Abstract
Coincidental equilibrium unfolding transitions observed by multiple structural probes are taken to justify the modeling of protein unfolding as a two-state, N ⇌ U, cooperative process. However, for many of the large number of proteins that undergo apparently two-state equilibrium unfolding reactions, folding intermediates are detected in kinetic experiments. The small protein barstar is one such protein. Here the two-state model for equilibrium unfolding has been critically evaluated in barstar by estimating the intramolecular distance distribution by time-resolved fluorescence resonance energy transfer (TR-FRET) methods, in which fluorescence decay kinetics are analyzed by the maximum entropy method (MEM). Using a mutant form of barstar containing only Trp 53 as the fluorescence donor and a thionitrobenzoic acid moiety attached to Cys 82 as the fluorescence acceptor, the distance between the donor and acceptor has been shown to increase incrementally with increasing denaturant concentration. Although other probes, such as circular dichroism and fluorescence intensity, suggest that the labeled protein undergoes two-state equilibrium unfolding, the TR-FRET probe clearly indicates multistate equilibrium unfolding. Native protein expands progressively through a continuum of native-like forms that achieve the dimensions of a molten globule, whose heterogeneity increases with increasing denaturant concentration and which appears to be separated from the unfolded ensemble by a free energy barrier.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$189.00 per year
only $15.75 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Tanford, C. Adv. Protein Chem. 21, 1–95 (1970).
Jackson, S.E. & Fersht, A.R. Biochemistry 30, 10428–10435 (1991).
Plaxco, K.W., Simons, K.T., Ruczinski, I. & Baker, D. Biochemistry 39,11177–11183 (2000).
Dobson, C.M., Sali, A. & Karplus, M. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 37, 868–893 (1998).
Chan, H.S. & Dill, K.A. Proteins 30, 2–33 (1998).
Swaminathan, R., Nath, U., Udgaonkar, J.B., Periasamy, N. & Krishnamoorthy, G. Biochemistry 35, 9150–9157 (1996a).
Tcherkasskaya, O., Knutson, J.R., Bowley, S.A., Frank, M.K. & Gronenborn, A.M. Biochemistry 39, 11216–11226 (2000).
Lillo, M.P., Beechem, J.M., Szpikowska, B.K., Sherman, M.A. & Mas, M.T. Biochemistry 36, 11261–11272 (1997).
Deniz, A.A et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 5179–5184 (2000).
Shih, W.M., Gryczynski, Z., Lakowicz, J.R. & Spudich, J.A. Cell 102, 683–694 (2000).
Talaga, D.S. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 13021–13026 (2000).
Skilling, J. & Bryan, R.K. Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. 211, 111–124 (1984).
Brochon, J.C. Methods Enzymol. 240, 262–311 (1994).
Swaminathan, R. & Periasamy, N. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Chem. Sci. 108, 39–49 (1996).
Agashe, V.R., Shastry, M.C. & Udgaonkar, J.B. Nature 377, 754–757 (1995).
Shastry, M.C. & Udgaonkar, J.B. J. Mol. Biol. 247, 1013–1027 (1995).
Zaidi, F.N., Nath, U. & Udgaonkar, J.B. Nature Struct. Biol. 4, 1016–1024 (1997).
Nolting, B. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 826–830 (1997).
Sridevi, K., Juneja, J., Bhuyan, A.K., Krishnamoorthy, G. & Udgaonkar, J.B. J. Mol. Biol. 302, 479–495 (2000).
Agashe, V.R. & Udgaonkar, J.B. Biochemistry 34, 3286–3299 (1995).
Khurana R., Hate A.T., Nath, U. & Udgaonkar, J.B. Protein Sci. 4, 1133–1144 (1995).
Ramachandran, S. & Udgaonkar, J.B. Biochemistry 35, 8776–8785 (1996).
Nath, U. & Udgaonkar, J.B. Biochemistry 34, 1702–1713 (1995).
Wu, P. & Brand, L. Biochemistry 33, 10457–10462 (1994).
Cantor, C.R. & Schimmel, P.R. In Biophysical chemistry 451–454 (W. H. Freeman & Co., New York; 1980).
Lakowicz, J.R. In Principles of fluorescence spectroscopy 2nd edn 371–376 (Plenum Press, New York; 1999).
Lubienski, M.J., Bycroft, M., Freund, S.M. & Fersht, A.R. Biochemistry 33, 8866–8877 (1994).
Wong, K.-B. & Daggett, V. Biochemistry 37, 11182–11192 (1998).
Dale, R.E., Eisinger, J. & Blumberg, W.E. Biophys. J. 26, 161–194 (1979).
Navon, A., Ittah, V., Landsman, P. Scheraga, H.A. & Haas, E. Biochemistry 40, 105–118 (2001).
Ruggiero, A.J., Todd, D.C. & Flemming, G.R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 112, 1003–1014 (1990).
Hansen, J.E., Rosenthal, S.J. & Fleming, G.R. J. Phys. Chem. 96, 3034–3040 (1992).
Lakowicz, J.R. et al. Biochemistry 27, 9149–9160 (1988).
Haas, E., Katchalski-Katzir, E. & Steinberg, I.Z. Biochemistry 17, 5064–5070 (1978).
Dos Remedios, C.G. & Moens, P.D.J. J. Struct. Biol. 115, 175–185 (1995).
Ishima, R. & Torchia, D.A. Nature Struct. Biol., 7, 740–743 (2000).
Beechem J.M. & Haas, E. Biophys J. 55, 1225–1236 (1989).
Eis, P.S. & Lakowicz, J.R. Biochemistry 32, 7981–7993 (1993).
Dill, K.A. & Shortle, D. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 60, 795–825 (1991).
Ptitsyn, O.B. In Protein Folding (ed. Creighton, T.E.) 243–300 (W.H. Freeman & Co., New York; 1992).
Klimov, D.K. & Thirumalai, D. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 97, 2544–2549 (2000).
Englander, S.W. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 29, 213–238 (2000).
Smith, C.K. et al. Protein Sci. 5, 2009–2019 (1996).
Plaxco K.W. et al. Biochemistry 37, 2529–2537 (1998).
Lakshmikanth, G.S. & Krishnamoorthy, G. Biophys. J. 77, 1100–1106 (1999).
Alcala, J.R., Gratton, E. & Prendergast, F.G. Biophys. J. 51, 597–604 (1987).
Gryczynski, I.M. Eftink & Lakowicz, J.R. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 954, 244–252 (1988).
Ittah, V. & Haas, E. Biochemistry 34, 4493–4506 (1995).
Bismuto, E., Sirnagelo, I. & Irace, G. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 291, 38–42 (1991).
Swaminathan, R., Krishnamoorthy, G. & Periasamy, N. Biophys. J. 67, 2013–2023 (1994).
Acknowledgements
We thank N. Periasamy for the MEM software and advice on its use; A.S.R. Koti for discussion and help regarding MEM analysis; and M.K. Mathew, S. Mayor and B. Rami for critical reading of the manuscript. This work was funded by the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research and by the Wellcome Trust. J.B.U. is the recipient of a Swarnajayanti Fellowship from the Government of India.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lakshmikanth, G., Sridevi, K., Krishnamoorthy, G. et al. Structure is lost incrementally during the unfolding of barstar. Nat Struct Mol Biol 8, 799–804 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/nsb0901-799
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nsb0901-799
This article is cited by
-
Intramolecular Distance Distribution Reveals Mechanisms in Protein Folding and Dynamics
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India Section A: Physical Sciences (2018)
-
Fluorescence spectroscopy for revealing mechanisms in biology: Strengths and pitfalls
Journal of Biosciences (2018)
-
Analysis of Simulated Fluorescence Intensities Decays by a New Maximum Entropy Method Algorithm
Journal of Fluorescence (2013)
-
Fluorescence from Diffusing Single Molecules Illuminates Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics
Journal of Fluorescence (2007)
-
Identification of intermediate species in protein-folding by quantitative analysis of amplitudes in time-domain fluorescence spectroscopy
Journal of Chemical Sciences (2007)