Mini ReviewReconciling binding mechanisms of intrinsically disordered proteins
Introduction
Until recently, the understanding of protein association has been rationalized on the basis of the ‘structure-function’ paradigm, where a well-defined three-dimensional arrangement is an indispensable requisite for binding. However, such dogma was recently challenged by the existence of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) or natively unfolded proteins [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Under physiological conditions, these proteins display a large degree of internal flexibility, ranging from coil-like structures, which are largely devoid of secondary and tertiary structure, to more ordered molten globule-like structures [3], [4], [7]. IDPs have garnered a lot of attention because of the functional importance inherent to their flexible nature. IDPs have often been found to regulate key cellular processes through binding to multiple targets [4], [8]; well documented examples of these IDPs are the tumor suppressor p53 [9], [10] and the transcription factor cAMP response-element binding protein (CREB) [11], [12].
One of the most intriguing features of IDPs is their ability to undergo disorder-to-order transitions upon binding in order to perform their function [13], [14], [15]. Binding of IDPs offers unique advantages in cellular signaling and regulation. For instance, the ability of IDPs to be molded by their binding partner ensures that binding to multiple targets will proceed selectively and with optimized binding rates. While there is a consensus opinion on the importance of intermolecular interactions involving IDPs, views on the possible mechanisms of binding are still divergent. Among the emerging mechanistic theories of IDP binding, two diametrically opposite models have been proposed: the ‘conformational selection’ and the ‘coupled folding and binding’. Both mechanistic models will be discussed in the following sections.
Section snippets
Conformational selection
This model was originally proposed as an extension of the theory of ‘folding funnel’, in which a protein explores the conformational landscape toward its low-energy (native) structure [16], [17], [18], [19]. In analogy to this concept, it has been proposed that folding and binding are mechanistically analogous, as both processes involve the location of molecular fragments in a funneled-like landscape, reducing the accessible configurational states (entropy) and consequently lowering the free
Coupled folding and binding
Unlike conformational selection, this disorder-to-order mechanism (also called ‘binding-induced folding’) proposes that folding of IDPs can only take place upon binding [13], [14]. Although in this hypothesis disorder-to-order transitions will be referred to as the gain of structural order upon binding (i.e., formation of defined secondary or tertiary structure), it is important to highlight that these transitions may occur in the absence of IDP folding [28], [29]. Similarly to the
Conformational selection and coupled folding and binding are synergistic
Mechanistically, both conformational selection and coupled folding and binding seem appealing to explain how IDPs bind to their partners. However, a key question arises: what model is ubiquitous in IDP binding?
To answer this question, it is necessary to consider that both models mechanistically rely on the theory of funneled energy landscapes. In this theory, folding is viewed as diffusion through an ensemble of conformational states characterized by reaction coordinates (i.e., the fraction of
Concluding remarks
Close analysis of the two most popular mechanisms of IDP binding not only suggests that they have more in common than what it has been thought, but also that they work synergistically. To what extent each model will contribute to the binding of IDPs will depend on different factors, such as rate of binding and local plasticity. Nonetheless, in the consensus synergistic model proposed here conformational selection will play the most important role in the specific encounter, while coupled folding
Acknowledgment
The author acknowledges the financial support from CONACYT.
References (43)
- et al.
Intrinsically unstructured proteins: re-assessing the protein structure-function paradigm
J. Mol. Biol.
(1999) Intrinsically unstructured proteins
Trends Biochem. Sci.
(2002)The interplay between structure and function in intrinsically unstructured proteins
FEBS Lett.
(2005)- et al.
Conformational preferences in the Ser133-phosphorylated and non-phosphorylated forms of the kinase inducible transactivation domain of CREB
FEBS Lett.
(1998) - et al.
CREB: the unindicted cancer co-conspirator
Trends Cell Biol.
(2005) - et al.
Linking folding and binding
Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.
(2009) - et al.
Coupling of folding and binding for unstructured proteins
Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.
(2002) Leucine-rich hydrophobic clusters promote folding of the N-terminus of the intrinsically disordered transactivation domain of p53
FEBS Lett.
(2009)- et al.
Effect of phosphorylation on the structure and fold of transactivation domain of p53
J. Biol. Chem.
(2002) - et al.
Binding of intrinsically disordered proteins is not necessarily accompanied by a structural transition to a folded form
Biochimie
(2007)
Fuzzy complexes: polymorphism and structural disorder in protein–protein interactions
Trends Biochem. Sci.
Analysis of molecular recognition features (MoRFs)
J. Mol. Biol.
Preformed structural elements feature in partner recognition by intrinsically unstructured proteins
J. Mol. Biol.
Solution structure of the KIX domain of CBP bound to the transactivation domain of CREB: a model for activator:coactivator interactions
Cell
Intrinsically disordered protein
J. Mol. Graph. Model.
Folding for binding or binding for folding?
Trends Biotechnol.
Why are “natively unfolded” proteins unstructured under physiologic conditions?
Proteins
Natively unfolded proteins: a point where biology waits for physics
Protein Sci.
Intrinsically unstructured proteins and their functions
Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol.
The protein trinity-linking function and disorder
Nat. Biotechnol.
Showing your ID: intrinsic disorder as an ID for recognition, regulation and cell signaling
J. Mol. Recognit.
Cited by (85)
Disordered regions tune order in chromatin organization and function
2022, Biophysical ChemistryExperimental studies of binding of intrinsically disordered proteins to their partners
2019, Intrinsically Disordered Proteins: Dynamics, Binding, and FunctionEntropic Control of an Excited Folded-Like Conformation in a Disordered Protein Ensemble
2018, Journal of Molecular BiologyProkaryotic Ubiquitin-Like Protein and Its Ligase/Deligase Enyzmes
2017, Journal of Molecular BiologyProbing the dynamics of disorder
2017, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular BiologyModeling Protein Flexibility in Molecular Docking
2017, Comprehensive Medicinal Chemistry III