1: \documentclass[english,12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
3: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
4: \usepackage{babel}
5: \usepackage{cite}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \title{\textbf{Energetics of Protein Thermodynamic Cooperativity: Contributions
10: of Local and Nonlocal Interactions}}
11: \author{Michael Knott, H\"useyin Kaya and Hue Sun Chan\footnote
12: {E-mail: chan@arrhenius.med.toronto.edu; Tel: +1~416~978~2697; Fax:
13: +1~416~978~8548; Mailing address: Department of Biochemistry,
14: University of Toronto, Medical Sciences Building, 1 King's College
15: Circle, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A8, Canada.} \\
16: \normalsize{Protein Engineering Network of Centres of Excellence (PENCE),}\\
17: \normalsize{Department of Biochemistry, and} \\
18: \normalsize{Department of Medical Genetics \& Microbiology,} \\
19: \normalsize{Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto,} \\
20: \normalsize{Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A8, Canada}}
21:
22: \maketitle
23:
24: \noindent
25: \textbf{Keywords:} calorimetry / G\=o models / two-state cooperativity/\\
26: single-domain proteins / radius of gyration
27:
28: \section*{Abstract}
29:
30: The respective roles of local and nonlocal interactions in the
31: thermodynamic cooperativity of proteins are investigated using
32: continuum (off-lattice) native-centric G\=o-like models with
33: a coarse-grained C$_\alpha$ chain representation. We study a
34: series of models in which the (local) bond- and torsion-angle terms
35: have different strengths relative to the (nonlocal)
36: pairwise contact energy terms. Conformational distributions in
37: these models are sampled by Langevin dynamics. Thermodynamic
38: cooperativity is characterized by the experimental criteria
39: requiring the van't Hoff to calorimetric enthalpy ratio
40: $\Delta H_{\rm vH}/\Delta H_{\rm cal}\approx 1$ (the calorimetric
41: criterion), as well as a two-state-like variation of the average
42: radius of gyration upon denaturation. We find that both local
43: and nonlocal interactions are critical for thermodynamic cooperativity.
44: Chain models with either much weakened local conformational propensities
45: or much weakened favorable nonlocal interactions are significantly less
46: cooperative than chain models with both strong local propensities and
47: strong favorable nonlocal interactions. These findings are compared with
48: results from a recently proposed lattice model with a local-nonlocal
49: coupling mechanism; their relationship with experimental measurements of
50: protein cooperativity and chain compactness is discussed.
51:
52: \pagebreak
53:
54: \section{Introduction}
55:
56: How a globular protein can fold reliably into a particular three dimensional
57: conformation \emph{in vitro}, without the participation of molecular
58: chaperones, is a central puzzle in biophysics. If we wish not only to
59: predict the folded state of a protein, but also to understand the folding
60: phenomenon in terms of physical processes, we need to use physics-based
61: methods: we run computer simulations of self-contained polymer models
62: \cite{Cha02}
63: that attempt to mimic the behavior of real protein molecules. A complete
64: quantum mechanical simulation, which would include the solvent molecules
65: in addition to all the atoms in the protein molecule, is not yet possible.
66: But in attempting to design simplified models, we face the problem
67: of how to simplify: which characteristics are essential and which
68: can be neglected? What effective energy functions does this imply
69: for the simplified system?
70:
71: Part of this general question is addressed in this article. Folding
72: experiments on small globular proteins have long shown evidence of
73: thermodynamic and kinetic cooperativity \cite{Jac91,Bak00}, which indicates a
74: phenomenon similar to a first order phase transition between native and
75: denatured states. As our group has argued recently
76: \cite{Cha00,Kay00a,Kay00b,Kay02,Kay03a}, this
77: observation
78: can be exploited to constrain the set of possible simplified models and
79: interaction schemes: for a particular simplified model to be a quantitatively
80: accurate representation of protein thermodynamics and kinetics, it is
81: essential that, when appropriately applied to a small globular protein,
82: it can produce the experimentally observed generic cooperative behavior.
83:
84: Such constraints turn out to be rather stringent. It is nontrivial
85: to construct model interaction schemes that can produce proteinlike
86: cooperativities \cite{Cha00,Kay00a,Kay00b,Kay02,Kay03a}.
87: A case in point is a class of common G\=o-like \cite{Tak75}
88: models \cite{Kay03a,Cle00}. Their potential functions are native-centric, in
89: that they are
90: explicitly biased to favor a given native structure. G\=o-like modeling
91: of proteins has provided important physical insights
92: \cite{Cle00,Mic99,Zho99,Por01}. These include
93: an increasing number of elegant elucidations of functional protein dynamics
94: under native conditions \cite{Hal97,Kes02,Isi02,Mic02,Jac01}.
95: As for global folding and unfolding of
96: proteins (in contrast to their near-native dynamics), a detailed discussion
97: of the merits and limitations of G\=o-like approaches can be found in
98: Ref.~\cite{Kay03a}. Notably, common G\=o-like models do not appear capable of
99: producing
100: simple two-state folding/unfolding kinetics. Instead, their chevron plots
101: exhibit severe rollovers, which are typical of the class of folding
102: kinetics that is
103: customarily referred to as non-two-state \cite{Kay03a,Kay03b}.
104: Nonetheless, common
105: three-dimensional G\=o-like protein models seem sufficient to produce
106: apparent two-state thermodynamic behavior \cite{Kay00a,Kay03a}, although their
107: two-dimensional counterparts fail to do so \cite{Cha00}.
108:
109: In the present investigation, we limit our scope to thermodynamic
110: cooperativity. Specifically, we aim to explore how protein
111: thermodynamic two-state-like behavior is affected by the relative
112: strengths
113: of local interactions (between residues close together along the chain
114: sequence) and nonlocal interactions (between
115: residues far apart along the chain sequence). The respective roles
116: of local and nonlocal interactions are an issue of long standing interest
117: in the study of protein energetics \cite{Go_78,Dil90,Abk95,Cha98,Bal99,Por01-2},
118: and the effect of analogous interactions on the phase diagram of lattice
119: polymers has also been investigated \cite{Deg75,Don96,Bas97,Doy98}.
120: Here the issue is addressed
121: by varying the potential function in a series of coarse-grained G\=o-like
122: models, which represent the protein as a string of C$_\alpha$ positions
123: in continuum space and which are simulated using Langevin dynamics. In
124: view
125: of the limitations of common G\=o models \cite{Kay03a}, the present study
126: should
127: be viewed as a first step in tackling the issue of local vs. nonlocal
128: interactions in cooperative continuum protein models. To assess
129: the robustness of our conclusions, results from the continuum Langevin
130: models
131: are also compared with results from lattice model simulations.
132:
133: We begin in section 2 by providing details of the models. An outline of the
134: thermodynamics involved in interpreting the simulations is given
135: in section 3. Our findings are presented in section 4, and we conclude
136: in section 5 with a discussion of the implications of our results.
137: \\
138:
139: \section{Models and simulation details}
140:
141: \subsection{Continuum models}
142:
143: For the present continuum G\=o-like models we use a representation,
144: introduced by Clementi \emph{et al.} \cite{Cle00}, of the 64-residue truncated
145: form of chymotrypsin inhibitor 2 (CI2). The native contact set
146: corresponds to NCS2 in Ref.~\cite{Kay03a}.
147:
148: We use an energy function that is similar to one used previously
149: \cite{Kay03a,Cle00,Kog01}.
150: The potential energy function \( V \), from which the conformational force
151: is derived, is given by
152: \begin{equation}
153: \label{fda}
154: V=V_{\rm stretching}+V_{\rm bending}+V_{\rm torsion}
155: +V_{\rm native}+V_{\rm nonnative},
156: \end{equation}
157: where\begin{equation}
158: \label{fdb}
159: V_{\rm stretching}=\sum _{i=1}^{N-1}k_{l}\left( l^{i}-l^{i}_{0}\right) ^{2}
160: \end{equation}
161: contains a summation over the virtual bonds between pairs of residues,
162: \begin{equation}
163: \label{fdc}
164: V_{\rm bending}=\sum _{i=1}^{N-2}\varepsilon _{\theta }(\theta ^{i}-\theta
165: ^{i}_{0})^{2}
166: \end{equation}
167: involves a summation over the virtual bond angles between triplets of residues,
168: and
169: \begin{equation}
170: \label{fdd}
171: V_{\rm torsion}=\sum _{i=1}^{N-3}\left\{ \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)}\left[ 1-\cos
172: \left( \phi ^{i}-\phi ^{i}_{0}\right) \right] +\varepsilon _{\phi }^{(3)}\left[ 1-\cos 3\left( \phi ^{i}-\phi ^{i}_{0}\right) \right] \right\}
173: \end{equation}
174: represents the virtual torsional potential between quadruplets of residues.
175: The latter contains a term with a single minimum as well as the traditional
176: three-minimum term \cite{Bra67}.
177: [We note that there is an apparent typographical error in the corresponding
178: $V_{\rm torsion}$ in \cite{Cle00}, which effectively lists these terms
179: as $1+\cos\left( \phi ^{i}-\phi ^{i}_{0}\right)$ and
180: $1+\cos 3\left( \phi ^{i}-\phi ^{i}_{0}\right)$. But such terms would
181: fold the chain into the mirror image of the PDB structure.]
182: \( V_{\rm stretching} \), \( V_{\rm bending} \)
183: and \( V_{\rm torsion} \) together account for the local interactions
184: (between residues that are separated by no more than three places
185: along the chain), which include local conformational propensities for
186: the native structure. The local interactions are expressed in this way
187: because it biases the local geometry of the chain. The fourth term,
188: \begin{equation}
189: \label{fde}
190: V_{\rm native}=\sum _{\left| i-j\right| \geq 4}\varepsilon
191: _{\rm native}\left[5\left(
192: \frac{r_{0}^{ij}}{r^{ij}}\right) ^{12}-6\left( \frac{r_{0}^{ij}}{r^{ij}}\right)
193: ^{10}\right],
194: \end{equation}
195: sums over the pairwise interactions between residues that are regarded
196: as being in contact in the native structure; this accounts for the
197: nonlocal interactions (between residues that are separated by four
198: or more places along the chain). Finally,
199: \begin{equation}
200: \label{fdf}
201: V_{\rm nonnative}=\sum _{\left| i-j\right| \geq q}
202: \varepsilon \left( \frac{r_{\rm rep}}{r^{ij}}\right) ^{12}
203: \end{equation}
204: contains repulsive pairwise interactions between other pairs of residues,
205: in order to ensure the self-avoidance of the chain.
206:
207: The chain contains \( N \) residues. \( l^{i} \) is the length of
208: virtual bond \( i \), \( \theta ^{i} \) is a bond angle, \( \phi ^{i} \)
209: is a dihedral angle and \( r^{ij} \) is the distance between two
210: residues \( i \) and \( j \). The corresponding values in the native
211: structure are \( l^{i}_{0} \), \( \theta ^{i}_{0} \), \( \phi ^{i}_{0} \)
212: and \( r^{ij}_{0} \). The range \( r_{\rm rep} \) of the repulsive potential
213: between pairs of residues that are not bonded and do not interact
214: via a native contact interaction is set to 4~\AA. Length is expressed
215: in units of \AA, and energy in units of \( \varepsilon \),
216: the energy parameter of the nonnative repulsive interaction, so that
217: \( \varepsilon \) itself is unity. \( k_{l} \), \( \varepsilon _{\theta } \),
218: \( \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)} \), \( \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(3)} \)
219: and \( \varepsilon _{\rm native} \) are also parameters of the potential energy
220: function. \( k_{l} \) is fixed at \( 100\varepsilon /\textrm{\AA} \),
221: but the other parameters can be varied;
222: \( \varepsilon _{\theta }=20\varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)} \)
223: and \( \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(3)}=0.5\varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)} \)
224: are defined in terms of \( \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)} \), which can
225: be varied to test the effect of changing the strength of the local
226: interactions, while \( \varepsilon _{\rm native} \) can also be varied (see
227: below) in order to test the effect of changing the strength of the
228: non-local interactions. The energy of the system is thus controlled
229: by three parameters \( \varepsilon \), \( \varepsilon _{\rm native} \)
230: and \( \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)} \). All interaction parameters
231: are taken to be temperature independent in the present study.
232:
233: Apart from the variable parameters, this energy function differs from
234: the similar function used in \cite{Kay03a,Cle00,Kog01}
235: in two further important ways,
236: as follows. (1) For \( r^{ij}/r_{0}^{ij}<\sqrt{5/6} \),
237: we set \( \varepsilon _{\rm native}=\varepsilon \), while for \(
238: r^{ij}/r_{0}^{ij}\geq \sqrt{5/6} \),
239: we set \( \varepsilon _{\rm native}=\varepsilon _{a} \). Then we can
240: vary the native interaction parameter \( \varepsilon _{a} \), in
241: order to test the effect of changing the strength of the non-bonded
242: attractive interactions between residues, while the short-range repulsive
243: part of \( V_{\rm native} \) maintains the self-avoidance of the chain.
244: (2) The value \( q \), which is the smallest number of places along
245: the chain by which two residues can be separated if they are to interact
246: by \( V_{\rm nonnative} \), can be set either to \( q=4 \) (in order
247: to eliminate any double counting of local interactions, in situations
248: where \( \varepsilon ^{(1)}_{\phi } \) is not being varied) or to
249: \( q=2 \) (in order to allow \( \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)} \) to
250: decrease without compromising the self-avoidance of the chain).
251:
252: The equation of motion of each residue is
253: \begin{equation}
254: \label{fdg}
255: m\frac{\partial v^{i}(t)}{\partial t}=F_{\rm conf}^{i}(t)-m\gamma v^{i}(t)+\eta
256: ^{i}(t),
257: \end{equation}
258: where \( m \) is the mass of a residue (set to unity), \( \gamma \)
259: is the coefficient of friction, \( t \) is time, and \( v^{i}(t) \),
260: \( F_{\rm conf}^{i}(t) \) and \( \eta ^{i}(t) \) represent each of the
261: three components of the velocity, conformational force and random
262: force, respectively \cite{Vei97}.
263: The random force is given by\begin{equation}
264: \label{fdh}
265: \eta ^{i}(t)=\sqrt{\frac{2m\gamma k_{B}T}{\delta t}}\xi ^{i},
266: \end{equation}
267: where \( \delta t \) is the integration time step and \( \xi ^{i} \)
268: is a random variable taken from a Gaussian distribution with zero
269: mean and unit variance. The most appropriate time scale can be estimated
270: \cite{Vei97} by \( \tau =\sqrt{m_{0}a_{0}^{2}/\varepsilon _{0}} \),
271: where \( m_{0} \), \( a_{0} \) and \( \varepsilon _{0} \) are the
272: mass, length and energy scales, respectively. We set \( m_{0}=m=1 \),
273: \( \varepsilon _{0}=\varepsilon =1 \) and \( a_{0}=4 \)~\AA
274: (the latter is approximately the length of a virtual bond between two
275: residues and is also the range \( r_{\rm rep} \) of the repulsive interaction),
276: and so \( \tau =4 \).
277: We define the integration time step \( \delta t=0.005\tau \)
278: and the coefficient of friction \( \gamma =0.05\tau ^{-1} \) in terms
279: of this time scale. The velocity-verlet algorithm
280: \cite{Kay03a,Vei97,All87} is used to integrate the equations of motion.
