1: %\documentclass[aps,amssymb,12pt]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[aps,preprint,amssymb,12pt,floatfix]{revtex4}
3: \setlength{\textheight}{9.0in}
4: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.2in}
5: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0in}
6: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.75in}
7: \setlength{\topmargin}{0.in}
8: \usepackage{subfigure}
9: \usepackage{graphicx}
10: \usepackage{rotating}
11:
12: \begin{document}
13:
14:
15: \title{Effect of finite size on cooperativity and rates of protein folding}
16: \author{Maksim Kouza$^1$, Mai Suan Li$^1$, Edward P. O'Brien Jr.$^2$,
17: Chin-Kun Hu$^{3,4}$ and D. Thirumalai$^{2,5}$}
18:
19: \address{$^1$Institute of Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences,
20: Al. Lotnikow 32/46, 02-668 Warsaw, Poland\\
21: $^2$Biophysics Program, Institute for Physical
22: Science and Technology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742\\
23: $^3$Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Nankang,
24: Taipei 11529, Taiwan\\
25: $^4$National Center for Theoretical Sciences at
26: Taipei, Physics Division, National Taiwan University, Taipei
27: 10617, Taiwan\\
28: $^5$Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Maryland,
29: College Park, MD 20742}
30:
31: \date{\small \today}
32:
33: \baselineskip = 22pt
34:
35:
36: \begin{abstract}
37:
38: We analyze the dependence of
39: cooperativity of the thermal denaturation transition
40: and folding rates of globular proteins on the number of amino acid
41: residues, $N$, using lattice models with side chains,
42: off-lattice Go models and the
43: available experimental data. A dimensionless
44: measure of cooperativity, $\Omega _c$ ( $0 < \Omega _c < \infty$),
45: scales as $\Omega_c \sim N^{\zeta}$. The results of simulations and
46: the analysis of experimental data further confirm the earlier prediction
47: that $\zeta$ is universal with $\zeta = 1 +\gamma$, where
48: exponent $\gamma$ characterizes the susceptibility of a self-avoiding
49: walk. This finding suggests that the structural
50: characteristics in
51: the denaturated state are manifested in the folding cooperativity
52: at the transition temperature.
53: The folding
54: rates $k_F$ for the Go models and a dataset of 69 proteins can be fit
55: using $k_F = k_F^0 \exp(-cN^\beta)$.
56: Both $\beta = 1/2$ and $2/3$ provide a good fit of the data.
57: We find that $k_F = k_F^0 \exp(-cN^{\frac{1}{2}})$, with
58: the average (over the dataset of proteins)
59: $k_F^0 \approx (0.2\mu s)^{-1}$ and $c \approx 1.1$,
60: can be used to estimate folding rates to within an order
61: of magnitude in most cases. The minimal models give identical $N$
62: dependence with $c \approx 1$. The prefactor for off-lattice Go models
63: is nearly four
64: orders of magnitude larger than the experimental value.
65: \end{abstract}
66:
67: %\pacs{PACS numbers: 87.10.+e,87.15.Cc,36.20.-r}
68:
69: %]
70: \maketitle
71:
72: \section{Introduction}
73:
74: Single domain globular proteins are mesoscopic systems that self-assemble,
75: under folding conditions, to a compact state with definite topology. Given
76: that the folded states of proteins are only on the order of tens of
77: Angstroms
78: (the radius of gyration $R_g \approx 3 N^{\frac {1}{3}}$ \AA $~$
79: \cite{DimaThirJPCB04} where $N$ is
80: the number of amino acids) it is surprising that they undergo highly
81: cooperative transitions from an ensemble of unfolded states to the native state
82: \cite{Poland,Privalov79}.
83: Similarly, there is a wide spread in the folding
84: times as well \cite{Galzitskaya03,Ivankov03,Ivankov04}.
85: The rates of folding vary by nearly nine orders of
86: magnitude. Sometime ago it was shown theoretically that the folding time
87: ,$\tau_F$, should depend on $N$
88: \cite{Thirumalai95,Finkelstein97,Wolynes97} but only recently has experimental
89: data confirmed this prediction
90: \cite{Galzitskaya03,Li_Pol04,Ivankov04,Kubelka04,Munoz05}.
91: It has been shown that $\tau_F$
92: can be approximately evaluated using $\tau_F \approx \tau_F^0
93: \exp(N^{\beta})$ where $1/2 \le \beta < 2/3$ with
94: the prefactor $\tau_F^0$ being on the order
95: of a $\mu s$.
96:
97: Much less attention has been paid to finite size effects on the
98: cooperativity of transition from unfolded states to the
99: native basin of attraction (NBA). Because
100: $N$ is finite large conformational fluctuations are possible which
101: require careful examination \cite{KlimThirJCC02,Li_Pol04,Li_PRL04,Li_PhysA05}. For large enough $N$ it is likely that the
102: folding or melting temperature itself may not be unique
103: \cite{Holtzer97,Gruebele05,UdgaonkarNSB2001}. Although substantial
104: variations in $T_m$ are unlikely it has already been shown that the there
105: is a range of temperatures over which individual residues in a protein achieve their
106: native state ordering \cite{Holtzer97}.
107: On the other hand, the global cooperativity, as measured by the
108: dimensionless parameter $\Omega_c$ (see below for definition) has been
109: shown to scale as \cite{Li_PRL04}
110: \begin{equation}
111: \Omega_c \approx N^{\zeta}
112: \end{equation}
113: The surprising finding in Eq. (1) requires some discussion. First, the
114: exponent $\zeta = 1 + \gamma$, where $\gamma$ is the exponent that
115: describes the divergence of susceptibility at the critical point for a
116: n-component $\phi ^4$-model with n = 0. It follows that for proteins $\zeta (\approx 2.22)$ is
117: universal. Second, Eq. (1) is only valid near the folding temperature
118: $T_F$. At or above $T_F$ the global conformations of the polypeptide
119: chains as measured by $R_g$ obey the Flory law, i.e. $R_g \approx
120: a N^{\nu}$ where $\nu \approx 0.6$ \cite{Plaxco04}.
121: Thus, the unfolded character of the
122: polypeptide chains are reflected in the thermodynamic cooperativity
123: of the folding transition at $T_F$.
124:
125: In this paper we use lattice models with side chains (LMSC),
126: off-lattice Go models for 23 proteins and
127: experimental results for a number of proteins to further confirm the
128: theoretical predictions. Our results show that $\zeta \approx 2.22$ which
129: is \textit{distinct from the expected
130: result} ($\zeta = 2.0$) \textit{for a strong first order transition} \cite{FischerPRB1982}.
131: The larger data set of proteins for which folding rates are available
132: shows that the folding time scales as
133: \begin{equation}
134: \tau_F = \tau_0 \exp(cN^{\beta})
135: \end{equation}
136: with $c \approx 1.1$, $\beta = 1/2$ and $\tau_0 \approx 0.2 \mu s$.
137:
138: \section{Models and methods}
139:
140: {\it Lattice models with side chains (LMSC)}: Each amino acid is represented
141: using the backbone (B) C$_{\alpha}$ atom that is covalently linked to a unified atom
142: representing the side chain (SC). Both the C$_{\alpha}$ atoms
143: and the SCs are
144: confined to the vertices of a cubic lattice with spacing {\it a}. Thus, a polypeptide chain
145: consisting of $N$ residues is represented using 2$N$ beads. The energy
146: of a conformation is
147: \begin{eqnarray}
148: E \; = \; \epsilon _{bb} \sum_{i=1,j>i+1}^{N} \,
149: \delta _{r_{ij}^{bb},a}
150: + \epsilon _{bs} \sum_{i=1,j\neq i}^{N} \, \delta _{r_{ij}^{bs},a}
151: + \epsilon _{ss} \sum_{i=1,j>i}^{N} \, \delta _{r_{ij}^{ss},a} \; ,
152: \label{energy_eq}
153: \end{eqnarray}
154: where $\epsilon _{bb}, \epsilon _{bs}$ and $\epsilon _{ss}$ are
155: backbone-backbone(BB-BB), backbone-side chain
156: (BB-SC) and side chain-side chain (SC-SC) contact energies, respectively.
157: The distances $r_{ij}^{bb}, r_{ij}^{bs}$ and $r_{ij}^{ss}$ are between
158: BB, BS and SS beads, respectively.
159: The contact energies $\epsilon _{bb}, \epsilon _{bs}$
160: and $\epsilon _{ss}$ are taken to be -1 (in units of k$_{b}$T) for native
161: and 0 for non-native interactions. The neglect of interactions between residues
162: not present in the native state is the approximation used in the Go model. Because
163: we are interested in general scaling behavior the use of the Go model is justified.
164:
165: {\it Off-lattice model}:
166: We employ coarse-grained off-lattice models for polypeptide chains
167: in which each amino acid is represented using only the
168: C$_{\alpha}$ atoms \cite{HoneyThirBiop92}.
169: Furthermore, we use a Go model
170: \cite{Go} in which the interactions between residues forming native
171: contacts are assumed to be attractive and the non-native
172: interactions are repulsive. Thus, by definition for the Go model the
173: PDB structure is the native
174: structure with the lowest energy.
175: The energy of a conformation of the polypeptide chain
176: specified by the coordinates $r_i$ of
177: the C$_{\alpha}$ atoms is \cite{Clementi00}
178: \begin{eqnarray}
179: &E& \; = \; \sum_{bonds} K_r (r_{i,i+1} - r_{0i,i+1})^2 + \sum_{angles} K_{\theta}
180: (\theta_i - \theta_{0i})^2 \nonumber \\
181: &+& \sum_{dihedral} \{ K_{\phi}^{(1)}
182: [1 - \cos (\Delta \phi_i)] +
183: K_{\phi}^{(3)} [1 - \cos 3(\Delta \phi_i)] \} \nonumber\\
184: &+& \sum_{i>j-3}^{NC} \epsilon_H \left[ 5 R_{ij}^{12} - 6 R_{ij}^{10}\right] +
185: \sum_{i>j-3}^{NNC} \epsilon_H \left(\frac{C}{r_{ij}}\right)^{12} .
186: \label{Hamiltonian}
187: \end{eqnarray}
188: Here $\Delta \phi_i=\phi_i - \phi_{0i}$, $R_{ij}={r_{0ij}}/{r_{ij}}$;
189: $r_{i,i+1}$ is the distance between beads $i$ and $i+1$, $\theta_i$
190: is the bond angle
191: between bonds $(i-1)$ and $i$,
192: and $\phi_i$ is the dihedral angle around the $i$th bond and
193: $r_{ij}$ is the distance between the $i$th and $j$th residues.
194: Subscripts ``0'', ``NC'' and ``NNC'' refer to the native
195: conformation, native contacts and non-native contacts,
196: respectively. Residues $i$ and $j$
197: are in native contact if $r_{0ij}$ is less than a cutoff
198: distance $d_c$ taken to be $d_c = 6$ \AA,
199: where $r_{0ij}$ is the distance between the residues in
200: the native conformation.
201:
202: The first harmonic term in Eq. (\ref{Hamiltonian})
203: accounts for chain
204: connectivity and the second term represents the bond angle potential.
205: The potential for the
206: dihedral angle degrees of freedom is given by the third term in
207: Eq. (\ref{Hamiltonian}). The interaction energy between residues that are
208: separated by at least 3 beads is given by 10-12 Lennard-Jones potential.
209: A soft sphere (last term in Eq. (\ref{Hamiltonian})) repulsive potential
210: disfavors the formation of non-native contacts.
211: We choose $K_r =
212: 100 \epsilon _H/\AA^2$, $K_{\theta} = 20 \epsilon _H/rad^2,
213: K_{\phi}^{(1)} = \epsilon _H$, and
214: $K_{\phi}^{(3)} = 0.5 \epsilon _H$,
215: where $\epsilon_H$ is the
216: characteristic hydrogen bond energy and $C = 4$ \AA.
217:
218: {\it Simulations}: For the LMSC we performed Monte Carlo simulations using
219: the previously well-tested move set MS3 \cite{Li_JPCB02}. This move set ensures that
220: ergodicity is obtained efficiently even for $N=50$, it uses
221: single, double and triple bead moves \cite{Betancourt98}.
222: Following standard practice the thermodynamic properties are computed
223: using the multiple histogram method \cite{Ferrenberg89}. The kinetic simulations are carried out
224: by a quench from high temperature to a temperature at which the NBA
225: is preferentially populated. The folding times are calculated
226: from the distribution of first passage times.
227:
228: For off-lattice models, we assume the dynamics of the polypeptide chain obeys the Langevin
229: equation. The equations of motion were integrated using the velocity form
230: of the Verlet algorithm with the time step $\Delta t = 0.005 \tau_L$,
231: where $\tau_L = (ma^2/\epsilon_H)^{1/2} \approx 3$ ps.
232: In order to calculate the thermodynamic quantities we collected
233: histograms for the energy and native contacts
234: at five or six different temperatures
235: (at each temperature 20 - 50 trajectories were generated depending on proteins).
236: As with the LMSC we used the multiple histogram method \cite{Ferrenberg89}
237: to obtain the thermodynamic parameters at all temperatures.
238:
239: For off-lattice models the probability of being in the native state is computed
240: using
241: \begin{equation}
242: \ f \; = \frac{1}{Q_{\rm T}} \sum_{i<j+1}^N \,\;
243: \theta (1.2r_{0ij} - r_{ij}) \Delta_{ij} ,
244: \label{chi_eq}
245: \end{equation}
246: where
247: $\Delta_{ij}$ is equal to 1 if residues $i$ and $j$ form a native
248: contact and 0 otherwise and, $Q_{\rm T}$ is the total number of
249: native contacts and $\theta (x)$ is the Heaviside
250: function.
251: For the LMSC model we used the structural overlap function \cite{Camacho93PNAS}
252: \begin{eqnarray}
253: \chi \; = \; \frac{1}{2N^{2} - 3N + 1} \left[ \sum_{i<j} \,
254: \delta (r_{ij}^{ss} - r_{ij}^{ss,N})
255: + \sum_{i<j+1} \, \delta (r_{ij}^{bb} - r_{ij}^{bb,N})
256: + \sum_{i \neq j} \, \delta (r_{ij}^{bs} - r_{ij}^{bs,N}) \; \right].
257: \label{energy_eq}
258: \end{eqnarray}
259: The overlap function $\chi$, which is one if the
260: conformation of the polypeptide chain coincides with the native
261: structure and is small for unfolded conformations, is an
262: order parameter for the folding-unfolding transition. The
263: probability of being in the native state $f_N$
264: is $f_N = <f> = 1 - <\chi>$, where $<...>$ denotes a thermal average.
265:
266: {\it Cooperativity}.
267: The extent of cooperativity of the transition to the NBA from the ensemble of
268: unfolded states is measured using the dimensionless parameter
269: \begin{equation}
270: \Omega _c \; = \; \frac{T_F^2}{\Delta T}
271: \left|\frac{df_N}{dT}\right|_{T=T_F} ,
272: \label{coop_eq}
273: \end{equation}
274: where $\Delta T$ is the full width at half-maximum of $df_N/dT$ and
275: the folding temperature $T_F$ is identified with the maximum of
276: $df_N/dT$. Two points about $\Omega_c$ are noteworthy. (1) For
277: proteins that melt by a two-state transition it is trivial to show that
278: $\Delta H_{vH} = 4k_B\Delta T\Omega _c$, where $\Delta H_{vH}$ is the
279: van't Hoff enthalpy at $T_F$. For an infinitely sharp two-state transition
280: there is a latent heat release at $T_F$, at which $C_p$ can be approximated
281: by a delta-function. In this case $\Omega_c \rightarrow \infty$ which implies
282: that $\Delta H_{vH}$ and the calorimetric enthalpy $\Delta H_{cal}$
283: (obtained by integrating the temperature dependence of the specific heat
284: $C_p$ ) would coincide. It is logical to infer
285: that as $\Omega_c$ increases the ratio $\kappa = \Delta H_{vH}/\Delta H_{cal}$
286: should approach unity.
287: (2) Even for moderate sized proteins that undergo a two-state transition
288: $\kappa \approx 1$ \cite{Privalov79}.
289: It is known that the extent of cooperativity depends on external
290: conditions as has been demonstrated for thermal denaturation of CI2 at
291: several values of pH \cite{Jackson91}. The values of $\kappa$ for all
292: pH values are $\approx 1$.
293: However, the variation in cooperativity of CI2 as pH varies are
294: reflected in the changes in $\Omega _c$ \cite{KlimThirum98FD}.
295: Therefore, we believe that $\Omega _c$, that varies in the
296: range $0 < \Omega _c < \infty$, is a better descriptor of the extent of
297: cooperativity than $\kappa$. The latter merely tests the applicability
298: of the two-state approximation.
299:
300: \section{Results}
301:
302: \subsection{Dependence of $\Omega_c$ on $N$}
303:
304: For the 23 Go proteins listed in Table I, we calculated $\Omega_c$ from
305: the temperature dependence of $f_N$. In Fig. \ref{hairpin_CspB_fig}
306: we compare the temperature dependence of $f_N(T)$ and $df_N(T)/dT$ for
307: $\beta$-hairpin ($N=16$) and {\it Bacillus subtilis} (CpsB, $N=67$).
308: It is clear that the transition width and the amplitudes of $df_N/dT$
309: obtained using Go models, compare only qualitatively well with experiments.
310: As pointed out by Kaya and Chan \cite{Kaya00,Kaya03,Chan_ME04,ChanPRL2000},
311: the simple Go-like models consistently
312: underestimate the extent of cooperativity. Nevertheless, both the models and
313: experiments show that $\Omega_c$ increases dramatically as $N$ increases
314: (Fig. \ref{hairpin_CspB_fig}).
315:
316: The variation of $\Omega_c$ with $N$ for the 23 proteins obtained from
317: the simulations of Go models is given in Fig. \ref{Scal_Omega_fig}.
318: From the ln$\Omega_c$-ln$N$ plot we obtain $\zeta = 2.40 \pm 0.20$
319: and $\zeta = 2.35 \pm 0.07$ for off-lattice models and LMSC, respectively. These
320: values of $\zeta$ deviate from the theoretical prediction
321: $\zeta \approx 2.22$.
322: We suspect that this is due to large fluctuations in the native state of
323: polypeptide chains that are represented using minimal models.
324: Nevertheless, the results for the minimal models rule out
325: the value of $\zeta = 2$ that is predicted for systems that undergo first
326: order transition. The near coincidence of $\zeta$ for both models show that
327: the details of interactions are not relevant.
328:
329: For the thirty four proteins (Table II) for which we could find thermal
330: denaturation data, we calculated $\Omega_c$ using the $\Delta H$,
331: and $T_F$ (referred to as the melting temperature $T_m$ in the experimental
332: literature). From the plot of ln$\Omega_c$ versus ln$N$ we find that
333: $\zeta = 2.17 \pm 0.09$. The experimental value of $\zeta$, which also
334: deviates from $\zeta = 2$, is in much better agreement with the theoretical
335: prediction. The analysis of experimental data requires care because the
336: compiled results were obtained from a number of different laboratories around
337: the world. Each laboratory uses different methods to analyze the raw
338: experimental data which invariably lead to varying methods to
339: estimate errors in
340: $\Delta H$ and $T_m$. To estimate the error bar for $\zeta$ it is important
341: to consider the errors in the computation of $\Omega_c$.
342: Using the reported experimental errors in $T_m$ and
343: $\Delta H$ we calculated the variance $\delta^2\Omega_c$ using the standard
344: expression for the error propagation \cite{Li_PRL04,Webpage}.
345: %\begin{equation}
346: %\delta^2\Omega_c \; = \; \left(\frac{\partial \Omega_c}{\partial T_m}\right)^2
347: %\delta^2T_m + \left(\frac{\partial \Omega_c}{\partial \Delta H}\right)^2
348: %\delta^2\Delta H + 2 \left|\frac{\partial \Omega_c}{\partial T_m}
349: %\frac{\partial \Omega_c}{\partial \Delta H}\right|\delta T_m\delta\Delta H,
350: %\label{error_eq}
351: %\end{equation}
352: The upper bound in the error
353: in $\Omega_c$
354: for the thirty four proteins is given in Table II. To provide an accurate
355: evaluation of the errors in the exponent $\zeta$ we used a weighted linear
356: fit, in which each value of ln$\Omega_c$ contributes to the fit with the
357: weight proportional to its standard deviation \cite{Li_PRL04, Webpage}.
358:
359:
360: \subsection{Dependence of folding free energy barrier on $N$}
361:
362: The simultaneous presence of stabilizing (between hydrophobic residues) and
363: destabilizing interactions involving polar and charged residues in
364: polypeptide chain renders the native state only marginally stable
365: \cite{Poland}.
366: The hydrophobic residues enable the formation of compact structures while
367: polar and charged residues, for whom water is a good solvent, are better
368: accommodated by extended conformations. Thus, in the folded state the
369: average energy gain per residue (compared to expanded states) is
370: $-\epsilon _H (\approx (1 - 2)$ kcal/mol) whereas due to chain connectivity
371: and surface area burial the loss in free energy of exposed residues is
372: $\epsilon _P \approx \epsilon _H$. Because there is a large number of
373: solvent-mediated interactions that stabilize the native state,
374: even when $N$ is small, it follows from the
375: central limit theorem that the barrier height $\beta \Delta G^{\ddagger}$,
376: whose lower bound is the stabilizing free energy should scale as
377: $\Delta G^{\ddagger} \sim k_BT\sqrt{N}$ \cite{Thirumalai95}.
378: A different physical picture has been used to argue that
379: $\Delta G^{\ddagger} \sim k_BTN^{2/3}$ \cite{Finkelstein97,Wolynes97}.
380: Both the scenarios show that the barrier to folding rates
381: scales sublinearly with $N$.
382:
383: The dependence of ln$k_F$ ($k_F = \tau_F^{-1}$) on $N$ using experimental
384: data for 69 proteins \cite{Munoz05}
385: and the simulation results for the 23 proteins is
386: consistent with the predicted behavior that
387: $\Delta G^{\ddagger} = ck_BT\sqrt{N}$ with $c \approx 1$. The correlation
388: between the experimental results and the theoretical fit is 0.74
389: which is similar to the previous analysis using a set of 57
390: proteins \cite{Li_Pol04}. It should be noted that the data can also be fit using
391: $\Delta G^{\ddagger} \sim k_BTN^{2/3}$.
392: The prefactor $\tau_F^0$ using the $N^{2/3}$ fit is over
393: an order of magnitude larger than
394: for the $N^{1/2}$ behavior. In the absence of accurate
395: measurements for a larger data set of proteins it is difficult to
396: distinguish between the two power laws for $\Delta G^{\ddagger}$.
397:
398: Previous studies \cite{KlimThirJCP98,Wolynes92} have shown that there is a correlation between folding
399: rates and $Z$-score which can be defined as
400: \begin{equation}
401: Z_G \; = \; \frac{G_N - <G_U>}{\sigma} ,
402: \label{Zscore_eq}
403: \end{equation}
404: where $G_N$ is the free energy of the native state, $<G_U>$ is the average free
405: energy of the unfolded states and $\sigma$ is the dispersion in the free
406: energy of the unfolded states. From the fluctuation formula it follows that
407: $\sigma = \sqrt{k_BT^2C_p}$ so that
408: \begin{equation}
409: Z_G \; = \; \frac{\Delta G}{\sqrt{k_BT^2C_p}} .
410: \label{Zscore1_eq}
411: \end{equation}
412: Since $\Delta G$ and $C_p$ are extensive it follows that $Z_G \sim N^{1/2}$.
413: This observation establishes an intrinsic connection between the
414: thermodynamics and kinetics of protein folding that involves formation and
415: rearrangement of non-covalent interactions. In an interesting
416: recent note \cite{Munoz05}
417: it has been argued that the finding
418: $\Delta G^{\ddagger} \sim k_BT\sqrt{N}$ can be
419: interpreted in terms of $n_{\sigma}$ in which $\Delta G$ in
420: Eq. (\ref{Zscore1_eq}) is replaced by $\Delta H$. In either case, there
421: appears to be a thermodynamic rationale for the sublinear scaling
422: of the folding free energy barrier.
423:
424: \section{Conclusions}
425:
426: We have reexamined the dependence of the extent of cooperativity as a function
427: of $N$ using lattice models with side chains, off-lattice models and experimental data on thermal denaturation.
428: The finding that $\Omega _c \sim N^{\zeta}$ at $T \approx T_F$ with $\zeta > 2$
429: provides additional support for the earlier theoretical predictions \cite{Li_PRL04}. More
430: importantly, the present work also shows that the theoretical value for
431: $\zeta$ is independent of the precise model used which implies that $\zeta$
432: is universal. It is surprising to find such general characteristics for
433: proteins for which specificity is often an important property. We should note
434: that accurate value of $\zeta$ and $\Omega _c$ can only be obtained using
435: more refined models that perhaps include desolvation
436: penalty \cite{Kaya03,Cheung02}
437:
438:
439: In accord with a number of theoretical predictions
440: \cite{Thirumalai95,Finkelstein97,Wolynes97,Shakhnovich96,Li_JPCB02,TakadaJMB2001}
441: we found that the folding free energy barrier scales only sublinearly
442: with $N$. The relatively small barrier is in accord with the marginal stability
443: of proteins. Since the barriers to global unfolding is relatively small it
444: follows that there must be large conformational fluctuations even when the
445: protein is in the NBA. Indeed, recent experiments show that such dynamical
446: fluctuations that are localized in various regions of a monomeric protein might
447: play an important functional role. These observations suggest that small barriers in proteins and RNA \cite{Hyeon05}
448: might be an evolved characteristics of all natural sequences.
449:
450: This work was
451: supported in part by a KBN grant No 1P03B01827,
452: the National Science Foundation grant
453: (CHE 05-14056) and National Science Council in Taiwan under grant numbers
454: No. NSC 93-2112-M-001-027 (to CKH).
455:
456: \begin{references}
457:
458: \bibitem{DimaThirJPCB04} Dima R. I.; Thirumalai D.
459: {\it J. Phys. Chem. B} {\bf 2004}, 108, 6564-6570.
460:
461: \bibitem{Poland} (a) D. Poland and H. A. Scheraga,
462: {\em Theory of helix-coil transitions in biopolymers}
463: (Academic Press, New York, 1970); (b)
464: T. E. Creighton, {\em Proteins: Structures and Molecular Principles}
465: (W. H. Freeman \& Co., New York, 1993).
466:
467: \bibitem{Privalov79} Privalov P. L.
468: {\it Adv. Phys. Chem.} {\bf 1979} 33, 167.
469:
470: \bibitem{Galzitskaya03} Galzitskaya O. V.; Garbuzynskiy S. O.;
471: Ivankov D. N.; Finkelstein A. V. {\it Proteins: Struct Funct Genet} {\bf 2003}, 51, 162-166.
472:
473: \bibitem{Ivankov03} Ivankov D. N.; Garbuzynskiy S. O.; Alm E.;
474: Plaxco K. W.; Baker D.; Finkelstein A.i V. Protein Sci. {\bf 2003},
475: 12, 2057-2062.
476:
477: \bibitem{Ivankov04} Ivankov D. N.; Finkelstein A. V. {\it Proc. Natl. Acad.
478: Sci. U.S.A} {\bf 2004}, 101, 8942-8944.
479:
480: \bibitem{Thirumalai95} Thirumalai D. {\it J. Phys. I (France)}
481: {\bf 1995},5, 1457-1467.
482:
483: \bibitem{Finkelstein97} Finkelstein A. V.; Badretdinov A. Ya.
484: {\it Fold Des} {\bf 1997}, 2, 115-121.
485:
486: \bibitem{Wolynes97} P. G. Wolynes,
487: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA {\bf 94}, 6170-6175 (1997).
488:
489: \bibitem{Li_Pol04} Li M. S.; Klimov D. K.; Thirumalai D.
490: {\it Polymer} {\bf 2004}, 45, 573-579.
491:
492: \bibitem{Kubelka04} Kubelka J.; Hofrichter J.; Eaton W. A. {\it Curr.
493: Opin. Struct. Biol.} {\bf 2004}, 14, 76-88.
494:
495: \bibitem{Munoz05} Naganathan A. N.; Mu\~noz V.
496: {\it J Am Chem Soc} {\bf 2005}, 127, 480-481.
497:
498: \bibitem{KlimThirJCC02} Klimov D. K.; Thirumalai D.
499: {\it J. Comp. Chem.} {\bf 2002}, 23, 161-165.
500:
501: \bibitem{Li_PRL04} Li M. S.; Klimov D. K.; Thirumalai D.
502: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 2004},
503: 93, 268107-268110.
504:
505: \bibitem{Li_PhysA05} Li M. S.; Klimov D. K.; Thirumalai D.
506: Physica A {\bf 350}, 38-44 (2005).
507:
508: \bibitem{Holtzer97} Holtzer M. E.; Loett E. G.; d'Avignon D. A.;
509: Holtzer A. {\it Biophys. J} {\bf 1997}, 73, 1031-1041.
510:
511: \bibitem{Gruebele05} Ma H. R. and Gruebele M.
512: {\it Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA} {\bf 2005}, 102, 2283-2287.
513:
514: \bibitem{UdgaonkarNSB2001} Lakshmikanth G. S.; Sridevi K.; Krishnamoorthy G.; Udgaonkar J. B. {\em Nat. Struc. Biol.} {\bf 2001}, 8, 799-804.
515:
516: \bibitem{Plaxco04} Kohn J. E.; Millett I. S.; Jacob J.; Zagrovic B.;
517: Dillon T. M.;
518: Cingel N.; Dothager R. S.; Seifert S.; Thiyagarajan P.; Sosnick T. R.;
519: Hasan M. Z.; Pande V. S.; Ruczinski I.; Doniach S.; Plaxco K. W.
520: {\it Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA} {\bf 2004}, 101, 12491-12496.
521:
522: \bibitem{FischerPRB1982} Fisher M. E.; Berker A. N. {\em Phys. Rev. B} {\bf 1982}, 26, 2507-2513.
523:
524: \bibitem{HoneyThirBiop92} Honeycutt J. D.; Thirumalai D.
525: {\it Biopolymers} {\bf 1992}, 32, 695-709.
526:
527: \bibitem{Go} Go N.
528: {\it Ann. Rev. Biophys. Bioeng.} {\bf 1983}, 12, 183-210.
529:
530: \bibitem{Clementi00} Clementi C.; Nymeyer H.; Onuchic J.
531: {\it J. Mol. Biol.} {\bf 2000}, 298, 937-953.
532:
533: \bibitem{Camacho93PNAS} Camacho C. J.; Thirumalai D.
534: {\it Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA} {\bf 1993}, 90, 6369-6372.
535:
536: \bibitem{Ferrenberg89} Ferrenberg A. M.; Swendsen R. H.
537: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 1989}, 63, 1195-1198.
538:
539: \bibitem{Jackson91} Jackson S. E.; Fersht A. R.
540: {\em Biochemistry} {\bf 1991}, 30, 10428-10435.
541:
542: \bibitem{KlimThirum98FD} Klimov D. K.; Thirumalai D. {\it Fold. Des.}
543: {\bf 1998}, 3, 127-139.
544:
545: \bibitem{Kaya00} Kaya H.;
546: Chan H. S. {\it Proteins: Struct. Funct. Gen.} {\bf 2000},
547: 40, 637-661.
548:
549: \bibitem{Kaya03} Kaya H.; Chan H. S. {\it J. Mol. Biol.} {\bf 2003}, 325,
550: 911-931.
551:
552: \bibitem{Chan_ME04} Chan H. S.; Shimizu S.; Kaya H.
553: {\it Methods in
554: Enzymology} {\bf 2004}, 380, 350-379.
555:
556: \bibitem{ChanPRL2000} Kaya H.; Chan H. S. {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 2000}, 85, 4823-4826.
557:
558: \bibitem{KlimThirJCP98} Klimov D. K. and Thirumalai D. {\it J. Chem. Phys}
559: {\bf 1998}, 109, 4119-4125.
560:
561: \bibitem{Wolynes92} Goldstein R. A.; Lutheyschulten Z. A.;
562: Wolynes P. G. {\it Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA} {\bf 1992}, 89, 4918-4922.
563:
564: \bibitem{Cheung02} Cheung M. S.; Garcia A. E.; Onuchic J. N.
565: {\it Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA} {\bf 2002}, 99, 685-690.
566:
567: \bibitem{Shakhnovich96} Gutin A.M.; Abkevich V.I.; Shakhnovich E. I.
568: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 1996}, 77, 5433-5436.
569:
570: \bibitem{Li_JPCB02}
571: Li M. S.; Klimov D. K.; Thirumalai D.
572: {\it J Phys Chem B} {\bf 2002}, 106, 8302-8305.
573:
574: \bibitem{TakadaJMB2001} Koga N.; Takada S. {\em J. Mol. Biol.} {\bf 2001}, 313, 171-180.
575:
576: \bibitem{Betancourt98} Betancourt M. R. J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 1998},
577: 109, 1545-1554.
578:
579: \bibitem{Webpage} A complete list of wild type proteins, the values of
580: cooperativity measure $\Omega_c$, the folding transition width $\Delta
581: T/T_F$ with corresponding errors are available at
582: www.biotheory.umd.edu/ScalingDB.html.
583:
584: \bibitem{Hyeon05} Hyeon C.; Thirumalai D. {\it Biochemistry}
585: {\bf 2005}, 44, 4957-4970.
586:
587: % REFERENCES TO TABLE 2
588: \bibitem{Dyer} Dyer R. B. (unpublished results).
589:
590: \bibitem{Gai} Xu Y.; Oyola R.; Gai F. {\em J. Am. Chem. Soc.}
591: {\bf 2003}, 125, 15388-15394.
592:
593: \bibitem{Honda} Honda S.; Kobayashi N.; Munekata E. {\em
594: J. Mol. Biol.} {\bf 2000}, 295, 269-278.
595:
596: \bibitem{Hagen} Qiu L.; Pabit S. A.; Roitberg A. E.; Hagen S. J.
597: {\em J. Am. Chem. Sci} {\bf 2002}, 124,
598: 12952-12953.
599:
600: \bibitem{Williams96} Williams S.; Causgrove T. P.; Gilmanshin R.;
601: Fang K. S.; Callender R. H.; Woodruff W. H.; Dyer R. B. {\em Biochemistry}
602: {\bf 1996}, 35, 691-697.
603:
604: \bibitem{Kubelka03} Kubelka J.; Eaton W. A.; Hofrichter J. {\em
605: J. Mol. Biol.} {\bf 2003}, 329, 625-630.
606:
607: \bibitem{Ferguson01} Ferguson N.; Johnson C. M.; Macias M.;
608: Oschkinat H.; Fersht A.
609: {\em et al.} {\em Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA} {\bf 2001},
610: 98, 13002-13007.
611:
612: \bibitem{Ferguson_p} Ferguson N. (private communication).
613:
614: \bibitem{Kouza05} Kouza M., Chang C.F. Hayryan S., Yu T. H., Li M. S.,
615: Huang T. H., and Hu C. K. submitted to Biophys. J.
616:
617: \bibitem{Alexander92} Alexander P.; Fahnestock S.; Lee T.; Orban J.; Bryan P.
618: {\em Biochemistry} {\bf 1991}, 31, 3597-3603.
619:
620: \bibitem{Knapp1} Knapp S.; Karshikoff A.; Berndt K. D.;
621: Christova P.; Atanasov B.; Ladenstein R.
622: {\em J. Mol. Biol.} {\bf 1996}, 264,
623: 1132-1144.
624:
625:
626: \bibitem{Jaenicke} Wassenberg D.; Welker C.; Jaenicke R. {\em
627: J. Mol. Biol.} {\bf 1999}, 289, 187-193.
628:
629: \bibitem{Knapp2} Knapp S.; Mattson P. T.; Christova P.; Berndt K. D.;
630: Karshikoff A.; Vihinen M.; Smith C. I. E.; Ladenstein R.
631: {\em Proteins: Struct. Funct. Gen.} {\bf 1998},
632: 31, 309-319.
633:
634: \bibitem{Hechts} Roy S.; Hechts M. H. {\em Biochemistry} {\bf 2000},
635: 39, 4603-4607.
636:
637: \bibitem{Villegas95}
638: Villegas V.; Azuaga A.; Catasus L.; Reverter D.; Mateo P. L.;
639: Aviles F. X.; Serrano L.
640: {\em Biochemistry} {\bf 1995}, 34, 15105-15110.
641:
642: \bibitem{Huang04} Naik M.; Huang T.-h. (2004)
643: {\it Protein Sci.} {\bf 2004}, 13, 2483-2492.
644:
645: \bibitem{Clarke97} Clarke J.; Hamill S. J.; Johnson C. M.
646: {\em J. Mol. Biol.} {\bf 1997}, 270, 771-778.
647:
648: \bibitem{SaRNase} Pace C. N.; Hebert E. J.; Shaw K. L.; Schell D.;
649: Both V.; Krajcikova D.; Sevcik J.; Wilson K. S.; Dauter Z.;
650: Hartley R. W.; Grimsley G. R.
651: {\it J. Mol. Biol.} {\bf 1998}, 279, 271-286.
652:
653: \bibitem{VanNuland98}
654: Van Nuland N. A. J.; Meijberg W.; Warner J.; Forge V.;
655: Ruud M. Scheek R. M.; Robillard G. T.; Dobson C. M.
656: {\em Biochemistry} {\bf 1998}, 37, 622-637.
657:
658: \bibitem{barnase} Martinez J. C.; Elharrous M.; Filimonov V. V.;
659: Mateo P. L.; Fersht A. R.
660: {\em Biochemistry} {\bf 1994}, 33, 3919-3926.
661:
662: \bibitem{Arnold97} Arnold U.; Ulbrich-Hofmann R. {\em Biochemistry}
663: {\bf 1997}, 36, 2166-2172.
664:
665: \bibitem{Hirai} M. Hirai, S. Arai, and H.
666: Iwase {\em J. Phys. Chem.} {\bf 103}, 549 (1999).
667:
668: \bibitem{Privalov} Makhatadze G.; G. M. Clore G. M.; Gronenborn A. M.;
669: Privalov P. L. {\em Biochemistry} {\bf 1994}, 33, 9327-9332.
670:
671:
672: \end{references}
673:
674: %\newpage
675: %
676: %\section*{\bf Table Caption}
677: %
678: %{\bf Table 1}: List of 23 proteins used in the simulations.
679: %(a) The native state for use in the Go model is obtained from the structures deposited in the Protein Data Bank. (b) $\Omega _c$ is calculated
680: %using equation (\ref{coop_eq}) with $f_N = <\chi (T)>$.
681: %(c) We calculated $\delta \Omega _c$ by the histogram method.
682: %
683: %{\bf Table 2}: List of 34 proteins for which $\Omega _c$ is calculated
684: %using experimental data. The calculated $\Omega _c$ values from experiments
685: %are significantly larger than those obtained using the Go models (see Table 1).
686:
687:
688:
689:
690: \newpage
691:
692: \begin{table}[h]
693: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
694: \hline
695: Protein&$N$&PDB code$^{\rm a}$&$\Omega_c^{\rm b}$&$\delta \Omega_c^{\rm c}$ \\
696: \hline
697: $\beta$-hairpin&$16$&1PGB&2.29&0.02\\
698: \hline
699: $\alpha$-helix&$21$&no code&0.803&0.002\\
700: \hline
701: WW domain&$34$&1PIN&3.79&0.02\\
702: \hline
703: Villin headpiece&$36$&1VII&3.51&0.01\\
704: \hline
705: YAP65&$40$&1K5R&3.63&0.05\\
706: \hline
707: E3BD&$45$& &7.21&0.05 \\
708: \hline
709: hbSBD&$52$&1ZWV&51.4&0.2\\
710: \hline
711: Protein G&$56$&1PGB&16.98&0.89\\
712: \hline
713: SH3 domain ($\alpha$-spectrum)&$57$&1SHG&74.03&1.35\\
714: \hline
715: SH3 domain (fyn)&$59$&1SHF&103.95&5.06\\
716: \hline
717: IgG-binding domain of streptococcal protein L&$63$&1HZ6&21.18&0.39\\
718: \hline
719: Chymotrypsin Inhibitor 2 (CI-2)&$65$&2CI2&33.23&1.66\\
720: \hline
721: CspB (Bacillus subtilis)&$67$&1CSP&66.87&2.18\\
722: \hline
723: CspA&$69$&1MJC&117.23&13.33\\
724: \hline
725: Ubiquitin&$76$&1UBQ&117.8&11.1\\
726: \hline
727: Activation domain procarboxypeptidase A2&$80$&1AYE&73.7&3.1\\
728: \hline
729: His-containing phosphocarrier protein&$85$&1POH&74.52&4.2\\
730: \hline
731: hbLBD&$87$&1K8M&15.8&0.2\\
732: \hline
733: Tenascin (short form)&$89$&1TEN&39.11&1.14\\
734: \hline
735: Twitchin Ig repeat 27&$89$&1TIT&44.85&0.66\\
736: \hline
737: S6&$97$&1RIS&48.69&1.31\\
738: \hline
739: FKBP12&$107$&1FKB&95.52&3.85\\
740: \hline
741: Ribonuclease A&$124$&1A5P&69.05&2.84\\
742: \hline
743: \end{tabular}
744: \caption{List of 23 proteins used in the simulations.
745: (a) The native state for use in the Go model is obtained from the structures deposited in the Protein Data Bank. (b) $\Omega _c$ is calculated
746: using equation (\ref{coop_eq}) with $f_N = <\chi (T)>$.
747: (c) 2 $\delta \Omega _c = |\Omega _c - \Omega _{c_1}| + |\Omega _c - \Omega _{c_2}|$, where $\Omega _{c_1}$ and $\Omega _{c_2}$ are
748: values of the cooperativity measure obtained by retaining only one-half the conformations used to compute $\Omega _c$.}
749: \end{table}
750:
751: \newpage
752:
753: \begin{table}[h]
754: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
755: \hline
756: Protein&$N$&$\Omega_c^a$&$\delta \Omega_c^b$& &Protein&$N$&$\Omega_c^a$&$\delta \Omega_c^b$ \\
757: %\hline
758: \cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
759: BH8 $\beta$-hairpin \cite{Dyer}&12&12.9&0.5& &SS07d \cite{Knapp1}&64&555.2&56.2\\
760: %\hline
761: \cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
762: HP1 $\beta$-hairpin \cite{Gai}&15&8.9&0.1& &CI2 \cite{Jackson91}&65&691.2&17.0 \\
763: %\hline
764: \cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
765: MrH3a $\beta$-hairpin \cite{Dyer}&16&54.1&6.2& &CspTm \cite{Jaenicke} &66&558.2&56.3 \\
766: %\hline
767: \cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
768: $\beta$-hairpin \cite{Honda}&16&33.8&7.4& &Btk SH3 \cite{Knapp2} &67&316.4&25.9\\
769: %\hline
770: \cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
771: Trp-cage protein \cite{Hagen}&20&24.8&5.1& &binary pattern protein \cite{Hechts} &74&273.9&30.5 \\
772: %\hline
773: \cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
774: $\alpha$-helix \cite{Williams96}&21&23.5&7.9& &ADA2h \cite{Villegas95} &80&332.0&35.2\\
775: %\hline
776: \cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
777: villin headpeace \cite{Kubelka03}&35&112.2&9.6& &hbLBD \cite{Huang04} &87&903.1&11.1 \\
778: %\hline
779: \cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
780: FBP28 WW domain$^c$ \cite{Ferguson01}&37&107.1&8.9& &tenascin Fn3 domain \cite{Clarke97} &91&842.4&56.6\\
781: %\hline
782: \cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
783: FBP28 W30A WW domain$^c$ \cite{Ferguson01} &37&90.4&8.8& &Sa RNase \cite{SaRNase} &96&1651.1&166.6 \\
784: %\hline
785: \cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
786: WW prototype$^c$ \cite{Ferguson01}&38&93.8&8.4& &Sa3 RNase \cite{SaRNase}&97&852.7&86.0\\
787: %\hline
788: \cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
789: YAP WW$^c$ \cite{Ferguson01}&40&96.9&18.5& &HPr \cite{VanNuland98}&98&975.6&61.9 \\
790: %\hline
791: \cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
792: BBL \cite{Ferguson_p}&47&128.2&18.0& &Sa2 RNase \cite{SaRNase} &99&1535.0&156.9 \\
793: %\hline
794: \cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
795: PSBD domain \cite{Ferguson_p}&47&282.8&24.0& &barnase \cite{barnase}&110&2860.1&286.0 \\
796: %\hline
797: \cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
798: PSBD domain \cite{Ferguson_p}&50&176.2&13.0& &RNase A \cite{Arnold97}&125&3038.5&42.6 \\
799: %\hline
800: \cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
801: hbSBD \cite{Kouza05} &52&71.8&6.3& &RNase B \cite{Arnold97}&125&3038.4&87.5\\
802: %\hline
803: \cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
804: B1 domain of protein G \cite{Alexander92} &56&525.7&12.5& &lysozyme \cite{Hirai} &129&1014.1&187.3 \\
805: %\hline
806: \cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
807: B2 domain of protein G \cite{Alexander92} &56&468.4&20.0& &interleukin-1$\beta$ \cite{Privalov} &153&1189.6&128.6\\\hline
808: \end{tabular}
809: \caption{List of 34 proteins for which $\Omega _c$ is calculated
810: using experimental data. The calculated $\Omega _c$ values from experiments
811: are significantly larger than those obtained using the Go models (see Table 1).
812: a) $\Omega _c$ is computed at $T = T_F = T_m$ using the experimental values
813: of $\Delta H$ and $T_m$.
814: b) The error in $\delta \Omega_c$ is computed using the proceedure given in \cite{Li_PRL04,Shakhnovich96}.
815: c) Data are averaged over two salt conditions at pH 7.0.}
816: \end{table}
817:
818: \newpage
819: \section*{\bf Figure Caption}
820:
821: {{\bf Figure} \ref{hairpin_CspB_fig} :}
822: The temperature dependence of $f_N$ and $df_N/dT$ for $\beta$-hairpin
823: ($N=16$) and CpsB ($N=67$). The scale for $df_N/dT$ is given on the right.
824: (a): the experimental curves were
825: obtained using
826: $\Delta H = 11.6$ kcal/mol,
827: $T_m=297$ K and $\Delta H = 54.4$ kcal/mol and $T_m= 354.5$ K for
828: $\beta$-hairpin and CpsB, respectively.
829: (b): the simulation results were calculated from $f_N = <\chi (T)>$.
830: The Go model gives only a qualitatively reliable estimates of $f_N(T)$.
831:
832: {{\bf Figure} \ref{Scal_Omega_fig}:}
833: Plot of ln$\Omega_c$ as a function of ln$N$.
834: The red line is a fit to the simulation data for the 23
835: off-lattice Go proteins from which we estimate
836: $\zeta =2.40 \pm 0.20$. The black line is a fit to the lattice models
837: with side chains ($N = 18, 24, 32, 40$ and 50) with
838: $\zeta = 2.35 \pm 0.07$.
839: The blue line is a fit to the experimental values of
840: $\Omega_c$ for 34 proteins (Table 2)
841: with $\zeta = 2.17 \pm 0.09$. The larger deviation in $\zeta$ for the minimal
842: models is due to lack of all the interactions that stabilize the native state .
843:
844: {{\bf Figure} \ref{real_pro_fig}:}
845: Folding rate of 69 real proteins (squares) is plotted as
846: a function of $N^{1/2}$ (the straight line represent the fit
847: $y = 1.54 -1.10x$ with the correlation coefficient $R=0.74$).
848: The open circles represent the data obtained for 23
849: off-lattice Go proteins (see Table 1)
850: (the linear fit $y = 9.84 - x$ and $R=0.92$).
851: The triangles denote the data obtained for lattice models with side
852: chains ($N = 18, 24, 32, 40$ and 50, the linear fit
853: $y = -4.01 - 1.1x$ and $R=0.98$). For real proteins
854: and off-lattice Go proteins $k_F$ is measured in $\mu s^{-1}$, whereas
855: for the lattice models it is measured in MCS$^{-1}$
856: where MCS is Monte Carlo steps.
857:
858:
859:
860: \newpage
861:
862: % FIGURE 1
863: %\begin{figure}
864: %\epsfxsize=3.2in
865: %\centerline{\epsffile{fig1_royal.eps}}
866: \begin{figure}[ht]
867: \includegraphics[width=6.00in]{fig1_new.eps}
868: \caption{}
869: \label{hairpin_CspB_fig}
870: \end{figure}
871:
872: \newpage
873:
874: % FIGURE 2
875: %\epsfxsize=5.5in
876: %\centerline{\epsffile{fig2_royal.eps}}
877: \begin{figure}[ht]
878: \includegraphics[width=6.00in]{fig2_new.eps}
879: \caption{}
880: \label{Scal_Omega_fig}
881: \end{figure}
882:
883: % FIGURE 3
884: %\begin{figure}
885: %\epsfxsize=3.2in
886: %\centerline{\epsffile{fig3_royal.eps}}
887: \begin{figure}[ht]
888: \includegraphics[width=6.0in]{fig3_new.eps}
889: \caption{}
890: \label{real_pro_fig}
891: \end{figure}
892:
893: \end{document}
894:
895:
896: \bibitem{Kleinert} H. Kleinert and V. Schulte-Flohlinde, {\em Critical
897: Properties of $\phi^4$-Theories} (World Scientific, Singapore, 2002).
898:
899: \bibitem{ProteinDB} A complete list of WT proteins, the values of
900: cooperativity measure $\Omega_c$, the folding transition width $\Delta
901: T/T_F$ with corresponding errors are available at
902: www.biotheory.umd.edu/ScalingDB.html.
903:
904: \bibitem{Onuchic97} J. N. Onuchic, Z. Lurthey-Schulten, and P. G. Wolynes,
905: Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem. {\bf 48}, 3455 (1997).
906:
907:
908: \bibitem{Gutin96} A.M. Gutin, V. I. Abkevich, and E. I. Shakhnovich,
909: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 5433 (1996).
910:
911:
912: \bibitem{Allen_book} Allen, M. P. \& Tildesley, D. J. (1987)
913: {\it Computer simulations of liquids}, (Oxford Science Pub., Oxford, UK).
914:
915:
916: \bibitem{SBD} Kouza M.; Chang C. F.; Hayryan S.; Yu T. H.;
917: Li M. S.; Huang T.-h.;
918: Hu C. K. submitted to Biophys. J.
919:
920: \bibitem{LBD} M. Naik and T.-h. Huang, Protein Sci. {\bf 13}, 2483-2492 (2004).
921:
922: \bibitem{Kohn04} J. E. Kohn {\em et al.},
923: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA {\bf 101}, 12491 (2004).
924:
925: \bibitem{Xia02} Y. Xia and M. Levitt, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA {\bf 99},
926: LDSTEIN RA, LUTHEYSCHULTEN ZA, WOLYNES PG
927: 10382 (2002).
928: