Journal of Biological Physics

, Volume 27, Issue 2–3, pp 169–179 | Cite as

Hydrogen Bonds, Hydrophobicity Forces and the Character of the Collapse Transition

  • A. Irbäck
  • F. Sjunnesson
  • S. Wallin


We study the thermodynamic behavior of a model protein with 54 amino acidsthat is designed to form a three-helix bundle in its native state. The model contains three types of amino acids and five to six atoms per amino acid, and has the Ramachandran torsion angles as its only degrees of freedom.The force field is based on hydrogen bonds and effective hydrophobicity forces. We study how the character of the collapse transition depends on the strengths of these forces. For a suitable choice of these two parameters, it is found that the collapse transition is first-order-like and coincides with the folding transition. Also shown is that the corresponding one- and two-helix segments make less stable secondary structure than the three-helix sequence.

Folding thermodynamics hydrogen bonds hydrophobicity protein folding 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gō, N. and Taketomi, H.: Respective Roles of Short-and Long-Range Interactions in Protein Folding, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 75 (1978), 559–563.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Săli, A., Shakhnovich, E. and Karplus, M.: Kinetics of Protein Folding: A Lattice Model Study of the Requirements for Folding to the Native State, J. Mol. Biol. 235 (1994), 1614–1636.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bryngelson, J.D., Onuchic, J.N., Socci, N.D. and Wolynes, P.G.: Funnels, Pathways, and the Energy Landscape of Protein Folding: A Synthesis, Proteins: Struct. Funct. Genet. 21 (1995), 167–195.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dill, K.A. and Chan, H.S.: From Levinthal to Pathways to Funnels, Nature Struct. Biol. 4 (1997), 10–19.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Klimov, D.K. and Thirumalai, D.: Linking Rates of Folding in Lattice Models of Proteins with Underlying Thermodynamic Characteristics, J. Chem. Phys. 109 (1998), 4119–4125.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nymeyer, H., García, A.E. and Onuchic, J.N.: Folding Funnels and Frustration in Off-Lattice Minimalist Protein Landscapes, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95 (1998), 5921–5928.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Socci, N.D., Bialek, W.S. and Onuchic, J.N.: Properties and Origins of Protein Secondary Structure, Phys. Rev. E 49 (1994), 3440–3443.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Irbäck, A., Peterson, C., Potthast, F. and Sommelius, O.: Local Interactions and Protein Folding: A Three-Dimensional Off-Lattice Approach, J. Chem. Phys. 107 (1997), 273–282.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vendruscolo, M., Najmanovich, R. and Domany, E.: Protein Folding in Contact Map Space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999), 656–659.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alm, E. and Baker, D.: Matching Theory and Experiment in Protein Folding, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 9 (1999), 189–196.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Irbäck, A., Sjunnesson, F. and Wallin, S.: Three-Helix-Bundle Protein in a Ramachandran Model, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97 (2000), 13614–13618.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ramachandran, G.N. and Sasisekharan, V.: Conformation of Polypeptides and Proteins, Adv. Protein Chem. 23 (1968), 283–437.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Regan, L. and DeGrado, W.F.: Characterization of a Helical Protein Designed from First Principles, Science 241 (1988), 976–978.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lyubartsev, A.P., Martsinovski, A.A., Shevkunov, S.V. and Vorontsov-Velyaminov, P.V.: New Approach to Monte Carlo Calculation of the Free Energy: Method of Expanded Ensembles, J. Chem. Phys. 96 (1992), 1776–1783.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marinari, E. and Parisi, G.: Simulated Tempering: A New Monte Carlo Scheme, Europhys. Lett. 19 (1992), 451–458.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Irbäck, A. and Potthast, F.: Studies of an Off-Lattice Model for Protein Folding: Sequence Dependence and Improved Sampling at Finite Temperature, J. Chem. Phys. 103 (1995), 10298–10305.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shea, J.-E., Nochomovitz, Y.D., Guo, Z. and Brooks, C.L., III: Exploring the Space of Protein Folding Hamiltonians: The Balance of Forces in a Minimalist β-Barrel Model, J. Chem. Phys. 109 (1998), 2895–2903.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shea, J.-E., Onuchic, J.N. and Brooks, C.L., III: Exploring the Origins of Topological Frustration: Design of a Minimally Frustrated Model of Fragment B of Protein A, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96 (1999), 12512–12517.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clementi, C., Jennings, P.A. and Onuchic, J.N.: How Native-State Topology Affects the Folding of Dihydrofolate Reductase and Interleukin-1/α, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97 (2000), 5871–5876.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Clementi, C., Nymeyer, H. and Onuchic, J.N.: Topological and Energetic Factors: What Determines the Structural Details of the Transition State Ensemble and “En-Route” Intermediates for Protein Folding? An Investigation for Small Globular Proteins, J. Mol. Biol. 298 (2000), 937–953.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shimada, J., Kussell, E.L. and Shakhnovich, E.I.: The Folding Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Crambin Using an All-Atom Monte Carlo Simulation, J. Mol. Biol. 308 (2001), 79–95.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rey, A. and Skolnick, J.: Computer Modeling and Folding of Four-Helix Bundles, Proteins: Struct. Funct. Genet. 16 (1993), 8–28.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guo, Z. and Thirumalai, D.: Kinetics and Thermodynamics of Folding of a de novo Designed Four-Helix Bundle Protein, J. Mol. Biol. 263 (1996), 323–343.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhou, Z. and Karplus, M.: Folding Thermodynamics of a Model Three-Helix-Bundle Protein, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94 (1997), 14429–14432.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Koretke, K.K., Luthey-Schulten, Z. and Wolynes, P.G.: Self-Consistently Optimized Energy Functions for Protein Structure Prediction by Molecular Dynamics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95 (1998), 2932–2937.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hardin, C., Luthey-Schulten, Z. and Wolynes, P.G.: Backbone Dynamics, Fast Folding, and Secondary Structure Formation in Helical Proteins and Peptides, Proteins: Struct. Funct. Genet. 34 (1999), 281–294.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Takada, S., Luthey-Schulten, Z. and Wolynes, P.G.: Folding Dynamics With Nonadditive Forces: A Simulation Study of a Designed Helical Protein and a Random Heteropolymer, J. Chem. Phys. 110 (1999), 11616–11629.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ferrenberg, A.M. and Swendsen, R.H.: NewMonte Carlo for Studying Phase Transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988), 2635–2638; Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1658 (Erratum), and references given in the erratum.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sayle, R. and Milner-White, E.J.: RasMol: Biomolecular Graphics for All, Trends Biochem. Sci. 20 (1995), 374–376.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kolinski, A., Skolnick, J. and Yaris, R.: Monte Carlo Simulations on an Equilibrium Globular Protein Folding Model, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 83 (1986), 7267–7271.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Doniach, S., Garel, T. and Orland, H.: Phase Diagram of a Semiflexible Polymer Chain in a α Solvent: Application to Protein Folding, J. Chem. Phys. 105 (1996), 1601–1608.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bastolla, U. and Grassberger, P.: Phase Transitions of Single Semi-Stiff Polymer Chains, J. Stat. Phys. 89 (1997), 1061–1078.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Doye, J.P.K., Sear, R.P. and Frenkel, D.: The Effect of Chain Stiffness on the Phase Behaviour of Isolated Homopolymers, J. Chem. Phys. 108 (1998), 2134–2142.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Irbäck
    • 1
  • F. Sjunnesson
    • 1
  • S. Wallin
    • 1
  1. 1.Complex Systems Division, Department of Theoretical PhysicsLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations