Folding the proteome

Trends in Biochemical Sciences

Volumn 38, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 337-344

  Braselmann, Esther ^a   Chaney, Julie L ^a   Clark, Patricia L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

Author keywords

Aggregation; Co translational folding; Kinetic stability; Molecular chaperones; Multidomain proteins; Protein folding in vivo

Indexed keywords

ASPARTATE SEMIALDEHYDE DEHYDROGENASE; CHEY PROTEIN; FUMARATE REDUCTASE; GREEN FLUORESCENT PROTEIN; LACTOSE PERMEASE; MEMBRANE PROTEIN; MYOGLOBIN; PHOSPHOGLYCERATE KINASE; PREALBUMIN; PROTEIN P22; PROTEOME; PURINE NUCLEOSIDE PHOSPHORYLASE; TOLC PROTEIN; UBIQUITIN; ESCHERICHIA COLI PROTEIN;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; CELL FUNCTION; IN VITRO STUDY; IN VIVO STUDY; NONHUMAN; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN AGGREGATION; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN FUNCTION; PROTEIN REFOLDING; PROTEIN SECRETION; PROTEIN STABILITY; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; PROTEIN SYNTHESIS; PROTEIN UNFOLDING; REVIEW; RNA TRANSLATION; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CHEMISTRY; ESCHERICHIA COLI; METABOLISM;

ESCHERICHIA COLI; ESCHERICHIA COLI PROTEINS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEOME;

EID: 84879462025     PISSN: 09680004     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibs.2013.05.001     Document Type: Review

References (76)

