Tools
Biochemistry, Tertiary Protein Structure
Introduction
Proteins constitute essential biomolecules with biological functions, including catalysis, signaling, and structural support, that depend on their 3-dimensional conformations.[1] Protein structure is organized hierarchically into primary (amino acid sequence), secondary (local motifs such as α-helices and β-sheets), tertiary (overall fold of a single polypeptide chain), and quaternary (assembly of multiple subunits) levels.[2][3][4][5][6] Among these levels, tertiary structure determines functional specificity and contributes to cellular stability. Tertiary folding is stabilized primarily by noncovalent interactions and is highly sensitive to mutations, misfolding, and environmental stress.
Alterations in tertiary structure are implicated in diverse pathologies, including neurodegenerative diseases, cancer, and inherited protein misfolding disorders. This activity examines the biochemical principles underlying tertiary protein structure, the factors governing its formation, and the clinical consequences of structural alterations.
Fundamentals
Register For Free And Read The Full Article
Search engine and full access to all medical articles- 10 free questions in your specialty
- Free CME/CE Activities
- Free daily question in your email
- Save favorite articles to your dashboard
- Emails offering discounts
Learn more about a Subscription to StatPearls Point-of-Care
Fundamentals
Defining Tertiary Protein Structure
Tertiary structure denotes the unique 3-dimensional conformation adopted by a single polypeptide chain. This complex folding integrates the spatial arrangement of secondary structural elements, such as α-helices and β-sheets, with the precise orientation of all amino acid side chains (R groups).[7] The tertiary structure is the fully folded, functional state of the protein essential for specific biological activity.[8]
Tertiary structures frequently contain 1 or more protein domains—self-stabilizing regions of a polypeptide that fold independently into compact 3-dimensional units.[9][10][11] Many proteins are composed of multiple domains, which act as modular building blocks evolutionarily reused across different proteins to support diverse functions.[12][13] This modularity implies that protein folding proceeds through semiautonomous units, enhancing structural robustness by reducing complexity and the risk of misfolding.
Domains typically range from 50 to 250 amino acids, with smaller domains, such as zinc fingers, stabilized by metal ions or disulfide bonds.[14][15][16] Each domain forms a hydrophobic core constructed from secondary structures connected by loops. Domain architecture—including number, type, and arrangement—critically determines protein function, interaction potential, and the accessibility and specificity of active sites, influenced by domain orientation and flexibility within the tertiary structure.[17][18][19][20]
Issues of Concern
Consequences of Misfolding
Protein misfolding is a critical focus in biomedical research due to its extensive implications for human health. Misfolded proteins frequently lose intended biological activity, as improperly formed active sites or binding regions render them functionally inactive, resulting in deficiencies in essential cellular processes.
In some instances, misfolding produces a gain of toxic function. Exposed hydrophobic regions or newly acquired harmful properties promote aberrant interactions and aggregation.[21] These aggregates often form insoluble amyloid fibrils that accumulate in tissues, particularly within the central nervous system, causing cellular damage and death.[22][23][24] Distinguishing between simple loss of activity and toxic gain of function is essential for understanding disease pathogenesis, as the latter can lead to widespread and progressive cellular injury. “Entanglement” misfolds exemplify particularly stable conformations that evade cellular quality control, representing a challenging form of toxic gain-of-function.[25]
Accumulation of misfolded proteins can overwhelm cellular protein quality control systems, including molecular chaperones and degradation pathways such as the ubiquitin-proteasome system.[26][27] This overload activates stress responses, including the unfolded protein response, and can trigger chronic inflammation, further exacerbating cellular injury.[28]
Molecular Level
Forces Stabilizing Tertiary Structure
The tertiary structure of a protein, representing its intricate 3-dimensional conformation, is stabilized by a network of interactions involving amino acid side chains and the polypeptide backbone. These interactions frequently occur between residues distant in the linear sequence and are essential for maintaining the folded conformation. Stabilizing forces are classified as noncovalent—including hydrogen bonds, ionic interactions, van der Waals forces, and hydrophobic effects—and covalent, such as disulfide bonds.[29][30]
Noncovalent Interactions
Noncovalent interactions are distinguished from covalent bonds by their reversibility and relatively low individual energy contributions. When occurring in large numbers, these interactions are sufficient to drive protein folding and maintain structural stability. The different types are discussed below.
Hydrophobic effect
The hydrophobic effect is considered one of the most significant noncovalent forces stabilizing protein tertiary structure, not due to the strength of individual interactions but because of their prevalence throughout the polypeptide chain.[31] This effect constitutes a primary driving force in protein folding.[32]
Nonpolar amino acid residues, such as valine, leucine, phenylalanine, and tryptophan, preferentially cluster within the protein interior to minimize exposure to the surrounding aqueous environment. This behavior is fundamentally governed by thermodynamic principles, specifically the 2nd Law, which dictates that systems tend to maximize entropy.
Water, a polar solvent, forms an extensive hydrogen-bonded network. The presence of hydrophobic residues disrupts favorable water interactions, leading to the formation of highly ordered, cage-like structures—referred to as "clathrate cages"—around nonpolar surfaces. Water molecules confined within these cages experience restricted motion and reduced entropy relative to the bulk solvent.[33]
Clustering of hydrophobic residues during folding reduces the total surface area exposed to water, minimizing clathrate formation and releasing ordered water molecules back into the bulk phase. The resulting entropic gain renders hydrophobic collapse thermodynamically favorable, promoting the formation of a compact, energetically stable structure.
This principle also explains the propensity for protein misfolding to result in aggregation. Exposed hydrophobic residues, normally buried within the protein interior, may interact aberrantly with one another or with other misfolded proteins, facilitating the formation of insoluble aggregates.[34][35][36]
Hydrophobic interactions are regarded as the most significant noncovalent forces stabilizing polypeptide conformation, not because individual interactions are strong, but because their cumulative prevalence is significant. This effect constitutes a primary driving force in protein folding, promoting the formation of a compact, energetically favorable structure. Nonpolar amino acid residues, including valine, leucine, phenylalanine, and tryptophan, preferentially localize within the protein interior, where shielding from the aqueous environment minimizes unfavorable water interactions.
Hydrogen bonds
Hydrogen bonds form primarily between the side chains of polar amino acids, including those containing hydroxyl, amino, or carboxyl groups, as well as between backbone carboxyl oxygen atoms and hydrogen donors. These interactions are essential for stabilizing protein tertiary structure and mediating protein interactions with other molecules. Hydrogen bonds exhibit high directionality, achieving maximum strength when donor and acceptor atoms are colinear and decreasing significantly when misaligned. While the hydrophobic effect drives initial folding by promoting inward positioning of nonpolar residues, hydrogen bonding refines the tertiary structure, particularly at the protein surface and at active sites, where molecular recognition and specificity are critical.[37]
Ionic bonds
Ionic bonds, or salt linkages (bridges), arise from electrostatic attraction between oppositely charged side chains, typically between the positively charged ammonium group of basic amino acids (eg, lysine) and the negatively charged carboxylate group of acidic amino acids (eg, aspartate).[38] These interactions stabilize specific regions of the folded protein and are often termed "salt bridges," combining both ionic and hydrogen bonding components. Salt bridges constitute critical noncovalent forces in biological systems, contributing substantially to protein stability. While hydrophobic interactions drive initial folding, salt linkages reinforce the final conformation, ensuring structural precision and functional integrity.[39][40]
Van der Waals forces
Van der Waals forces are weak, short-range interactions comprising both attractive and repulsive components.[41] Attraction arises from transient dipoles generated by momentary fluctuations in electron distribution between neighboring atoms, whereas repulsion occurs when atoms approach sufficiently close for their electron orbitals to overlap.[42][43][44][45] The optimal separation, at which attraction is maximized and repulsion minimized, is termed the "Van der Waals contact distance." Although individually weak, the cumulative effect of numerous Van der Waals interactions within the densely packed protein interior contributes substantially to overall stability. These forces are essential for the precise and efficient packing of amino acid side chains in the protein core.[46]
Covalent Interactions
Covalent interactions differ from noncovalent interactions in that they involve permanent electron-sharing bonds with high individual energy. Disulfide bonds comprise the primary covalent interactions in proteins because their strength and permanence provide robust stabilization of tertiary and quaternary structures, particularly in extracellular environments where long-term structural integrity is required.
Disulfide bonds
Disulfide linkages are covalent bonds formed between the sulfur-containing sulfhydryl (—SH) groups of 2 cysteine residues. As proteins fold, pairs of cysteine residues that approach each other undergo oxidation of their —SH groups, resulting in disulfide bond formation (—S—S—).[47] These bonds are substantially stronger than noncovalent interactions and serve as robust stabilizing elements.
Disulfide linkages can connect different regions within a single polypeptide chain or join separate chains, contributing to both tertiary and quaternary structure stability, as exemplified by proteins such as insulin.[48][49] Disulfide bridges are particularly prevalent in extracellular proteins, where they function as permanent structural anchors, providing long-term stability under harsh or oxidizing conditions. Owing to their strength, disulfide bonds require chemical reduction using agents such as dithiothreitol or β-mercaptoethanol to achieve complete denaturation during experimental protocols, including Western blot analysis.[50]
Table. Summary of Forces Stabilizing Tertiary Structures
| Interaction Type | Nature of Force | Key Participants | Relative Strength (kcal/mol) | Primary Role and Characteristics |
| Noncovalent | Hydrophobic effect, entropy-driven (thermodynamic) | Nonpolar side chains (Val, Leu, Phe, Trp) | Not applicable (emergent property) | Primary driving force for initial protein collapse; buries nonpolar residues to maximize solvent entropy. |
| Hydrogen bond, electrostatic (dipole-dipole) | Backbone C=O, N-H; polar side chains (Ser, Thr, Asn, Gln) | 1-5 | Fine-tunes structure and provides specificity; crucial for secondary structure (α-helices, β-sheets) and molecular recognition. | |
| Ionic bond (salt bridge), electrostatic (charge-charge) | Oppositely charged side chains (Lys, Arg; Asp, Glu) | 5-10 (in vacuum), 1-5 (in water) | Locks in conformation; stabilizes tertiary and quaternary structure; critical for surface recognition and catalysis. | |
| Van der Waals forces, fluctuating dipoles | All atoms in proximity | 0.1-1 (per pair) | Optimizes core packing; cumulative effect provides substantial stability in densely packed protein interior. | |
| Covalent | Disulfide bond, covalent electron sharing | 2 Cys residues | ~60 | Permanent structural anchor; provides robust stabilization of tertiary and quaternary structure, especially in extracellular proteins. |
Note: The 3-letter abbreviations for amino acids used in the table are the following: Val = Valine; Leu = Leucine; Phe = Phenylalanine; Trp = Tryptophan; Ser = Serine; Thr = Threonine; Asn = Asparagine; Gln = Glutamine; Lys = Lysine; Arg = Arginine; Asp = Aspartic acid; Glu = Glutamic acid; Cys = Cysteine.
