Transition States in Protein Folding Thomas Weikl Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces Department of Theory and Bio-Systems.

Download Report

Transcript Transition States in Protein Folding Thomas Weikl Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces Department of Theory and Bio-Systems.

Transition States
in Protein Folding
Thomas Weikl
Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces
Department of Theory and Bio-Systems
Overview
•
Mutational -value analysis of the folding kinetics
•
Modeling -values for -helices
•
Modeling -values for small -sheet proteins
Protein folding problems
• The structure problem: In which native
structure does a given sequence fold?
• The kinetics problem: How does
a protein fold into its structure?
How does a protein fold?
•
The Levinthal paradox: How does a protein find
its folded conformation as ”needle in the haystack“?
•
The ”old view”: Metastable folding intermediates
guide a protein into its native structure
•
The ”new view”: Many small
proteins fold without
detectable intermediates
(2-state proteins)
2-state folding: Single molecules
•
Donor and acceptor dyes
at chain ends
•
State-dependent transfer
efficiency
2-state folding: Protein ensemble
•
rapid mixing to initiate folding
N
protein + den.
•
single-exponential relaxation for 2-state process:
denatured
state D
native
state N
spectroscopic signal
H20
0
100
200
300
time (ms)
Mutational analysis of 2-state folding
•
Transition state theory:
T
G
k  exp(-GT–D)
D
N
•
Mutations change the folding
rate k and stability GN–D
T’
G
•
Central quantities: -values
GT–D

GN–D
T
D
N’
N
Traditional interpretation of 
T’
G
T’
T
G
T
D
N’
N
= 1: mutated residue is
native-like structured in T
D
N’
N
 = 0: mutated residue is
unstructured in T
Traditional interpretation of 
• : degree of structure formation of a residue in T
Goldenberg, NSB 1999
• Inconsistencies:
- some ’s are < 0 or > 1
- different mutations of
the same residue can
have different -values
-values
Example: -helix of CI2
mutation
S12G
S12A
E15D
E15N
A16G
K17G
K18G
I20V
L21A
L21G
D23A
K24G

0.29
0.43
0.22
0.53
1.06
0.38
0.70
0.40
0.25
0.35
-0.25
0.10
•
-values for
mutations in the
helix range from
-0.25 to 1.06
•
Our finding:

G GN
•
Mutational -value analysis of the folding kinetics
•
Modeling -values for -helices
•
Modeling -values for small -sheet proteins
Helix cooperativity
•
we assume that a helix is
either fully formed or
not formed in transitionstate conformation Ti
•
we have two structural parameters per helix:
- the degree of secondary structure  in T
- the degree of tertiary structure t in T
Splitting up free energies
• we split up mutation-induced free energy changes
into secondary and tertiary components:
GN  G  Gt
GT   G   t Gt
T
G
D
N
• general form of -values for mutations in an -helix:
GT
G

  t     t 
GN
GN
-values for -helix of CI2
general formula:
  t    t 
G
GN
mutational data for CI2 helix:


  1.0
t  0.15
D23A
G GN
-values for helix 2 of protein A
general formula:
  t    t 
G
GN
mutational data for helix 2:


3
1
  1.0
t  0.45
2
G GN
Summary
Consistent interpretation of -values for helices:
•
with two structural parameters: the degrees of
secondary and tertiary structure formation in T
•
by splitting up mutation-induced free energy
changes into secondary and tertiary components
C Merlo, KA Dill, TR Weikl, PNAS 2005
TR Weikl, KA Dill, JMB 2007
•
Mutational -value analysis of the folding kinetics
•
Modeling -values for -helices
•
Modeling -values for small -sheet proteins
Modeling 3-stranded -proteins
•
WW domains are 3-stranded
-proteins with two -hairpins
•
we assume that each hairpin
is fully formed or not formed
in the transition state
Evidence for hairpin cooperativity
•
3s is a designed 3-stranded
-protein with 20 residues
•
transition state rigorously
determined from foldingunfolding MD simulations
•
result: either hairpin 1 or
hairpin 2 structured in T
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
A simple model for WW domains
•
we have two transitionstate conformations with
a single hairpin formed
•
the folding rate is:
k  12 eG1 RT  eG2 RT 
•
-values have the general form:
RT  logk 1G1   2G2


GN
GN
-values for FBP WW domain
1G1   2G2
•
general formula: theo 
•
a first test: ’s for mutations affecting
only hairpin 1 should have value 1

exp
GN
-values for FBP WW domain
•
general formula: theo 
•
single-parameter fit:
exp

1G1   2G2
GN
1  0.77
2 = 1- 1  0.23
theo
Summary
Reconstruction of transition states from
mutational -values based on:
•
substructural cooperativity
of helices and hairpins
•
splitting up mutation-induced
free energy changes
C Merlo, KA Dill, TR Weikl, PNAS 2005
TR Weikl, KA Dill, J Mol Biol 2007
TR Weikl, Biophys J 2008