Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 89 references

Iterative Annealing Mechanism for Protein and RNA Chaperones

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that GroEL and CYT-19 chaperones work by one iterative annealing mechanism, and that RNA self-splicing yield is maximized only at moderate chaperone activity.

desk verdict A clear, well-written synthesis of the authors' own IAM framework, but not a new result; the RNA optimum prediction needs a caveat about κ. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12645 v1 pith:6WLQV5VP submitted 2025-06-14 physics.bio-ph cond-mat.softq-bio.BM

Changbong Hyeon , D. Thirumalai This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-phcond-mat.softq-bio.BM
keywords molecularchaperonesiterativeannealingmechanismkineticpartitioningGroELCYT-19RNAfoldingproteinself-splicing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Molecular chaperones such as GroEL for proteins and CYT-19 for RNA are usually studied as separate machines, but this paper argues that both operate by the same iterative annealing mechanism: they burn ATP to repeatedly unfold misfolded molecules, giving the population multiple fresh chances to reach the native state instead of passively stabilizing it. The paper claims this single framework quantitatively explains the measured outcomes of experiments on both machines, and that both chaperones have evolved to maximize the steady-state yield of functional products on biological timescales rather than to approach the equilibrium Boltzmann distribution. The central prediction concerns RNA: when chaperone-facilitated folding is coupled to self-splicing, the yield of spliced pre-RNA is maximal only at a moderate level of chaperone activity, with the optimum at $k_{MI}^{\rm eff} \approx \sqrt{k_{IM} k_s / \kappa}$, where $\kappa$ is the ratio of chaperone-induced unfolding rates from native and misfolded RNA. If correct, the theory unifies protein and RNA chaperone biology and gives a quantitative, testable target for chaperone activity in the cell.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the kinetic partitioning factor $\Phi$ and the relative disruption factor $\kappa$. $\Phi = k_{UN}/(k_{UM}+k_{UN})$ is the fraction of molecules that fold directly to the native state on a rugged landscape, and it is the parameter the chaperone acts on by repeatedly unfolding the misfolded fraction. $\kappa = k_{NU}([C],[T])/k_{MU}([C],[T])$ measures how strongly the chaperone disrupts the native state relative to misfolded states; $\kappa = 0$ recovers the GroEL case, while CYT-19 has $\kappa \approx 0.13$. These two parameters enter the iterated-annealing yield formula, and together with the splicing rate $k_s$ and the folding rate $k_{IM}$ they produce the optimum condition $k_{MI}^{\rm eff} \approx \sqrt{k_{IM}k_s/\kappa}$ that carries the paper's central RNA prediction.

What would settle it

Titrate CYT-19 concentration against the yield of self-spliced group I intron pre-RNA in an in vivo or reconstituted assay, holding the transcript and ATP pool fixed. If the yield rises monotonically to a plateau instead of peaking at an intermediate concentration, or if the maximum moves sharply with ATP concentration in a way inconsistent with a fixed $\kappa$, the predicted optimum $k_{MI}^{\rm eff} \approx \sqrt{k_{IM}k_s/\kappa}$ fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed here is that the iterative annealing mechanism, originally introduced for chaperonin-assisted protein folding, also describes RNA chaperones such as CYT-19, so that a single nonequilibrium principle covers both. In this mechanism, the fraction $\Phi$ of molecules that fold directly is set by kinetic partitioning on a rugged landscape; the remaining fraction is trapped in misfolded states. The chaperone repeatedly unfolds trapped molecules, so after $n$ rounds the fraction folded is $P_N(n) = 1 - (1 - \Phi)^n$ when only misfolded states are disrupted. The paper generalizes this to RNA chaperones by introducing $\kappa = k_{NU}/k_{MU}$, the ratio of chaperone-induced unfolding rates from native and misfolded states, giving $P_N^\kappa(\infty) = \Phi/[\kappa + (1-\kappa)\Phi]$; for CYT-19, $\kappa \approx 0.13$, so the steady-state yield stays below unity, matching the measured loss of native ribozyme at high CYT-19 concentration. Extending the network to include self-splicing yields the non-monotonic prediction that spliced pre-RNA is maximized at an intermediate chaperone activity, $k_{MI}^{\rm eff} \approx \sqrt{k_{IM} k_s/\kappa}$, because the chaperone must rescue misfolded RNA without destroying the native state before splicing can occur. The paper's broader assertion is that both machines have evolved to maximize native-state production on biological times, and that this is why chaperone action is a far-from-equilibrium, ATP-consuming process.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction that a moderate level of RNA chaperone activity is optimal assumes that the ratio $\kappa = k_{NU}/k_{MU}$ of chaperone-induced unfolding rates from native and misfolded RNA stays fixed when chaperone or ATP concentration changes; if $\kappa$ varies, the location or even the existence of the predicted optimum changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For GroEL-type chaperones, the formula $P_N(n) = 1 - (1 - \Phi)^n$ implies that even a substrate with a tiny partition factor such as Rubisco ($\Phi \approx 0.05$) is driven to near-complete native yield after enough rounds, with full rescue predicted in roughly 40 seconds at equal chaperone and substrate concentrations.
  • For RNA chaperones with $\kappa > 0$, the steady-state native yield is strictly below unity, so the theory explains why ribozyme activity falls at high CYT-19 concentration rather than saturating.
  • When folding is coupled to self-splicing, the yield of spliced pre-RNA is predicted to be non-monotonic in chaperone activity, with a maximum set by $k_{MI}^{\rm eff} \approx \sqrt{k_{IM}k_s/\kappa}$; this gives a concrete target for chaperone expression levels in vivo.
  • The product of steady-state yield and inverse relaxation time, $P_N/\tau$, is an increasing function of chaperone concentration for both GroEL and CYT-19, even where the yield itself decreases for RNA, so the theory identifies the relevant biological objective as production rate rather than yield alone.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test of the paper's central RNA prediction would be to titrate CYT-19 concentration in a group I intron splicing assay and look for an interior maximum in spliced RNA yield; the paper states this prediction awaits experimental tests.
  • If the optimum condition survives in vivo, it suggests a design principle for RNA chaperone expression: cells should tune DEAD-box protein levels to the ratio of folding and splicing rates, not simply make more chaperone.
  • By extension, a similar moderate-dosage optimum should appear for any chaperone that can disrupt the functional native state of its substrate, including DEAD-box proteins involved in ribosome assembly, a direction the paper already gestures toward with CsdA.
  • Because $\kappa$ is a ratio of rates that each depend on chaperone and ATP concentration, the theory's sharpest prediction assumes that ratio stays fixed; measuring $k_{NU}$ and $k_{MU}$ separately would show whether the optimum exists across concentrations or only in a narrow window.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes the Iterative Annealing Mechanism (IAM) as a unified framework for GroEL-mediated protein folding and CYT-19-mediated RNA folding. It derives yield expressions for repeated chaperone cycles (Eqs. 4-6), introduces a parameter κ = k_NU/k_MU to distinguish the two machines, and extends the model to in vivo self-splicing of group I intron pre-RNA, predicting that the steady-state yield of spliced RNA is maximized at a moderate chaperone activity (Eq. 9). The authors further argue that both machines have evolved to maximize native-state yield on biological timescales and that the theory quantitatively explains all available experiments.

Significance. If the central claims held, the paper would offer a useful unifying perspective: the same geometric-series annealing argument explains why GroEL-assisted folding yield rises monotonically with added chaperone while CYT-19-assisted yield can be non-monotonic, and it ties this difference to a single dimensionless factor κ. The elementary derivations in Eqs. (4)-(6) are transparent and correct under the stated kinetic assumptions, and the explicit optimum condition in Eq. (9) is a falsifiable prediction in principle. The GroEL case with κ = 0 is effectively a parameter-free consequence of the measured partition factor Φ, which is a definite strength. However, the strong evolutionary and quantitative claims in the abstract and discussion exceed what is demonstrated here, and the in vivo optimum prediction rests on a concentration-independence assumption that is not examined.

major comments (3)
  1. [RNA folding in cells; Eqs. (8)-(9)] Equations (8) and (9) are in tension. Equation (8) defines κ = k_NU([C],[T])/k_MU([C],[T]) with both rates explicitly dependent on chaperone and ATP concentrations, yet Eq. (9) is obtained by optimizing the yield with respect to k_MI^eff while holding κ fixed at 0.13 (Fig. 4C). If κ varies with [C] or [T] over the range where k_MI^eff changes, the extremum condition is not Eq. (9). With x = k_MI^eff and κ = κ(x), the stationary condition becomes κ'(x)(x + k_IM) + κ(x) = k_IM k_s / x^2, so the optimum location, and possibly its existence, changes unless the chaperone-induced unfolding rates share the same concentration dependence. The manuscript provides no data or argument that κ is concentration-independent in vivo, so the headline prediction of a moderate-activity maximum is not yet established as a prediction about CYT-19 concentration.
  2. [Discussion: Chaperones solve an optimization problem; Concluding Remarks] The claim in the abstract and Section II that 'both these machines have evolved to maximize the production of the steady state yield on biological times' is not supported by the analysis. The theory shows that for fixed κ and Φ the yield is given by Eq. (6) and increases with the number of cycles, but it does not compare evolutionary fitness across different values of κ or consider alternative optimization targets such as production rate P_N/τ, ATP cost, or substrate specificity. Indeed, the paper itself introduces the power-efficiency tradeoff, which suggests that maximizing steady-state yield is not obviously the selection target. The evolutionary statement should be framed as an interpretation or a hypothesis, not as a derived result.
  3. [Introduction; Concluding Remarks; Fig. 4C] The paper claims that IAM 'quantitatively explains all the available experiments' and 'quantitatively accounts for all the experimental observations [17]', but this manuscript contains no direct quantitative comparison of the model with experimental data: there are no theory-versus-experiment plots, no error analysis, and no table of fitted parameters. The in vivo splicing prediction uses rate constants and κ = 0.13 taken from the earlier fit in ref [20], so the moderate-activity optimum is a property of that previously fitted model rather than an independent, parameter-free prediction. The authors should either include the quantitative comparison here or explicitly present the paper as a synthesis of prior work and soften the corresponding claims.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] The citation 'works [17 ? -20]' contains a missing or malformed reference marker and should be corrected to a standard bracket format.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical slips, including 'all also by mutations' (p. 5), 'maximzes' (p. 8), 'riboyzme' (p. 9), 'out theory is allicable' (p. 16), and 'evolved to the maximize' in the abstract; these should be corrected.
  3. [Fig. 4C] The star symbol and the value k_MI^eff ≈ 7.5 min^-1 should be defined in the figure caption rather than only in the text, and the source of the plotted curves relative to ref [20] should be stated in the caption.
  4. [Eq. (7)] Equation (7) is typeset ambiguously, with the ratio k_NU/k_MU displayed in a way that is easy to misread; it should be rewritten explicitly as P_N^κ(∞) ≈ k_UN / (κ k_UM + k_UN) with κ defined by Eq. (8).

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline RNA prediction of a moderate-activity optimum is taken from the authors' prior fitted model, and Eq. (9) treats the concentration-dependent ratio κ as a constant, making the predicted optimum a property of the model's fitted parameters and implicit assumptions.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 'RNA folding in cells', Eq. (9) and Fig. 4C caption]
    "Of particular note is that for κ ̸= 0, P ss SP varies non-monotonically with the unfolding activity of RNA chaperones (keffMI), reaching a maximum at, keffMI ≈ sqrt(kIMks/κ) ... The rate constants (kI→M, kM→N, kN→M, kd, and ks) used in the kinetic model (B) are listed in the caption to Fig. 5 B in [20]. The star symbol is evaluated at keffMI ≈ 7.5 min−1 (the saturation value in inset) and κ = 0.13."

    The predicted optimum is not derived from an independent test in this paper. The kinetic network, all rate constants, and κ=0.13 are imported from the authors' own prior work [20], where κ was determined by matching the chaperone-concentration-dependent yield data. Eq. (9) is the stationarity condition of that already-fitted model, so the 'prediction' that self-splicing yield is maximized at moderate chaperone activity restates the previously fitted non-monotonic behavior rather than providing a new, falsifiable prediction.

  2. self definitional [Eqs. (8) and (9)]
    "κ = kNU([C], [T])/kMU([C], [T]) , (8) where [C] and [T] in the argument denote the chaperone and ATP concentrations, respectively, thus making explicit the dependence of the chaperone-induced unfolding rates on them. ... for κ ̸= 0, P ss SP varies non-monotonically with the unfolding activity of RNA chaperones (keffMI), reaching a maximum at Eq. (9)."

    Eq. (8) defines κ as a ratio of two rates that both depend on chaperone and ATP concentrations, so κ is not an independent parameter when keffMI is varied. Eq. (9) is obtained by optimizing PssSP with respect to keffMI while holding κ fixed, which is only valid if kNU and kMU share the same concentration dependence. The paper provides no evidence for that shared dependence, so the existence and location of the predicted maximum are effectively built into the decision to treat the definition (8) as a constant during the optimization.

full rationale

The GroEL arm of the paper is essentially parameter-free: with κ=0, the yield expression reduces to Eq. (4), which depends only on the independently measured partition factor Φ, so that part of the derivation is not circular. The RNA arm, however, carries the paper's most striking claim. Its kinetic model, rate constants, and the value κ=0.13 are all taken from the authors' prior PNAS paper [20], in which those parameters were matched to the chaperone-concentration-dependent yield data. The new Eq. (9) is the maximum condition of that same fitted model, so presenting it as a fresh 'prediction' of an in vivo optimum is a fitted input called a prediction rather than an independent derivation. The circularity is partial: the qualitative statement that a positive disruption ratio produces a non-monotonic yield is a genuine mathematical consequence of the model, but the quantitative prediction of the optimum and its in vivo relevance reduce to the fitted parameters and to the unstated assumption that κ remains constant as chaperone activity changes. The paper does not test Eq. (9) against new data, and its own Eq. (8) explicitly makes κ concentration-dependent. These issues make the central RNA claim at least partially circular, while the GroEL and general IAM framework retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on measured partition factors, a fitted recognition factor κ, and a kinetic network from prior work. The derivation is not self-contained; it imports the model and its parameters from refs [17] and [20].

free parameters (3)
  • Partition factor Φ (e.g., 0.08 for T. ribozyme, 0.05 for Rubisco) = 0.02-0.08 depending on substrate
    Measured from folding experiments; the entire IAM yield formula (Eqs. 4-6) is a function of Φ.
  • Recognition factor κ for CYT-19 = 0.13
    Quoted from ref [20], where it was estimated by fitting the kinetic model to T. ribozyme data; the splicing-yield prediction in Eq. (9) depends on this fitted number.
  • Kinetic rates (k_IM, k_IN, k_s, k_d, etc.) in the in vivo splicing model = Various, from ref [20]
    Taken from prior experimental fits; Fig. 4C uses these rates as fixed inputs.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Folding landscapes are rugged and folding follows kinetic partitioning (KPM) with a three-state {U},{M},N scheme.
    Theoretical basis of the paper; introduced in Section I (Eqs. 1-3).
  • domain assumption Chaperone action resets misfolded (and, for CYT-19, native) states to unfolded U each cycle, with no memory between cycles.
    Core of IAM; assumed in the derivation of Eqs. (4)-(6).
  • domain assumption The in vivo splicing model of ref [20] (rates and network of Fig. 4B) is valid.
    The prediction of moderate activity in Eq. (9) comes from this imported model.
  • ad hoc to paper κ = k_NU/k_MU is treated as a constant (0.13) independent of [C] and [T], despite the concentration dependence of the individual rates in Eq. (8).
    A modeling choice needed for the optimization result; not derived from data or first principles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Iterative Annealing Mechanism for Protein and RNA Chaperones." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6WLQV5VP

@misc{pith2026250612645,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Iterative Annealing Mechanism for Protein and RNA Chaperones},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6WLQV5VP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12645}
}
read the original abstract

