Journal of Chemical Physics
Feedback | Help | Exit
The Journal of Chemical Physics
Search:
   
 
 
 
Previous Article
Folding simulations of gramicidin A into the beta-helix conformations: Simulated annealing molecular dynamics study
Gramicidin A is a linear hydrophobic 15-residue peptide which consists of alternating D- and L-amino acids and forms a unique tertiary structure, called the 6.3-helix, to act as a cation-selective ion...
Next Article
Dual folding pathways of an alpha/beta protein from all-atom ab initio folding simulations
Successful ab initio folding of proteins with both -helix and -sheet requires a delicate balance among a variety of forces in the simulation model, which may explain that the successful folding of any...

Size, shape, and flexibility of proteins and DNA

J. Chem. Phys. 131, 165104 (2009); doi:10.1063/1.3251769

Published 28 October 2009

You are not logged in to this journal. Log in

Nidhi Rawat and Parbati Biswas
Department of Chemistry, University of Delhi, Delhi 110007, India
Size, shape, and flexibility are the important topological parameters which characterize the functional specificity and different types of interactions in proteins and DNA. The size of proteins and DNA, often measured by the radius of gyration (RG), are determined from the coordinates of their respective structures available in Protein Data Bank and Nucleic Acid Data Bank. The mean square radius of gyration obeys Flory's scaling law given by <R<sub>G</sub><sup>2</sup>>~N2nu where N is the number of amino acid residues/nucleotides. The scaling exponent nu reflects the different characteristic features of nonglobular proteins, natively unstructured proteins, and DNA. The asymmetry in the shapes of proteins and DNA are investigated using the asphericity (Delta) parameter and the shape parameter (S), calculated from the eigenvalues of the moment of inertia tensor. The distributions of Delta and S show that most nonglobular proteins and DNA are aspherical and prolate (S>0). Natively unstructured proteins are comparatively spherically symmetrical having both prolate and oblate shapes. The flexibility of these molecules is characterized by the persistence length (lp). Persistence length for natively unstructured proteins is determined by fitting the distance distribution function P(r) to the wormlike chain (WLC) model in the limit of r>>RG. For nonglobular proteins and DNA, lp may be computed from the Benoit–Doty approximation for unperturbed radius of gyration of the WLC. The flexibilities of the proteins and DNA increases with the chain length. This is due to an increase in the nonlocal interactions with the increase in N, needed to minimize the conformational fluctuations in the native state. The persistence length of these proteins has not yet been measured directly. Analysis of the two-body contacts for the proteins reveals that the nonglobular proteins are less densely packed compared to the natively unstructured proteins with least side-chain side chain contacts even though side-chain backbone contacts predominate in the two types of proteins. ©2009 American Institute of Physics
History: Received 21 July 2009; accepted 29 September 2009; published 28 October 2009
Permalink: http://link.aip.org/link/?JCPSA6/131/165104/1
BUY THIS ARTICLE   (US$24)
Download HTML Download Sectioned HTML Download PDF (431 kB) View Cart

KEYWORDS and PACS

Keywords
PACS
  • 87.15.B-
    Structure of biomolecules
  • 87.15.hp
    Conformational changes of biomolecules
  • 87.15.Ya
    Fluctuations (molecular biophysics)
  • 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 (52)
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. W. Kuhn, Kolloid-Z. 68, 2 (1934).
  2. K. Solc, Polym. News 4, 67 (1977).
  3. K. Solc, J. Chem. Phys. 54, 2756 (1971).
  4. K. Paakkonen, H. Tossavainen, P. Permi, H. Rakkolainen, H. Rauvala, E. Raulo, I. Kilpelainen, and P. Guntert, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf. 64, 665 (2006).
  5. E. Stebbins and J. E. Galan, Mol. Cell. Biol. 4, 738 (2003).
  6. E. R. G. Main, A. R. Lowe, S. G. J. Mochrie, S. E. Jackson, and L. Regan, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 15, 464 (2005).
  7. T. Z. Grove, A. L. Cortajarena, and L. Regan, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 18, 507 (2008).
  8. J. Kuriyan and S. K. Burley, Nature (London) 359, 476 (1992).
  9. Q. Zhou, M. Kojic, and W. K. Holloman, J. Biol. Chem. 284, 8265 (2009).
  10. J. B. Mills and P. J. Hagerman, Nucleic Acids Res. 32, 4055 (2004).
  11. S. Jones and J. M. Thornton, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 93, 13 (1996).
  12. R. I. Dima and D. Thirumalai, J. Phys. Chem. B 108, 6564 (2004).
  13. Y. Seol, J. Li, P. C. Nelson, T. T. Perkins, and M. D. Betterton, Biophys. J. 93, 4360 (2007).
  14. J. Kas, H. Strey, J. Tang, D. Finger, R. Ezzell, E. Sackmann, and P. Janmey, Biophys. J. 70, 609 (1996).
  15. L. Le Goff, O. Hallatschek, E. Frey, and F. Amblard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 258101 (2002).
  16. F. C. MacKintosh, J. Kas, and P. A. Janmey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4425 (1995).
  17. A. Ott, M. Magnasco, A. Simon, and A. Libchaber, Phys. Rev. E 48, 1642 (1993).
  18. M. D. Wang, H. Yin, R. Landick, J. Gelles, and S. M. Block, Biophys. J. 72, 1335 (1997).
  19. A. Aronovitz and D. R. Nelson, J. Phys. (Paris) 47, 1445 (1986).
  20. E. J. Rawdon, J. C. Kern, M. Piatek, P. Plunkett, A. Stasiak, and K. C. Millett, Macromolecules 41, 8281 (2008).
  21. J. Rudnick and G. Gaspari, Science 237, 384 (1987).
  22. G. Beaucage, S. Rane, S. Sukumaran, M. M. Satkowski, L. A. Schechtman, and Y. Doi, Macromolecules 30, 4158 (1997).
  23. T. Mourey, K. Le, T. Bryan, S. Zheng, and G. Bennett, Polymer 46, 9033 (2005).
  24. O. Kratky and G. Porod, Recl. Trav. Chim. Pays-Bas 68, 1106 (1949).
  25. D. Thirumalai and B. Y. Ha, in Theoretical and Mathematical Models in Polymer Research, edited by A. Grosberg (Academic, San Diego, 1998), Chap. 1, p. 135.
  26. P. J. Flory, Statistical Theory of Chain Molecules (Wiley, New York, 1969).
  27. M. Doi and S. F. Edwards, The Theory Of Polymer Dynamics (Clarendon, Oxford, 1986).
  28. H. Benoit and P. Dotty, J. Phys. Chem. 57, 958 (1953).
  29. T. E. Creighton, Proteins: Structures and Molecular Properties (W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1993).
  30. V. Z. Spassov, L. Yan, and P. K. Flook, Protein Sci. 16, 494 (2007).
  31. P. G. Gennes, Scaling Concepts in Polymer Physics (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1979).
  32. A. Y. Grosberg and A. R. Khokhlov, Statistical Physics of Macromolecules (American Institute of Physics, Woodbury, 1994).
  33. M. E. Fisher, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 26, 44 (1969).
  34. K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. B 4, 3184 (1971).
  35. K. G. Wilson and M. E. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 240 (1972).
  36. F. Valle, M. Favre, D. L. R. Paolo, A. Rosa, and G. Dietler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 158105 (2005).
  37. L. Hong and J. Lei, J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. Phys. 47, 207 (2009).
  38. G. A. Arteca, Phys. Rev. E 49, 2417 (1994).
  39. R. W. Kriwacki, J. Wu, L. Tennant, P. E. Wright, and G. Siuzdak, J. Chromatogr. A 777, 23 (1997).
  40. J. Liphardt, Biophys. J. 93, 4099 (2007).
  41. X. Liu and G. H. Pollack, Biophys. J. 83, 2705 (2002).
  42. Z. Bu, S. Koide, and D. M. Engelman, Protein Sci. 7, 2681 (1998).
  43. J. E. Wedekind, R. Gillilan, A. Janda, J. Krucinska, J. D. Salter, R. P. Bennett, J. Raina, and H. C. Smith, J. Biol. Chem. 281, 38122 (2006).
  44. J. des Cloizeaux, Phys. Rev. A 10, 1665 (1974).
  45. M. Bishop and J. H. R. Clarke, J. Chem. Phys. 94, 3936 (1991).
  46. S. Elli, F. Ganazzoli, E. G. Timoshenko, Y. A. Kuznetsov, and R. Connolly, J. Chem. Phys. 120, 6257 (2004).
  47. F. Pampaloni, G. Lattanzi, A. Jons, T. Surrey, E. Frey, and E. L. Florin, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 10248 (2006).
  48. R. G. Winkler, J. Chem. Phys. 118, 2919 (2003).
  49. C. Hyeon, R. I. Dima, and D. Thirumalai, J. Chem. Phys. 125, 194905 (2006).
  50. C. R. Cantor and P. R. Schimmel, Biophysical Chemistry (Freeman, San Fransisco, 1979).
  51. P. E. Greenwood and M. S. Nikulin, A Guide to Chi-Squared Testing (Wiley, New York, 1996).
  52. N. V. Buchete, J. E. Straub, and D. Thirumalai, J. Chem. Phys. 118, 7658 (2003).

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