Abstract
The dynamics of protein folding are complicated because of the various types of amino acid interactions that create secondary, supersecondary, and tertiary interactions. Computational modeling can be used to simulate the biophysical and biochemical interactions that determine protein folding. Effective folding to a desired protein configuration requires a compromise between speed, stability, and specificity. If the primary sequence of amino acids emphasizes one of these characteristics, the others might suffer and the folding process may not be optimized. We provide an example of a model peptide whose primary sequence produces a highly stable supersecondary two-helix bundle structure, but at the expense of lower speed and specificity of the folding process. We show how computational simulations can be used to discover the configuration of the kinetic trap that causes the degradation in the speed and specificity of folding. We also show how amino acid sequences can be engineered by specific substitutions to optimize the folding to the desired supersecondary structure.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Eaton WA, Muñoz V, Hagen SJ et al (2000) Fast kinetics and mechanisms in protein folding. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 29:327–359
Gerstman BS, Chapagain PP (2008) Self-organizing dynamics in protein folding. In: Conn PM (eds) Molecular biology of protein folding, part B, progress in molecular biology and translational science, vol 84, p 1–37. Elsevier, ISBN 978-0-12-374595-8, ISSN 0079–6603
Dobson CM, Karplus M (1999) The fundamentals of protein folding: bringing together theory and experiment. Curr Opin Strcut Biol 9:92–101
Gerstman BS, Chapagain PP (2005) Self-organization in protein folding and the hydrophobic interaction. J Chem Phys 123(054901):1–6
Alm E, Baker D (1999) Matching theory and experiment in protein folding. Curr Opin Struct Biol 9:189–196
Onuchic JN, Luthey-Schulten Z, Wolynes PG (1997) Theory of protein folding: the energy landscape perspective. Annu Rev Phys Chem 48:545–600
Mayor U, Johnson CM, Daggett V et al (2000) Protein folding and unfolding in microseconds to nanoseconds by experiment and simulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97:13518–13522
Honig B (1999) Protein folding: from the levinthal paradox to structure prediction. J Mol Biol 293:283–293
Mirny LA, Abkevich VI, Shakhnovich EI (1998) How evolution makes proteins fold quickly. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95:4976–4981
Shakhnovich EI, Gutin AM (1993) Engineering of stable and fast-folding sequences of model proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90: 7195–7199
Scalley-Kim M, Baker D (2004) Characterization of the folding energy landscapes of computer generated proteins suggests high folding free energy barriers and cooperativity may be consequences of natural selection. J Mol Biol 338:573–583
Vendruscolo M, Paci E, Dobson CM et al (2001) Three key residues form a critical contact network in a protein folding transition state. Nature 409:641–645
Chapagain PP, Gerstman BS (2006) Removal of kinetic traps and enhanced protein folding by strategic substitution of amino acids in a model α-helical hairpin peptide. Biopolymers 81:167–178
Gilmanshin R, Williams S, Callender RH et al (1997) Fast events in protein folding: relaxation dynamics of secondary and tertiary structure in native apomyoglobin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94:3709–3713
Mayor U, Guydosh NR, Johnson CM et al (2003) The complete folding pathway of a protein from nanoseconds to microseconds. Nature 421:863–867
Myers JK, Oas TG (2001) Preorganized secondary structure as an important determinant of fast protein folding. Nat Struct Biol 8:552–558
Zhou Y, Karplus M (1999) Interpreting the folding kinetics of helical proteins. Nature 401:400–403
Brooks BR, Bruccoleri RE, Olafson BD et al (1983) CHARMM: a program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations. J Comp Chem 4:187
Eswar N, Webb B, Marti-Renom MA et al (2006) Comparative protein structure modeling using MODELLER. Curr Protoc Bioinform. Chapter 5, Unit 5 6.
Feig M, Karanicolas J, Brooks CL (2004) MMTSB tool set: enhanced sampling and multiscale modeling methods for applications in structural biology. J Mol Graph Model 22:377
Dill KA, Chan HS (1997) From levinthal to pathways to funnels. Nat Struct Biol 4:10–19
Dinner AR, Sali A, Karplus M (1996) The folding mechanism of larger model proteins: role of native structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 93:8356–8361
Muñoz V, Eaton WA (1999) A simple model for calculating the kinetics of protein folding from three-dimensional structures. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96:11311–11316
Dill KA, Bromberg S, Yue K et al (1995) Principles of protein folding—a perspective from simple exact models. Protein Sci 4:561–602
Liu Y, Chagagain PP, Parra JL et al (2008) Lattice model simulation of interchain protein interactions and the folding dynamics and dimerization of the GCN4 leucine zipper. J Chem Phys 128(045106):1–10
Skolnick J, Kolinski A (1990) Simulations of the folding of a globular protein—science. Science 250:1121–1125
Skolnick J, Kolinski A (1991) Dynamic Monte Carlo simulations of a new lattice model of globular protein folding, structure and dynamics. J Mol Biol 221:499–531
Chapagain PP, Gerstman BS (2003) Finite size scaling of structural transitions in a simulated protein with secondary and tertiary structure. J Chem Phys 119:1174–1180
Kolinski A, Milik M, Skolnick J (1991) Static and dynamic properties of a new lattice model of polypeptide chains. J Chem Phys 94:3978–3985
Kolinski A, Skolnick J (1994) Monte Carlo simulations of protein folding. I. Lattice model and interaction scheme. Proteins 18:338–352
Chapagain PP, Gerstman BS (2004) Excluded volume entropic effects on protein unfolding times and intermediary stability. J Chem Phys 120(5):2475–2481
Gerstman B, Garbourg Y (1998) J Polym Sci, Part B: Polym Phys 36:2761–2769
Chagagain PP, Liu Y, Gerstman BS (2008) The trigger sequence in the leucine zipper: α-helical propensity dependence of folding and dimerization. J Chem Phys 129(175103):1–9
Liu Y, Chapagain PP, Gerstman BS (2010) Stabilization of native and non-native structures by salt bridges in a lattice model of the GCN4 leucine dimer. J Phys Chem B 114(2):796–803
Chapagain PP, Gerstman BS, Bhandari Y et al (2011) Free energy landscapes and thermodynamic parameters of complex molecules from non-equilibrium simulation trajectories. Phys Rev E 83(6):061905
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Gerstman, B.S., Chapagain, P.P. (2012). Computational Simulations of Protein Folding to Engineer Amino Acid Sequences to Encourage Desired Supersecondary Structure Formation. In: Kister, A. (eds) Protein Supersecondary Structures. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 932. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-065-6_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-065-6_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana Press, Totowa, NJ
Print ISBN: 978-1-62703-064-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-62703-065-6
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols