Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:51:18.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biophysics of Energy Converting Model Proteins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

D. W. Urry
D. W. Urry*
Affiliation:
The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Laboratory of Molecular Biophysics, VH300, Birmingham, AL 35294–0019
Get access

Abstract

The biophysics of energy converting model proteins is presented as a general set of three postulates with fifteen corollaries for fifteen subtypes of molecular machines. All of the molecular machines utilize a common structural transition, an inverse temperature transition characterized by increased hydrophobic folding and/or assembly as the temperature is increased through a transition temperature range identified by Tt. These molecular machines, which can be polymers (e.g., proteins or protein-based polymers), are capable of interconverting the free energies involving the six intensive variables of mechanical force, temperature, pressure, chemical potential, electrochemical potential, and electromagnetic radiation.

First-order molecular machines of the Tt-type are molecular engines which, with the appropriate energy input, can result in the production of useful mechanical motion. Postulate I is for the thermally-driven molecular engine. Postulate II with four corollaries is for the four cases where the energy inputs drive hydrophobic folding by lowering the temperature, Tt, at which the inverse temperature transition occurs. This is called the ΔTt-mechanism. The four energy inputs that have been shown to change the value of Tt are due to changes (1) in concentrations of chemicals, (2) in oxidative state of attached prosthetic groups, (3) in pressure, and (4) resulting from the absorption of light by attached chromophores. Postulate III with ten corollaries are for the ten pairwise energy conversions involving the intensive variables listed above exclusive of mechanical force. These energy conversions utilize the hydrophobic association transition but do not result in the motion implicit in the folding or assembly process. These are second-order molecular machines of the Tt-type.

The physical basis for the ΔTt-mechanism of energy conversion of Postulates II and III is proposed to arise due to competition for hydration between apolar (hydrophobic) and polar moieties. This competition is capable of effecting large changes in pKa values of Glu, Asp, Lys and His residues. This mechanism is proposed to be a dominant process in protein folding, assembly, and function.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 330: Symposium S – Biomolecular Materials by Design , 1993 , 321
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Urry, D. W., Prog. Biophys. molec. Biol. 57, 23–27 (1992).Google Scholar
2. Urry, D. W., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 32, 819–841 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Stackelberg, M. V. and Muller, H. R., Naturwissenschaften 38, 456 (1951).Google Scholar
4. Teeter, M. M., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 81, 6014–6018 (1984).Google Scholar
5. Urry, D. W., Long, M. M. and Sugano, H., J. Biol. Chem. 253, 6301–6302 (1978).Google Scholar
6. Cook, W. J., Einspahr, H. M., Trapane, T. L., Urry, D. W. and Bugg, C. E., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 102, 5502–5505 (1980).Google Scholar
7. C-Luan, H., Krishna, N. R. and Urry, D. W., Int. J. Quant. Chem.: Quant. Biol. Symp. 17, 145–159(1990).Google Scholar
8. Urry, D. W., Gowda, D. C., Parker, T. M., Luan, C-H., Reid, M. C., Harris, C. M., Pattanaik, A. and Harris, R. D., Biopolymers 32, 1243–1250 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Hill, T. L., in Free Energy Transduction and Biochemical Cycle Kinetics, (Springer- Verlag New York, Inc., NY, 1989).Google Scholar
10. Hill, T. L., in Free Energy Transduction in Biology, (Academic Press, New York, NY, 1977).Google Scholar
11. Mitchell, P., Trans. Biochem. Soc. 4, 399–430 (1976).Google Scholar
12. Kauzmann, W., Adv. Protein Chem. 14, 1–63 (1959).Google Scholar
13. See for example Edsall, J. T. and McKenzie, H. A., Adv. Biophys. 16, 53–183 (1983) and references therein.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Privalov, P. L., Critical Reviews in Biochem. and Molec. Biol. 25, 281–305 (1990).Google Scholar
15. Ben-Naim, A., Hydrophobic Interaction (Plenum Press, New York, 1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Dill, K. A., Biochemistry 29, 7133–7155 (1990).Google Scholar
17. See for example Gurney, R. W., in Ions in Solution, Chapt. l(Cambridge University Press. London (1936); Reprinted 1960. Dover Publications Inc. New York, N.Y.).Google Scholar
18. Tanford, C. and Kirkwood, J. G., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 79, 5333–5339 (1957).Google Scholar
19. Urry, D. W., Peng, S. Q., Hayes, L., Jaggard, J. and Harris, R. D., Biopolymers 30, 215–218 (1990).Google Scholar
20. Urry, D. W., Luan, C-H., Harris, R. D. and Prasad, K. U., Polym. Preprints, Am. Chem. Soc. Div. Polym. Chem., Inc. 31, 188–189 (1990).Google Scholar
21. Urry, D. W., Peng, S. Q., Parker, T. M., Gowda, D. C. and Harris, R. D., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. (1993) (in press); Angew. Chem. (German) 105, 1523–1525 (1993).Google Scholar
22. Urry, D. W., Peng, S. Q. and Parker, T. M., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 115, 7509–7510 (1993).Google Scholar
23. Urry, D. W., Gowda, D. C., Peng, S. Q., Parker, T. M. and Harris, R. D., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 114, 8716–8717 (1992).Google Scholar
24. Urry, D. W., Gowda, D. C., Peng, S. Q., Parker, T. M., Jing, N. and Harris, R. D., submitted to Biopolymers (1993).Google Scholar