Function
The direct relationship between a protein’s 3-dimensional structure and its biological function constitutes a fundamental principle of molecular biology. Tertiary structure defines the specific geometry and chemical environment of binding sites for ligands, substrates, and interaction partners, which are essential for proper activity and regulation. Disruption of the native conformation, as occurs with misfolding, can lead to loss of function or toxic gain of function, contributing to a spectrum of protein-misfolding diseases, including neurodegenerative and systemic disorders. This strict dependence on correct folding emphasizes the critical role of cellular quality control mechanisms, including molecular chaperones and degradation pathways, in maintaining protein integrity.[51][52][53]
Testing
Methods for Determining Protein Structure
X-ray crystallography, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, cryogenic electron microscopy, and circular dichroism spectroscopy are complementary techniques in structural biology, each providing distinct insights into protein architecture. X-ray crystallography yields high-resolution, static snapshots of well-ordered crystalline proteins. Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy captures dynamic, solution-state conformations, particularly useful for smaller, flexible proteins. Cryogenic electron microscopy excels in resolving large, heterogeneous, or membrane-associated complexes that are difficult to crystallize. Circular dichroism spectroscopy allows rapid, real-time assessment of protein folding, secondary structure content, and conformational changes.
Selection of a specific technique depends on factors such as protein size, flexibility, stability, and membrane association, as well as the nature of the structural information desired. In many studies, an integrated, multimethod approach is employed to achieve a comprehensive understanding of protein structure and function. Such methodological synergy is essential for investigating protein folding, stability, and misfolding, and ongoing technological advancements in these approaches continue to enhance elucidation of biological mechanisms and development of therapeutics targeting protein-misfolding disorders.[54][55]
Pathophysiology
Protein Misfolding Diseases
Many neurodegenerative and systemic disorders are driven by protein misfolding and subsequent aggregation. Despite involving distinct proteins, these conditions share a characteristic feature: the accumulation of amyloid fibrils and other aggregated protein deposits.[56] This commonality indicates a convergent pathological mechanism in which an initial trigger, such as a genetic mutation or spontaneous misfolding event, initiates a cascade of aggregation, cellular dysfunction, and tissue degeneration. Recognition of this shared pathway provides therapeutic opportunities, enabling the development of broad-spectrum strategies that target common mechanisms rather than individual, disease-specific proteins.[57]
Prion Diseases
Prion diseases, also known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, constitute a distinct class of fatal neurodegenerative disorders caused by infectious misfolded proteins. In these conditions, misfolded prion protein (PrP^Sc^) induces conformational conversion of the normal cellular isoform (PrP^C^) into the pathogenic structure. This process is hypothesized to be facilitated by an unidentified cellular factor, termed “protein X,” which brings PrP^C^ and PrP^Sc^ into proximity to promote misfolding.
The pathogenic PrP^Sc^ isoform exhibits marked resistance to proteolytic degradation, resulting in accumulation as amyloid fibrils within the brain and other affected tissues. These deposits produce the characteristic spongiform vacuolation, neuronal loss, and progressive cell death that define transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Representative examples include scrapie in sheep, chronic wasting disease in deer, bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans.[58]
Prion diseases are transmissible through ingestion of contaminated material or iatrogenic exposure, such as via surgical instruments. The remarkable structural stability of prions confers resistance to conventional chemical and physical denaturation, creating significant challenges for sterilization and containment. All recognized prion diseases are progressive, currently untreatable, and universally fatal.[59]
Neurodegenerative Diseases
Misfolded proteins are central to a broad class of neurodegenerative disorders, many of which progress via prion-like mechanisms. In these conditions, a misfolded protein functions as a nucleating seed, inducing the misfolding and aggregation of normally folded counterparts and spreading pathology throughout the nervous system in a self-perpetuating manner.
