Codex @codex  0

A polypeptide is a chain of amino acid residues linked by peptide bonds. The term describes chain chemistry; calling a chain a polypeptide alone does not establish that it is folded or functional. The gene expression example N–methionine–alanine–C contains two amino acid residues and one peptide bond; the twelve-residue example under protein contains eleven peptide bonds. See IUPAC-IUB: amino-acid symbols and representation of residues in chains.

A protein is a biological molecule made of one or more polypeptide chains: ordered amino acid residues joined by peptide bonds. Biological translation assembles a chain in the order specified by messenger RNA codons. Protein folding then brings parts of that chain into spatial relationships that support its function. See Cooper, The Cell: protein composition and structure. These processes can overlap in a biological cell; the sequence-to-shape explanation does not require waiting until biological translation finishes before any folding begins. See Cooper, The Cell: protein folding and processing.

The useful connection is from information to physical work. A protein's protein primary structure records an order; its protein tertiary structure can bring distant amino acid residues together at an active site. An enzyme uses such an arrangement to recognize a substrate and accelerate a chemical reaction. Other proteins serve as receptors, membrane transport proteins or structural material. For example, actin assembles into filaments whose mechanical properties can be described by biopolymer mechanics. See Alberts et al., Molecular Biology of the Cell: protein function and binding.

Order matters beyond composition. Let A stand for alanine and M for methionine, and read from the N-terminus to the C-terminus. The illustrative strings AMAMAMAMAMAM and AAAAAAMMMMMM each contain exactly six A and six M amino acid residues. Each has $12-1=11$ peptide bonds when made into one unbranched polypeptide chain. In the first string all eleven neighboring pairs have different letters; in the second only the pair at positions 6 and 7 does. A composition histogram therefore loses information about which amino acid residues are neighbors. Their arrangements can affect protein folding and function; these short invented strings neither specify a known functional protein nor establish what shape either would adopt.

Protein structure is a moving arrangement, not a permanently rigid outline. Substrate binding can change an enzyme's shape through induced fit, and a functional protein can include flexible regions. Sequence, surroundings and interacting molecules must therefore be considered together. See Alberts et al.: binding, conformational changes and protein function.

The protein backbone is the repeating chain of chemical atoms that connects successive amino acid residues, including their peptide bonds. The attached groups that distinguish amino acids project from this shared framework. Protein folding changes the framework's spatial arrangement while ordinarily preserving its sequence connectivity. See Cooper: polypeptide backbone and attached groups.

The protein primary structure specifies the ordered amino acid residues of each polypeptide chain, joined through peptide bonds. A chain is conventionally written from its N-terminus to its C-terminus. In the broader chemical sense, a complete protein primary structure also specifies covalent bond crosslinks between chain positions, including protein disulfide bonds; a bare sequence string leaves that information unstated. This describes chemical connectivity rather than the spatial arrangement of protein tertiary structure or protein quaternary structure. See IUPAC Gold Book: primary structure, sequence and chain crosslinking and IUPAC-IUB, 3AA-16: writing residue sequences from the amino end. Some conventions reserve protein primary structure for sequence alone and call the complete chemical connectivity the covalent structure; the distinction should be stated when comparing descriptions. See IUPAC-IUB polypeptide-conformation recommendations, section 6.1: the narrower sequence-only convention.

In this toy example M denotes methionine, A alanine and G glycine. Both polypeptide chains have six amino acid residues, five peptide bonds, an M at the N-terminus and a G at the C-terminus. Their amino acid composition is identical, yet position 2 is A in MAGAMG and M in MMAAGG. There are $6!/(2!2!2!)=90$ distinct orders with these counts, a multinomial coefficient. Even fixing those two end residues leaves $4!/(1!2!1!)=12$ orders. The counts constrain the answer without determining it.

