We compare the folding of representative members of a protein superfamily by experiment and simulation to investigate common features in folding mechanisms. The homeodomain superfamily of three-helical, single-domain proteins exhibits a spectrum of folding processes that spans the complete transition from concurrent secondary and tertiary structure formation (nucleation-condensation mechanism) to sequential secondary and tertiary formation (framework mechanism). The unifying factor in their mechanisms is that the transition state for (un)folding is expanded and very native-like, with the proportion and degree of formation of secondary and tertiary interactions varying. There is a transition, or slide, from the framework to nucleation-condensation mechanism with decreasing stability of the secondary structure. Thus, framework and nucleation-condensation are different manifestations of an underlying common mechanism.

Are all protein interactions fully optimized? Do suboptimal interactions compromise specificity? What is the functional impact of frustration? Why does evolution not optimize some contacts? Proteins and their complexes are best described as ensembles of states populating an energy landscape. These ensembles vary in breadth from narrow ensembles clustered around a single average X-ray structure to broader ensembles encompassing a few different functional “taxonomic” states on to near continua of rapidly interconverting conformations, which are called “fuzzy” or even “intrinsically disordered”. Here we aim to provide a comprehensive framework for confronting the structural and dynamical continuum of protein assemblies by combining the concepts of energetic frustration and interaction fuzziness. The diversity of the protein structural ensemble arises from the frustrated conflicts between the interactions that create the energy landscape. When frustration is minimal after folding, it results in a narrow ensemble, but residual frustrated interactions result in fuzzy ensembles, and this fuzziness allows a versatile repertoire of biological interactions. Here we discuss how fuzziness and frustration play off each other as proteins fold and assemble, viewing their significance from energetic, functional, and evolutionary perspectives. We demonstrate, in particular, that the common physical origin of both concepts is related to the ruggedness of the energy landscapes, intramolecular in the case of frustration and intermolecular in the case of fuzziness. Within this framework, we show that alternative sets of suboptimal contacts may encode specificity without achieving a single structural optimum. Thus, we demonstrate that structured complexes may not be optimized, and energetic frustration is realized via different sets of contacts leading to multiplicity of specific complexes. Furthermore, we propose that these suboptimal, frustrated, or fuzzy interactions are under evolutionary selection and expand the biological repertoire by providing a multiplicity of biological activities. In accord, we show that non-native interactions in folding or interaction landscapes can cooperate to generate diverse functional states, which are essential to facilitate adaptation to different cellular conditions. Thus, we propose that not fully optimized structures may actually be beneficial for biological activities of proteins via an alternative set of suboptimal interactions. The importance of such variability has not been recognized across different areas of biology. This account provides a modern view on folding, function, and assembly across the protein universe. The physical framework presented here is applicable to the structure and dynamics continuum of proteins and opens up new perspectives for drug design involving not fully structured, highly dynamic protein assemblies.

The hydrophobic effect is a major driving force in protein folding. A complete understanding of this effect requires the description of the conformational states of water and protein molecules at different temperatures. Towards this goal, we characterise the cold and hot denatured states of a protein by modelling NMR chemical shifts using restrained molecular dynamics simulations. A detailed analysis of the resulting structures reveals that water molecules in the bulk and at the protein interface form on average the same number of hydrogen bonds. Thus, even if proteins are ‘large’ particles (in terms of the hydrophobic effect, i.e. larger than 1 nm), because of the presence of complex surface patterns of polar and non-polar residues their behaviour can be compared to that of ‘small’ particles (i.e. smaller than 1 nm). We thus find that the hot denatured state is more compact and richer in secondary structure than the cold denatured state, since water at lower temperatures can form more hydrogen bonds than at high temperatures. Then, using Φ-value analysis we show that the structural differences between the hot and cold denatured states result in two alternative folding mechanisms. These findings thus illustrate how the analysis of water-protein hydrogen bonds can reveal the molecular origins of protein behaviours associated with the hydrophobic effect.

Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) and intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) of proteins are very common and instrumental for cellular signaling. Recently, a number of studies have investigated the kinetic binding mechanisms of IDPs and IDRs. These results allow us to draw conclusions about the energy landscape for the coupled binding and folding of disordered proteins. The association rate constants of IDPs cover a wide range (10⁵–10⁹ M⁻¹ s⁻¹) and are largely governed by long-range charge–charge interactions, similarly to interactions between well-folded proteins. Off-rate constants also differ significantly among IDPs (with half-lives of up to several minutes) but are usually around 0.1–1000 s⁻¹, allowing for rapid dissociation of complexes. Likewise, affinities span from pM to μM suggesting that the low-affinity high-specificity concept for IDPs is not straightforward. Overall, it appears that binding precedes global folding although secondary structure elements such as helices may form before the protein–protein interaction. Short IDPs bind in apparent two-state reactions whereas larger IDPs often display complex multi-step binding reactions. While the two extreme cases of two-step binding (conformational selection and induced fit) or their combination into a square mechanism is an attractive model in theory, it is too simplistic in practice. Experiment and simulation suggest a more complex energy landscape in which IDPs bind targets through a combination of conformational selection before binding (e.g., secondary structure formation) and induced fit after binding (global folding and formation of short-range intermolecular interactions).