1. Anfinsen C.B. Principles that govern the folding of protein chains. Science 1973, 181:223-230.
2. Pace C.N. Determination and analysis of urea and guanidine hydrochloride denaturation curves. Methods Enzymol. 1986, 131:266-280.
3. Plaxco K.W., et al. Contact order, transition state placement and the refolding rates of single domain proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 1998, 277:985-994.
4. Jackson S.E. How do small single-domain proteins fold?. Fold. Des. 1998, 3:R81-R91.
5. Galzitskaya O.V., et al. Chain length is the main determinant of the folding rate for proteins with three-state folding kinetics. Proteins 2003, 51:162-166.
6. Ouyang Z., Liang J. Predicting protein folding rates from geometric contact and amino acid sequence. Protein Sci. 2008, 17:1256-1263.
7. Naganathan A.N., Munoz V. Insights into protein folding mechanisms from large scale analysis of mutational effects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2010, 107:8611-8616.
8. Tartaglia G.G., Vendruscolo M. Proteome-level interplay between folding and aggregation propensities of proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 2010, 402:919-928.
9. Sawle L., Ghosh K. How do thermophilic proteins and proteomes withstand high temperature?. Biophys. J. 2011, 101:217-227.
10. Fitzpatrick A.W., et al. Inversion of the balance between hydrophobic and hydrogen bonding interactions in protein folding and aggregation. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2011, 7:e1002169.
11. Ramshini H., et al. Large proteins have a great tendency to aggregate but a low propensity to form amyloid fibrils. PLoS ONE 2011, 6:e16075.
12. Vendruscolo M. Proteome folding and aggregation. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2012, 22:138-143.
13. King J., et al. Thermolabile folding intermediates: inclusion body precursors and chaperonin substrates. FASEB J. 1996, 10:57-66.
14. Dill K.A., MacCallum J.L. The protein-folding problem, 50 years on. Science 2012, 338:1042-1046.
15. Lindorff-Larsen K., et al. How fast-folding proteins fold. Science 2011, 334:517-520.
16. Lane T.J., Pande V.S. A simple model predicts experimental folding rates and a hub-like topology. J. Phys. Chem. B 2012, 116:6764-6774.
17. Bowman G.R., et al. Taming the complexity of protein folding. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2011, 21:4-11.
18. Sosnick T.R., Barrick D. The folding of single domain proteins - have we reached a consensus?. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2011, 21:12-24.
19. Kuwajima K. The molten globule state as a clue for understanding the folding and cooperativity of globular-protein structure. Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. 1989, 6:87-103.
20. Ptitsyn O.B. Molten globule and protein folding. Adv. Protein Chem. 1995, 47:83-229.
21. Service R.F. Problem solved* (*sort of). Science 2008, 321:784-786.
22. Wolynes P.G., et al. Chemical physics of protein folding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2012, 109:17770-17771.
23. Dill K.A., et al. Physical limits of cells and proteomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108:17876-17882.
24. Piana S., et al. Atomic-level description of ubiquitin folding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2013, 110:5915-5920.
25. Hecht M.H., et al. De novo design, expression, and characterization of Felix: a 4-helix bundle protein of native-like sequence. Science 1990, 249:884-891.
26. Kuhlman B., et al. Design of a novel globular protein fold with atomic-level accuracy. Science 2003, 302:1364-1368.
27. Johnson S.M., et al. The transthyretin amyloidoses: from delineating the molecular mechanism of aggregation linked to pathology to a regulatory-agency-approved drug. J. Mol. Biol. 2012, 421:185-203.
28. Koga N., et al. Principles for designing ideal protein structures. Nature 2012, 491:222-227.
29. Willis M.S., et al. Investigation of protein refolding using a fractional factorial screen: a study of reagent effects and interactions. Protein Sci. 2005, 14:1818-1826.
30. Cowieson N.P., et al. An automatable screen for the rapid identification of proteins amenable to refolding. Proteomics 2006, 6:1750-1757.
31. Clark P.L. Protein folding in the cell: reshaping the folding funnel. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2004, 29:527-534.
32. Gershenson A., Gierasch L.M. Protein folding in the cell: challenges and progress. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2011, 21:32-41.
33. Randles L.G., et al. Understanding pathogenic single-nucleotide polymorphisms in multidomain proteins - studies of isolated domains are not enough. FEBS J. 2013, 280:1018-1027.
34. McCarney E.R., et al. Is there or isn't there? The case for (and against) residual structure in chemically denatured proteins. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2005, 40:181-189.
35. Dobson C.M. Protein folding and misfolding. Nature 2003, 426:884-890.
36. Lai Z., et al. Guanidine hydrochloride-induced denaturation and refolding of transthyretin exhibits a marked hysteresis: equilibria with high kinetic barriers. Biochemistry 1997, 36:10230-10239.
37. Fuchs A., et al. In vitro folding pathway of phage P22 tailspike protein. Biochemistry 1991, 30:6598-6604.
38. Reid B.G., Flynn G.C. Chromophore formation in green fluorescent protein. Biochemistry 1997, 36:6786-6791.
39. Hammarstrom P., et al. Prevention of transthyretin amyloid disease by changing protein misfolding energetics. Science 2003, 299:713-716.
40. Mitraki A., et al. Global suppression of protein folding defects and inclusion body formation. Science 1991, 253:54-58.
41. Ugrinov K.G., Clark P.L. Cotranslational folding increases GFP folding yield. Biophys. J. 2010, 98:1312-1320.
42. Xia K., et al. Identifying the subproteome of kinetically stable proteins via diagonal 2D SDS/PAGE. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2007, 104:17329-17334.
43. Park C., et al. Energetics-based protein profiling on a proteomic scale: identification of proteins resistant to proteolysis. J. Mol. Biol. 2007, 368:1426-1437.
44. Han J.H., et al. The folding and evolution of multidomain proteins. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2007, 8:319-330.
45. Young T.A., et al. Comparison of proteolytic susceptibility in phosphoglycerate kinases from yeast and E. coli: modulation of conformational ensembles without altering structure or stability. J. Mol. Biol. 2007, 368:1438-1447.
46. Borgia M.B., et al. Single-molecule fluorescence reveals sequence-specific misfolding in multidomain proteins. Nature 2011, 474:662-665.
47. Stigler J., et al. The complex folding network of single calmodulin molecules. Science 2011, 334:512-516.
48. Kovacs D., et al. Intrinsically disordered proteins undergo and assist folding transitions in the proteome. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2013, 531:80-89.
49. Wright P.E., Dyson H.J. Linking folding and binding. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2009, 19:31-38.
50. Elcock A.H. Models of macromolecular crowding effects and the need for quantitative comparisons with experiment. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2010, 20:196-206.
51. Baker D., Agard D.A. Kinetics versus thermodynamics in protein folding. Biochemistry 1994, 33:7505-7509.
52. Bryan P.N., Orban J. Proteins that switch folds. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2010, 20:482-488.
53. Jaswal S.S., et al. Energetic landscape of α-lytic protease optimizes longevity through kinetic stability. Nature 2002, 415:343-346.
54. Luo X., et al. The Mad2 spindle checkpoint protein has two distinct natively folded states. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2004, 11:338-345.
55. Burmann B.M., et al. An α helix to β barrel domain switch transforms the transcription factor RfaH into a translation factor. Cell 2012, 150:291-303.
56. Tuinstra R.L., et al. Interconversion between two unrelated protein folds in the lymphotactin native state. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2008, 105:5057-5062.
57. Frydman J. Folding of newly translated proteins in vivo: the role of molecular chaperones. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2001, 70:603-647.
58. Hartl F.U., et al. Molecular chaperones in protein folding and proteostasis. Nature 2011, 475:324-332.
59. Bukau B., et al. Getting newly synthesized proteins into shape. Cell 2000, 101:119-122.
60. Fujiwara K., et al. A systematic survey of in vivo obligate chaperonin-dependent substrates. EMBO J. 2010, 29:1552-1564.
61. Calloni G., et al. DnaK functions as a central hub in the E. coli chaperone network. Cell Rep. 2012, 1:251-264.
62. Thulasiraman V., et al. In vivo newly translated polypeptides are sequestered in a protected folding environment. EMBO J. 1999, 18:85-95.
63. Cecconi C., et al. Direct observation of the three-state folding of a single protein molecule. Science 2005, 309:2057-2060.
64. Shank E.A., et al. The folding cooperativity of a protein is controlled by its chain topology. Nature 2010, 465:637-640.
65. Ghaemmaghami S., Oas T.G. Quantitative protein stability measurement in vivo. Nat. Struct. Biol. 2001, 8:879-882.
66. Ignatova Z., Gierasch L.M. Monitoring protein stability and aggregation in vivo by real-time fluorescent labeling. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2004, 101:523-528.
67. Ebbinghaus S., et al. Protein folding stability and dynamics imaged in a living cell. Nat. Methods 2010, 7:319-323.
68. Frydman J., et al. Co-translational domain folding as the structural basis for the rapid de novo folding of firefly luciferase. Nat. Struct. Biol. 1999, 6:697-705.
69. Evans M.S., et al. Cotranslational folding promotes β-helix formation and avoids aggregation in vivo. J. Mol. Biol. 2008, 383:683-692.
70. McGuffee S.R., Elcock A.H. Diffusion, crowding & protein stability in a dynamic molecular model of the bacterial cytoplasm. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2010, 6:e1000694.
71. Elcock A.H. Molecular simulations of cotranslational protein folding: fragment stabilities, folding cooperativity, and trapping in the ribosome. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2006, 2:e98.
72. Schlebach J.P., et al. Probing membrane protein unfolding with pulse proteolysis. J. Mol. Biol. 2011, 406:545-551.
73. Burgess N.K., et al. β-Barrel proteins that reside in the Escherichia coli outer membrane in vivo demonstrate varied folding behavior in vitro. J. Biol. Chem. 2008, 283:26748-26758.
74. Findlay H.E., et al. Unfolding free energy of a two-domain transmembrane sugar transport protein. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2010, 107:18451-18456.
75. Booth P.J., Curnow P. Folding scene investigation: membrane proteins. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2009, 19:8-13.
76. Chan H.S., Dill K.A. Protein folding in the landscape perspective: Chevron plots and non-Arrhenius kinetics. Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. 1998, 30:2-33.