Role of bulk and of interface contacts in the behavior of lattice model dimeric proteins

Physical Review E - Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics

Volumn 67, Issue 5 1, 2003, Pages

  Tiana, G ^a,b   Provasi, D ^a,b   Broglia, R A ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^b INFN SEZIONE DI MILANO   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; AMINO ACIDS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONFORMATIONS; DIMERS; ENTROPY; GROUND STATE; INTERFACES (MATERIALS); LAGRANGE MULTIPLIERS; LATTICE CONSTANTS; MONTE CARLO METHODS; PHASE DIAGRAMS;

INTERFACE CONTACT; LATTICE MODEL DIMERIC PROTEIN; SINGLE-DOMAIN MONOMERIC PROTEIN; THREE STATE DIMER;

PROTEINS;

EID: 42749104264     PISSN: 1063651X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. D. Xu, C. Tsai, and R. Nussinov, Protein Sci. 7, 533 (1998).
2. M.E. Milla and R.T. Sauer, Biochemistry 33, 1125 (1994).
3. M. Bennet, M. Phillips, and D. Eisenberg, Protein Sci. 4, 2455 (1995).
4. G. Tiana and R.A. Broglia, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet. 49, 82 (2002).
5. E. Shakhnovich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3907 (1994).
6. R.A. Broglia and G. Tiana, J. Chem. Phys. 114, 7267 (2001).
7. Because the bulk energy is always much larger than that associated with the interface, due to the fact that the number of native bulk contacts is much larger than the number of interface contacts, we shall refer, as a rule, to relative bulk and relative interface contact energies.
8. N. Go, Int. J. Pept. Protein Res. 7, 313 (1975).
9. K.F. Lau and K. Dill, Macromolecules 22, 3986 (1989).
10. H. Frauenfelder and P. Wolynes, Phys. Today 47(2), 58 (1994).
11. S. Miyazawa and R. Jernigan, Macromolecules 18, 534 (1985).
12. G. Tiana, R.A. Broglia, H.E. Roman, E. Vigezzi, and E.I. Shakhnovich, J. Chem. Phys. 108, 757 (1998).
13. H.S. Chan and K.A. Dill, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet. 30, 2 (1998).
14. M. Karplus and E. I. Shakhnovich, in Protein Folding, edited by T. Creighton (Freeman, New York 1992).
15. The most ambitious classical molecular dynamics simulations have been able to study, starting from a random conformation, a small helix bundle [16] and to follow villin for about one-tenth of its folding time [17]. Making use of distributed computing implementation (a cluster of 30 000 volunteer computers around the world) a 23-residue protein has been followed from the denatured to the folded state [18].
16. G. Favrin, A. Irbaek, and S. Wallin, Proteins 47, 99 (2002).
17. Y. Duan and P.A. Kollman, Science 23, 282 (1998).
18. C.D. Snow et al., Nature (London) 420, 102 (2002).
19. E.I. Shakhnovich and A.M. Gutin, Nature (London) 346, 773 (1990).
20. G. Tiana, R.A. Broglia, and E.I. Shakhnovich, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet. 39, 244 (2000).
21. B. Berg and T. Neuhaus, Phys. Lett. B 267, 249 (1991).
22. J. Borg, Eur. Phys. J. B 29, 481 (2002).
23. Whether the monomers are identical or related by mirror symmetry is immaterial within the framework of the minimal model of protein folding we employ.
24. T.E. Creighton, Proteins (Freeman, New York, 1993).
25. J. Rey and J. Skolnick, Chem. Phys. 158, 199 (1991).
26. That is, low with respect to the only energy scale of the system, which is the standard deviation of the interaction matrix σ = 0.3.
27. M. Mezard, G. Parisi, and M.A. Virasoro, Spin Glasses and Beyond (World Scientific, New York, 1988).
28. B. Derrida, Phys. Lett. 24B, 2613 (1981).
29. N. Grishin and M. Phillips, Protein Sci. 3, 2455 (1994).
30. G. Tiana and R.A. Broglia, J. Chem. Phys. 114, 2503 (2001).
31. E.I. Shakhnovich, Nat. Struct. Biol. 6, 99 (1999).
32. A.R. Fersht, Structure and Mechanism in Protein Science (Freeman, New York, 1999).
33. c = -48.3.
34. R.A. Broglia, G. Tiana, S. Pasquali, H.E. Roman, and E. Vigezzi, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 95, 12 930 (1998).