Advertisement

Protein Folding: Local Structures, Domains and Assemblies

  • R. Jaenicke
Part of the Industry-University Cooperative Chemistry Program Symposia book series (IUCC)

Summary

Globular proteins show the intrinsic property of acquiring their spatial structure in an autonomous way, based solely on their amino-acid sequence and their aqueous or non-aqueous environment. In vivo folding is assumed to occur cotranslationally; in contrast, in vitro renaturation after preceding denaturation refers to the integral chain. Since the final product of reconstitution is authentic with respect to all available physicochemical and functional criteria, in vitro experiments may be considered a sound basis for the thermodynamic and kinetic analysis of the folding pathway.

In order to gain insight into the mechanism of folding, the essential steps in the “hierarchical condensation” from the nascent (unfolded) state to the native state of a given protein have to be characterized. As taken from spectral data, short-range interactions stabilize well-defined local structures (α-helices, β-turns, loops) in independent segments of the polypeptide chain. In proceeding from elements of secondary- and supersecondary structure to subdomains and domains, the native tertiary and quaternary structure are finally generated by the merging and docking of domains and subunits. The kinetic analysis of reconstitution shows that the overall mechanism of folding and association may be described by a sequential uni-bi-unimolecular scheme, where folding and/or association may be rate-determining. The formation of “inclusion bodies” in overexpressing strains of bacteria may be quantitatively described by the superposition of rate-determining folding and diffusion-controlled aggregation. The trapped protein may be “unscrambled” by denatura-tion/renaturation; commonly, optimization leads to the recovery of pure and authentic material in high yield.

Globular proteins acquire their spatial structure autonomously and spontaneously, based exclusively on their amino-acid sequence and their solvent environment. Their structural integrity in solution depends on the solvent parameters. Accordingly, one would predict that protein folding is strongly influenced by the environment. However, a variety of experimental findings have proven that the solvent conditions upon translation and reconstitution are less critical than expected: in vitro folding and assembly may be accomplished in dilute buffer solution in the absence of components involved in cellular folding events; biologically active thermophilic proteins may be expressed in mesophilic hosts; cotranslational and posttranslational modifications such as glycosylation or processing do not necessarily interfere with the intrinsic capacity of the polypeptide chain to acquire its native three-dimensional structure (Jaenicke 1991a,b). Except for the influence of viscosity (Teschner et al., 1987) and specific ligands (coenzymes, substrates, ions, etc) (Jaenicke, 1987), hardly any attempts have been made to mimic the cytoplasm in folding experiments.

Folding in vivo is assumed to parallel protein biosynthesis as a “vectorial process”. On the other hand, in vitro renaturation after preceding denaturation refers to the complete polypeptide chain. There is ample evidence which proves that the final product of reconstitution is authentic with respect to all available physicochemical, biochemical and biological criteria. Thus, in vitro experiments may be considered a sound basis for the thermodynamic and kinetic analysis of the mechanism of protein self-organization (Creighton, 1978, 1990; Jaenicke and Rudolph, 1989).

The fact that the nascent or refolding chain requires neither extrinsic factors nor the input of energy in order to generate the native structure has been considered sufficient evidence to postulate that the genetic code governs both translation and folding. Whether there is a unique folding code as the “second half of the genetic code” remains still to be shown (Fasman, 1989). That it cannot be colinear is trivial for the following reasons: both local next-neighbor and non-local through-space interactions are involved in the minimization of potential energy; as a consequence, identical stretches of polypeptide chain may determine different three-dimensional structures; widely differing (“homologous”) sequences code for identical topologies; subdomains and domains as cooperative entities are separated by connecting peptides exhibiting anomalous configurations; extrinsic effects or effectors (not inherent in the amino-acid sequence) may play a significant role in the folding process. The latter argument has been shown to be essential in cases where cofactors or chaperones serve to stabilize intermediates of folding or assembly (Gerschitz et al., 1978; Ellis, 1990; Fischer and Schmid, 1990). Other cell-biological implications that may interfere with a general 1D → 3D algorithm of protein folding are: cellular compartmentalization, genome organization, transcription control, codon usage, amino-acid pools, kinetic competition of folding and association in overex-pressing hosts, discontinuity in the rate of translation, etc (Jaenicke, 1987, 1988, 1991b).

