Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33550810›Full record

ReviewAccounts of chemical research2021

Fuzziness and Frustration in the Energy Landscape of Protein Folding, Function, and Assembly.

Stefano Gianni, María Inés Freiberger, Per Jemth, Diego U Ferreiro, Peter G Wolynes, Monika Fuxreiter

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Accounts of chemical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

76 citing papers in PubMed, 154 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Determinants of Protein Folding Pathways: Lessons from Metamorphic Proteins.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Improving enzymatic properties of BlTDH fromFood chemistry. Molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Stefano GianniIstituto Pasteur - Fondazione Cenci Bolognetti, Dipartimento di Scienze Biochimiche "A. Rossi Fanelli" and Istituto di Biologia e Patologia Molecolari del CNR, Sapienza Università di Roma, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1653-1925
María Inés FreibergerProtein Physiology Lab, Departamento de Química Biológica, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires-CONICET-IQUIBICEN, 1428 Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Per JemthDepartment of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology, Uppsala University, Husargatan 3, SE-75123 Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-1516-7228
Diego U FerreiroProtein Physiology Lab, Departamento de Química Biológica, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires-CONICET-IQUIBICEN, 1428 Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0002-7869-4247
Peter G WolynesCenter for Theoretical Biological Physics, Rice University, 6500 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77251-1892, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7975-9287
Monika FuxreiterMTA-DE Laboratory of Protein Dynamics, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Debrecen, Nagyerdei krt 98, H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-4463-6727
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas · ARCenter for Theoretical Biological Physics · USIstituto Pasteur · ITUniversity of Debrecen · HUUppsala University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Are all protein interactions fully optimized? Do suboptimal interactions compromise specificity? What is the functional impact of frustration? Why does evolution not optimize some contacts? Proteins and their complexes are best described as ensembles of states populating an energy landscape. These ensembles vary in breadth from narrow ensembles clustered around a single average X-ray structure to broader ensembles encompassing a few different functional "taxonomic" states on to near continua of rapidly interconverting conformations, which are called "fuzzy" or even "intrinsically disordered". Here we aim to provide a comprehensive framework for confronting the structural and dynamical continuum of protein assemblies by combining the concepts of energetic frustration and interaction fuzziness. The diversity of the protein structural ensemble arises from the frustrated conflicts between the interactions that create the energy landscape. When frustration is minimal after folding, it results in a narrow ensemble, but residual frustrated interactions result in fuzzy ensembles, and this fuzziness allows a versatile repertoire of biological interactions. Here we discuss how fuzziness and frustration play off each other as proteins fold and assemble, viewing their significance from energetic, functional, and evolutionary perspectives.We demonstrate, in particular, that the common physical origin of both concepts is related to the ruggedness of the energy landscapes, intramolecular in the case of frustration and intermolecular in the case of fuzziness. Within this framework, we show that alternative sets of suboptimal contacts may encode specificity without achieving a single structural optimum. Thus, we demonstrate that structured complexes may not be optimized, and energetic frustration is realized via different sets of contacts leading to multiplicity of specific complexes. Furthermore, we propose that these suboptimal, frustrated, or fuzzy interactions are under evolutionary selection and expand the biological repertoire by providing a multiplicity of biological activities. In accord, we show that non-native interactions in folding or interaction landscapes can cooperate to generate diverse functional states, which are essential to facilitate adaptation to different cellular conditions. Thus, we propose that not fully optimized structures may actually be beneficial for biological activities of proteins via an alternative set of suboptimal interactions. The importance of such variability has not been recognized across different areas of biology.This account provides a modern view on folding, function, and assembly across the protein universe. The physical framework presented here is applicable to the structure and dynamics continuum of proteins and opens up new perspectives for drug design involving not fully structured, highly dynamic protein assemblies.

Indexed as

ProteinsCrystallography, X-RayModels, MolecularProtein ConformationProtein FoldingProteins

Identifiers

PMID33550810
PMCPMC8023570
OpenAlexW3127370042

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.