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

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

Table. Summary of Forces Stabilizing Tertiary Structures.

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.

Review Questions

• Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.
• Comment on this article.

References

1.

LaPelusa A, Kaushik R. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Nov 14, 2022. Physiology, Proteins. [PubMed: 32310450]

2.

SANGER F. The arrangement of amino acids in proteins. Adv Protein Chem. 1952;7:1-67. [PubMed: 14933251]

3.

Aasland 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 Lett. 2002 Feb 20;513(1):141-4. [PubMed: 11911894]

4.

Díaz-Villanueva JF, Díaz-Molina R, García-González V. Protein Folding and Mechanisms of Proteostasis. Int J Mol Sci. 2015 Jul 28;16(8):17193-230. [PMC free article: PMC4581189] [PubMed: 26225966]

5.

Stiving AQ, VanAernum ZL, Busch F, Harvey SR, Sarni SH, Wysocki VH. Surface-Induced Dissociation: An Effective Method for Characterization of Protein Quaternary Structure. Anal Chem. 2019 Jan 02;91(1):190-209. [PMC free article: PMC6571034] [PubMed: 30412666]

6.

Raicu V, Singh DR. FRET spectrometry: a new tool for the determination of protein quaternary structure in living cells. Biophys J. 2013 Nov 05;105(9):1937-45. [PMC free article: PMC3824708] [PubMed: 24209838]

7.

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. Int J Mol Sci. 2016 Jan 26;17(2) [PMC free article: PMC4783878] [PubMed: 26821017]

8.

Xu X, Xie M, Luo S, Jia X. Revisiting Protein-Copolymer Binding Mechanisms: Insights beyond the "Lock-and-Key" Model. J Phys Chem Lett. 2024 Jan 25;15(3):773-781. [PubMed: 38227953]

9.

Murzin AG, Brenner SE, Hubbard T, Chothia C. SCOP: a structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures. J Mol Biol. 1995 Apr 07;247(4):536-40. [PubMed: 7723011]

10.

Wetlaufer DB. Nucleation, rapid folding, and globular intrachain regions in proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1973 Mar;70(3):697-701. [PMC free article: PMC433338] [PubMed: 4351801]

11.

Gianni S, Guydosh NR, Khan F, Caldas TD, Mayor U, White GW, DeMarco ML, Daggett V, Fersht AR. Unifying features in protein-folding mechanisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Nov 11;100(23):13286-91. [PMC free article: PMC263785] [PubMed: 14595026]

12.

Porter LL, Rose GD. A thermodynamic definition of protein domains. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jun 12;109(24):9420-5. [PMC free article: PMC3386118] [PubMed: 22635268]

13.

Schmidt EE, Davies CJ. The origins of polypeptide domains. Bioessays. 2007 Mar;29(3):262-70. [PMC free article: PMC1994825] [PubMed: 17295290]

14.

Doolittle RF. The multiplicity of domains in proteins. Annu Rev Biochem. 1995;64:287-314. [PubMed: 7574483]

15.

Carroll D. Genome engineering with zinc-finger nucleases. Genetics. 2011 Aug;188(4):773-82. [PMC free article: PMC3176093] [PubMed: 21828278]

16.

Laity JH, Lee BM, Wright PE. Zinc finger proteins: new insights into structural and functional diversity. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2001 Feb;11(1):39-46. [PubMed: 11179890]

17.

Bonchuk AN, Georgiev PG. C2H2 proteins: Evolutionary aspects of domain architecture and diversification. Bioessays. 2024 Aug;46(8):e2400052. [PubMed: 38873893]

18.

Vaughn MB, Biren C, Li Q, Ragupathi A, Dyer RB. Site-Specific Tryptophan Labels Reveal Local Microsecond-Millisecond Motions of Dihydrofolate Reductase. Molecules. 2020 Aug 22;25(17) [PMC free article: PMC7503464] [PubMed: 32842574]

19.

Kozlowski R, Ragupathi A, Dyer RB. Characterizing the Surface Coverage of Protein-Gold Nanoparticle Bioconjugates. Bioconjug Chem. 2018 Aug 15;29(8):2691-2700. [PMC free article: PMC6093776] [PubMed: 30004227]

20.

Reddish MJ, Vaughn MB, Fu R, Dyer RB. Ligand-Dependent Conformational Dynamics of Dihydrofolate Reductase. Biochemistry. 2016 Mar 15;55(10):1485-93. [PMC free article: PMC4806677] [PubMed: 26901612]

21.

Duennwald ML. Cellular stress responses in protein misfolding diseases. Future Sci OA. 2015 Sep;1(2):FSO42. [PMC free article: PMC5137871] [PubMed: 28031871]

22.

Chiti F, Dobson CM. Protein misfolding, functional amyloid, and human disease. Annu Rev Biochem. 2006;75:333-66. [PubMed: 16756495]

23.

Vidović M, Rikalovic MG. Alpha-Synuclein Aggregation Pathway in Parkinson's Disease: Current Status and Novel Therapeutic Approaches. Cells. 2022 May 24;11(11) [PMC free article: PMC9179656] [PubMed: 35681426]

24.

Vadukul DM, Al-Hilaly YK, Serpell LC. Methods for Structural Analysis of Amyloid Fibrils in Misfolding Diseases. Methods Mol Biol. 2019;1873:109-122. [PubMed: 30341606]

25.

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. J Mol Biol. 2024 Mar 15;436(6):168459. [PMC free article: PMC11265471] [PubMed: 38296158]

26.

Horovitz A, Reingewertz TH, Cuéllar J, Valpuesta JM. Chaperonin Mechanisms: Multiple and (Mis)Understood? Annu Rev Biophys. 2022 May 09;51:115-133. [PubMed: 34982571]

27.

Pohl C, Dikic I. Cellular quality control by the ubiquitin-proteasome system and autophagy. Science. 2019 Nov 15;366(6467):818-822. [PubMed: 31727826]

28.

Hetz C, Zhang K, Kaufman RJ. Mechanisms, regulation and functions of the unfolded protein response. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2020 Aug;21(8):421-438. [PMC free article: PMC8867924] [PubMed: 32457508]

29.

Newberry RW, Raines RT. Secondary Forces in Protein Folding. ACS Chem Biol. 2019 Aug 16;14(8):1677-1686. [PMC free article: PMC6995338] [PubMed: 31243961]

30.

Pace CN, Shirley BA, McNutt M, Gajiwala K. Forces contributing to the conformational stability of proteins. FASEB J. 1996 Jan;10(1):75-83. [PubMed: 8566551]

31.

KAUZMANN W. Some factors in the interpretation of protein denaturation. Adv Protein Chem. 1959;14:1-63. [PubMed: 14404936]

32.

van Dijk E, Hoogeveen A, Abeln S. The hydrophobic temperature dependence of amino acids directly calculated from protein structures. PLoS Comput Biol. 2015 May;11(5):e1004277. [PMC free article: PMC4441443] [PubMed: 26000449]

33.

Lins L, Brasseur R. The hydrophobic effect in protein folding. FASEB J. 1995 Apr;9(7):535-40. [PubMed: 7737462]

34.

Kirchner B, Stubbs J, Marx D. Fast anomalous diffusion of small hydrophobic species in water. Phys Rev Lett. 2002 Nov 18;89(21):215901. [PubMed: 12443432]

35.

Jiang 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. Nat Commun. 2017 May 31;8:15639. [PMC free article: PMC5460034] [PubMed: 28561067]

36.

Zhou R, Huang X, Margulis CJ, Berne BJ. Hydrophobic collapse in multidomain protein folding. Science. 2004 Sep 10;305(5690):1605-9. [PubMed: 15361621]

37.

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 Sci. 2014 May;23(5):652-61. [PMC free article: PMC4005716] [PubMed: 24591301]

38.

Hinzman MW, Essex ME, Park C. Salt bridge as a gatekeeper against partial unfolding. Protein Sci. 2016 May;25(5):999-1009. [PMC free article: PMC4838642] [PubMed: 26916981]

39.

Park S, Odelius M, Gaffney KJ. Ultrafast dynamics of hydrogen bond exchange in aqueous ionic solutions. J Phys Chem B. 2009 Jun 04;113(22):7825-35. [PubMed: 19435307]

40.

Marcus Y, Hefter G. Ion pairing. Chem Rev. 2006 Nov;106(11):4585-621. [PubMed: 17091929]

41.

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: 11735410]

42.

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. Biophys J. 2025 Apr 01;124(7):1166-1177. [PMC free article: PMC11993928] [PubMed: 40017034]

43.

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 01;32(1):111-27. [PubMed: 9672047]

44.

Chen Y, Zhen Q, Meng FJ, Yu P, Xu C. Lone Pair-π Interactions in Organic Reactions. Chem Rev. 2024 Dec 11;124(23):13370-13396. [PubMed: 39535080]

45.

Gryn'ova G, Coote ML, Corminboeuf C. Theory and practice of uncommon molecular electronic configurations. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Mol Sci. 2015 Nov-Dec;5(6):440-459. [PMC free article: PMC5057308] [PubMed: 27774112]

46.

Behe MJ, Lattman EE, Rose GD. The protein-folding problem: the native fold determines packing, but does packing determine the native fold? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991 May 15;88(10):4195-9. [PMC free article: PMC51625] [PubMed: 2034665]

47.

Woycechowsky KJ, Raines RT. Native disulfide bond formation in proteins. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2000 Oct;4(5):533-9. [PMC free article: PMC2814060] [PubMed: 11006541]

48.

Liu 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 Obes Metab. 2018 Sep;20 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):28-50. [PMC free article: PMC6463291] [PubMed: 30230185]

49.

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. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Nov 24;117(47):29618-29628. [PMC free article: PMC7703552] [PubMed: 33154160]

50.

Zubair M, Launico MV. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Dec 1, 2025. Western Blot: Principles, Procedures, and Clinical Applications. [PMC free article: PMC542290] [PubMed: 31194430]

51.

Stollar EJ, Smith DP. Uncovering protein structure. Essays Biochem. 2020 Oct 08;64(4):649-680. [PMC free article: PMC7545034] [PubMed: 32975287]

52.

Winklhofer KF, Tatzelt J, Haass C. The two faces of protein misfolding: gain- and loss-of-function in neurodegenerative diseases. EMBO J. 2008 Jan 23;27(2):336-49. [PMC free article: PMC2234348] [PubMed: 18216876]

53.

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) [PMC free article: PMC9416334] [PubMed: 36015334]

54.

Dobson CM. Protein folding and misfolding. Nature. 2003 Dec 18;426(6968):884-90. [PubMed: 14685248]

55.

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. [PMC free article: PMC4475725] [PubMed: 26099300]

56.

Moreno-Gonzalez I, Soto C. Misfolded protein aggregates: mechanisms, structures and potential for disease transmission. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2011 Jul;22(5):482-7. [PMC free article: PMC3175247] [PubMed: 21571086]

57.

Shorter J. Designer protein disaggregases to counter neurodegenerative disease. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2017 Jun;44:1-8. [PMC free article: PMC5447488] [PubMed: 28208059]

58.

Hall WA, Masood W. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Jun 23, 2025. Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. [PMC free article: PMC507860] [PubMed: 29939637]

59.

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. J Neurol Sci. 2024 Dec 15;467:123293. [PubMed: 39546829]

60.

Kumar A, Sidhu J, Lui F, Tsao JW. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Feb 12, 2024. Alzheimer Disease. [PubMed: 29763097]

61.

Parkinson J. An essay on the shaking palsy. 1817. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2002 Spring;14(2):223-36; discussion 222. [PubMed: 11983801]

62.

Zafar S, Lui F, Yaddanapudi SS. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Sep 15, 2025. Parkinson Disease. [PMC free article: PMC470193] [PubMed: 29261972]

63.

Ajitkumar A, Lui F, De Jesus O. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Apr 6, 2025. Huntington Disease. [PubMed: 32644592]

64.

PAULING L, ITANO HA. Sickle cell anemia a molecular disease. Science. 1949 Nov 25;110(2865):543-8. [PubMed: 15395398]

65.

Mangla A, Agarwal N, Maruvada S. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Sep 4, 2023. Sickle Cell Anemia. [PubMed: 29489205]

66.

Shah A, Royston MC. Donezepil for dementia. J R Soc Med. 1997 Oct;90(10):531-2. [PMC free article: PMC1296592] [PubMed: 9488008]

67.

Giannakis A, Konitsiotis S. Anti-Amyloid Agents: A Self-Fulfilling prophecy. J Clin Neurosci. 2025 Jul;137:111338. [PubMed: 40393205]

68.

Cummings J, Osse AML, Cammann D, Powell J, Chen J. Anti-Amyloid Monoclonal Antibodies for the Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease. BioDrugs. 2024 Jan;38(1):5-22. [PMC free article: PMC10789674] [PubMed: 37955845]

69.

Balch WE, Morimoto RI, Dillin A, Kelly JW. Adapting proteostasis for disease intervention. Science. 2008 Feb 15;319(5865):916-9. [PubMed: 18276881]

70.

Ironside JW, Ritchie DL, Head MW. Prion diseases. Handb Clin Neurol. 2017;145:393-403. [PubMed: 28987186]

71.

Takada LT, Geschwind MD. Prion diseases. Semin Neurol. 2013 Sep;33(4):348-56. [PubMed: 24234356]

72.

Bloem BR, Okun MS, Klein C. Parkinson's disease. Lancet. 2021 Jun 12;397(10291):2284-2303. [PubMed: 33848468]

73.

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. 2025 Aug 18;41:e20250020. [PubMed: 40820521]

74.

Lashuel HA, Overk CR, Oueslati A, Masliah E. The many faces of α-synuclein: from structure and toxicity to therapeutic target. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 Jan;14(1):38-48. [PMC free article: PMC4295774] [PubMed: 23254192]

75.

Kim 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 06;30(7):973-986.e11. [PMC free article: PMC10829432] [PubMed: 37339636]

76.

McGann PT, Ware RE. Hydroxyurea therapy for sickle cell anemia. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2015;14(11):1749-58. [PMC free article: PMC5868345] [PubMed: 26366626]

77.

Brandow AM, Liem RI. Advances in the diagnosis and treatment of sickle cell disease. J Hematol Oncol. 2022 Mar 03;15(1):20. [PMC free article: PMC8895633] [PubMed: 35241123]

78.

Frangoul 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. N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 21;384(3):252-260. [PubMed: 33283989]

79.

Park SH, Bao G. CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing for curing sickle cell disease. Transfus Apher Sci. 2021 Feb;60(1):103060. [PMC free article: PMC8049447] [PubMed: 33455878]

80.

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. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2024 Aug;86(8):4555-4559. [PMC free article: PMC11305803] [PubMed: 39118728]

Disclosure: Ashwin Ragupathi declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Alexander Mastrogiannis declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Nader Rahimi declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.