In spite of these pitfalls, there have been numerous attempts to forecast the three-dimensional structure of proteins or their mode of folding: Search programs for sequence homologies have been successfully applied to correlate given primary structures to a limited number of protein “families”. Statistical analyses of preferences for α-helices, β-strands, turns, or random structures provide secondary structure predictions with reliabilities of the order of 65% (Fasman, 1989). Topological considerations and docking procedures have been developed to optimize both minimum hydrophobic surface area and maximum packing (Wodak et al., 1987). Energy minimization and molecular dynamics calculations, as well as semi-quantum mechanical and statistical mechanical methods proved useful in reducing the number of possible conformations from an astronomically high value to only few (McCammon and Harvey, 1988). They have been most valuable in characterizing conformational changes with high precision. A combination of all available methods in terms of knowledge-based computer-aided structure predictions has been conceived by Blundell et al. (1987, 1991). The result of ≈ 90% correct prediction with an rms deviation <3 å is most satisfactory from the theoretical point of view; however, to predict the functional state, one has to be > 99% correct, so that at present all structure predictions have still to be taken with a grain of salt.

Keywords

Polypeptide Chain Folding Reaction Kinetic Competition Proline Isomerization Statistical Mechanical Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baldwin, R.L., 1990, Pieces of the folding puzzle, Nature, London, 346:409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin, R. L., 1991, Experimental studies of pathways of protein folding, Ciba Foundation Symp., 161: in press.Google Scholar
  3. Bergman, L. W. and Kuehl, W.M., 1979, Cotranslational modification of nascent immunoglobulin heavy and light chains, J. Supramol. Struct., 11:9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blundell, T. L., 1991, From comparison of 3D structures to protein modelling and design, Ciba Foundation Symp., 161: in press.Google Scholar
  5. Blundell, T. L., Sibanda, B. L., Sternberg, M. J. E., and Thornton, J. M., 1987, Knowledge-based prediction of protein structure and the design of novel molecules, Nature, London, 326:347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchner, J., Schmidt, M., Fuchs, M., Jaenicke, R., Rudolph, R., Schmid, F. X. and Kiefhaber, T., 1991, GroE facilitates refolding of citrate synthase by suppressing aggregation, Biochemistry, in press.Google Scholar
  7. Creighton, T. E., 1978, Experimental studies of protein folding and unfolding, Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol., 33:231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Creighton, T. E., 1988, On the relevance of non-random poly-peptide conformation for protein folding, Biophys. Chem., 31:155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Creighton, T. E., 1990, Protein folding, Biochem. J., 270:1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dill, K. A., 1990, Dominant forces in protein folding, Biochemistry, 29:7133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dyson, H. J., Ranee, M., Houghten, R. A., Lerner, R. A. and Wright, P. E., 1988, Folding of immunogenic peptide fragments of proteins in water solution. I. Sequence requirements for the formation of a reverse turn, J. Mol. Biol., 201:161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellis, R.J., ed., 1990, Molecular chaperones, Seminars in Cell Biol., 1:1.Google Scholar
  13. Fasman, G. D. ed., 1989, “Prediction of Protein Structure and the Principles of Protein Conformation”, Plenum Press, New York, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischer, G, and Schmid, F. X., 1990, The mechanism of protein folding. Implications of in vitro refolding models for de novo protein folding and translocation in the cell, Biochemistry, 29:2205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fontana, A., 1989, Structure and stability of thermophilic enzymes: Studies on thermolysin, Biophys. Chem., 29:181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerschitz, J., Rudolph, R. and Jaenicke, R., 1978, Refolding and reactivation of liver alcohol dehydrogenase after dissociation and denaturation in 6 M guanidine hydrochlo-ride, Eur. J. Biochem, 87:591.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldberg, M. E. and Zetina, C. R., 1980, Importance of inter-domain interactions in the structure, function and stability of the F1 and F2 domains isolated from the β2 sub-unit of E. coli tryptophan synthase, in: “Protein Folding”, Jaenicke, R., ed., Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam: 469.Google Scholar
  18. Goloubinoff, P., Christeller, J. T., Gatenby, A. A. and Lorimer, G. H., 1989, Reconstitution of active dimeric Rubisco from an unfolded state depends on two chaperone proteins and Mg-ATP, Nature, London, 342:884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haas, E., McWherter, C. A. and Scheraga, H. A., 1988, Confor-mational unfolding in the N-terminal region of ribonu-clease A detected by nonradiative energy transfer: Distribution of interresidue distances in the native, denatured and reduced-denatured states, Biopolymers, 27:1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hurtley, S. M. and Helenius, A., 1989, Protein oligomerization in the endoplasmic reticulum, Annu. Rev. Cell Biol., 5:277.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jaenicke, R., 1987, Folding and association of proteins, Procrr. Biophys. Mol. Biol., 49:117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jaenicke, R., 1988, Is there a code for protein folding?, in: “Protein Structure and Protein Engineering”, E. L. Winnacker and R. Huber, eds., Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, 39. Colloquium Mosbach: 16.Google Scholar
  23. Jaenicke, R., 1991a, Protein stability and protein folding, Ciba Foundation Symp., 161: in press.Google Scholar
  24. Jaenicke, R., 1991b, Protein folding: Local structures, domains, subunits and assemblies, Biochemistry, 30:in press.Google Scholar
  25. Jaenicke, R. and Rudolph, R., 1986, Folding and association of oligomeric proteins, Meth. Enzymol., 131:218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jaenicke, R. and Rudolph, R., 1989, Folding proteins, in: “Protein Structure and Function: A Practical Approach”, T. E. Creighton, ed., IRL Press, Oxford: 191.Google Scholar
  27. Jaenicke, R. and Závodszky, P., 1990, Proteins under extreme physical conditions, FEBS Lett., 268:344.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kiefhaber, T., Quaas, R., Hahn, U. and Schmid. F. X., 1990a, Folding of ribonuclease T1., Biochemistry, 29:3053, 3061PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kiefhaber, T., Grunert, H.-P., Hahn, U. and Schmid, F. X., 1990b, Replacement of a cis-proline simplifies the mechanism of ribonuclease T1 folding, Biochemistry, 29:6475.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim, P. S. and Baldwin, R. L., 1990, Intermediates in the folding reactions of proteins, Annu. Rev. Biochem., 59:631.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. King, J., Haase, C. and Yu, M., 1987, Temperature-sensitive mutations affecting kinetic steps in protein-folding pathways, in: “Protein Engineering”, Oxender, D. L. and Fox, C. F., eds., A. R. Liss Inc., New York: 109.Google Scholar
  32. Kuwajima, K., 1989, The molten globule state as a clue for understanding the folding and cooperativity of globular proteins, Proteins: Struct., Funct. & Genetics, 6:87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marqusee, S. and Baldwin, R. L., 1987, Helix stabilization by Glu-..., Lys+ salt bridges in short peptides of de novo design, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 84:8898.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McCammon, J. A. and Harvey, S. C., 1988, “Dynamics of Proteins and Nucleic Acids”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  35. Mitraki, A. and King, J., 1989, Protein folding intermediates and inclusion body formation, Bio/Technology, 7:690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Müller, K. and Jaenicke, R., 1980, Deanturation and renaturation of bovine liver glutamic dehydrogenase after dissociation in various denaturants, Z. Naturforsch., 35c:222.Google Scholar
  37. Opitz, U., Rudolph, R., Jaenicke, R., Ericsson, L. and Neurath, H., 1987, Proteolytic dimers of porcine muscle LDH. Characterization, folding and reconstitution of the truncated and nicked polypeptide chain, Biochemistry, 26:1399.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pelham, H. R. B., 1989, Control of protein exit from the endoplasmic reticulum, Annu. Rev. Cell Biol., 5:1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Privalov, P. L. and Gill, S. J., 1988, Stability of protein structure and hydrophobic interaction, Adv. Protein Chem., 39:193.Google Scholar
  40. Rashin, A. A., 1984, Prediction of stabilities of thermolysin fragments, Biochemistry, 23:5518.Google Scholar
