IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/sprchp/978-3-319-91092-5_27.html

Two Views on the Protein Folding Puzzle

In: Trends in Biomathematics: Modeling, Optimization and Computational Problems

Author

Listed:
  • Alexei V. Finkelstein

    (Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Protein Research)

  • Oxana V. Galzitskaya

    (Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Protein Research)

  • Sergiy O. Garbuzynskiy

    (Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Protein Research)

  • Azat J. Badretdin

    (National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, National Center for Biotechnology Information)

  • Dmitry N. Ivankov

    (Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Protein Research
    The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Bioinformatics and Genomics Programme, Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG)
    Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF))

  • Natalya S. Bogatyreva

    (Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Protein Research
    The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Bioinformatics and Genomics Programme, Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG)
    Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF))

Abstract

The ability of protein chains to spontaneously form their spatial structures is a long-standing puzzle in molecular biology. This review describes physical theories of rates of overcoming the free-energy barrier separating the natively folded (N) and unfolded (U) states of protein chains in both directions: “U-to-N” and “N-to-U.” In the theory of protein folding rates, a special role is played by the point of thermodynamic (and kinetic) equilibrium between the native and unfolded state of the chain; here, the theory obtains the simplest form. Paradoxically, a theoretical estimate of the folding time is easier to get from consideration of protein unfolding (the “N-to-U” transition) rather than folding, because it is easier to outline a good unfolding pathway of any structure than a good folding pathway that leads to the stable fold, which is yet unknown to the folding protein chain. And since the rates of direct and reverse reactions are equal at the equilibrium point (as follows from the physical ‘detailed balance’ principle), the folding time can be derived from the easier estimated unfolding time: theoretical analysis of the “N-to-U” transition outlines the range of protein folding rates in a good agreement with experiment, although experimentally measured folding times for single-domain globular proteins range from microseconds to hours: the difference (10–11 orders of magnitude) is the same as that between the life span of a mosquito and the age of the Universe. Supplemental theoretical analysis of folding (the “U-to-N” transition), performed at the level of formation and assembly of protein secondary structures, outlines the upper limit of protein folding times (i.e., of the time of search for the most stable fold). Both theories come to essentially the same results; this is not a surprise, because they describe overcoming one and the same free-energy barrier, although the way to the top of this barrier from the side of the unfolded state is very different from the way from the side of the native state; and both theories agree with experiment. In addition, they predict the maximal size of protein domains that fold under solely thermodynamic (rather than kinetic) control and explain the observed maximal size of the “foldable” protein domains.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexei V. Finkelstein & Oxana V. Galzitskaya & Sergiy O. Garbuzynskiy & Azat J. Badretdin & Dmitry N. Ivankov & Natalya S. Bogatyreva, 2018. "Two Views on the Protein Folding Puzzle," Springer Books, in: Rubem P. Mondaini (ed.), Trends in Biomathematics: Modeling, Optimization and Computational Problems, pages 391-412, Springer.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:sprchp:978-3-319-91092-5_27
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-91092-5_27
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:sprchp:978-3-319-91092-5_27. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.