In Alzheimer disease, 2 hallmark protein aggregates are observed: extracellular amyloid plaques and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles. Amyloid plaques are composed primarily of amyloid-β (Aβ) peptides, generated through sequential cleavage of the amyloid precursor protein by β-secretase and γ-secretase. The amyloid-β42 (Aβ42) isoform exhibits a high propensity for aggregation due to its hydrophobic properties. Although dense fibrils constitute plaques, soluble amyloid-β oligomers are currently considered the most neurotoxic species.
Neurofibrillary tangles arise from hyperphosphorylated τ protein, which, under normal conditions, stabilizes microtubules within neurons. In Alzheimer disease, τ detaches from microtubules, misfolds, and aggregates, impairing axonal transport and disrupting synaptic integrity. Evidence indicates a synergistic interaction between amyloid-β and τ, in which amyloid-β accumulation may initiate or accelerate τ pathology, culminating in widespread synaptic dysfunction, neuronal loss, and the cognitive decline characteristic of dementia.[60]
In Parkinson disease, the primary pathological hallmark is the aggregation of α-synuclein into intracellular inclusions known as Lewy bodies. These inclusions disrupt cellular homeostasis and precipitate the degeneration of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra, producing the characteristic motor deficits.[61][62] Huntington disease arises from an expanded polyglutamine repeat, encoded by consecutive cytosine-adenine-guanine (CAG) codons, within the huntingtin gene. The resulting mutant huntingtin protein forms toxic aggregates that accumulate predominantly in the striatum and cerebral cortex, driving progressive motor, cognitive, and psychiatric impairment.[63]
Sickle Cell Anemia
Sickle cell anemia illustrates how a single amino acid substitution can profoundly alter protein structure and function, producing systemic physiological effects. This monogenic disorder results from a point mutation in the β-globin gene, in which a polar glutamic acid is replaced by a nonpolar valine at codon 6 due to a cytosine-to-adenine transversion.[64]
The substitution generates a hydrophobic patch on the surface of hemoglobin S. Under low-oxygen conditions, this valine interacts with hydrophobic regions on adjacent hemoglobin S molecules, promoting polymerization into rigid fibers. These fibers distort red blood cells into stiff, sickle-shaped forms, reducing their flexibility and impairing oxygen transport. The resulting vascular occlusion, ischemia, and pain crises, together with increased hemolysis, drive the clinical manifestations of the disease. Membrane damage caused by oxidative and mechanical stress further exacerbates pathology.
Homozygous individuals experience severe symptoms, whereas heterozygous carriers, exhibiting sickle cell trait, are typically asymptomatic. This trait confers a selective advantage against malaria, accounting for its persistence in endemic regions.[65]
Clinical Significance
In Alzheimer disease, current treatments include cholinesterase inhibitors, such as donepezil and rivastigmine, and N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists, such as memantine, which provide symptomatic relief. Anti-amyloid agents aim to reduce amyloid plaque burden and have demonstrated potential in slowing cognitive decline.[66][67][68]
For proteinopathies characterized by misfolding and aggregation, molecular, chemical, or pharmacological chaperones are under investigation to facilitate proper folding, prevent aggregation, or promote degradation of pathogenic proteins. In animal models, these chaperones have exhibited potent neuroprotective effects by modulating early aberrant protein interactions.[69]
No curative therapy currently exists for prion diseases. Management is limited to supportive care and experimental approaches targeting prion propagation.[70][71]
In Parkinson disease, dopamine replacement strategies, including levodopa, dopamine agonists, and monoamine oxidase B inhibitors, constitute the mainstay of symptomatic management.[72][73] Disease-modifying therapies aimed at preventing α-synuclein aggregation are under development.[74][75]
For Huntington disease, treatment remains primarily symptomatic, with agents such as tetrabenazine employed to control chorea. Gene-silencing approaches are currently under investigation.
Established interventions in sickle cell anemia include hydroxyurea to stimulate fetal hemoglobin production, chronic blood transfusions to reduce sickling events, and curative bone marrow or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.[76][77] Emerging CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing strategies aim to correct the causative mutation or enhance fetal hemoglobin expression.[78][79][80]
Continued, in-depth investigation of protein misfolding mechanisms is critical for elucidating the root causes of these conditions. Such research holds the potential to transform currently incurable disorders into preventable or treatable diseases, fundamentally altering the landscape of modern medicine.
References
LaPelusa A, Kaushik R. Physiology, Proteins. StatPearls. 2025 Jan:(): [PubMed PMID: 32310450]
SANGER F. The arrangement of amino acids in proteins. Advances in protein chemistry. 1952:7():1-67 [PubMed PMID: 14933251]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceAasland R, Abrams C, Ampe C, Ball LJ, Bedford MT, Cesareni G, Gimona M, Hurley JH, Jarchau T, Lehto VP, Lemmon MA, Linding R, Mayer BJ, Nagai M, Sudol M, Walter U, Winder SJ. Normalization of nomenclature for peptide motifs as ligands of modular protein domains. FEBS letters. 2002 Feb 20:513(1):141-4 [PubMed PMID: 11911894]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceDíaz-Villanueva JF, Díaz-Molina R, García-González V. Protein Folding and Mechanisms of Proteostasis. International journal of molecular sciences. 2015 Jul 28:16(8):17193-230. doi: 10.3390/ijms160817193. Epub 2015 Jul 28 [PubMed PMID: 26225966]
Stiving AQ, VanAernum ZL, Busch F, Harvey SR, Sarni SH, Wysocki VH. Surface-Induced Dissociation: An Effective Method for Characterization of Protein Quaternary Structure. Analytical chemistry. 2019 Jan 2:91(1):190-209. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.8b05071. Epub 2018 Dec 18 [PubMed PMID: 30412666]
Raicu V, Singh DR. FRET spectrometry: a new tool for the determination of protein quaternary structure in living cells. Biophysical journal. 2013 Nov 5:105(9):1937-45. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2013.09.015. Epub [PubMed PMID: 24209838]
Du X, Li Y, Xia YL, Ai SM, Liang J, Sang P, Ji XL, Liu SQ. Insights into Protein-Ligand Interactions: Mechanisms, Models, and Methods. International journal of molecular sciences. 2016 Jan 26:17(2):. doi: 10.3390/ijms17020144. Epub 2016 Jan 26 [PubMed PMID: 26821017]
Xu X, Xie M, Luo S, Jia X. Revisiting Protein-Copolymer Binding Mechanisms: Insights beyond the "Lock-and-Key" Model. The journal of physical chemistry letters. 2024 Jan 25:15(3):773-781. doi: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.3c03200. Epub 2024 Jan 16 [PubMed PMID: 38227953]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceMurzin AG, Brenner SE, Hubbard T, Chothia C. SCOP: a structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures. Journal of molecular biology. 1995 Apr 7:247(4):536-40 [PubMed PMID: 7723011]
Wetlaufer DB. Nucleation, rapid folding, and globular intrachain regions in proteins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 1973 Mar:70(3):697-701 [PubMed PMID: 4351801]
Gianni S, Guydosh NR, Khan F, Caldas TD, Mayor U, White GW, DeMarco ML, Daggett V, Fersht AR. Unifying features in protein-folding mechanisms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2003 Nov 11:100(23):13286-91 [PubMed PMID: 14595026]
Porter LL, Rose GD. A thermodynamic definition of protein domains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2012 Jun 12:109(24):9420-5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1202604109. Epub 2012 May 25 [PubMed PMID: 22635268]
Schmidt EE, Davies CJ. The origins of polypeptide domains. BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology. 2007 Mar:29(3):262-70 [PubMed PMID: 17295290]
Doolittle RF. The multiplicity of domains in proteins. Annual review of biochemistry. 1995:64():287-314 [PubMed PMID: 7574483]
Carroll D. Genome engineering with zinc-finger nucleases. Genetics. 2011 Aug:188(4):773-82. doi: 10.1534/genetics.111.131433. Epub [PubMed PMID: 21828278]
Laity JH, Lee BM, Wright PE. Zinc finger proteins: new insights into structural and functional diversity. Current opinion in structural biology. 2001 Feb:11(1):39-46 [PubMed PMID: 11179890]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceBonchuk AN, Georgiev PG. C2H2 proteins: Evolutionary aspects of domain architecture and diversification. BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology. 2024 Aug:46(8):e2400052. doi: 10.1002/bies.202400052. Epub 2024 Jun 14 [PubMed PMID: 38873893]
Vaughn MB, Biren C, Li Q, Ragupathi A, Dyer RB. Site-Specific Tryptophan Labels Reveal Local Microsecond-Millisecond Motions of Dihydrofolate Reductase. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland). 2020 Aug 22:25(17):. doi: 10.3390/molecules25173819. Epub 2020 Aug 22 [PubMed PMID: 32842574]
Kozlowski R, Ragupathi A, Dyer RB. Characterizing the Surface Coverage of Protein-Gold Nanoparticle Bioconjugates. Bioconjugate chemistry. 2018 Aug 15:29(8):2691-2700. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.8b00366. Epub 2018 Jul 26 [PubMed PMID: 30004227]
Reddish MJ, Vaughn MB, Fu R, Dyer RB. Ligand-Dependent Conformational Dynamics of Dihydrofolate Reductase. Biochemistry. 2016 Mar 15:55(10):1485-93. doi: 10.1021/acs.biochem.5b01364. Epub 2016 Mar 3 [PubMed PMID: 26901612]
Duennwald ML. Cellular stress responses in protein misfolding diseases. Future science OA. 2015 Sep:1(2):FSO42. doi: 10.4155/fso.15.42. Epub 2015 Sep 1 [PubMed PMID: 28031871]
Chiti F, Dobson CM. Protein misfolding, functional amyloid, and human disease. Annual review of biochemistry. 2006:75():333-66 [PubMed PMID: 16756495]
Vidović M, Rikalovic MG. Alpha-Synuclein Aggregation Pathway in Parkinson's Disease: Current Status and Novel Therapeutic Approaches. Cells. 2022 May 24:11(11):. doi: 10.3390/cells11111732. Epub 2022 May 24 [PubMed PMID: 35681426]
Vadukul DM, Al-Hilaly YK, Serpell LC. Methods for Structural Analysis of Amyloid Fibrils in Misfolding Diseases. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.). 2019:1873():109-122. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-8820-4_7. Epub [PubMed PMID: 30341606]
Rana V, Sitarik I, Petucci J, Jiang Y, Song H, O'Brien EP. Non-covalent Lasso Entanglements in Folded Proteins: Prevalence, Functional Implications, and Evolutionary Significance. Journal of molecular biology. 2024 Mar 15:436(6):168459. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2024.168459. Epub 2024 Jan 30 [PubMed PMID: 38296158]
Horovitz A, Reingewertz TH, Cuéllar J, Valpuesta JM. Chaperonin Mechanisms: Multiple and (Mis)Understood? Annual review of biophysics. 2022 May 9:51():115-133. doi: 10.1146/annurev-biophys-082521-113418. Epub 2022 Jan 4 [PubMed PMID: 34982571]
Pohl C, Dikic I. Cellular quality control by the ubiquitin-proteasome system and autophagy. Science (New York, N.Y.). 2019 Nov 15:366(6467):818-822. doi: 10.1126/science.aax3769. Epub 2019 Nov 14 [PubMed PMID: 31727826]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceHetz C, Zhang K, Kaufman RJ. Mechanisms, regulation and functions of the unfolded protein response. Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology. 2020 Aug:21(8):421-438. doi: 10.1038/s41580-020-0250-z. Epub 2020 May 26 [PubMed PMID: 32457508]
Newberry RW, Raines RT. Secondary Forces in Protein Folding. ACS chemical biology. 2019 Aug 16:14(8):1677-1686. doi: 10.1021/acschembio.9b00339. Epub 2019 Jun 19 [PubMed PMID: 31243961]
Pace CN, Shirley BA, McNutt M, Gajiwala K. Forces contributing to the conformational stability of proteins. FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. 1996 Jan:10(1):75-83 [PubMed PMID: 8566551]
KAUZMANN W. Some factors in the interpretation of protein denaturation. Advances in protein chemistry. 1959:14():1-63 [PubMed PMID: 14404936]
Level 3 (low-level) evidencevan Dijk E, Hoogeveen A, Abeln S. The hydrophobic temperature dependence of amino acids directly calculated from protein structures. PLoS computational biology. 2015 May:11(5):e1004277. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004277. Epub 2015 May 22 [PubMed PMID: 26000449]
Lins L, Brasseur R. The hydrophobic effect in protein folding. FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. 1995 Apr:9(7):535-40 [PubMed PMID: 7737462]
Kirchner B, Stubbs J, Marx D. Fast anomalous diffusion of small hydrophobic species in water. Physical review letters. 2002 Nov 18:89(21):215901 [PubMed PMID: 12443432]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceJiang L, Cao S, Cheung PP, Zheng X, Leung CWT, Peng Q, Shuai Z, Tang BZ, Yao S, Huang X. Real-time monitoring of hydrophobic aggregation reveals a critical role of cooperativity in hydrophobic effect. Nature communications. 2017 May 31:8():15639. doi: 10.1038/ncomms15639. Epub 2017 May 31 [PubMed PMID: 28561067]
Zhou R, Huang X, Margulis CJ, Berne BJ. Hydrophobic collapse in multidomain protein folding. Science (New York, N.Y.). 2004 Sep 10:305(5690):1605-9 [PubMed PMID: 15361621]
Pace CN, Fu H, Lee Fryar K, Landua J, Trevino SR, Schell D, Thurlkill RL, Imura S, Scholtz JM, Gajiwala K, Sevcik J, Urbanikova L, Myers JK, Takano K, Hebert EJ, Shirley BA, Grimsley GR. Contribution of hydrogen bonds to protein stability. Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society. 2014 May:23(5):652-61. doi: 10.1002/pro.2449. Epub 2014 Mar 25 [PubMed PMID: 24591301]
Hinzman MW, Essex ME, Park C. Salt bridge as a gatekeeper against partial unfolding. Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society. 2016 May:25(5):999-1009. doi: 10.1002/pro.2908. Epub 2016 Mar 16 [PubMed PMID: 26916981]
Park S, Odelius M, Gaffney KJ. Ultrafast dynamics of hydrogen bond exchange in aqueous ionic solutions. The journal of physical chemistry. B. 2009 Jun 4:113(22):7825-35. doi: 10.1021/jp9016739. Epub [PubMed PMID: 19435307]
Marcus Y, Hefter G. Ion pairing. Chemical reviews. 2006 Nov:106(11):4585-621 [PubMed PMID: 17091929]
Chen J, Stites WE. Packing is a key selection factor in the evolution of protein hydrophobic cores. Biochemistry. 2001 Dec 18:40(50):15280-9 [PubMed PMID: 11735410]
Yang YX, Zhu BT. Further exploration of the quantitative distance-energy and contact number-energy relationships for predicting the binding affinity of protein-ligand complexes. Biophysical journal. 2025 Apr 1:124(7):1166-1177. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2025.02.021. Epub 2025 Feb 27 [PubMed PMID: 40017034]
Li AJ, Nussinov R. A set of van der Waals and coulombic radii of protein atoms for molecular and solvent-accessible surface calculation, packing evaluation, and docking. Proteins. 1998 Jul 1:32(1):111-27 [PubMed PMID: 9672047]
Chen Y, Zhen Q, Meng FJ, Yu P, Xu C. Lone Pair-π Interactions in Organic Reactions. Chemical reviews. 2024 Dec 11:124(23):13370-13396. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.4c00516. Epub 2024 Nov 13 [PubMed PMID: 39535080]
Gryn'ova G, Coote ML, Corminboeuf C. Theory and practice of uncommon molecular electronic configurations. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Computational molecular science. 2015 Nov-Dec:5(6):440-459 [PubMed PMID: 27774112]
Behe MJ, Lattman EE, Rose GD. The protein-folding problem: the native fold determines packing, but does packing determine the native fold? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 1991 May 15:88(10):4195-9 [PubMed PMID: 2034665]
Woycechowsky KJ, Raines RT. Native disulfide bond formation in proteins. Current opinion in chemical biology. 2000 Oct:4(5):533-9 [PubMed PMID: 11006541]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceLiu M, Weiss MA, Arunagiri A, Yong J, Rege N, Sun J, Haataja L, Kaufman RJ, Arvan P. Biosynthesis, structure, and folding of the insulin precursor protein. Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. 2018 Sep:20 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):28-50. doi: 10.1111/dom.13378. Epub [PubMed PMID: 30230185]
Rege NK, Liu M, Yang Y, Dhayalan B, Wickramasinghe NP, Chen YS, Rahimi L, Guo H, Haataja L, Sun J, Ismail-Beigi F, Phillips NB, Arvan P, Weiss MA. Evolution of insulin at the edge of foldability and its medical implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2020 Nov 24:117(47):29618-29628. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2010908117. Epub 2020 Nov 5 [PubMed PMID: 33154160]
Gavini K, Parameshwaran K. Western Blot. StatPearls. 2025 Jan:(): [PubMed PMID: 31194430]
Stollar EJ, Smith DP. Uncovering protein structure. Essays in biochemistry. 2020 Oct 8:64(4):649-680. doi: 10.1042/EBC20190042. Epub [PubMed PMID: 32975287]
Winklhofer KF, Tatzelt J, Haass C. The two faces of protein misfolding: gain- and loss-of-function in neurodegenerative diseases. The EMBO journal. 2008 Jan 23:27(2):336-49. doi: 10.1038/sj.emboj.7601930. Epub [PubMed PMID: 18216876]
Helm J, Schöls L, Hauser S. Towards Personalized Allele-Specific Antisense Oligonucleotide Therapies for Toxic Gain-of-Function Neurodegenerative Diseases. Pharmaceutics. 2022 Aug 16:14(8):. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14081708. Epub 2022 Aug 16 [PubMed PMID: 36015334]
Dobson CM. Protein folding and misfolding. Nature. 2003 Dec 18:426(6968):884-90 [PubMed PMID: 14685248]
Sekhar A, Rumfeldt JA, Broom HR, Doyle CM, Bouvignies G, Meiering EM, Kay LE. Thermal fluctuations of immature SOD1 lead to separate folding and misfolding pathways. eLife. 2015 Jun 23:4():e07296. doi: 10.7554/eLife.07296. Epub 2015 Jun 23 [PubMed PMID: 26099300]
Moreno-Gonzalez I, Soto C. Misfolded protein aggregates: mechanisms, structures and potential for disease transmission. Seminars in cell & developmental biology. 2011 Jul:22(5):482-7. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2011.04.002. Epub 2011 May 5 [PubMed PMID: 21571086]
Shorter J. Designer protein disaggregases to counter neurodegenerative disease. Current opinion in genetics & development. 2017 Jun:44():1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2017.01.008. Epub 2017 Feb 14 [PubMed PMID: 28208059]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceHall WA, Masood W. Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. StatPearls. 2025 Jan:(): [PubMed PMID: 29939637]
Noor H, Baqai MH, Naveed H, Naveed T, Rehman SS, Aslam MS, Lakdawala FM, Memon WA, Rani S, Khan H, Imran A, Farooqui SK. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease: A comprehensive review of current understanding and research. Journal of the neurological sciences. 2024 Dec 15:467():123293. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2024.123293. Epub 2024 Nov 12 [PubMed PMID: 39546829]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceKumar A, Sidhu J, Lui F, Tsao JW. Alzheimer Disease. StatPearls. 2025 Jan:(): [PubMed PMID: 29763097]
Parkinson J. An essay on the shaking palsy. 1817. The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences. 2002 Spring:14(2):223-36; discussion 222 [PubMed PMID: 11983801]
Zafar S, Lui F, Yaddanapudi SS. Parkinson Disease. StatPearls. 2026 Jan:(): [PubMed PMID: 29261972]
Ajitkumar A, Lui F, De Jesus O. Huntington Disease. StatPearls. 2025 Jan:(): [PubMed PMID: 32644592]
PAULING L, ITANO HA. Sickle cell anemia a molecular disease. Science (New York, N.Y.). 1949 Nov 25:110(2865):543-8 [PubMed PMID: 15395398]
Mangla A, Agarwal N, Maruvada S. Sickle Cell Anemia. StatPearls. 2025 Jan:(): [PubMed PMID: 29489205]
Shah A, Royston MC. Donezepil for dementia. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 1997 Oct:90(10):531-2 [PubMed PMID: 9488008]
Giannakis A, Konitsiotis S. Anti-Amyloid Agents: A Self-Fulfilling prophecy. Journal of clinical neuroscience : official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia. 2025 Jul:137():111338. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2025.111338. Epub 2025 May 19 [PubMed PMID: 40393205]
Cummings J, Osse AML, Cammann D, Powell J, Chen J. Anti-Amyloid Monoclonal Antibodies for the Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease. BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy. 2024 Jan:38(1):5-22. doi: 10.1007/s40259-023-00633-2. Epub 2023 Nov 13 [PubMed PMID: 37955845]
Balch WE, Morimoto RI, Dillin A, Kelly JW. Adapting proteostasis for disease intervention. Science (New York, N.Y.). 2008 Feb 15:319(5865):916-9. doi: 10.1126/science.1141448. Epub [PubMed PMID: 18276881]
Ironside JW, Ritchie DL, Head MW. Prion diseases. Handbook of clinical neurology. 2017:145():393-403. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-802395-2.00028-6. Epub [PubMed PMID: 28987186]
Takada LT, Geschwind MD. Prion diseases. Seminars in neurology. 2013 Sep:33(4):348-56. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1359314. Epub 2013 Nov 14 [PubMed PMID: 24234356]
Bloem BR, Okun MS, Klein C. Parkinson's disease. Lancet (London, England). 2021 Jun 12:397(10291):2284-2303. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00218-X. Epub 2021 Apr 10 [PubMed PMID: 33848468]
Mohanty C, Dubey MR, Panigrahi S, Singh S, Rathi S, Nath J. Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitor-Based Nose‑to‑Brain Delivery of Donepezil‑Loaded Lipid Nanoemulsion for Alzheimer's Therapy. Zhongguo ying yong sheng li xue za zhi = Zhongguo yingyong shenglixue zazhi = Chinese journal of applied physiology. 2025 Aug 18:41():e20250020. doi: 10.62958/j.cjap.2025.020. Epub 2025 Aug 18 [PubMed PMID: 40820521]
Lashuel HA, Overk CR, Oueslati A, Masliah E. The many faces of α-synuclein: from structure and toxicity to therapeutic target. Nature reviews. Neuroscience. 2013 Jan:14(1):38-48. doi: 10.1038/nrn3406. Epub [PubMed PMID: 23254192]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceKim MS, Ra EA, Kweon SH, Seo BA, Ko HS, Oh Y, Lee G. Advanced human iPSC-based preclinical model for Parkinson's disease with optogenetic alpha-synuclein aggregation. Cell stem cell. 2023 Jul 6:30(7):973-986.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2023.05.015. Epub 2023 Jun 19 [PubMed PMID: 37339636]
McGann PT, Ware RE. Hydroxyurea therapy for sickle cell anemia. Expert opinion on drug safety. 2015:14(11):1749-58. doi: 10.1517/14740338.2015.1088827. Epub 2015 Sep 14 [PubMed PMID: 26366626]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceBrandow AM, Liem RI. Advances in the diagnosis and treatment of sickle cell disease. Journal of hematology & oncology. 2022 Mar 3:15(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s13045-022-01237-z. Epub 2022 Mar 3 [PubMed PMID: 35241123]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceFrangoul H,Altshuler D,Cappellini MD,Chen YS,Domm J,Eustace BK,Foell J,de la Fuente J,Grupp S,Handgretinger R,Ho TW,Kattamis A,Kernytsky A,Lekstrom-Himes J,Li AM,Locatelli F,Mapara MY,de Montalembert M,Rondelli D,Sharma A,Sheth S,Soni S,Steinberg MH,Wall D,Yen A,Corbacioglu S, CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Editing for Sickle Cell Disease and β-Thalassemia. The New England journal of medicine. 2021 Jan 21; [PubMed PMID: 33283989]
Park SH, Bao G. CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing for curing sickle cell disease. Transfusion and apheresis science : official journal of the World Apheresis Association : official journal of the European Society for Haemapheresis. 2021 Feb:60(1):103060. doi: 10.1016/j.transci.2021.103060. Epub 2021 Jan 10 [PubMed PMID: 33455878]
Singh A, Irfan H, Fatima E, Nazir Z, Verma A, Akilimali A. Revolutionary breakthrough: FDA approves CASGEVY, the first CRISPR/Cas9 gene therapy for sickle cell disease. Annals of medicine and surgery (2012). 2024 Aug:86(8):4555-4559. doi: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000002146. Epub 2024 May 15 [PubMed PMID: 39118728]