  41. Richards, F. M., 1977, Areas, volumes, packing, and protein structure, Annu. Rev. Biophys. Bioeng., 6:151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rinas, U., Risse, B., Jaenicke, R., Abel, K.-J. and Zettlmeissl, G., 1990, Denaturation renaturation of the fibrin-stabilizing factor XIIIa isolated from human placenta. Properties of the native and reconstituted protein, Biol. Chem. Hoppe-Seyler, 371:49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rothman, J. E., 1989, Polypeptide chain binding proteins: Catalysts of protein folding and related processes in cells, Cell, 59:591.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rudolph, R., 1990, Renaturation of recombinant, disulfide-bonded proteins from “inclusion bodies”, in: “Modern Methods in Protein and Nucleic Acid Research”, Tschesche, H., ed., de Gruyter, Berlin: 149.Google Scholar
  45. Rudolph, R. and Fuchs, I., 1983, Influence of glutathion on the reactivation of enzymes containing cysteine or cystine, Hoppe-Seyler’s Z. Physiol. Chem., 364:813.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rudolph, R., Siebendritt, R., Nesslauer, G., Sharma, A. K. and Jaenicke, R., 1990, Folding of an all-β protein: Independent domain folding in γ-II-crystallin from calf eye lens, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 87:4625.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schmid, F. X. and Baldwin, R. L., 1978, Acid catalysis of the formation of the slow-folding species of RNase A: Evidence that the reaction is proline isomerization, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 75:4764.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Seckler, R., Fuchs, A., Jaenicke, R. and King, J., 1989, Reconstitution of the thermostable trimeric phage P22 tail spike protein from denatured chains in vitro, J. Biol. Chem., 264:11750.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Shoemaker, R. K., Kim, P. S., York, E. J., Stewart, J. M. and Baldwin, R. L., 1987, Test of the helix dipole model for stabilization of α-helices, Nature, London, 326:563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Teschner, W. and Rudolph, R., 1989, A carboxypeptidase Y pulse method to study the accessibility of the C-terminal end during the refolding of RNase A, Biochem. J., 260:583.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Teschner, W., Rudolph, R. and Garel, J.-R., 1987, Intermediates on the folding pathway of octopine dehydrogenase from Pecten jacobaeus, Biochemistry, 26:2791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vita, C., Jaenicke, R. and Fontana, A., 1989, Folding of thermolysin fragments: Hydrodynamic properties of isolated domains and subdomains, Eur. J. Biochem. 183:513.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wetlaufer, D. B., 1980, Practical consequences of protein folding mechanisms, in: “Protein Folding”, Jaenicke, R., ed., Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam: 323.Google Scholar
  54. Wetlaufer, D. B., 1981, Folding of protein fragments, Adv. Protein Chem., 34:61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wetlaufer, D. B., 1984, in: “The Protein Folding Problem”, Wetlaufer, D. B. ed., Westview, Boulder: 29.Google Scholar
  56. Wodak, S., de Crombrugghe, M. and Janin, J., 1987, Computer studies of interactions between macromolecules, Prog. Biophys. Molec. Biol., 49:29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wright, P. E., Dyson, H. J. and Lerner, R. A., 1988, Conformation of peptide fragments of proteins in aqueous solution: Implications for initiation of protein folding, Biochemistry, 27:7167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yu, M. H. and King, J., 1988, Surface amino acids as sites of temperature-sensitive folding mutations in the P2 2 tail-spike protein, J. Biol. Chem., 263:1424.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Zettlmeissl, G., Rudolph, R. and Jaenicke, R., 1979, Reconstitution of lactic dehydrogenase: Non-covalent aggregations versus reactivation. I. Physical protperties and kinetics of aggregation, Biochemistry, 18:5567.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zettlmeissl, G., Teschner, W., Rudolph, R. Jaenicke, R. and Gäde, G., 1984, solation, physicochemical properties and folding of octopine dehydrogenase from Pecten jaco-baeus, Eur. J. Biochem, 143:401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Jaenicke
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Biophysik und Physikalische BiochemieUniversität RegensburgRegensburgFederal Republic of Germany

Personalised recommendations