Intrinsically Disordered Protein: Difference between revisions
From Proteopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Eric Martz (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Eric Martz (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Beginning around 2000, it was recognized that not all proteins function in a folded state<ref>PMID: 10550212</ref><ref>PMID: 11381529</ref><ref>PMID: 11784292</ref><ref name="tompa2002">PMID: 12368089</ref><ref>Summary of the previous paper (Tompa, 2002): The disorder of intrinsically unstructured proteins (IUP's) is crucial to their functions. They may adopt defined but extended structures when bound to cognate ligands. Their amino acid compositions are less hydrophobic than those of soluble proteins. They lack hydrophobic cores, and hence do not become insoluble when heated. About 40% of eukaryotic proteins have at least one long (>50 residues) disordered region. Roughly 10% of proteins in various genomes have been predicted to be fully disordered. Presently over 100 IUP's have been identified; none are enzymes. Obviously, IUP's are greatly underrepresented in the Protein Data Bank, although there are a few cases of an IUP bound to a folded (intrinsically structured) protein. Here, Tompa suggests five functional categories for intrinsically unstructured proteins and domains: entropic chains (bristles to ensure spacing, springs, flexible spacers/linkers), effectors (inhibitors and disassemblers), scavengers, assemblers, and display sites. (Summary by Eric Martz.)</ref><ref>PMID: 18952168</ref><ref>PMID: 15284216</ref>. Some proteins must be unfolded or disordered in order to perform their functions, and others fold only in complex with target structures<ref name="gunasekaran2003">PMID: 12575995</ref><ref>Summary of the previous paper (Gunasekaran ''et al.'', 2003): Argues that proteins involved in extensive protein-protein interactions can function effectively despite having their structure depend upon such interactions, so that as monomers they are natively disordered. Dispensing with the structural framework (scaffold) needed to maintain a stable fold in the monomer increases efficiency by reducing size. This may account for the large percentage (roughly half) of all proteins that are predicted to be natively disordered. (Summary by Eric Martz.)</ref><ref>PMID: 15738986</ref>. These are termed '''intrinsically disordered protein (IDP), intrinsically unstructured protein (IUP), or natively unfolded protein'''. | Beginning around 2000, it was recognized that not all proteins function in a folded state<ref>PMID: 10550212</ref><ref>PMID: 11381529</ref><ref>PMID: 11784292</ref><ref name="tompa2002">PMID: 12368089</ref><ref>Summary of the previous paper (Tompa, 2002): The disorder of intrinsically unstructured proteins (IUP's) is crucial to their functions. They may adopt defined but extended structures when bound to cognate ligands. Their amino acid compositions are less hydrophobic than those of soluble proteins. They lack hydrophobic cores, and hence do not become insoluble when heated. About 40% of eukaryotic proteins have at least one long (>50 residues) disordered region. Roughly 10% of proteins in various genomes have been predicted to be fully disordered. Presently over 100 IUP's have been identified; none are enzymes. Obviously, IUP's are greatly underrepresented in the Protein Data Bank, although there are a few cases of an IUP bound to a folded (intrinsically structured) protein. Here, Tompa suggests five functional categories for intrinsically unstructured proteins and domains: entropic chains (bristles to ensure spacing, springs, flexible spacers/linkers), effectors (inhibitors and disassemblers), scavengers, assemblers, and display sites. (Summary by Eric Martz.)</ref><ref>PMID: 18952168</ref><ref>PMID: 15284216</ref>. Some proteins must be unfolded or disordered in order to perform their functions, and others fold only in complex with target structures<ref name="gunasekaran2003">PMID: 12575995</ref><ref>Summary of the previous paper (Gunasekaran ''et al.'', 2003): Argues that proteins involved in extensive protein-protein interactions can function effectively despite having their structure depend upon such interactions, so that as monomers they are natively disordered. Dispensing with the structural framework (scaffold) needed to maintain a stable fold in the monomer increases efficiency by reducing size. This may account for the large percentage (roughly half) of all proteins that are predicted to be natively disordered. (Summary by Eric Martz.)</ref><ref>PMID: 15738986</ref>. These are termed '''intrinsically disordered protein (IDP), intrinsically unstructured protein (IUP), or natively unfolded protein'''. | ||
By some estimates, about 10% of all proteins are fully disordered, and about 40% of eukaryotic proteins have at least one long (>50 amino acids) disordered loop<ref name="tompa2002" />. Such sequences, under physiological conditions ''in vitro'', display physicochemical characteristics resembling those of random coils. They possess little or no ordered structure, having instead an extended conformation with high intra-molecular flexibility, lacking any tightly packed core. | By some estimates, about 10% of all proteins are fully disordered, and about 40% of eukaryotic proteins have at least one long (>50 amino acids) disordered loop<ref name="tompa2002" />. Such sequences, under physiological conditions ''in vitro'', display physicochemical characteristics resembling those of random coils. They possess little or no ordered structure, having instead an extended conformation with high intra-molecular flexibility, lacking any tightly packed core. | ||
