Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society logoLink to Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society
. 1999 Jun;8(6):1181–1190. doi: 10.1110/ps.8.6.1181

Folding funnels, binding funnels, and protein function.

C J Tsai 1, S Kumar 1, B Ma 1, R Nussinov 1
PMCID: PMC2144348  PMID: 10386868

Abstract

Folding funnels have been the focus of considerable attention during the last few years. These have mostly been discussed in the general context of the theory of protein folding. Here we extend the utility of the concept of folding funnels, relating them to biological mechanisms and function. In particular, here we describe the shape of the funnels in light of protein synthesis and folding; flexibility, conformational diversity, and binding mechanisms; and the associated binding funnels, illustrating the multiple routes and the range of complexed conformers. Specifically, the walls of the folding funnels, their crevices, and bumps are related to the complexity of protein folding, and hence to sequential vs. nonsequential folding. Whereas the former is more frequently observed in eukaryotic proteins, where the rate of protein synthesis is slower, the latter is more frequent in prokaryotes, with faster translation rates. The bottoms of the funnels reflect the extent of the flexibility of the proteins. Rugged floors imply a range of conformational isomers, which may be close on the energy landscape. Rather than undergoing an induced fit binding mechanism, the conformational ensembles around the rugged bottoms argue that the conformers, which are most complementary to the ligand, will bind to it with the equilibrium shifting in their favor. Furthermore, depending on the extent of the ruggedness, or of the smoothness with only a few minima, we may infer nonspecific, broad range vs. specific binding. In particular, folding and binding are similar processes, with similar underlying principles. Hence, the shape of the folding funnel of the monomer enables making reasonable guesses regarding the shape of the corresponding binding funnel. Proteins having a broad range of binding, such as proteolytic enzymes or relatively nonspecific endonucleases, may be expected to have not only rugged floors in their folding funnels, but their binding funnels will also behave similarly, with a range of complexed conformations. Hence, knowledge of the shape of the folding funnels is biologically very useful. The converse also holds: If kinetic and thermodynamic data are available, hints regarding the role of the protein and its binding selectivity may be obtained. Thus, the utility of the concept of the funnel carries over to the origin of the protein and to its function.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (2.5 MB).

