Criteria for downhill protein folding: Calorimetry, chevron plot, kinetic relaxation, and single‐molecule radius of gyration in chain models with subdued degrees of cooperativity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent investigations of possible downhill folding of small proteins such as BBL have focused on the thermodynamics of non-two-state, "barrierless" folding/denaturation transitions. Downhill folding is noncooperative and thermodynamically "one-state," a phenomenon underpinned by a unimodal conformational distribution over chain properties such as enthalpy, hydrophobic exposure, and conformational dimension. In contrast, corresponding distributions for cooperative two-state folding are bimodal with well-separated population peaks. Using simplified atomic modeling of a three-helix bundle-in a scheme that accounts for hydrophobic interactions and hydrogen bonding-and coarse-grained C(alpha) models of four real proteins with various degrees of cooperativity, we evaluate the effectiveness of several observables at defining the underlying distribution. Bimodal distributions generally lead to sharper transitions, with a higher heat capacity peak at the transition midpoint, compared with unimodal distributions. However, the observation of a sigmoidal transition is not a reliable criterion for two-state behavior, and the heat capacity baselines, used to determine the van't Hoff and calorimetric enthalpies of the transition, can introduce ambiguity. Interestingly we find that, if the distribution of the single-molecule radius of gyration were available, it would permit discrimination between unimodal and bimodal underlying distributions. We investigate kinetic implications of thermodynamic noncooperativity using Langevin dynamics. Despite substantial chevron rollovers, the relaxation of the models considered is essentially single-exponential over an extended range of native stabilities. Consistent with experiments, significant deviations from single-exponential behavior occur only under strongly folding conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".