Potential for modulation of the hydrophobic effect inside chaperonins

Biophysical Journal

Volumn 95, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 3391-3399

  England, Jeremy L ^a   Pande, Vijay S ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHAPERONIN; NANOMATERIAL; SOLVENT; WATER;

ARTICLE; CATALYSIS; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CHEMISTRY; CYTOSOL; DRUG EFFECT; ELECTRICITY; ENZYME SPECIFICITY; HYDROPHOBICITY; METABOLISM; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN FOLDING; SURFACE PROPERTY; THERMODYNAMICS;

CATALYSIS; CYTOSOL; ELECTROSTATICS; GROEL PROTEIN; HYDROPHOBICITY; MODELS, MOLECULAR; NANOSTRUCTURES; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN FOLDING; SOLVENTS; SUBSTRATE SPECIFICITY; SURFACE PROPERTIES; THERMODYNAMICS; WATER;

EID: 55949101455     PISSN: 00063495     EISSN: 15420086     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1529/biophysj.108.131037     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Frydman, J. 2001. Folding of newly translated proteins in vivo: the role of molecular chaperones. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 70:603-647.
2. Hartl, F. U., and M. Hayer-Hartl. 2002. Molecular chaperones in the cytosol: from nascent chain to folded protein. Science. 295:1852-1858.
3. Sigler, P. B., Z. Xu, H. S. Rye, S. G. Burston, W. Fenton, and A. L. Horwich. 1998. Structure and function in GroEL-mediated protein folding. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 67:581-608.
4. Fenton, W. A., and A. L. Horwich. 2003. Chaperonin-mediated protein folding: fate of substrate polypeptide. Q. Rev. Biophys. 36:229-256.
5. Brinker, A., G. Pfeifer, M. J. Kerner, D. J. Naylor, F. U. Hartl, and M. Hayer-Hartl. 2001. Dual function of protein confinement in chaperonin-assisted protein folding. Cell. 107:223-233.
6. Tang, Y., H. Chang, A. Roeben, D. Wischnewski, N. Wischnewski, M. J. Kerner, F. U. Hartl, and M. Hayer-Hartl. 2006. Structural features of the GroEL-GroES nano-cage required for rapid folding of encapsulated protein. Cell. 125:903-914.
7. Chandler, D. 2005. Interfaces and the driving force of hydrophobic assembly. Nature. 437:640-647.
8. Spolar, R., J. Ha, and M. Record. 1989. Hydrophobic effect in protein folding and other noncovalent processes involving proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 86:8382-8385.
9. Raviv, U., P. Laurat, and J. Klein. 2001. Fluidity of water confined to subnanometre films. Nature. 413:51-54.
10. Singh, S., J. Houston, F. v. Swol, and C. J. Brinker. 2006. Super-hydrophobicity: drying transition of confined water. Nature. 442:526.
11. Byl, O., J. Liu, Y. Wang, W. Yim, J. K. Johnson, and J. T. Yates. 2006. Unusual hydrogen bonding in water-filled carbon nanotubes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128:12090-12097.
12. Kalra, A., N. Tugcu, S. M. Cramer, and S. Garde. 2001. Salting-in and salting-out of hydrophobic solutes in aqueous salt solutions. J. Phys. Chem. B. 105:6380-6386.
13. Ghosh, T., A. Kalra, and S. Garde. 2005. On the salt-induced stabilization of pair and many-body hydrophobic interactions. J. Phys. Chem. B. 109:642-651.
14. Cacace, M. G., E. M. Landau, and J. J. Ramsden. 1997. The Hofmeister series: salt and solvent effects on interfacial phenomena. Q. Rev. Biophys. 30:241-277.
15. Bulone, D., V. Martorana, P. L. San Biagio, and M. B. Palma-Vitorelli. 1997. Effects of electric charges on hydrophobic forces. I. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Phys. Plasmas Fluids Relat. Interdiscip. Topics. 56:R4939-R4942.
16. Bulone, D., V. Martorana, P. L. San Biagio, and M. B. Palma-Vitorelli. 2000. Effects of electric charges on hydrophobic forces. II. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Phys. Plasmas Fluids Relat. Interdiscip. Topics. 62:6799-6809.
17. Dzubiella, J., and J.-P. Hansen. 2003. Reduction of the hydrophobic attraction between charged solutes in water. J. Chem. Phys. 119:12049-12052.