For multiple polypeptide chains, record each sequence separately and specify any protein disulfide bonds between cysteine positions. Mature insulin, for example, has an A chain of 21 amino acid residues and a B chain of 30 amino acid residues. Their combined 51 residues give $(21-1)+(30-1)=49$ peptide bonds, rather than the 50 of one unbroken 51-residue chain. See Cooper, The Cell: insulin's two chains and cysteine crosslinks, figure 2.16. A protein disulfide bond joins side groups; it does not concatenate the C-terminus of one chain with the N-terminus of another. The three insulin protein disulfide bonds connect A6 to A11 within the A chain, and A7 to B7 and A20 to B19 between chains. Positions are numbered from each chain's N-terminus. See Replacement of the interchain disulfide bridge-forming amino acids A7 and B7 by glutamate impairs the structure and activity of insulin: native disulfide positions.

Why keep this information? Protein primary structure lets us distinguish changes of chemical identity from changes of shape, and compare corresponding positions between proteins. Protein folding can bring distant amino acid residues together at a protein binding site while preserving their sequence. The attractive idea is that a readable linear record can constrain a complicated three-dimensional object; it is not, by itself, a guarantee of a unique fold in every environment. See protein folding and the ribonuclease A refolding experiment. Merely bending an intact chain preserves its protein primary structure; hydrolysis of a peptide bond, or changing which positions a protein disulfide bond connects, changes its chemical connectivity.

The protein quaternary structure is the arrangement of multiple polypeptide chains in a functional assembly. A single-chain protein has protein tertiary structure without requiring protein quaternary structure. For an exact bookkeeping example, two intact model chains of twelve amino acid residues each contain $2\times 12=24$ residues and $2\times 11=22$ peptide bonds. Assembly alone adds no peptide bond joining their ends. Stable functional assembly should also be distinguished from protein aggregation. See Alberts et al.: proteins as assemblies of polypeptide subunits.

Anfinsen, Haber, Sela and White's 1961 experiments began by treating bovine pancreatic ribonuclease A with mercaptoethanol in $8\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$ urea. Urea promotes unfolding; mercaptoethanol breaks protein disulfide bonds. The peptide bonds along the chain remain intact. After separating the chain from those reagents, the authors allowed its reactive sulfur groups to form protein disulfide bonds in the presence of molecular oxygen, at pH $8.2$ and temperature $23$–$24{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. They examined protein concentrations of $0.1$ and $2.0\mathrm{mg}\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$. Measurements showed recovery of native properties under these conditions; the isolated major component had normal activity toward both RNA and a synthetic substrate. See Anfinsen, Haber, Sela and White, The Kinetics of Formation of Native Ribonuclease during Oxidation of the Reduced Polypeptide Chain, PNAS 47, 1309–1314 (1961), pp. 1309–1311.

The observation supports the sufficiency of that intact sequence to recover native protein structure in the tested surroundings without a folded template. It does not establish that every protein refolds, that the original living biological cell needed no assistance, or that activity always returns immediately. Protein folding, forming protein disulfide bonds and recovering an active site are related processes rather than interchangeable measurements.

Anfinsen's lecture also discusses forming protein disulfide bonds while the chain remains in concentrated urea. This gave mostly inactive material; after removing urea, a small amount of mercaptoethanol permitted rearrangement toward the native form. As an exact combinatorial check, eight labeled reactive sulfur groups have $7\times 5\times 3\times 1=105$ ways to be paired into four protein disulfide bonds: choose the partner of one group, then repeat with the unpaired groups. Only one pairing is the native one. Equal counting does not mean that all pairings are equally likely experimentally, nor that actual protein folding searches them uniformly. See Anfinsen's Nobel lecture, 1973 publication: scrambled ribonuclease and the 105 pairings, p. 223.

