentration of MDM2 on the extent to which its mechanism of binding to the p53 peptide is induced fit vs conformational selection. Results predict that the mechanism is solely induced fit if the unfolded state of the peptide is more stable than its folded state; otherwise, the mechanism shifts from being dominated by conformational selection at low MDM2 concentration to induced fit at high MDM2 concentration. Taken together, our results are relevant to any protein binding process that involves a disordered peptide of a similar length that forms a single alpha-helix upon binding a partner protein. Such disorder-to-helix transitions are common among protein interactions of disordered proteins and are therefore of fundamental biological interest.

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

4.5
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