Selected References

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

  1. Baker D., Agard D. A. Kinetics versus thermodynamics in protein folding. Biochemistry. 1994 Jun 21;33(24):7505–7509. doi: 10.1021/bi00190a002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baldwin R. L. Protein folding. Matching speed and stability. Nature. 1994 May 19;369(6477):183–184. doi: 10.1038/369183a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baldwin R. L., Rose G. D. Is protein folding hierarchic? I. Local structure and peptide folding. Trends Biochem Sci. 1999 Jan;24(1):26–33. doi: 10.1016/s0968-0004(98)01346-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baldwin R. L. The nature of protein folding pathways: the classical versus the new view. J Biomol NMR. 1995 Feb;5(2):103–109. doi: 10.1007/BF00208801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ballew R. M., Sabelko J., Gruebele M. Direct observation of fast protein folding: the initial collapse of apomyoglobin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Jun 11;93(12):5759–5764. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.12.5759. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bennett M. J., Choe S., Eisenberg D. Domain swapping: entangling alliances between proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Apr 12;91(8):3127–3131. doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.8.3127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bennett M. J., Schlunegger M. P., Eisenberg D. 3D domain swapping: a mechanism for oligomer assembly. Protein Sci. 1995 Dec;4(12):2455–2468. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560041202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chaffotte A. F., Li J. H., Georgescu R. E., Goldberg M. E., Tasayco M. L. Recognition between disordered states: kinetics of the self-assembly of thioredoxin fragments. Biochemistry. 1997 Dec 23;36(51):16040–16048. doi: 10.1021/bi9708500. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chan H. S., Dill K. A. Protein folding in the landscape perspective: chevron plots and non-Arrhenius kinetics. Proteins. 1998 Jan;30(1):2–33. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0134(19980101)30:1<2::aid-prot2>3.0.co;2-r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chan H. S. Kinetics of protein folding. Nature. 1995 Feb 23;373(6516):664–665. doi: 10.1038/373664a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. D'Alessio G. Oligomer evolution in action? Nat Struct Biol. 1995 Jan;2(1):11–13. doi: 10.1038/nsb0195-11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dill K. A., Chan H. S. From Levinthal to pathways to funnels. Nat Struct Biol. 1997 Jan;4(1):10–19. doi: 10.1038/nsb0197-10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dill K. A., Phillips A. T., Rosen J. B. Protein structure and energy landscape dependence on sequence using a continuous energy function. J Comput Biol. 1997 Fall;4(3):227–239. doi: 10.1089/cmb.1997.4.227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dill K. A. Polymer principles and protein folding. Protein Sci. 1999 Jun;8(6):1166–1180. doi: 10.1110/ps.8.6.1166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dunbrack R. L., Jr, Gerloff D. L., Bower M., Chen X., Lichtarge O., Cohen F. E. Meeting review: the Second meeting on the Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein Structure Prediction (CASP2), Asilomar, California, December 13-16, 1996. Fold Des. 1997;2(2):R27–R42. doi: 10.1016/S1359-0278(97)00011-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Eaton W. A., Muñoz V., Thompson P. A., Chan C. K., Hofrichter J. Submillisecond kinetics of protein folding. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 1997 Feb;7(1):10–14. doi: 10.1016/s0959-440x(97)80003-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fersht A. R. Nucleation mechanisms in protein folding. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 1997 Feb;7(1):3–9. doi: 10.1016/s0959-440x(97)80002-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Fischer D., Lin S. L., Wolfson H. L., Nussinov R. A geometry-based suite of molecular docking processes. J Mol Biol. 1995 Apr 28;248(2):459–477. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2836(95)80063-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Foote J., Milstein C. Conformational isomerism and the diversity of antibodies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Oct 25;91(22):10370–10374. doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.22.10370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Frauenfelder H., Leeson D. T. The energy landscape in non-biological and biological molecules. Nat Struct Biol. 1998 Sep;5(9):757–759. doi: 10.1038/1784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Frauenfelder H., Sligar S. G., Wolynes P. G. The energy landscapes and motions of proteins. Science. 1991 Dec 13;254(5038):1598–1603. doi: 10.1126/science.1749933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gruebele M., Wolynes P. G. Satisfying turns in folding transitions. Nat Struct Biol. 1998 Aug;5(8):662–665. doi: 10.1038/1354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Jarrett J. T., Lansbury P. T., Jr Seeding "one-dimensional crystallization" of amyloid: a pathogenic mechanism in Alzheimer's disease and scrapie? Cell. 1993 Jun 18;73(6):1055–1058. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90635-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Karplus M. The Levinthal paradox: yesterday and today. Fold Des. 1997;2(4):S69–S75. doi: 10.1016/s1359-0278(97)00067-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Katchalski-Katzir E., Shariv I., Eisenstein M., Friesem A. A., Aflalo C., Vakser I. A. Molecular surface recognition: determination of geometric fit between proteins and their ligands by correlation techniques. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Mar 15;89(6):2195–2199. doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.6.2195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Ladurner A. G., Itzhaki L. S., de Prat Gay G., Fersht A. R. Complementation of peptide fragments of the single domain protein chymotrypsin inhibitor 2. J Mol Biol. 1997 Oct 17;273(1):317–329. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1997.1303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lazaridis T., Karplus M. "New view" of protein folding reconciled with the old through multiple unfolding simulations. Science. 1997 Dec 12;278(5345):1928–1931. doi: 10.1126/science.278.5345.1928. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lee A. Y., Gulnik S. V., Erickson J. W. Conformational switching in an aspartic proteinase. Nat Struct Biol. 1998 Oct;5(10):866–871. doi: 10.1038/2306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Martinez J. C., Pisabarro M. T., Serrano L. Obligatory steps in protein folding and the conformational diversity of the transition state. Nat Struct Biol. 1998 Aug;5(8):721–729. doi: 10.1038/1418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Miller D. W., Dill K. A. Ligand binding to proteins: the binding landscape model. Protein Sci. 1997 Oct;6(10):2166–2179. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560061011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Muller Y. A., Kelley R. F., de Vos A. M. Hinge bending within the cytokine receptor superfamily revealed by the 2.4 A crystal structure of the extracellular domain of rabbit tissue factor. Protein Sci. 1998 May;7(5):1106–1115. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560070504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Netzer W. J., Hartl F. U. Recombination of protein domains facilitated by co-translational folding in eukaryotes. Nature. 1997 Jul 24;388(6640):343–349. doi: 10.1038/41024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Norel R., Lin S. L., Wolfson H. J., Nussinov R. Molecular surface complementarity at protein-protein interfaces: the critical role played by surface normals at well placed, sparse, points in docking. J Mol Biol. 1995 Sep 15;252(2):263–273. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1995.0493. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Norel R., Lin S. L., Wolfson H. J., Nussinov R. Shape complementarity at protein-protein interfaces. Biopolymers. 1994 Jul;34(7):933–940. doi: 10.1002/bip.360340711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Northrup S. H., Erickson H. P. Kinetics of protein-protein association explained by Brownian dynamics computer simulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Apr 15;89(8):3338–3342. doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.8.3338. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Onuchic J. N., Wolynes P. G., Luthey-Schulten Z., Socci N. D. Toward an outline of the topography of a realistic protein-folding funnel. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995 Apr 11;92(8):3626–3630. doi: 10.1073/pnas.92.8.3626. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Perona J. J., Craik C. S. Structural basis of substrate specificity in the serine proteases. Protein Sci. 1995 Mar;4(3):337–360. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560040301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Piccoli R., Tamburrini M., Piccialli G., Di Donato A., Parente A., D'Alessio G. The dual-mode quaternary structure of seminal RNase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Mar 1;89(5):1870–1874. doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.5.1870. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Prusiner S. B. Molecular biology of prion diseases. Science. 1991 Jun 14;252(5012):1515–1522. doi: 10.1126/science.1675487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Tasayco M. L., Chao K. NMR study of the reconstitution of the beta-sheet of thioredoxin by fragment complementation. Proteins. 1995 May;22(1):41–44. doi: 10.1002/prot.340220106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Tsai C. J., Lin S. L., Wolfson H. J., Nussinov R. Protein-protein interfaces: architectures and interactions in protein-protein interfaces and in protein cores. Their similarities and differences. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 1996 Apr;31(2):127–152. doi: 10.3109/10409239609106582. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Tsai C. J., Lin S. L., Wolfson H. J., Nussinov R. Studies of protein-protein interfaces: a statistical analysis of the hydrophobic effect. Protein Sci. 1997 Jan;6(1):53–64. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560060106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Tsai C. J., Nussinov R. Hydrophobic folding units derived from dissimilar monomer structures and their interactions. Protein Sci. 1997 Jan;6(1):24–42. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560060104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Tsai C. J., Xu D., Nussinov R. Protein folding via binding and vice versa. Fold Des. 1998;3(4):R71–R80. doi: 10.1016/S1359-0278(98)00032-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Tsai C. J., Xu D., Nussinov R. Structural motifs at protein-protein interfaces: protein cores versus two-state and three-state model complexes. Protein Sci. 1997 Sep;6(9):1793–1805. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560060901. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Verkhivker G. M., Rejto P. A., Gehlhaar D. K., Freer S. T. Exploring the energy landscapes of molecular recognition by a genetic algorithm: analysis of the requirements for robust docking of HIV-1 protease and FKBP-12 complexes. Proteins. 1996 Jul;25(3):342–353. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(199607)25:3<342::AID-PROT6>3.0.CO;2-H. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Wang Y., Shortle D. A dynamic bundle of four adjacent hydrophobic segments in the denatured state of staphylococcal nuclease. Protein Sci. 1996 Sep;5(9):1898–1906. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560050916. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Wedemayer G. J., Patten P. A., Wang L. H., Schultz P. G., Stevens R. C. Structural insights into the evolution of an antibody combining site. Science. 1997 Jun 13;276(5319):1665–1669. doi: 10.1126/science.276.5319.1665. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Wells J. A. Binding in the growth hormone receptor complex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Jan 9;93(1):1–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.1.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. 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]
  51. Xu D., Lin S. L., Nussinov R. Protein binding versus protein folding: the role of hydrophilic bridges in protein associations. J Mol Biol. 1997 Jan 10;265(1):68–84. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0712. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Xu D., Tsai C. J., Nussinov R. Mechanism and evolution of protein dimerization. Protein Sci. 1998 Mar;7(3):533–544. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560070301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Yue K., Dill K. A. Forces of tertiary structural organization in globular proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995 Jan 3;92(1):146–150. doi: 10.1073/pnas.92.1.146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhang C., Chen J., DeLisi C. Protein-protein recognition: exploring the energy funnels near the binding sites. Proteins. 1999 Feb 1;34(2):255–267. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES