FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2050879958> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2050879958 endingPage "2612" @default.
• W2050879958 startingPage "2611" @default.
• W2050879958 abstract "Macromolecular folding and binding events are behind many cellular processes, so it is important to understand the mechanism by which they occur. Single-molecule experiments have begun to reveal details of molecular mechanisms and energy landscapes that may be very difficult to resolve via ensemble experiments (1Borgia A. Williams P.M. Clarke J. Single-molecule studies of protein folding.Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2008; 77: 101-125Crossref PubMed Scopus (275) Google Scholar), in particular by resolving subpopulations of molecules and unambiguously assigning the sequence of events (2Shank E.A. Cecconi C. Bustamante C. et al.The folding cooperativity of a protein is controlled by its chain topology.Nature. 2010; 465: 637-640Crossref PubMed Scopus (185) Google Scholar). A special feature of single-molecule pulling experiments, such as those using atomic force microscopes, or optical tweezers, is that a force is applied to the same coordinate that is being observed, namely the molecular extension (3Fernandez J.M. Li H. Force-clamp spectroscopy monitors the folding trajectory of a single protein.Science. 2004; 303: 1674-1678Crossref PubMed Scopus (454) Google Scholar), allowing details of the molecular free energy landscape (4Dudko O.K. Hummer G. Szabo A. Intrinsic rates and activation free energies from single-molecule pulling experiments.Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006; 96: 108101Crossref PubMed Scopus (619) Google Scholar, 5Woodside M.T. Anthony P.C. Block S.M. et al.Direct measurement of the full, sequence-dependent folding landscape of a nucleic acid.Science. 2006; 314: 1001-1004Crossref PubMed Scopus (298) Google Scholar) and dynamics (6Yu H. Gupta A.N. Woodside M.T. et al.Energy landscape analysis of native folding of the prion protein yields the diffusion constant, transition path time, and rates.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2012; 109: 14452-14457Crossref PubMed Scopus (126) Google Scholar) to be elucidated. However, this introduces a requirement for attaching the molecular system to the pulling device, which has tended to limit the applications to unimolecular conformational transitions such as, for example, the folding of a nucleic acid or protein (3Fernandez J.M. Li H. Force-clamp spectroscopy monitors the folding trajectory of a single protein.Science. 2004; 303: 1674-1678Crossref PubMed Scopus (454) Google Scholar, 5Woodside M.T. Anthony P.C. Block S.M. et al.Direct measurement of the full, sequence-dependent folding landscape of a nucleic acid.Science. 2006; 314: 1001-1004Crossref PubMed Scopus (298) Google Scholar, 6Yu H. Gupta A.N. Woodside M.T. et al.Energy landscape analysis of native folding of the prion protein yields the diffusion constant, transition path time, and rates.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2012; 109: 14452-14457Crossref PubMed Scopus (126) Google Scholar). Relatively little work, either experimental or theoretical, has addressed the problem of macromolecular association in single-molecule force experiments. In recent years, practical limitations have been overcome by introducing an artificial tether between the two binding partners and by improvements in instrumental stability allowing measurements at lower forces than previously possible (7Junker J.P. Ziegler F. Rief M. Ligand-dependent equilibrium fluctuations of single calmodulin molecules.Science. 2009; 323: 633-637Crossref PubMed Scopus (179) Google Scholar, 8Kim J. Zhang C.-Z. Springer T.A. et al.A mechanically stabilized receptor-ligand flex-bond important in the vasculature.Nature. 2010; 466: 992-995Crossref PubMed Scopus (210) Google Scholar). These experiments have the potential to resolve different types of binding mechanism (9Best R.B. Hummer G. Unfolding the secrets of calmodulin.Science. 2009; 323: 593-594Crossref PubMed Scopus (11) Google Scholar). However, to date there has been little corresponding theoretical work. In this issue, Pierse and Dudko (10Pierse C.A. Dudko O.K. Kinetics and energetics of biomolecular folding and binding.Biophys. J. 2013; 105: L19-L22Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar) have published a concise statistical-mechanical theory, which culminates with an analytical solution for the key experimental observable: the distribution of folding or binding forces. The analytical nature of the theory makes it suitable for a direct fit to experimental data, unlike numerical models. The fit, in turn, yields the key determinants of folding and binding processes from mechanical pulling experiments. At first glance, there may not seem to be much difference between the description of molecular association or refolding and that for rupture of ligand-receptor bonds or protein unfolding (4Dudko O.K. Hummer G. Szabo A. Intrinsic rates and activation free energies from single-molecule pulling experiments.Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006; 96: 108101Crossref PubMed Scopus (619) Google Scholar). Indeed, for molecular simulations done at a low, constant force, the same theory can be used to recover the free energy landscape parameters for protein refolding (11Best R.B. Hummer G. Protein folding kinetics under force from molecular simulation.J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008; 130: 3706-3707Crossref PubMed Scopus (35) Google Scholar). However, for real experiments, the situation is more complicated: For either refolding or binding, the effect of the stiffness of the pulling device itself cannot be ignored as it is when considering rupture or unfolding events. The reason is that in the latter case, the stiffness of the molecule in the folded or bound state is much greater than that of the pulling device, but in the former, they may be comparable, which affects the shape of the combined potential of the molecule and the device, and, hence, the transition rate. For rebinding experiments, the tether used to link the binding partners will also alter the binding free energy landscape, and must therefore be accounted for to obtain unbiased landscape parameters. For experiments in which the force is time-dependent, the major experimental output—the distribution of folding or binding forces—is qualitatively different, having negative skew for unbinding/unfolding, but positive for rebinding/refolding (Fig. 1). The theory of Pierse and Dudko (10Pierse C.A. Dudko O.K. Kinetics and energetics of biomolecular folding and binding.Biophys. J. 2013; 105: L19-L22Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar) addresses all of these issues, and thus will serve as an analytical tool for quantitative interpretation of single-molecule experiments on folding, and open the way for further work on macromolecular binding. Of course, there are still many interesting issues to consider, both from experimental and theoretical points of view. From a theoretical point of view, the description for protein or nucleic acid folding is well developed. However, molecular binding in the absence of a tether keeping the two molecules together is bimolecular, and an additional step is required to obtain the bimolecular rate from the pseudo-unimolecular rate in the theory being discussed here. In the design of such rebinding experiments, a number of decisions need to be made, such as how long the tethers linking the molecules should be, and where should they be attached. Most exciting will be the application of the new theory to experimental data on physiologically relevant binding events, for example for the binding of cell adhesion molecules to cell surface receptors or binding of the von Willebrand factor to glycoprotein Ibα, crucial in the formation of blood clots (8Kim J. Zhang C.-Z. Springer T.A. et al.A mechanically stabilized receptor-ligand flex-bond important in the vasculature.Nature. 2010; 466: 992-995Crossref PubMed Scopus (210) Google Scholar). Kinetics and Energetics of Biomolecular Folding and BindingPierse et al.Biophysical JournalNovember 05, 2013In BriefThe ability of biomolecules to fold and to bind to other molecules is fundamental to virtually every living process. Advanced experimental techniques can now reveal how single biomolecules fold or bind against mechanical force, with the force serving as both the regulator and the probe of folding and binding transitions. Here, we present analytical expressions suitable for fitting the major experimental outputs from such experiments to enable their analysis and interpretation. The fit yields the key determinants of the folding and binding processes: the intrinsic on-rate and the location and height of the activation barrier. Full-Text PDF Open Archive" @default.
• W2050879958 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2050879958 creator A5059620610 @default.
• W2050879958 date "2013-12-01" @default.
• W2050879958 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W2050879958 title "Folding and Binding: When the Force is Against You" @default.
• W2050879958 cites W1958537546 @default.
• W2050879958 cites W1986156047 @default.
• W2050879958 cites W1998596396 @default.
• W2050879958 cites W2021938401 @default.
• W2050879958 cites W2022467150 @default.
• W2050879958 cites W2030261975 @default.
• W2050879958 cites W2059206109 @default.
• W2050879958 cites W2065907078 @default.
• W2050879958 cites W2087321793 @default.
• W2050879958 cites W2090807504 @default.
• W2050879958 cites W2117481749 @default.
• W2050879958 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2013.10.035" @default.
• W2050879958 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3882473" @default.
• W2050879958 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24359729" @default.
• W2050879958 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2050879958 type Work @default.
• W2050879958 sameAs 2050879958 @default.
• W2050879958 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W2050879958 countsByYear W20508799582016 @default.
• W2050879958 countsByYear W20508799582021 @default.
• W2050879958 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2050879958 hasAuthorship W2050879958A5059620610 @default.
• W2050879958 hasBestOaLocation W20508799581 @default.
• W2050879958 hasConcept C12554922 @default.
• W2050879958 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2050879958 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2050879958 hasConcept C204328495 @default.
• W2050879958 hasConcept C2776545253 @default.
• W2050879958 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2050879958 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W2050879958 hasConcept C8010536 @default.
• W2050879958 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2050879958 hasConceptScore W2050879958C12554922 @default.
• W2050879958 hasConceptScore W2050879958C127413603 @default.
• W2050879958 hasConceptScore W2050879958C185592680 @default.
• W2050879958 hasConceptScore W2050879958C204328495 @default.
• W2050879958 hasConceptScore W2050879958C2776545253 @default.
• W2050879958 hasConceptScore W2050879958C55493867 @default.
• W2050879958 hasConceptScore W2050879958C78519656 @default.
• W2050879958 hasConceptScore W2050879958C8010536 @default.
• W2050879958 hasConceptScore W2050879958C86803240 @default.
• W2050879958 hasIssue "12" @default.
• W2050879958 hasLocation W20508799581 @default.
• W2050879958 hasLocation W20508799582 @default.
• W2050879958 hasLocation W20508799583 @default.
• W2050879958 hasLocation W20508799584 @default.
• W2050879958 hasOpenAccess W2050879958 @default.
• W2050879958 hasPrimaryLocation W20508799581 @default.
• W2050879958 hasRelatedWork W1964794469 @default.
• W2050879958 hasRelatedWork W1972266607 @default.
• W2050879958 hasRelatedWork W2016081971 @default.
• W2050879958 hasRelatedWork W2020768312 @default.
• W2050879958 hasRelatedWork W2072516324 @default.
• W2050879958 hasRelatedWork W2088368476 @default.
• W2050879958 hasRelatedWork W2141260852 @default.
• W2050879958 hasRelatedWork W2334410912 @default.
• W2050879958 hasRelatedWork W4319928815 @default.
• W2050879958 hasRelatedWork W598041717 @default.
• W2050879958 hasVolume "105" @default.
• W2050879958 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2050879958 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2050879958 magId "2050879958" @default.
• W2050879958 workType "article" @default.