Related Concept Videos
Protein Denaturation
Protein Folding
Molecular Chaperones and Protein Folding
The...
Conservation of Protein Domains Over Different Proteins
A limited set of protein domains often duplicate and recombine during evolution. These domains can be organized in different combinations to...
Protein and Protein Structure
A protein's shape is critical to its function. For example, an enzyme...
Mechanical Protein Functions
You might also read
Related Articles
Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.
Solution NMR study of the titin I-band IgI domain I82 shows unusual conformational dynamics.
Indigenous Culture and Health in UDRH Research: An Indigenous-Led Narrative Review.
<i>Clostridioides difficile</i> Infection: Harmonizing Patient Care.
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 16, 2025

High-Pressure NMR Experiments for Detecting Protein Low-Lying Conformational States
Published on: June 29, 2021
Protein Unfolding: Denaturant vs. Force.
Colleen Kelly1, Matthew J Gage1,2
1Department of Chemistry, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA 01854, USA.
Protein refolding studies show equivalent free energy across chemical, thermal, and mechanical methods. However, refolding rates differ, with mechanical unfolding yielding faster kinetics, impacting comparisons of protein folding research.
Area of Science:
- Biophysics
- Protein Science
- Biochemistry
Background:
- Protein refolding is crucial for protein function and has been studied for over 50 years.
- Limited studies correlate results between chemical, thermal, and mechanical unfolding methods.
- Comparing refolding results across different methods is challenging due to a lack of correlative data.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare energetic barriers and folding rates of protein refolding using chemical, thermal, and mechanical unfolding.
- To investigate the relationship between different protein unfolding and refolding techniques.
- To assess the comparability of refolding kinetics derived from distinct unfolding methods.
Main Methods:
- Utilized an immunoglobulin-like domain (I83) from the muscle protein titin as a model system.
- Performed chemical, thermal, and mechanical unfolding experiments.
- Analyzed free energy of refolding and refolding rates.
Main Results:
- The free energy of refolding was found to be equivalent across all three techniques (chemical, thermal, mechanical).
- Refolding rates showed differences between the methods.
- Mechanical refolding exhibited slightly faster refolding rates compared to chemical and thermal methods.
Conclusions:
- Equilibrium-based measurements of protein refolding are directly comparable across chemical, thermal, and mechanical methods.
- Caution is advised when comparing protein refolding kinetics derived from experiments employing different unfolding methods.
- Understanding these differences is key for accurate interpretation of protein folding and refolding studies.