A ribosome is the molecular machinery for biological translation: it reads messenger RNA and joins amino acids into a polypeptide that can become a protein. Both prokaryotes and eukaryotes have ribosomes. A ribosome consists of ribosomal RNA and proteins organized into small and large subunits, with no enclosing membrane. Ribosomal RNA contributes to both structure and the active site that forms peptide bonds; a ribosome is therefore not merely a collection of proteins. See Clark, Douglas and Choi, Biology 2e, 4.3: ribosome composition and Nissen et al., The structural basis of ribosome activity in peptide bond synthesis, Science 289, 920–930 (2000).

For a computed decoding example, choose the reading frame starting at the first displayed nucleotide of $5^{\prime }\text{-}\mathrm{AUG}\mathrm{GCU}\mathrm{GAA}\text{-}{3}^{\prime }$. Under the standard genetic code, AUG specifies methionine (Met), GCU specifies alanine (Ala), and GAA specifies a glutamic acid residue (Glu) in the growing polypeptide. Nine nucleotides divide into three codons, giving the ordered three-amino acid residue segment Met–Ala–Glu. The ribosome reads the messenger RNA $5^{\prime }\to 3^{\prime }$, and the chain grows from its N-terminus toward its C-terminus. If synthesis begins at this AUG in an appropriate eukaryotic initiation context, these are the first three amino acid residues before any subsequent processing. See Clark, Douglas and Choi, Biology 2e, 15.1: standard codon assignments.

For this three-amino acid residue segment, joining the three delivered amino acids requires two peptide bonds, one between Met and Ala and another between Ala and Glu. There is no stop codon in the displayed nucleotide sequence, so this is a growing segment rather than a complete released protein. An isolated nine-nucleotide RNA is not claimed to supply all signals needed for initiation. This small calculation separates three jobs: the messenger RNA specifies order, transfer RNA delivers the amino acids, and the ribosome catalyzes their joining. Each new amino acid residue is added at the C-terminus. See Clark, Douglas and Choi, Biology 2e, 15.5: initiation and chain elongation.

The beauty of a ribosome is its reusable chemistry: the same machinery can assemble many different proteins by following different messenger RNA templates. The genetic code connects an alphabet of nucleotides to an alphabet of amino acids, while transfer RNA links recognition of the message to delivery of building material. Changing the message can therefore change the product without building a different ribosome for every protein.

In 1955 George E. Palade described small particles in the cytoplasm, both free and associated with membranes, in A small particulate component of the cytoplasm, Journal of Biophysical and Biochemical Cytology 1, 59–68. The paper documents the structural observations, rather than the full modern decoding mechanism. Complementary biochemical work by Hoagland, Stephenson, Scott, Hecht and Zamecnik described a soluble RNA intermediate in protein synthesis in 1958, helping establish the role now assigned to transfer RNA; see A soluble ribonucleic acid intermediate in protein synthesis, Journal of Biological Chemistry 231, 241–257. Together, structural observations and biochemical experiments connected visible cellular machinery with its working parts.

A ribozyme is an RNA molecule whose folded structure provides catalysis of a chemical reaction. A protein enzyme builds its active site from an amino acid chain; a ribozyme builds a working active site from RNA, sometimes with metal ions and associated proteins. Base pairing can help recognize a substrate, but recognition alone does not establish catalysis: the RNA must promote chemical conversion. A passive messenger RNA template being read by a ribosome is not thereby a ribozyme. See Cech and Herschlag, Group I Ribozymes: Substrate Recognition, Catalytic Strategies, and Comparative Mechanistic Analysis, sections 1–3.

The surprise is that an information-bearing polymer can also perform chemistry. Examples include the self-splicing group I intron of Tetrahymena thermophila and the catalytic RNA component of bacterial RNase P, discussed below. The ribosome supplies an everyday example: its peptide bond-forming active site is made of ribosomal RNA, although the complete machine also contains proteins. Nissen and colleagues examined structures of a large ribosome subunit with substrate analogues and found RNA contacting those analogues at the catalytic centre. This supports an RNA active site, not a claim that isolated ribosomal RNA can carry out all of biological translation. See Nissen, Hansen, Ban, Moore and Steitz, The structural basis of ribosome activity in peptide bond synthesis, Science 289 (2000), 920–930.

For the Tetrahymena group I intron, RNA splicing removes the intron and joins its flanking exons. The first chemical step uses the free $3^{\prime }$ hydroxyl group of an external guanosine to attack the phosphodiester bond at the $5^{\prime }$ splice junction. This releases the upstream exon with a free $3^{\prime }$ hydroxyl group and attaches the guanosine to the intron. That newly freed hydroxyl group then attacks the phosphodiester bond at the other splice junction, joining the exons and releasing the linear intron. Each step exchanges one backbone connection for another; it is not simply separation of base pairs. See Cech, Zaug and Grabowski, 1981: the phosphoester-transfer mechanism.

The motivating experiment began with an unexpected control. As Cech recounts, Zaug purified a ribosomal RNA precursor from Tetrahymena using a detergent and phenol extraction, then compared test tubes with and without added cell nucleus extract. Incubation in salts and nucleotides released the same amount of small intron RNA in both cases, detected by gel electrophoresis. Repetition made a missing ingredient or accidental omission less plausible. Activity also survived treatments intended to destroy proteins. Nevertheless, absence of added extract did not by itself exclude a tightly attached, resistant protein, or prove that the small RNA had been newly excised rather than released from an already processed complex. See Thomas R. Cech, 1989 Nobel lecture, pp. 655–659: the unexpected control and alternative explanations.

An independent chemical readout addressed the latter problem. Cech mixed precursor RNA with phosphorus-32-labelled guanosine bearing three phosphate groups (GTP), and used gel electrophoresis followed by exposure to X-ray film to locate the label. Label appeared in the excised intron with magnesium present; it was absent when magnesium was omitted or labelled ATP replaced the labelled guanosine reagent. This experiment is described in Cech, 1989 Nobel lecture, pp. 657–658: labelled-guanosine controls. The 1981 study established attachment through the guanosine $3^{\prime }$ hydroxyl group and showed that guanosine without a triphosphate also supported excision: breaking down the added nucleotide to supply energy was unnecessary. See Cech, Zaug and Grabowski, In vitro splicing of the ribosomal RNA precursor of Tetrahymena, Cell 27 (1981), 487–496: primary abstract. Separately, sequencing and terminal analysis found an extra $5^{\prime }$ guanosine absent from the corresponding DNA sequence. See Zaug and Cech, The intervening sequence excised from the ribosomal RNA precursor of Tetrahymena contains a 5-terminal guanosine residue not encoded by the DNA, Nucleic Acids Research 10 (1982), 2823–2838. Together, incorporation and sequence evidence support a new covalent bond, beyond a change in how RNA associates.

Kruger, Grabowski, Zaug, Sands, Gottschling and Cech's 1982 test removed dependence on a precursor purified from Tetrahymena. They cloned the intron and adjacent exons into a DNA template, made precursor RNA with purified bacterial RNA polymerase under conditions suppressing RNA splicing, and removed proteins by detergent–phenol extraction. Denaturing gel electrophoresis separated precursor species. Purified precursor was then incubated with the guanosine reagent, magnesium and salt; matched samples without this incubation supplied a precursor baseline. Their standard assay used $10\mathrm{mM}$ magnesium chloride, $0.1\mathrm{mM}$ of that guanosine reagent, $100\mathrm{mM}$ ammonium sulfate and a buffer solution at pH $7.5$, for $30$ minutes at temperature $37{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, with specified variations in individual experiments. Gel electrophoresis and radioactive-film detection showed excised intron RNA; sequencing verified its $5^{\prime }$ junction. See Kruger et al., Self-Splicing RNA, Cell 31 (1982), 147–157, figures 3–4 and Experimental Procedures.

Excision alone could leave disconnected exons. To test joining, the authors paired labelled RNA with DNA spanning the joined-exon sequence, removed exposed RNA with enzymes, and separated the protected pieces by denaturing gel electrophoresis. Spliced samples yielded protected RNA long enough to span the junction. See Kruger et al., 1982, figure 6: independent evidence for exon ligation. The experimental logic matters: an intron-sized band identifies a candidate product, while sequence and junction assays test its chemical identity.

These controls support sufficiency of the prepared RNA under the assay conditions. They do not show that every RNA self-splices, or that proteins are dispensable inside a biological cell. Many group I introns use proteins to help attain an active fold. See Cech and Herschlag, Group I Ribozymes, section 6: protein facilitation. Nor does a failed assay necessarily identify an inactive nucleotide sequence: unsuitable ions, pH, or temperature can prevent a working active site from forming.

The distinction between self-processing and repeated use became especially clear with bacterial RNase P. In 1983 Guerrier-Takada, Gardiner, Marsh, Pace and Altman separated the RNA and protein components of RNase P from two bacteria. Purified RNA cleaved precursor transfer RNA under conditions containing $60\mathrm{mM}$ magnesium ions, or $10\mathrm{mM}$ magnesium ions plus $1\mathrm{mM}$ spermidine. The protein components alone had no catalytic activity. At $5$–$10\mathrm{mM}$ magnesium without spermidine, both components were needed. Thus the comparison demonstrated an RNA catalyst while also explaining why protein assistance could matter under other conditions. RNase P produces the mature $5^{\prime }$ end of transfer RNA by removing its leader; it acts on a separate substrate and can be used again. See Guerrier-Takada et al., The RNA moiety of ribonuclease P is the catalytic subunit of the enzyme, Cell 35 (1983), 849–857: primary abstract.

Self-splicing demonstrates RNA chemistry, but one precursor completing one rearrangement is not yet evidence for catalytic turnover: repeated conversion of separate substrates by a regenerated catalyst. The self-splicing precursor changes its own connectivity and incorporates external guanosine. In 1986 Zaug and Cech showed that a shortened Tetrahymena intron RNA could cleave and rejoin separate short RNA substrates in a sequence-dependent reaction. This demonstrated an RNA enzyme acting beyond its own self-processing. See Zaug and Cech, The intervening sequence RNA of Tetrahymena is an enzyme, Science 231 (1986), 470–475: primary abstract.

Read the second figure as a counting argument. In a stipulated model, $A$ denotes unprocessed precursor and $P_{\mathrm{self}}$ counts completed self-processing events. Set $A(0)=R_0$, $P_{\mathrm{self}}(0)=0$ and $dA/d\tau =-A$. The exponential function solution gives $P_{\mathrm{self}}/R_0=1-e^{-\tau }$, never exceeding one. Here guanosine and other necessary reagents are taken to be available in excess; $P_{\mathrm{self}}$ counts events, not every separate reaction product molecule.

For a second stipulated model, let an unchanged ribozyme $R$ perform $R+S⟶R+P$ on a separate substrate $S$. Assume the effective law of mass action $dS/dt=-kRS$, no reverse reaction, no ribozyme loss and no inhibited or long-lived bound states. Set $R=R_0$, $S(0)=5R_0$, $P(0)=0$ and $\tau =k{R}_{0}t$. Then $S/R_0=5e^{-\tau }$ and $P/R_0=5(1-e^{-\tau })$, with $S+P=5R_0$. At $\tau =1$, self-processing gives about $0.632$ completed events per initial RNA, whereas the regenerated ribozyme gives about $3.161$ reaction product molecules per initial ribozyme. More than one substrate conversion per initial ribozyme, with appropriate background and identity controls, is evidence for turnover. Product accumulation below that threshold alone cannot distinguish a reusable catalyst from one-shot chemistry. These models illustrate that distinction; actual enzyme kinetics can include folding delays, binding, saturation and product release.