Skip Navigation


PEDS Advance Access originally published online on January 18, 2008
Protein Engineering Design and Selection 2008 21(3):171-185; doi:10.1093/protein/gzm082
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/3/171    most recent
gzm082v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Barua, B.
Right arrow Articles by Andersen, N. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Barua, B.
Right arrow Articles by Andersen, N. H.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

The Trp-cage: optimizing the stability of a globular miniprotein

Bipasha Barua, Jasper C. Lin, Victoria D. Williams, Phillip Kummler, Jonathan W. Neidigh and Niels H. Andersen1

Department of Chemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA

1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: andersen{at}chem.washington.edu

The Trp-cage, as the smallest miniprotein, remains the subject of numerous computational and experimental studies of protein folding dynamics and pathways. The original Trp-cage (NLYIQWLKDGGPSSGRPPPS, Tm = 42°C) can be significantly stabilized by mutations; melting points as high as 64°C are reported. In helical portions of the structure, each allowed replacement of Leu, Ile, Lys or Ser residues by Ala results in a 1.5 (±0.35) kJ/mol fold stabilization. No changes in structure or fluxionality of the core results upon stabilization. Contrary to the initial hypothesis, specific Pro/Trp interactions are not essential for core formation. The entropic advantage of Pro versus Ala ({Delta}{Delta}SU = 11 ± 2 J/mol K) was measured at the solvent-exposed P17 site. Pro–Ala mutations at two of the three prolines (P12 and P18) that encage the indole ring result in less fold destabilization (2.3–3.4 kJ/mol). However, a P19A mutation reduces fold stability by 16 kJ/mol reflecting a favorable Y3/P19 interaction as well as Trp burial. The Y3/P19 hydrophobic staple interaction defines the folding motif as an 18-residue unit. Other stabilizing features that have been identified include a solvent-exposed Arg/Asp salt bridge (3.4–6 kJ/mol) and a buried H-bonded Ser side chain ({approx}10 kJ/mol).

Keywords: buried polar sidechain/fast-folding miniprotein/hydrophobic core formation/motif minimization/proline-tryptophan interactions

Received November 15, 2007; revised November 27, 2007; accepted November 28, 2007.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.