281:
282:
283: \subsection{Lattice models}
284:
285: The lattice models considered here are 27mers with a maximally
286: compact native (ground-state) conformation. Details of the models have
287: been described elsewhere \cite{Kay03c,Kay03d}.
288: We compare three native-centric
289: interaction scenarios which have varying degrees, and different mechanisms, of
290: thermodynamic cooperativity. As an example of a particular native conformation
291: to which these three scenarios can be applied, we choose the one in
292: Ref.~\cite{Kay03d} with
293: relative contact order $0.410$. In scenario (i), which corresponds to the
294: common G\=o model, the native contact interactions are pairwise additive.
295: In scenario (ii), we add an extra favorable energy $E_{\rm gs}$ for the
296: native structure as a whole (as defined by equation~5 in Ref.~\cite{Kay03c}).
297: Scenario (iii) introduces, in place of the extra favorable energy, a coupling
298: between the strength of the contact interaction and the local geometry: two
299: residues which are in contact in the native state will interact strongly
300: only when the local geometries of the protein chain around the residues are
301: the same as those in the native state, as described in
302: Ref.~\cite{Kay03d}. We
303: characterize this mechanism as local-nonlocal coupling or ``a cooperative
304: interplay between favorable nonlocal interactions and local conformational
305: preferences'' \cite{Kay03d}. In this scenario, the strength of the native
306: contact
307: interaction is reduced by an
308: attenuation factor \( a \) when the local geometry is nonnative. The common
309: (uncoupled) G\=o model is
310: equivalent to \( a=1 \) (no attenuation), while \( a=0 \) implies complete
311: coupling; $a=0$ is used here. Under scenarios (i) and (iii), the native
312: state has an energy of $-28$ units, while the extra favorable native
313: energy in scenario (ii) changes the energy of the native state to $-42$ units.
314: Standard Monte Carlo methods are used for conformational sampling
315: \cite{Kay03c,Kay03d}.
316: The permitted chain moves are end flips, corner flips, crankshafts
317: and rigid rotations. Each attempted move is counted as one simulation time
318: step, irrespective of whether the move is accepted by the Metropolis
319: criterion.
320: \\
321:
322:
323: \section{Thermodynamics}
324:
325: All simulations are performed at constant temperature, with no
326: explicit consideration of pressure. This is because the focus of
327: the present study is protein behavior under atmospheric pressure,
328: and the contribution of a \( PV \) term to protein
329: energetics is small under these conditions \cite{Cha00}.
330: Therefore, for our present
331: purposes, we can
332: consider the Helmholtz and Gibbs free energies to be equivalent.
333:
334: \subsection{Calculation of the heat capacity}
335:
336: The specific heat capacity \( C_{V}(T) \) of the model protein is
337: given by the standard relation
338: \begin{equation}
339: \label{ffo}
340: C_{V}(T)=\frac{1}{k_{B}T^{2}}\left[ \left\langle E^{2}(T)
341: \right\rangle -\left\langle E(T) \right\rangle^{2}\right] ,
342: \end{equation}
343: where \( k_{B} T \) is the Boltzmann constant multiplied by the absolute
344: temperature,
345: \( \left\langle X(T) \right\rangle \) denotes the Boltzmann average
346: of quantity \( X \) at temperature \( T \), and the total energy
347: \( E \) is the sum \( V+E_{K} \) of potential and kinetic energies.
348: We compute the averages by standard histogram sampling techniques
349: \cite{Kay03a,Cle00}.
350:
351: In lattice studies, the kinetic energy \( E_{K} \) is not treated.
352: Therefore, \( E \) in Eq.~(\ref{ffo}) has traditionally been taken, in protein
353: modeling, to be the
354: potential energy term \( V \). This procedure
355: has often been extended to continuum model studies, in Ref.~\cite{Kay03a}
356: for example,
357: although \( E_{K} \) is accessible and well-defined in off-lattice models.
358: However, $\langle E^2\rangle$ $-$ $\langle E\rangle^2$ $\ne$
359: $\langle V^2\rangle$ $-$ $\langle V\rangle^2$ in general. The two quantities
360: would be equal if $E_K$ were a constant, but that would be unphysical.
361: In this study, we have calculated \( C_{V}(T) \) using Eq.~(\ref{ffo}) both
362: with $E=V+E_{K}$ and with the substitution $E\rightarrow V$.
363: The results are not identical: an example is given in Fig.~1.
364:
365: Fig.~1 shows that the difference between heat capacity values obtained
366: using the two methods is small around the transition midpoint \( T_{m} \).
367: This is because any energy added to the system during the unfolding
368: transition contributes mostly to the potential rather than to the kinetic energy.
369: The difference is less negligible for the ``shoulders'' on either side
370: of the heat capacity peak. At very low temperatures, including the kinetic
371: energy contribution can lead to a smaller heat capacity, because the
372: molecule at this temperature is in a relatively fixed state: nearly all of
373: the kinetic energy is accounted for by the oscillation of pairs of residues
374: about the minima of their mutual (bonded or non-bonded) interaction
375: energies. The potential energy and the kinetic energy associated with
376: these oscillations both fluctuate, but their sum fluctuates much less, and
377: so the fluctuations in total energy are smaller than the fluctuations in
378: potential energy, with the result that the calculated heat capacity is
379: smaller when \( E_{K} \) is taken into account. Overall, Fig.~1 indicates
380: that while the difference between the heat capacities calculated using the two
381: different methods is not negligible, it is not drastic. Probably this
382: is because \( E_{K} \), while not invariant, fluctuates much less than
383: \( V \). For this reason, we do not expect conclusions drawn from previous
384: calculations of heat capacities \cite{Kay03a}, which used \( V \), to be
385: changed
386: greatly by calculations using \( E \). Nonetheless, we do expect a proper
387: account of the kinetic contributions to protein heat capacities
388: to be important in addressing the contribution of bond vector motions
389: to the heat capacity \cite{Yan97}.
390:
391: Since the \( PV \) term is neglected in the present formulation,
392: \( C_{V}(T) \) is effectively equal to \( C_{P}(T) \), which is generally
393: measured by calorimetry (and which can be expressed in a form similar to
394: Eq.~(\ref{ffo}), but with the enthalpy \( H \) taking the place of the
395: energy \( E \) \cite{Cha00,Kay00a}).
396: Therefore, we may refer to the quantity computed
397: using Eq.~(\ref{ffo}) simply as heat capacity. All subsequent heat capacity
398: curves shown in this article for the continuum models are obtained using
399: the total energy \( E=V+E_K \).
400:
401: \subsection{The free energy}
402:
403: The Helmholtz free energy of the model system is \( F(T) = -k_{B}T\ln Z(T) \),
404: where \( Z(T) \) is the partition function at temperature \( T\). It
405: follows that, in the vicinity of the simulation temperature \( T_{\rm sim} \),
406: the Helmholtz free energy of the model system at temperature \( T \), relative to
407: its value at the simulation temperature, may be approximated using the formula:
408: \begin{equation}
409: \label{ffna}
410: \frac{\Delta F(T)}{k_{B}T}=
411: \frac{F(T)}{k_{B}T}-\frac{F(T_{\rm sim})}{k_{B}T_{\rm sim}}
412: =-\ln \left\{ \sum_{i}p(E_{i};T_{\rm sim})\exp
413: \left( E_{i}\left[ \frac{1}{k_{B}T_{\rm sim}}-\frac{1}{k_{B}T}\right]
414: \right) \right\},
415: \end{equation}
416: where the sum is performed over sets of microstates in different energy
417: ranges $E_i$. \( p(E_{i};T_{\rm sim}) \) is the probability density at
418: the simulation temperature, and is estimated directly from the Langevin
419: dynamics simulations.
420:
421: The inset of Fig.~1 provides an example of \( \Delta F(T) \), showing that
422: the gradient of the free energy with
423: respect to $T$ changes rather abruptly around the transition
424: temperature \( T_{m} \) (vertical dotted lines). The transition
425: temperature \( T_{m} \) corresponds to the temperature at the peak of
426: the heat capacity curve, which was denoted by \( T_{\rm max} \) in
427: Ref.~\cite{Kay00a}.
428: Apparently, below \( T_{m} \), the system spends most time in states
429: in the vicinity of the bottom of the native basin, and so the
430: changes in \( F \) with respect to temperature are dominated by the
431: behavior of these states. However, as the temperature
432: increases past \( T_{m} \), the system, and therefore the rate of
433: change of \( F(T) \), starts to be dominated by states near
434: the bottom of the denatured basin. As a result, the
435: gradient of \( F(T) \) changes rather suddenly at \( T_{m} \).
436: While the \( F(T) \) gradient could never be discontinuous because the
437: model system is finite, the kink at \( T_{m} \) does indicate
438: that the transition is two-state-like, and therefore that it is
439: similar to a first order phase transition.
440:
441: \subsection{Thermodynamic cooperativity}
442:
443: The presence of a peak in the heat capacity at a transition temperature
444: \( T_{m} \), as in Fig.~1, indicates that the folding/unfolding transition
445: possesses a degree of thermodynamic cooperativity. As our group has
446: argued, the degree of thermodynamic cooperativity in protein models
447: can be quantified by the ratio
448: \( \kappa_{2}=\Delta H_{\rm vH}/\Delta H_{\rm cal} \) of the van't Hoff
449: enthalpy \( \Delta H_{\rm vH} \) to the calorimetric enthalpy
450: \( \Delta H_{\rm cal} \) of the transition. This ratio is closely
451: related to that determined experimentally by differential scanning
452: calorimetry \cite{Pri74}. In model studies, the calorimetric enthalpy
453: $\Delta H_{\rm cal}$ may be determined from an integral of the heat
454: capacity across the transition region,
455: \begin{equation}
456: \label{ffua}
457: \Delta H_{\rm cal}=\int dT C_{P}(T),
458: \end{equation}
459: while the van't Hoff enthalpy is equal to twice the maximum standard
460: deviation of the enthalpy distribution at the transition midpoint,
461: \begin{equation}
462: \label{ffub}
463: \Delta H_{\rm vH}=2\sqrt{k_{B}T_{m}^{2}C_{P}^{\rm max}},
464: \end{equation}
465: where \( C_{P}^{\rm max} \) is the peak value of the heat capacity. We
466: have followed standard usage in this section by expressing \( \kappa _{2} \)
467: in terms of \( H \) and \( C_{P} \). However, as mentioned in the
468: previous section, simulations produce values for \( E \) and \( C_{V} \),
469: which for the present application are essentially equivalent
470: to \( H \) and \( C_{P} \).
471:
472: As has been pointed out \cite{Kay00a}, comparison of simulation heat capacity
473: scans to experiment is often complicated by the fact that the heat capacity
474: tails which we observe in simulations would, if they occurred in a real
475: system, be swamped by the solvent contribution and ignored by the
476: common procedure of using empirical baseline subtraction to calculate
477: $\Delta H_{\rm vH}/\Delta H_{\rm cal}$. In other words, tail contributions
478: that arise from conformational transitions may be masked by solvent
479: contributions in real data analysis \cite{Kay00a,Kay02}. Therefore, for
480: completeness,
481: we also perform empirical baseline subtractions on our simulated heat
482: capacity scans, producing a revised ratio \( \kappa^{({\rm s})}_{2} \)
483: (defined in Ref.~\cite{Kay00a}) to facilitate comparison with experiment.
484:
485: \subsection{Radius of gyration}
486:
487: The radius of gyration \( R_g \) of a particular conformation of the
488: protein is an indicator of its compactness. It is defined by
489: \begin{equation}
490: \label{ffv}
491: R_g^{2}=\frac{1}{N}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\left| r_{i}-\left\langle r\right\rangle \right| ^{2},
492: \end{equation}
493: where \textbf{\( N \)} is the number of residues, \( r_{i} \)
494: is the position of the \( i \)th residue, and $\langle r\rangle$ is the
495: average position (centroid) of the given conformation. The Boltzmann
496: average \( \left\langle R_g\right\rangle =\left\langle \sqrt{R_g^{2}}
497: \right\rangle \) over a
498: given conformational ensemble is obtained by standard histogram techniques.
499: Two-state-like behavior requires a steplike sigmoidal change in
500: \( \left\langle R_g\right\rangle \) upon denaturation at \( T_{m} \), with
501: little postdenaturational expansion of the chain \cite{Kay00a}.
502:
503: \section{Results and discussion}
504:
505: To study the effect of local vs. nonlocal interactions, we first
506: vary the strength $\varepsilon_\phi^{(1)}$ of the local interactions while
507: keeping the strength of the nonlocal interactions fixed in the continuum CI2
508: construct (Figs.~2, 3). The heat capacity scans, for four scenarios (four
509: models) with different values for $\varepsilon_\phi^{(1)}$, are shown in Fig.~2.
510: They
511: all exhibit a fairly sharp peak except for the
512: model with $\varepsilon_\phi^{(1)}=0.25$. The
513: heat capacity peak signifies substantial heat absorption within
514: a narrow temperature range at the folding/unfolding transition. The absorbed
515: energy propels the chain from its low-energy folded conformations (native
516: ensemble) to its high-energy unfolded conformations (denatured ensemble).
517: However, the mere existence of a relatively sharp peak in the heat capacity
518: function does not necessarily mean that the transition is as cooperative as
519: those observed in small single-domain proteins. Coil-globule transitions in
520: homopolymers
521: are not two-state-like, but their calorimetric heat capacity scans can have
522: very sharp peaks \cite{Tik94}. A more quantitative measure of
523: thermodynamic cooperativity is the traditional calorimetric two-state
524: criterion (see above), which has emerged recently as a powerful modeling
525: tool \cite{Cha00,Kay00a,Kay00b,Kay02,Kay03a,Cri02,Jan02,Pok03,Cle03}.
526: Ratios of van't Hoff to calorimetric enthalpy were
527: calculated for the four models as described above; the ranges of the temperature
528: integrations used in the determination of $\Delta H_{\rm cal}$ [Eq.~(\ref{ffua})]
529: were taken to be equal to the ranges shown in Fig.~2.
530:
531: The inset of Fig.~2 shows that the $\Delta H_{\rm vH}/\Delta H_{\rm cal}$
532: ratio (diamonds) of these models is only weakly dependent on
533: $\varepsilon_{\phi}^{(1)}$ over an extended range of
534: $\varepsilon_\phi^{(1)}$ values, but that the ratio is significantly smaller
535: when the local interactions are
536: substantially weaker, at $\varepsilon_\phi^{(1)}=0.25$, than the nonlocal
537: interactions. As discussed above, quantitative comparisons between
538: simulated and experimental $\Delta H_{\rm vH}/\Delta H_{\rm cal}$ values
539: require the introduction of model calorimetric baselines \cite{Kay00a}
540: similar to
541: those employed in the interpretation of experimental data. Traditionally,
542: experimental baselines are designed to remove solvation contributions
543: (temperature-dependent effective interactions), in order to extract the heat
544: capacity effects
545: associated with the folding/unfolding transition itself \cite{Pri74}.
546: The present
547: models do not contain temperature-dependent interactions. Therefore, the
548: heat capacity contributions eliminated by the model calorimetric
549: baselines in Fig.~2 can only originate from vibrational motions and
550: conformational transitions. Increasingly, it is being recognized
551: \cite{Kay00a,Yan97,Dra02}
552: that similar heat capacity contributions from bond vector motions and
553: more collective conformational transitions might also be ``hidden'' below
554: traditional baselines constructed for analyzing experimental calorimetric data,
555: although the magnitude of such contributions needs to be elucidated.
556: The three models in Fig.~2 that are relatively more cooperative
557: (with higher $\kappa_2$ values) all have modified
558: $\Delta H_{\rm vH}/\Delta H_{\rm cal}$ values ($\kappa_2^{({\rm s})}$,
559: circles in the inset), after empirical baseline subtractions, that are very
560: close to unity. (We note that the recent determination of
561: $\Delta H_{\rm vH}/\Delta H_{\rm cal}$ values in an all-atom G\=o model
562: \cite{Cle03}
563: involved baseline subtractions as well: c.f. Fig.~8 of Ref.~\cite{Cle03}.)
564:
565: However, a protein chain model's ability to attain a near-unity
566: $\Delta H_{\rm vH}/\Delta H_{\rm cal}$ ratio after baseline subtractions
567: does not by itself imply that its thermodynamic behavior is similar to that of
568: real, small single-domain proteins \cite{Kay00a,Kay00b}. This is because the
569: heat capacity contributions discarded by certain baselines can actually be
570: symptoms of significant deviations from two-state-like behavior. It has been
571: recognized \cite{Kay00a} that, to clarify this situation, we can use the
572: behavior of the
573: average radius of gyration $\langle R_g \rangle$ of a protein chain model as
574: an
575: additional evaluation criterion for the model's thermodynamic cooperativity.
576: Small angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) experiments have demonstrated that the
577: average
578: radius of gyration $\langle R_g \rangle$ of several small single-domain proteins
579: behaves
580: in an apparently two-state manner \cite{Sos92,Hag98,Mil02},
581: showing very little
582: postdenaturational ($T>T_{m}$) expansion of the chain outside the
583: transition regime that corresponds to the region of the heat capacity
584: peak. We require chain models
585: of small single-domain proteins to exhibit similar behavior \cite{Kay00a}.
586: Now, to further assess the four models in Fig.~2 with different
587: local interaction strengths, we calculate their average radii of
588: gyration as a function of temperature (Fig.~3). To
589: ensure adequate sampling, $\langle R_g\rangle$ for each model is obtained
590: from three different simulation temperatures; the results are thus
591: displayed as three discontinuous curves. Despite some minor discrepancies
592: (owing to sampling uncertainties) between parts of the $\langle R_g\rangle$
593: function deduced from different simulation temperatures for the
594: $\varepsilon_\phi^{(1)}=0.25$ case, the general trend in Fig.~3 is very
595: clear. Models with weaker local interactions are less cooperative
596: in that their $\langle R_g\rangle$ curves show more postdenaturational increase
597: than do those of models having stronger local interactions. For instance,
598: the $\langle R_{g} \rangle$ of the $\varepsilon_{\phi}^{(1)}=0.25$ model
599: increases by $\approx 3.0$~\AA~ between $T \approx 0.82$ (the end of the
600: transition region) and $T \approx 1.11$. In contrast, a similar
601: temperature increase for the
602: $\varepsilon_\phi^{(1)}=1.00$ model from $T\approx 1.11$ (the end of the
603: transition region) to $T\approx 1.40$ leads to
604: an increase of only $\approx 1.6~$\AA~ in $\langle R_g\rangle$.
605: These observations indicate that two-state-like thermodynamic cooperativity
606: cannot be achieved if the local conformational propensities of a protein
607: are much weaker than the favorable nonlocal interactions. This confirms a
608: similar conclusion which was derived recently from a more limited study of a
609: ``contact dominant model'' \cite{Kay03a}.
610:
611: We next extend our analysis by applying the same computational
612: procedure to varying the strength $\varepsilon_a$ of the favorable
613: nonlocal interactions while keeping the strength of the local
614: interactions fixed. Consistent with the seminal study of G\=o and Taketomi
615: \cite{Go_78}, Figs.~4 and 5 show that variations in nonlocal $\varepsilon_a$
616: have a more prominent effect on thermodynamic cooperativity than
617: variations in local $\varepsilon_\phi^{(1)}$.
618: While the peak heat capacity values for the three models in Fig.~2 with
619: $\varepsilon_\phi^{(1)}\ge 0.5$ are similar, the peak heat capacity
620: values for the three models in Fig.~4 with $\varepsilon_a\ge 0.5$
621: show a significant monotonic increase with $\varepsilon_a$. In addition,
622: for the $\varepsilon_a=0.5$ model in Fig.~4, the difference
623: between unity and the $\Delta H_{\rm vH}/\Delta H_{\rm cal}$ ratio
624: after baseline subtraction is not negligible ($\kappa_2^{({\rm s})}=0.91$).
625: Despite these differences, the trends in Figs.~4,~5 are in large measure
626: similar to those in Figs.~2,~3. In particular, Fig.~4 shows that the model with
627: $\varepsilon_a=0.25$, like the $\varepsilon_\phi^{(1)}=0.25$ case in Fig.~2,
628: has a significantly
629: lower $\Delta H_{\rm vH}/\Delta H_{\rm cal}$ ratio than the other
630: three models considered in the same figure. The
631: $\langle R_g\rangle$ data in Fig.~5 shows that thermodynamic cooperativity
632: increases with $\varepsilon_a$, as manifested in a smaller
633: amount of postdenaturational
634: conformational expansion with increasing $\varepsilon_a$; this is comparable
635: to the effect of increasing $\varepsilon_{\phi}^{(1)}$ in Fig.~3.
636: Taken together,
637: the results in Figs.~2--5 suggest that a high degree of thermodynamic
638: cooperativity, similar to that in real, small single-domain proteins,
639: requires both strong local and strong nonlocal interactions. Apparently,
640: a high degree of thermodynamic cooperativity is {\it incompatible} with either
641: a much weakened local conformational preference relative to the favorable
642: nonlocal interactions ($\varepsilon_\phi^{(1)}\ll \varepsilon_a$) or much
643: weakened favorable nonlocal interactions relative to the local conformational
644: preference ($\varepsilon_a\ll \varepsilon_\phi^{(1)}$).
645:
646: Although three-dimensional G\=o-like models with strong local
647: and nonlocal interactions appear to satisfy the thermodynamic criterion
648: of calorimetric two-state cooperativity, it has recently been noted that
649: they are unable to produce simple two-state folding/unfolding kinetics
650: \cite{Kay02,Kay03a}.
651: This is because the thermodynamic cooperativity of these models is not
652: sufficiently high. As a result, and in spite of the native-centric nature
653: of the common pairwise additive G\=o-like interactions, kinetic trapping
654: becomes significant under strongly native conditions, leading to folding
655: rate slow-downs and chevron rollovers \cite{Kay03b}. More recent lattice
656: model
657: investigations indicate that simple two-state folding/unfolding kinetics
658: require a high degree of thermodynamic cooperativity that may be
659: characterized as ``near-Levinthal'' \cite{Kay03c}, necessitating many-body
660: interactions beyond those postulated by the common G\=o model
661: \cite{Kay03c,Kay03d}.
662:
663: In view of this recent development, and to facilitate the construction and
664: investigation of continuum models that incorporate these new ideas,
665: it is instructive to compare in more detail the thermodynamic behavior of
666: the common lattice G\=o construct (with only pairwise additive contact
667: energies) with the behavior of models which have many-body interactions and
668: enhanced cooperativity. We also wish to investigate whether results obtained from
669: lattice models supply additional support for the conclusions which we have derived
670: from our continuum model results.
671: To this end, Figs.~6--8 compare three 27mer lattice models.
672:
673: Because of their intrinsic restrictions on conformational possibilities,
674: it is more straightforward to construct cooperative lattice models
675: than to construct off-lattice continuum models that are similarly cooperative.
676: Recently, using evidence from kinetic simulations of chevron plots, our group has
677: proposed
678: that a $\Delta H_{\rm vH}/\Delta H_{\rm cal}$ ratio of $\kappa_2>0.9$ before
679: baseline subtractions [as for models (ii) and (iii) in Fig.~6a] is likely to be
680: required in order for a lattice protein chain model to produce chevron
681: plots with linear regimes similar in extent to those observed for real, small
682: single-domain
683: proteins \cite{Kay03c}.
684: However, this numerical criterion is not readily generalizable
685: to off-lattice continuum models. This is because the heat capacity effects
686: of bond vibrations and kinetic energy have to be taken into account in
687: continuum models, whereas these effects are absent in lattice models. Thus, in
688: the characterization of a model's thermodynamic cooperativity, more detailed
689: information concerning, for example, the behavior of the average radius of
690: gyration, has to be relied upon more heavily for continuous models (see above)
691: than for lattice models.
692:
693: For the three lattice models studied here, the $\langle R_g\rangle$ plots
694: in Fig.~6b show that, while the postdenaturational conformational expansion
695: of the common lattice G\=o construct (solid curve in Fig.~6b) is considerably
696: milder than that of its continuum counterpart (solid curves in Figs.~3, 5),
697: the more cooperative lattice models with many-body interactions
698: exhibit much less (dotted curve in Fig.~6b) or nearly non-existent
699: (dashed curve in Fig.~6b) postdenaturational conformational expansion.
700: The fluctuations in $E$ and $R_g$ near the transition midpoint, shown in
701: Figs.~7 and 8, indicate further that the transitions between the native
702: and denatured ensembles are sharper and more two-state-like for the more
703: cooperative models (ii) and (iii) with many-body interactions [parts (b) and (c)
704: of Figs.~7, 8] than for the common G\=o model [parts (a) of Figs.~7,
705: 8]. The corresponding fluctuations in the fractional number of native
706: contacts $Q$ \cite{Kay03c,Kay03d} (data not shown) were also found
707: to exhibit a trend
708: very similar to that of the energy fluctuations in Fig.~7.
709:
710: The lattice model results, shown in Figs.~6--8, are compatible with the
711: conclusion, reached above on the basis of continuum model results, that both
712: local and nonlocal interactions are important for thermodynamic cooperativity.
713: The common lattice G\=o model of scenario (i) includes only nonlocal interactions,
714: analogous to the interactions encoded by $V_{\rm native}$ in the off-lattice
715: model. Scenario (iii), which takes account also of the local geometry of the
716: chain, displays greater cooperativity than scenario (i).
717:
718: Higher resolution data such as that in Figs.~7 and 8 opens up future
719: avenues for the assessment of different mechanisms of cooperativity using
720: comparisons between model
721: predictions and experimental measurements of, for example, conformational
722: sizes and fluctuations \cite{Cho02,Shi02,Gol03}.
723: It is noteworthy that in the model (ii)
724: scenario, with an extra favorable energy for the native structure as a whole,
725: the native ensemble does not exhibit much energetic or conformational
726: variation (horizontal line segments at low $E$ and low $R_g$ values in Figs.~7b
727: and 8b). On the other hand, in the model (iii) scenario with local-nonlocal
728: coupling, there is considerable variation in the native ensemble
729: (c.f. low $E$
730: and low $R_g$ fluctuations in Figs.~7c and 8c). Yet the variation
731: in the denatured ensemble is smaller in model (iii) than in model (ii)
732: (c.f. high $E$ and high $R_g$ fluctuations in parts (b) and (c) of
733: Figs.~7, 8), resulting in a more two-state-like average $\langle R_g\rangle$
734: transition for model (iii) than for model (ii), manifested in a
735: near-immediate postdenaturational ($T>T_{m}$) saturation of the dashed
736: curve for model (iii) in Fig.~6b compared to a more gradual
737: postdenaturational saturation of the dotted curve for model (ii) in the
738: same figure. All these differences in conformational properties are in
739: principle detectable through experiments on real proteins. Hence, future
740: experimental efforts along the lines suggested here would help to verify
741: or falsify different proposed scenarios and interaction mechanisms
742: \cite{Kay03c,Kay03d,Jew03,Cha03}
743: in the endeavor to decipher the physical origins of
744: cooperativity in real proteins.
745:
746: \section{Conclusions}
747:
748: The present study suggests strongly that both local conformational
749: preferences and favorable nonlocal interactions are crucial to
750: protein thermodynamic cooperativity.
751: This result points to a useful constraint on simplified models of protein
752: molecules: they should take account both of local and of nonlocal
753: interactions.
754:
755: As emphasized above, the scope
756: of the present study is limited. Only native-centric interaction
757: schemes are considered; and here we have elected only one particular
758: physically plausible way to classify energy contributions into ``local''
759: and ``nonlocal'' terms in the continuum models.
760: In addition, by using a native-centric interaction scheme both for local and
761: for nonlocal interactions, we have avoided the possibility of energetic
762: frustration, which might be significant if a more realistic interaction
763: scheme were used \cite{Pac03,HG03}. To further elucidate the
764: answers to the questions we have posed, much remains to be investigated.
765:
766: Nonetheless,
767: our results show clearly that a high degree of thermodynamic cooperativity is
768: compatible neither with a much weakened local interaction
769: nor with a much weakened nonlocal interaction, indicating that both
770: local and nonlocal interactions are important components in protein
771: energetics \cite{Uve02}. This finding is consistent with the notion that
772: a cooperative interplay between local and nonlocal interactions
773: \cite{Cha00,Kay00b,Kay02,Kay03c,Kay03d}
774: is a critical ingredient underlying the apparent simple two-state
775: cooperativity of real, small single-domain proteins.
776:
777: With regard to G\=o-like
778: native-centric modeling (see, e.g., discussion in
779: Refs.~\cite{Kay03a,Cle00,Mic99,Plo01,Cie02,Cie03}),
780: we observe that significant differences in model
781: predictions can result from different G\=o-like interaction schemes,
782: even though all of the schemes are designed to bias the chain towards the
783: same native structure. This underscores our point that requiring a
784: consistent account of cooperativity can be a more productive approach
785: to protein modeling than simply designing a model heteropolymer to
786: fold to a target structure \cite{Kay03a}.
787: In this context, the present coarse-grained
788: representations constitute only a first step in the understanding of protein
789: cooperativity. Ultimately, atomistic origins of local and nonlocal
790: interactions such as sidechain packing \cite{Kli98,Li_01,Fav02,Zho02}
791: must be taken into
792: account in an effort to provide the necessary physical underpinning
793: for the cooperative mechanisms proposed here.
794:
795:
796: \section*{Acknowledgments}
797: The research reported here was partially supported by the Canadian
798: Institutes of Health Research (CIHR grant no. MOP-15323), PENCE,
799: a Premier's Research Excellence Award from the Province of Ontario, and
800: the Ontario Centre for Genomic Computing at the Hospital for Sick
801: Children in Toronto. H. S. C. holds a Canada Research Chair in Biochemistry.
802:
803:
804: \vfill\eject
805:
806: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
807:
808: \bibitem{Cha02} Chan HS, Kaya H, Shimizu S.
809: In: Jiang T, Xu Y, Zhang MQ, editors. Current Topics in Computational
810: Molecular Biology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2002. p 403--447.
811: \bibitem{Jac91}Jackson SE, Fersht AR. Biochemistry 1991;30:10428--10435.
812: \bibitem{Bak00}Baker D. Nature 2000;405:39--42.
813: \bibitem{Cha00} Chan HS. Proteins 2000;40:543--571.
814: \bibitem{Kay00a} Kaya H, Chan HS. Proteins 2000;40:637--661
815: [Erratum: Proteins 2001;43:523].
816: \bibitem{Kay00b} Kaya H, Chan HS. Phys Rev Lett 2000;85:4823--4826.
817: \bibitem{Kay02} Kaya H, Chan HS. J Mol Biol 2002;315:899--909.
818: \bibitem{Kay03a} Kaya H, Chan HS. J Mol Biol 2003;326:911--931.
819: \bibitem{Tak75} Taketomi H, Ueda Y, G\=o N.
820: Int J Pept Protein Res 1975;7:445--459.
821: \bibitem{Cle00}
822: Clementi C, Nymeyer H, Onuchic JN. J Mol Biol 2000;298:937--953.
823: \bibitem{Mic99} Micheletti C, Banavar JR, Maritan A, Seno F.
824: Phys Rev Lett 1999;82:3372--3375.
825: \bibitem{Zho99} Zhou Y, Karplus M. Nature 1999;401:400--403.
826: \bibitem{Por01} Portman JJ, Takada S, Wolynes PG.
827: J Chem Phys 2001;114:5082--5096.
828: \bibitem{Hal97}Haliloglu T, Bahar I, Erman B.
829: Phys Rev Lett 1997;79:3090--3093.
830: \bibitem{Kes02} Keskin O, Bahar I, Flatow D, Covell DG, Jernigan RL.
831: Biochemistry 2002;41:491--501.
832: \bibitem{Isi02} Isin B, Doruker P, Bahar I. Biophys J 2002;82:569--581.
833: \bibitem{Mic02} Micheletti C, Lattanzi G, Maritan A.
834: J Mol Biol 2002;321:909--921.
835: \bibitem{Jac01}Jacobs DJ, Radar AJ, Kuhn LA, Thorpe MF.
836: Proteins 2001;44:150--165.
837: \bibitem{Kay03b} Kaya H, Chan HS. Phys Rev Lett 2003;90:258104.
838: \bibitem{Go_78} G\=o N, Taketomi H. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1978;75:559--563.
839: \bibitem{Dil90} Dill KA. Biochemistry 1990;29:7133--7155.
840: \bibitem{Abk95} Abkevich VI, Gutin AM, Shakhnovich EI.
841: J Mol Biol 1995:252:460--471.
842: \bibitem{Cha98} Chan HS. Nature 1998;392:761--763.
843: \bibitem{Bal99}Baldwin RL, Rose GD. Trends Biochem Sci 1999;24:26--33.
844: \bibitem{Por01-2}Portman JJ, Takada S, Wolynes PG.
845: J Chem Phys 2001;114:5069--5081.
846: \bibitem{Deg75}de Gennes PG. J Phys Lett (Paris) 1975;36:L55--L57.
847: \bibitem{Don96}Doniach S, Garel T, Orland H. J Chem Phys 1996;105:1601--1608.
848: \bibitem{Bas97}Bastolla U, Grassberger P. J Stat Phys 1997;89:1061--1078.
849: \bibitem{Doy98}Doye JPK, Sear RP, Frenkel D. J Chem Phys 1998;108:2134--2142.
850: \bibitem{Kog01}Koga N, Takada S. J Mol Biol 2001;313:171--180.
851: \bibitem{Bra67}Brant DA, Miller WG, Flory PJ. J Mol Biol 1967;23:47--65.
852: \bibitem{Vei97}Veitshans T, Klimov D, Thirumalai D. Fold Des 1997:2:1--22.
853: \bibitem{All87}Allen MP, Tildesley DJ. Computer Simulation of Liquids.
854: Oxford: The Oxford University Press; 1987.
855: \bibitem{Kay03c}Kaya H, Chan HS, Proteins 2003; in press.
856: \bibitem{Kay03d}Kaya H, Chan HS, Proteins 2003; in press.
857: \bibitem{Yan97}Yang D, Mok YK, Forman-Kay JD, Farrow NA, Kay LE.
858: J Mol Biol 1997;272:790--804.
859: \bibitem{Pri74}Privalov PL, Khechinashvili NN.
860: J Mol Biol 1974;86:665--684.
861: \bibitem{Tik94}Tiktopulo EI, Bychkova VE, Ri{\v c}ka J, Ptitsyn OB.
862: Macromolecules 1994;27:2879--2882.
863: \bibitem{Cri02}Crippen GM, Chhadjer M. J Chem Phys 2002;116:2261--2268.
864: \bibitem{Jan02}Jang H, Hall, CK, Zhou Y. Biophys J 2002;82:646--659.
865: \bibitem{Pok03}Pokarowski P, Kolinski A, Skolnick J.
866: Biophys J 2003;84:1518--1526.
867: \bibitem{Cle03}Clementi C, Garcia AE, Onuchic JN.
868: J Mol Biol 2003;326:933--954.
869: \bibitem{Dra02}Dragan AI, Privalov PL. J Mol Biol 2002;321:891--908.
870: \bibitem{Sos92}Sosnick TR, Trewhella J. Biochemistry 1992;31:8329--8335.
871: \bibitem{Hag98}Hagihara Y, Hoshino M, Hamada D, Kataoka M, Goto Y.
872: Fold Des 1998;3:195--201.
873: \bibitem{Mil02}Millet IS, Townsley LE, Chiti F, Doniach S, Plaxco KW.
874: Biochemistry 2002;41:321--325.
875: \bibitem{Cho02}Choy WY, Mulder FAA, Crowhurst KA, Muhandiram DR,
876: Millett IS, Doniach S, Forman-Kay JD, Kay LE.
877: J Mol Biol 2002;316:101--112.
878: \bibitem{Shi02}Shimizu S, Chan HS. Proteins 2002;49:560--566.
879: \bibitem{Gol03}Goldenberg DP. J Mol Biol 2003;326:1615--1633.
880: \bibitem{Jew03}Jewett AI, Pande VS, Plaxco KW. J Mol Biol 2003;326:247--253.
881: \bibitem{Cha03}Chan HS, Shimizu S, Kaya H. Methods Enzymol 2003: in press.
882: \bibitem{Pac03}Vendruscolo M, Paci E. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2003;13:82--87.
883: \bibitem{HG03}Head-Gordon T, Brown S. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2003;13:160--167.
884: \bibitem{Uve02}Uversky VN, Fink AL. FEBS Lett 2002;515:79--83.
885: \bibitem{Plo01}Plotkin SS. Proteins 2001;45:337--345.
886: \bibitem{Cie02}Cieplak M, Hoang TX. Int J Mod Phys C 2002;13:1231--1242.
887: \bibitem{Cie03}Cieplak M, Hoang TX. Biophys J 2003;84:475--488.
888: \bibitem{Kli98}Klimov DK, Thirumalai D. Fold Des 1998;3:127--139.
889: \bibitem{Li_01}Li L, Shakhnovich EI.
890: Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001;98:13014--13018.
891: \bibitem{Fav02}Favrin G, Irb\"ack A, Wallin S. Proteins 2002;47:99--105.
892: \bibitem{Zho02}Zhou Y, Linhananta A. J Chem Phys 2002;117:8983--8995.
893:
894: \end{thebibliography}
895:
896: \vfill\eject
897:
898: \noindent
899: {\large\bf Figure Captions}
900:
901: \noindent
902: FIGURE 1
903:
904: Heat capacity as a function of temperature, for one particular set
905: of interaction parameters. Solid curve: heat capacity calculated using
906: the total energy; dashed curve: heat capacity calculated
907: using only the potential energy.
908: Parameters are \( \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)}=1.00 \),
909: \( \varepsilon _{a}=1.00 \), \( q=4 \);
910: simulation temperature \( T_{\rm sim}=1.02 \).
911: Inset: free energy as a function of temperature, for the same model,
912: showing a sharp change in gradient around \( T_{m} \).
913: The vertical dotted lines in the figure and the inset mark the transition
914: midpoint temperature \( T_{m} \).
915: \\
916:
917: \noindent
918: FIGURE 2
919:
920: Heat capacity as a function of temperature, for varying local interaction
921: energy \( \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)} \). Other parameters
922: \( \varepsilon_{a}=1.00 \) and \( q=2 \) are fixed. ({\it From left to right})
923: dotted curve: \( \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)}=0.25 \), \( T_{m}=0.74 \);
924: short dashed curve: \( \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)}=0.50 \), \( T_{m}=0.84 \);
925: long dashed curve: \( \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)}=0.75 \), \( T_{m}=0.94 \);
926: solid curve: \( \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)}=1.00 \), \( T_{m}=1.03 \).
927: These scans are obtained by histogram techniques from simulations performed
928: at $T_{\rm sim}=$ $0.73$, $0.84$, $0.94$, and $1.03$ respectively.
929: The $\Delta H_{\rm vH}/\Delta H_{\rm cal}$ cooperativity coefficients
930: \( \kappa_2 \) without baseline subtractions are $0.33$, $0.43$, $0.44$,
931: and $0.44$ respectively. Modified cooperativity coefficients
932: \( \kappa_2^{({\rm s})} \) after subtraction of the baselines
933: (indicated by thin lines in the figure) for $\varepsilon_{\phi }^{(1)}=$
934: $0.50$, $0.75$, and $1.00$ are $0.97$, $0.98$, and $0.99$ respectively.
935: No value for \( \kappa_2^{({\rm s})} \) was calculated for
936: \( \varepsilon_{\phi }^{(1)}=0.25 \) because the shape of its heat capacity
937: curve does not suggest any clear choice of baselines that are intuitively
938: more reasonable than others. The inset shows \( \kappa_2 \) (diamonds) and
939: \( \kappa_2^{({\rm s})} \) (circles) as functions of
940: \( \varepsilon_{\phi }^{(1)} \).
941: \\
942:
943: \noindent
944: FIGURE 3
945:
946: Average radius of gyration as a function of temperature, for varying
947: local interaction energy \( \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)} \); other
948: parameters \( \varepsilon _{a}=1.00 \) and \( q=2 \) are fixed, as in Fig.~2.
949: The correspondence between line styles and \( \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)} \)
950: values is identical to that in Fig.~2.
951: For each value of \( \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)} \), simulations were
952: performed at three different values of $T_{\rm sim}$ to ensure adequate
953: sampling
954: across the entire temperature range shown. ({\it From left to right})
955: for \( \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)}=0.25 \) (dotted curves),
956: \( T_{\rm sim}=0.73 \), $0.93$, $1.13$;
957: for \( \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)}=0.50 \) (short dashed curves),
958: \( T_{\rm sim}=0.84, \) $1.04$, $1.24$;
959: for \( \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)}=0.75 \) (long dashed curves),
960: \( T_{\rm sim}=0.94, \) $1.14$, $1.34$; and
961: for \( \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)}=1.00 \) (solid curves),
962: \( T_{\rm sim}=1.03 \), $1.23$, and $1.43$.
963: \\
964:
965: \noindent
966: FIGURE 4
967:
968: Heat capacity as a function of temperature, for varying nonlocal interaction
969: energy \( \varepsilon _{a} \). Other parameters
970: \( \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)}=1.00 \) and \( q=4 \) are fixed.
971: ({\it From left to right})
972: dotted curve: \( \varepsilon _{a}=0.25 \), \( T_{m}=0.43 \);
973: short dashed curve: \( \varepsilon _{a}=0.50 \), \( T_{m}=0.65 \);
974: long dashed curve: \( \varepsilon _{a}=0.75 \), \( T_{m}=0.84 \);
975: solid curve: \( \varepsilon _{a}=1.00 \), \( T_{m}=1.02 \).
976: These scans are obtained by histogram techniques from simulations performed
977: at $T_{\rm sim}=$ $0.42$, $0.64$, $0.84$, and $1.02$ respectively.
978: The $\Delta H_{\rm vH}/\Delta H_{\rm cal}$ cooperativity coefficients
979: \( \kappa_2 \) without baseline subtractions are $0.28$, $0.40$, $0.44$,
980: and $0.46$ respectively. Modified cooperativity coefficients
981: \( \kappa_2^{({\rm s})} \) after subtraction of the baselines
982: (indicated by thin lines in the figure) for $\varepsilon _{a}=$
983: $0.50$, $0.75$, and $1.00$ are $0.91$, $1.00$, and $0.99$ respectively.
984: No value for \( \kappa_2^{({\rm s})} \) was calculated for
985: \( \varepsilon _{a}=0.25 \) for the same reason that no
986: \( \kappa_2^{({\rm s})} \) was provided for
987: \( \varepsilon_{\phi }^{(1)}=0.25 \) in Fig.~2.
988: The inset shows \( \kappa_2 \) (diamonds) and \( \kappa_2^{({\rm s})} \)
989: (circles) as functions of \( \varepsilon _{a} \).
990: \\
991:
992: \noindent
993: FIGURE 5
994:
995: Average radius of gyration as a function of temperature, for varying
996: nonlocal interaction energy \( \varepsilon _{a} \). Other parameters
997: \( \varepsilon _{\phi }^{(1)}=1.00 \) and \( q=4 \) are fixed, as in Fig.~4.
998: The correspondence between line styles and \( \varepsilon _{a} \)
999: values is identical to that in Fig.~4.
1000: For each value of \( \varepsilon _{a} \), simulations were performed
1001: at three different values of $T_{\rm sim}$ to ensure adequate sampling across
1002: the whole range shown. ({\it From left to right})
1003: for \( \varepsilon _{a}=0.25 \) (dotted curves), \( T_{\rm sim}=0.42 \),
1004: $0.62$, $0.82$;
1005: for \( \varepsilon _{a}=0.50 \) (short dashed curves), \( T_{\rm sim}=0.64 \),
1006: $0.84$, $1.04$;
1007: for \( \varepsilon _{a}=0.75 \) (long dashed curves), \( T_{\rm sim}=0.84, \)
1008: $1.04$, $1.24$; and
1009: for \( \varepsilon _{a}=1.00 \) (solid curves), \( T_{\rm sim}=1.02 \),
1010: $1.22$, and $1.42$.
1011: \\
1012:
1013: \noindent
1014: FIGURE 6
1015:
1016: Thermodynamic cooperativities of the three representative 27mer
1017: lattice models described in the text. Model definitions and simulation
1018: details are given in Refs.~[29,30]. Heat capacity (a) and average
1019: radius of gyration (b) are determined by histogram techniques based
1020: upon Monte Carlo sampling performed at $T_{\rm sim}=T_{m}$.
1021: (a) Heat capacity of (i) the common G\=o model with pairwise additive
1022: contact energy (solid curve, {\it left}); (ii) the model that assigns an
1023: extra favorable energy to the native structure as a whole (dotted curve,
1024: {\it right}); and (iii) the model with local-nonlocal coupling (dashed curve,
1025: {\it middle}). The transition temperatures
1026: for the models are $T_{m}=$ $0.701$ (i), $1.13$ (ii), and $0.755$ (iii).
1027: Their $\Delta H_{\rm vH}/\Delta H_{\rm cal}$ without baseline subtractions
1028: are $\kappa_2=$ $0.86$, $0.98$, and $0.99$, and the corresponding ratios
1029: after subtracting the baselines shown are $\kappa_2^{({\rm s})}=$
1030: $1.00$, $1.00$, and $1.00$ respectively. (b) Average radius of gyration
1031: as a function of model temperature for the three models [represented by
1032: the same line styles as in (a)].
1033: \\
1034:
1035: \noindent
1036: FIGURE 7
1037:
1038: Representative trajectories of the three models in Fig.~6 at their
1039: respective transition temperatures. Variations in the potential energy of models
1040: (i)--(iii) are shown in (a)--(c) respectively.
1041: \\
1042:
1043: \noindent
1044: FIGURE 8
1045:
1046: Same as Fig.~7, except that variations in the radius of gyration are shown here.
1047:
1048: \end{document}
1049:
1050:
1051: