Journal of Chemical Physics
Feedback | Help | Exit
The Journal of Chemical Physics
Search:
   
 
 
 
Previous Article
On the temperature dependence of the nonexponentiality in glass-forming liquids
Using a simple mathematical formalism, we show that temperature dependent nonexponential relaxation found in glass-forming liquids and amorphous polymers, often resulting in a decrease in the stretchi...
Next Article
Osmotic pressure and virial coefficients of star and comb polymer solutions: Dissipative particle dynamics
The effects of macromolecular architecture on the osmotic pressure and virial coefficients (B2 and B3) of star and comb polymers in good solvents are studied by dissipative particle dynamics simulati...

How accurate are polymer models in the analysis of Förster resonance energy transfer experiments on proteins?

J. Chem. Phys. 130, 124903 (2009); doi:10.1063/1.3082151

Published 24 March 2009

You are not logged in to this journal. Log in

Edward P. O'Brien,1,2 Greg Morrison,1,3 Bernard R. Brooks,2 and D. Thirumalai1,4
1Biophysics Program, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
2Laboratory of Computational Biology, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA
3School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02138, USA
4Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and Institute for Physical Science and Technology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
Single molecule Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET) experiments are used to infer the properties of the denatured state ensemble (DSE) of proteins. From the measured average FRET efficiency, <E>, the distance distribution P(R) is inferred by assuming that the DSE can be described as a polymer. The single parameter in the appropriate polymer model (Gaussian chain, wormlike chain, or self-avoiding walk) for P(R) is determined by equating the calculated and measured <E>. In order to assess the accuracy of this “standard procedure,” we consider the generalized Rouse model (GRM), whose properties [<E> and P(R)] can be analytically computed, and the Molecular Transfer Model for protein L for which accurate simulations can be carried out as a function of guanadinium hydrochloride (GdmCl) concentration. Using the precisely computed <E> for the GRM and protein L, we infer P(R) using the standard procedure. We find that the mean end-to-end distance can be accurately inferred (less than 10% relative error) using <E> and polymer models for P(R). However, the value extracted for the radius of gyration (Rg) and the persistence length (lp) are less accurate. For protein L, the errors in the inferred properties increase as the GdmCl concentration increases for all polymer models. The relative error in the inferred Rg and lp, with respect to the exact values, can be as large as 25% at the highest GdmCl concentration. We propose a self-consistency test, requiring measurements of <E> by attaching dyes to different residues in the protein, to assess the validity of describing DSE using the Gaussian model. Application of the self-consistency test to the GRM shows that even for this simple model, which exhibits an order-->disorder transition, the Gaussian P(R) is inadequate. Analysis of experimental data of FRET efficiencies with dyes at several locations for the cold shock protein, and simulations results for protein L, for which accurate FRET efficiencies between various locations were computed, shows that at high GdmCl concentrations there are significant deviations in the DSE P(R) from the Gaussian model. ©2009 American Institute of Physics
History: Received 26 September 2008; accepted 6 January 2009; published 24 March 2009
Permalink: http://link.aip.org/link/?JCPSA6/130/124903/1
BUY THIS ARTICLE   (US$24)
Download HTML Download Sectioned HTML Download PDF (736 kB) View Cart

KEYWORDS and PACS

Keywords
PACS
  • 87.15.B-
    Structure of biomolecules
  • 87.15.Cc
    Folding of biomolecules: thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, models and pathways
  • 02.50.-r
    Probability theory, stochastic processes, and statistics
  • 87.10.-e
    General theory and mathematical aspects (biological/medical physics)
  • YEAR: 2009

RELATED DATABASES


To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.
To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.

PUBLICATION DATA

ISSN:
0021-9606 (print)   1089-7690 (online)
Publisher:
AIP is a member of CrossRef AIP

REFERENCES (31)
View in Separate Window/Tab
For access to fully linked references, you need to log in. For access to fully linked references, you need to Log in.
  1. S. E. Jackson, Folding Des. 3, R81 (1998).
  2. A. R. Fersht, Structure and Mechanism in Protein Science: A Guide to Enzyme Catalysis and Protein Folding, 2nd ed. (Freeman, New York, 1999).
  3. D. K. Klimov and D. Thirumalai, J. Mol. Biol. 353, 1171 (2005).
  4. B. Schuler and W. A. Eaton, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 18, 16 (2008).
  5. G. Haran, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 15, R1291 (2003).
  6. A. A. Deniz, T. A. Laurence, G. S. Beligere, M. Dahan, A. B. Martin, D. S. Chemla, P. E. Dawson, P. G. Schultz, and S. Weiss, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97, 5179 (2000).
  7. A. Navon, V. Ittah, P. Landsman, H. A. Scheraga, and E. Haas, Biochemistry 40, 105 (2001).
  8. E. Rhoades, M. Cohen, B. Schuler, and G. Haran, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 126, 14686 (2004).
  9. K. K. Sinha and J. B. Udgaonkar, J. Mol. Biol. 353, 704 (2005).
  10. E. V. Kuzmenkina, C. D. Heyes, and G. U. Nienhaus, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 15471 (2005).
  11. E. Sherman and G. Haran, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 11539 (2006).
  12. A. M. Saxena, J. B. Udgaonkar, and G. Krishnamoorthy, J. Mol. Biol. 359, 174 (2006).
  13. A. Hoffmann, A. Kane, D. Nettels, D. E. Hertzog, P. Baumgartel, J. Lengefeld, G. Reichardt, D. A. Horsley, R. Seckler, O. Bakajin, and B. Schuler, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 105 (2007).
  14. K. A. Merchant, R. B. Best, J. M. Louis, I. V. Gopich, and W. A. Eaton, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 1528 (2007).
  15. D. Thirumalai and D. K. Klimov, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 9, 197 (1999).
  16. G. U. Nienhaus, Macromol. Biosci. 6, 907 (2006).
  17. I. V. Gopich and A. Szabo, J. Phys. Chem. B 107, 5058 (2003).
  18. C. Hyeon, G. Morrison, and D. Thirumalai, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 9604 (2008).
  19. E. P. O'Brien, G. Ziv, G. Haran, B. R. Brooks, and D. Thirumalai, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 13403 (2008).
  20. C. Magg, J. Kubelka, G. Holtermann, E. Haas, and F. X. Schmid, J. Mol. Biol. 360, 1067 (2006).
  21. K. K. Sinha and J. B. Udgaonkar, J. Mol. Biol. 370, 385 (2007).
  22. Q. Yi, M. L. Scalley, K. T. Simons, S. T. Gladwin, and D. Baker, Folding Des. 2, 271 (1997).
  23. K. W. Plaxco, I. S. Millett, D. J. Segel, S. Doniach, and D. Baker, Nat. Struct. Biol. 6, 554 (1999).
  24. D. E. Kim, C. Fisher, and D. Baker, J. Mol. Biol. 298, 971 (2000).
  25. C. J. Camacho and D. Thirumalai, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 90, 6369 (1993).
  26. D. K. Klimov and D. Thirumalai, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97, 2544 (2000).
  27. T. Veitshans, D. Klimov, and D. Thirumalai, Folding Des. 2, 1 (1997).
  28. A. M. Ferrenberg and R. H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1195 (1989).
  29. S. Kumar, D. Bouzida, R. H. Swendsen, P. A. Kollman, and J. M. Rosenberg, J. Comput. Chem. 13, 1011 (1992).
  30. J. Shea, Y. D. Nochomovitz, Z. Guo, and C. L. Brooks, J. Chem. Phys. 109, 2895 (1998).
  31. M. Auton and D. W. Bolen, Biochemistry 43, 1329 (2004).

CITING ARTICLES
For access to citing articles, you need to log in.
For access to citing articles, you need to Log in.


Copyright © American Institute of Physics