Levinthal's paradox

Last updated

Levinthal's paradox is a thought experiment in the field of computational protein structure prediction; protein folding seeks a stable energy configuration. An algorithmic search through all possible conformations to identify the minimum energy configuration (the native state) would take an immense duration, however, in reality, protein folding happens very quickly, even in the case of the most complex structures, suggesting that the transitions are guided into a stable state through an uneven energy landscape. [1]

Contents

History

In 1969, Cyrus Levinthal noted that, because of the very large number of degrees of freedom in an unfolded polypeptide chain, the molecule has an astronomical number of possible conformations. An estimate of 10300 was made in one of his papers [2] (often incorrectly cited as the 1968 paper [3] ). For example, a polypeptide of 100 residues will have 99 peptide bonds, and therefore 198 different phi and psi bond angles. If each of these bond angles can be in one of three stable conformations, the protein may misfold into a maximum of 3198 different conformations (including any possible folding redundancy). Therefore, if a protein were to attain its correctly folded configuration by sequentially sampling all the possible conformations, it would require a time longer than the age of the universe to arrive at its correct native conformation. This is true even if conformations are sampled at rapid (nanosecond or picosecond) rates. The "paradox" is that most small proteins fold spontaneously on a millisecond or even microsecond time scale. The solution to this paradox has been established by computational approaches to protein structure prediction. [4]

Levinthal himself was aware that proteins fold spontaneously and on short timescales. He suggested that the paradox can be resolved if "protein folding is sped up and guided by the rapid formation of local interactions which then determine the further folding of the peptide; this suggests local amino acid sequences which form stable interactions and serve as nucleation points in the folding process". [5] Indeed, the protein folding intermediates and the partially folded transition states were experimentally detected, which explains the fast protein folding. This is also described as protein folding directed within funnel-like energy landscapes. [6] [7] [8] Some computational approaches to protein structure prediction have sought to identify and simulate the mechanism of protein folding. [9]

Levinthal also suggested that the native structure might have a higher energy, if the lowest energy was not kinetically accessible. An analogy is a rock tumbling down a hillside that lodges in a gully rather than reaching the base. [10]

Suggested explanations

According to Edward Trifonov and Igor Berezovsky, the proteins fold by subunits (modules) of the size of 25–30 amino acids. [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protein secondary structure</span> General three-dimensional form of local segments of proteins

Protein secondary structure is the local spatial conformation of the polypeptide backbone excluding the side chains. The two most common secondary structural elements are alpha helices and beta sheets, though beta turns and omega loops occur as well. Secondary structure elements typically spontaneously form as an intermediate before the protein folds into its three dimensional tertiary structure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protein tertiary structure</span> Three dimensional shape of a protein

Protein tertiary structure is the three-dimensional shape of a protein. The tertiary structure will have a single polypeptide chain "backbone" with one or more protein secondary structures, the protein domains. Amino acid side chains and the backbone may interact and bond in a number of ways. The interactions and bonds of side chains within a particular protein determine its tertiary structure. The protein tertiary structure is defined by its atomic coordinates. These coordinates may refer either to a protein domain or to the entire tertiary structure. A number of these structures may bind to each other, forming a quaternary structure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protein folding</span> Change of a linear protein chain to a 3D structure

Protein folding is the physical process by which a protein, after synthesis by a ribosome as a linear chain of amino acids, changes from an unstable random coil into a more ordered three-dimensional structure. This structure permits the protein to become biologically functional.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protein structure prediction</span> Type of biological prediction

Protein structure prediction is the inference of the three-dimensional structure of a protein from its amino acid sequence—that is, the prediction of its secondary and tertiary structure from primary structure. Structure prediction is different from the inverse problem of protein design. Protein structure prediction is one of the most important goals pursued by computational biology; it is important in medicine and biotechnology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Structural bioinformatics</span> Bioinformatics subfield

Structural bioinformatics is the branch of bioinformatics that is related to the analysis and prediction of the three-dimensional structure of biological macromolecules such as proteins, RNA, and DNA. It deals with generalizations about macromolecular 3D structures such as comparisons of overall folds and local motifs, principles of molecular folding, evolution, binding interactions, and structure/function relationships, working both from experimentally solved structures and from computational models. The term structural has the same meaning as in structural biology, and structural bioinformatics can be seen as a part of computational structural biology. The main objective of structural bioinformatics is the creation of new methods of analysing and manipulating biological macromolecular data in order to solve problems in biology and generate new knowledge.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protein structure</span> Three-dimensional arrangement of atoms in an amino acid-chain molecule

Protein structure is the three-dimensional arrangement of atoms in an amino acid-chain molecule. Proteins are polymers – specifically polypeptides – formed from sequences of amino acids, which are the monomers of the polymer. A single amino acid monomer may also be called a residue, which indicates a repeating unit of a polymer. Proteins form by amino acids undergoing condensation reactions, in which the amino acids lose one water molecule per reaction in order to attach to one another with a peptide bond. By convention, a chain under 30 amino acids is often identified as a peptide, rather than a protein. To be able to perform their biological function, proteins fold into one or more specific spatial conformations driven by a number of non-covalent interactions, such as hydrogen bonding, ionic interactions, Van der Waals forces, and hydrophobic packing. To understand the functions of proteins at a molecular level, it is often necessary to determine their three-dimensional structure. This is the topic of the scientific field of structural biology, which employs techniques such as X-ray crystallography, NMR spectroscopy, cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) and dual polarisation interferometry, to determine the structure of proteins.

Lattice proteins are highly simplified models of protein-like heteropolymer chains on lattice conformational space which are used to investigate protein folding. Simplification in lattice proteins is twofold: each whole residue is modeled as a single "bead" or "point" of a finite set of types, and each residue is restricted to be placed on vertices of a lattice. To guarantee the connectivity of the protein chain, adjacent residues on the backbone must be placed on adjacent vertices of the lattice. Steric constraints are expressed by imposing that no more than one residue can be placed on the same lattice vertex.

Macromolecular docking is the computational modelling of the quaternary structure of complexes formed by two or more interacting biological macromolecules. Protein–protein complexes are the most commonly attempted targets of such modelling, followed by protein–nucleic acid complexes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intrinsically disordered proteins</span> Protein without a fixed 3D structure

In molecular biology, an intrinsically disordered protein (IDP) is a protein that lacks a fixed or ordered three-dimensional structure, typically in the absence of its macromolecular interaction partners, such as other proteins or RNA. IDPs range from fully unstructured to partially structured and include random coil, molten globule-like aggregates, or flexible linkers in large multi-domain proteins. They are sometimes considered as a separate class of proteins along with globular, fibrous and membrane proteins.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michael Levitt</span> Nobel laureate, biophysicist, and professor of structural biology (born 1947)

Michael Levitt, is a South African-born biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University, a position he has held since 1987. Levitt received the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, together with Martin Karplus and Arieh Warshel, for "the development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems". In 2018, Levitt was a founding co-editor of the Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Folding funnel</span>

The folding funnel hypothesis is a specific version of the energy landscape theory of protein folding, which assumes that a protein's native state corresponds to its free energy minimum under the solution conditions usually encountered in cells. Although energy landscapes may be "rough", with many non-native local minima in which partially folded proteins can become trapped, the folding funnel hypothesis assumes that the native state is a deep free energy minimum with steep walls, corresponding to a single well-defined tertiary structure. The term was introduced by Ken A. Dill in a 1987 article discussing the stabilities of globular proteins.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hydrophobic collapse</span> Process in protein folding

Hydrophobic collapse is a proposed process for the production of the 3-D conformation adopted by polypeptides and other molecules in polar solvents. The theory states that the nascent polypeptide forms initial secondary structure creating localized regions of predominantly hydrophobic residues. The polypeptide interacts with water, thus placing thermodynamic pressures on these regions which then aggregate or "collapse" into a tertiary conformation with a hydrophobic core. Incidentally, polar residues interact favourably with water, thus the solvent-facing surface of the peptide is usually composed of predominantly hydrophilic regions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Molecular biophysics</span> Interdisciplinary research area

Molecular biophysics is a rapidly evolving interdisciplinary area of research that combines concepts in physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics and biology. It seeks to understand biomolecular systems and explain biological function in terms of molecular structure, structural organization, and dynamic behaviour at various levels of complexity. This discipline covers topics such as the measurement of molecular forces, molecular associations, allosteric interactions, Brownian motion, and cable theory. Additional areas of study can be found on Outline of Biophysics. The discipline has required development of specialized equipment and procedures capable of imaging and manipulating minute living structures, as well as novel experimental approaches.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Baker (biochemist)</span> American biochemist and computational biologist

David Baker is an American biochemist and computational biologist who has pioneered methods to predict and design the three-dimensional structures of proteins. He is the Henrietta and Aubrey Davis Endowed Professor in Biochemistry and an adjunct professor of genome sciences, bioengineering, chemical engineering, computer science, and physics at the University of Washington. He serves as the director of the Rosetta Commons, a consortium of labs and researchers that develop biomolecular structure prediction and design software. The problem of protein structure prediction to which Baker has contributed significantly has now been largely solved by DeepMind using artificial intelligence. Baker is a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator and a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences. He is also the director of the University of Washington's Institute for Protein Design.

Helix–coil transition models are formalized techniques in statistical mechanics developed to describe conformations of linear polymers in solution. The models are usually but not exclusively applied to polypeptides as a measure of the relative fraction of the molecule in an alpha helix conformation versus turn or random coil. The main attraction in investigating alpha helix formation is that one encounters many of the features of protein folding but in their simplest version. Most of the helix–coil models contain parameters for the likelihood of helix nucleation from a coil region, and helix propagation along the sequence once nucleated; because polypeptides are directional and have distinct N-terminal and C-terminal ends, propagation parameters may differ in each direction.

In computational biology, de novo protein structure prediction refers to an algorithmic process by which protein tertiary structure is predicted from its amino acid primary sequence. The problem itself has occupied leading scientists for decades while still remaining unsolved. According to Science, the problem remains one of the top 125 outstanding issues in modern science. At present, some of the most successful methods have a reasonable probability of predicting the folds of small, single-domain proteins within 1.5 angstroms over the entire structure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protein domain</span> Self-stable region of a proteins chain that folds independently from the rest

In molecular biology, a protein domain is a region of a protein's polypeptide chain that is self-stabilizing and that folds independently from the rest. Each domain forms a compact folded three-dimensional structure. Many proteins consist of several domains, and a domain may appear in a variety of different proteins. Molecular evolution uses domains as building blocks and these may be recombined in different arrangements to create proteins with different functions. In general, domains vary in length from between about 50 amino acids up to 250 amino acids in length. The shortest domains, such as zinc fingers, are stabilized by metal ions or disulfide bridges. Domains often form functional units, such as the calcium-binding EF hand domain of calmodulin. Because they are independently stable, domains can be "swapped" by genetic engineering between one protein and another to make chimeric proteins.

A dry lab is a laboratory where the nature of the experiments does not involve significant risk. This is in contrast to a wet lab where it is necessary to handle various types of chemicals and biological hazards. An example of a dry lab is one where computational or applied mathematical analyses are done on a computer-generated model to simulate a phenomenon in the physical realm. Examples of such phenomena include a molecule changing quantum states, the event horizon of a black hole or anything that otherwise might be impossible or too dangerous to observe under normal laboratory conditions. This term may also refer to a lab that uses primarily electronic equipment, for example, a robotics lab. A dry lab can also refer to a laboratory space for the storage of dry materials.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edward Trifonov</span> Israeli molecular biophysicist

Edward Nikolayevich Trifonov is a Russian-born Israeli molecular biophysicist and a founder of Israeli bioinformatics. In his research, he specializes in the recognition of weak signal patterns in biological sequences and is known for his unorthodox scientific methods.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ruth Nussinov</span> Bioinformatician

Ruth Nussinov is an Israeli-American biologist born in Rehovot who works as a Professor in the Department of Human Genetics, School of Medicine at Tel Aviv University and is the Senior Principal Scientist and Principal Investigator at the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. Nussinov is also the Editor in Chief of the Current Opinion in Structural Biology and formerly of the journal PLOS Computational Biology.

References

  1. Nelson, David L.; Cox, Michael M.; Lehninger, Albert L. (2017). "Polypeptides Fold Rapidly by a Stepwise Process". Lehninger principles of biochemistry (7th ed.). New York, NY : Houndmills, Basingstoke: W.H. Freeman and Company ; Macmillan Higher Education. ISBN   978-1-4641-2611-6. OCLC   986827885.
  2. Levinthal, Cyrus (1969). "How to Fold Graciously". Mossbauer Spectroscopy in Biological Systems: Proceedings of a Meeting Held at Allerton House, Monticello, Illinois: 22–24. Archived from the original on 2010-10-07.
  3. Levinthal, Cyrus (1968). "Are there pathways for protein folding?" (PDF). Journal de Chimie Physique et de Physico-Chimie Biologique. 65: 44–45. Bibcode:1968JCP....65...44L. doi:10.1051/jcp/1968650044. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-09-02.
  4. Zwanzig R, Szabo A, Bagchi B (1992-01-01). "Levinthal's paradox". Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 89 (1): 20–22. Bibcode:1992PNAS...89...20Z. doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.1.20 . PMC   48166 . PMID   1729690.
  5. Rooman, Marianne Rooman; Yves Dehouck; Jean Marc Kwasigroch; Christophe Biot; Dimitri Gilis (2002). "What is paradoxical about Levinthal Paradox?" (PDF). Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics. 20 (3): 327–329. doi:10.1080/07391102.2002.10506850. PMID   12437370. S2CID   6839744.[ permanent dead link ]
  6. Dill K; H.S. Chan (1997). "From Levinthal to pathways to funnels". Nat. Struct. Biol. 4 (1): 10–19. doi:10.1038/nsb0197-10. PMID   8989315. S2CID   11557990.
  7. Durup, Jean (1998). "On "Levinthal paradox" and the theory of protein folding". Journal of Molecular Structure. 424 (1–2): 157–169. doi:10.1016/S0166-1280(97)00238-8.
  8. s˘Ali, Andrej; Shakhnovich, Eugene; Karplus, Martin (1994). "How does a protein fold?" (PDF). Nature. 369 (6477): 248–251. Bibcode:1994Natur.369..248S. doi:10.1038/369248a0. PMID   7710478. S2CID   4281915.[ permanent dead link ]
  9. Karplus, Martin (1997). "The Levinthal paradox: yesterday and today". Folding & Design. 2 (4): S69–S75. doi: 10.1016/S1359-0278(97)00067-9 . PMID   9269572.
  10. Hunter, Philip (2006). "Into the fold". EMBO Rep. 7 (3): 249–252. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400655. PMC   1456894 . PMID   16607393.
  11. Berezovsky, Igor N.; Trifonov, Edward N. (2002). "Loop fold structure of proteins: Resolution of Levinthal's paradox" (PDF). Journal of Biomolecular Structure & Dynamics. 20 (1): 5–6. doi:10.1080/07391102.2002.10506817. ISSN   0739-1102. PMID   12144347. S2CID   33174198. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2005-02-12.