4.8 Article

Evidence for the principle of minimal frustration in the evolution of protein folding landscapes

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1613892114

关键词

protein folding; protein stability; protein evolution

资金

  1. US National Science Foundation [1506468/1330249]
  2. Direct For Biological Sciences
  3. Div Of Molecular and Cellular Bioscience [1330249] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Theoretical and experimental studies have firmly established that protein folding can be described by a funneled energy landscape. This funneled energy landscape is the result of foldable protein sequences evolving following the principle of minimal frustration, which allows proteins to rapidly fold to their native biologically functional conformations. For a protein family with a given functional fold, the principle of minimal frustration suggests that, independent of sequence, all proteins within this family should fold with similar rates. However, depending on the optimal living temperature of the organism, proteins also need to modulate their thermodynamic stability. Consequently, the difference in thermodynamic stability should be primarily caused by differences in the unfolding rates. To test this hypothesis experimentally, we performed comprehensive thermodynamic and kinetic analyses of 15 different proteins from the thioredoxin family. Eight of these thioredoxins were extant proteins from psychrophilic, mesophilic, or thermophilic organisms. The other seven protein sequences were obtained using ancestral sequence reconstruction and can be dated back over 4 billion years. We found that all studied proteins fold with very similar rates but unfold with rates that differ up to three orders of magnitude. The unfolding rates correlate well with the thermodynamic stability of the proteins. Moreover, proteins that unfold slower are more resistant to proteolysis. These results provide direct experimental support to the principle of minimal frustration hypothesis.

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

4.8
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