Skip to main content
Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society logoLink to Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society
. 1997 Feb;6(2):347–354. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560060210

A desolvation barrier to hydrophobic cluster formation may contribute to the rate-limiting step in protein folding.

J A Rank 1, D Baker 1
PMCID: PMC2143644  PMID: 9041636

Abstract

To gain insight into the free energy changes accompanying protein hydrophobic core formation, we have used computer simulations to study the formation of small clusters of nonpolar solutes in water. A barrier to association is observed at the largest solute separation that does not allow substantial solvent penetration. The barrier reflects an effective increase in the size of the cavity occupied by the expanded but water-excluding cluster relative to both the close-packed cluster and the fully solvated separated solutes; a similar effect may contribute to the barrier to protein folding/unfolding. Importantly for the simulation of protein folding without explicit solvent, we find that the interactions between nonpolar solutes of varying size and number can be approximated by a linear function of the molecular surface, but not the solvent-accessible surface of the solutes. Comparison of the free energy of cluster formation to that of dimer formation suggests that the assumption of pair additivity implicit in current protein database derived potentials may be in error.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.8 MB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Dill K. A. Dominant forces in protein folding. Biochemistry. 1990 Aug 7;29(31):7133–7155. doi: 10.1021/bi00483a001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Itzhaki L. S., Otzen D. E., Fersht A. R. The structure of the transition state for folding of chymotrypsin inhibitor 2 analysed by protein engineering methods: evidence for a nucleation-condensation mechanism for protein folding. J Mol Biol. 1995 Nov 24;254(2):260–288. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1995.0616. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Jackson R. M., Sternberg M. J. Application of scaled particle theory to model the hydrophobic effect: implications for molecular association and protein stability. Protein Eng. 1994 Mar;7(3):371–383. doi: 10.1093/protein/7.3.371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Jones D. T., Thornton J. M. Potential energy functions for threading. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 1996 Apr;6(2):210–216. doi: 10.1016/s0959-440x(96)80076-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. KAUZMANN W. Some factors in the interpretation of protein denaturation. Adv Protein Chem. 1959;14:1–63. doi: 10.1016/s0065-3233(08)60608-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kiefhaber T., Baldwin R. L. Kinetics of hydrogen bond breakage in the process of unfolding of ribonuclease A measured by pulsed hydrogen exchange. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995 Mar 28;92(7):2657–2661. doi: 10.1073/pnas.92.7.2657. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Li A., Daggett V. Characterization of the transition state of protein unfolding by use of molecular dynamics: chymotrypsin inhibitor 2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Oct 25;91(22):10430–10434. doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.22.10430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Pratt L. R., Pohorille A. Theory of hydrophobicity: transient cavities in molecular liquids. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Apr;89:2995–2999. doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.7.2995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Richards F. M. Areas, volumes, packing and protein structure. Annu Rev Biophys Bioeng. 1977;6:151–176. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bb.06.060177.001055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Serrano L., Matouschek A., Fersht A. R. The folding of an enzyme. III. Structure of the transition state for unfolding of barnase analysed by a protein engineering procedure. J Mol Biol. 1992 Apr 5;224(3):805–818. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(92)90563-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Sippl M. J. Knowledge-based potentials for proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 1995 Apr;5(2):229–235. doi: 10.1016/0959-440x(95)80081-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Tuñn I., Silla E., Pascual-Ahuir J. L. Molecular surface area and hydrophobic effect. Protein Eng. 1992 Dec;5(8):715–716. doi: 10.1093/protein/5.8.715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Vidugiris G. J., Markley J. L., Royer C. A. Evidence for a molten globule-like transition state in protein folding from determination of activation volumes. Biochemistry. 1995 Apr 18;34(15):4909–4912. doi: 10.1021/bi00015a001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Waldburger C. D., Jonsson T., Sauer R. T. Barriers to protein folding: formation of buried polar interactions is a slow step in acquisition of structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Apr 2;93(7):2629–2634. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.7.2629. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Wolynes P. G., Onuchic J. N., Thirumalai D. Navigating the folding routes. Science. 1995 Mar 17;267(5204):1619–1620. doi: 10.1126/science.7886447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wood R. H., Thompson P. T. Differences between pair and bulk hydrophobic interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Feb 1;87(3):946–949. doi: 10.1073/pnas.87.3.946. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Yi Q., Baker D. Direct evidence for a two-state protein unfolding transition from hydrogen-deuterium exchange, mass spectrometry, and NMR. Protein Sci. 1996 Jun;5(6):1060–1066. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560050608. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society are provided here courtesy of The Protein Society

RESOURCES