18. Dzubiella, J., and J.-P. Hansen. 2004. Competition of hydrophobic and Coulombic interactions between nanosized solutes. J. Chem. Phys. 121:5514-5530.
19. Vaitheeswaran, S., and D. Thirumalai. 2006. Hydrophobic and ionic interactions in nanosized water droplets. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128:13490-13496.
20. Rajamani, S., T. Truskett, and S. Garde. 2005. Hydrophobic hydration from small to large lengthscales: Understanding and manipulating the crossover. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 102:9475-9480.
21. Hummer, G., and S. Garde. 1998. Cavity expulsion and weak dewetting of hydrophobic solutes in water. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80:4193-4196.
22. Marcelja, S., and N. Radic. 1976. Repulsion of interfaces due to boundary water. Chem. Phys. Lett. 42:129-130.
23. Marcelja, S., D. J. Mitchell, B. W. Ninham, and M. J. Sculley. 1977. Role of solvent structure in solution theory. J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 2:630-648.
24. Tanaka, H. 1998. Simple physical explanation of the unusual thermodynamic behavior of liquid water. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80:5750-5753.
25. Lum, K., and A. Luzar. 1997. Pathway to surface-induced phase transition of a confined fluid. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Phys. Plasmas Fluids Relat. Interdiscip. Topics. 56:R6283-R6286.
26. Braig, K., Z. Otwinowski, R. Hegde, D. Boisvert, A. Joachmiak, A. L. Horwich, and P. B. Sigler. 1994. The crystal structure of the bacterial chaperonin GroEL at 2.8 A. Nature. 371:578-586.
27. Suresh, S. J., and V. M. Naik. 2000. J. Chem. Phys. 113:9727-9732.
28. Cheung, M., and D. Thirumalai. 2006. Nanopore-protein interactions dramatically alter stability and yield of the native state in restricted spaces. J. Mol. Biol. 357:632-643.
29. Betancourt, M., and D. Thirumalai. 1999. Exploring the kinetic requirements for enhancement of protein folding rates in the GroEL cavity. J. Mol. Biol. 287:627-644.
30. Takagi, F., N. Koga, and S. Takada. 2003. How protein thermodynamics and folding mechanisms are altered by the chaperonin cage: molecular simulations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 100:11367-11372.
31. Baumketner, A., A. Jewett, and J. E. Shea. 2003. Effects of confinement in chaperonin assisted protein folding: rate enhancement by decreasing the roughness of the folding energy landscape. J. Mol. Biol. 332:701-713.
32. Jewett, A. I., A. Baumketner, and J. E. Shea. 2004. Accelerated folding in the weak hydrophobic environment of a chaperonin cavity: creation of an alternate fast folding pathway. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 101:13192-13197.
33. Viguera, A., C. Vega, and L. Serrano. 2002. Unspecific hydrophobic stabilization of folding transition states. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 99:5349-5354.
34. Northey, J. G. B., A. Di Nardo, and A. R. Davidson. 2002. Hydrophobic core packing in the SH3 domain folding transition state. Nat. Struct. Biol. 9:126-130.
35. Calloni, G., N. Taddei, K. Plaxco, G. Ramponi, M. Stefani, and F. Chiti. 2003. Comparison of the folding processes of distantly related proteins. Importance of hydrophobic content in folding. J. Mol. Biol. 330:577-591.
36. Jacob, M., T. Schindler, J. Balbach, and F. X. Schmid. 1997. Diffusion control in an elementary protein folding reaction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 94:5622-5627.
37. Plaxco, K., and D. Baker. 1998. Limited internal friction in the rate-limiting step of a two-state protein folding reaction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 95:13591-13596.
38. Silow, M., and M. Oliveberg. 2003. High concentrations of viscogens decrease the protein folding rate constant by prematurely collapsing the coil. J. Mol. Biol. 326:263-271.
39. Wang, J. D., C. Herman, K. A. Tipton, C. A. Gross, and J. S. Weissman. 2002. Directed evolution of substrate-optimized GroEL/S chaperonins. Cell. 111:1027-1039.