Molecular chaperones are machines that consume copious amount of ATP to drive misfolded proteins or RNA to fold into functionally competent native states. Because the folding landscapes of biomolecules with complex native state topology are rugged consisting of multiple minima that are separated by large free energy barriers, folding occurs by the kinetic partitioning mechanism according to which only a small fraction of the molecules reach the folded state in biologically viable times. The rescue of such proteins and RNA require chaperones. Although the protein and RNA chaperones are profoundly different in their structure and action, the principles underlying their activity to produce the folded structures can be understood using a unified theoretical framework based on iterative annealing mechanism (IAM). Our theory shows that both these machines have evolved to the maximize the production of the steady state yield on biological times. Strikingly, theory predicts that only at a moderate level of RNA chaperone activity is the yield of the self-splicing pre-RNA is maximized in \textit{in vivo}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12645 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Rugged folding landscape and the kinetic partitioning mechanism [35], highlighting the multiple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Changes in the subpopulations of protein while the protein conformations are iteratively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Chaperone-facilitated folding of RNA on a rugged folding landscape of RNA. The fraction ￾ of molecules reach the native state rapidly, while 1 ￾ ￾ remain trapped in the misfolded states. The repeated actions of RNA chaperone (depicted as a packman-like object) anneal the otherwise misfolding-prone population of RNA into the one with a high native yield as quantified in Eq.1. n attempts of folding transition is obtai… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    Molecular Chaperones Maximize the Native State Yield on Biological Times by Driving Substrates out of 18 Equilibrium

    Shaon Chakrabarti, Changbong Hyeon, Xiang Ye, George Lorimer, and D Thirumalai. Molecular Chaperones Maximize the Native State Yield on Biological Times by Driving Substrates out of 18 Equilibrium. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 114:E10919–E10927, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [20]

    Moderate activity of RNA chaperone maximizes the yield of self-spliced pre-RNA in vivo

    Yonghyun Song, D Thirumalai, and Changbong Hyeon. Moderate activity of RNA chaperone maximizes the yield of self-spliced pre-RNA in vivo. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(49):e2209422119, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [1]

    C. B. Anfinsen. Principles that govern the folding of protein chain. Science, 181:223–230, 1973

    1973

  4. [2]

    C. B. Anfinsen and H. A. Scheraga. Experimental and theoretical aspects of protein folding. Adv. Protein Chem., 29:205–300, 1975

    1975

  5. [3]

    Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold

    John Jumper, Richard Evans, Alexander Pritzel, Tim Green, Michael Figurnov, Olaf Ronneberger, Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool, Russ Bates, Augustin ˇZ ´ ıdek, Anna Potapenko, et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold. nature, 596(7873):583–589, 2021

    2021

  6. [4]

    The coming of age of de novo protein design

    Po-Ssu Huang, Scott E Boyken, and David Baker. The coming of age of de novo protein design. Nature, 537(7620):320–327, 2016. 17

    2016

  7. [5]

    Studies on the gross structure, cross-linkages, and terminal sequences in ribonuclease

    Christian B Anfinsen, Robert R Redfield, Warren L Choate, Juanita Page, and William R Carroll. Studies on the gross structure, cross-linkages, and terminal sequences in ribonuclease. J. Biol. Chem., 207(1):201–210, 1954

    1954

  8. [6]

    M. J. Todd, G. H. Lorimer, and D. Thirumalai. Chaperonin-facilitated protein folding: Opti- mization of rate and yield by an iterative annealing mechanism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 93:4030–4035, 1996

    1996

Show all 89 references
  1. [7]

    Kiefhaber

    T. Kiefhaber. Kinetic traps in lysozyme folding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 92:9029–9033, 1995

    1995

  2. [8]

    Hyeon and D

    C. Hyeon and D. Thirumalai. Multiple probes are required to explore and control the rugged energy landscape of RNA hairpins. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 130:1538–1539, 2008

    2008

  3. [9]

    Kuznetsov, C.C

    S.V. Kuznetsov, C.C. Ren, S.A. Woodson, and A. Ansari. Loop dependence of the stability and dynamics of nucleic acid hairpins. Nucleic Acids Research, 36(4):1098, 2008

    2008

  4. [10]

    Folding of rna involves parallel pathways

    Jie Pan, D Thirumalai, and Sarah A Woodson. Folding of rna involves parallel pathways. J. Mol. Biol., 273(1):7–13, 1997

    1997

  5. [11]

    D. K. Treiber and J. R. Williamson. Exposing the kinetic traps in RNA folding. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 9(3):339–345, 1999

    1999

  6. [12]

    Thirumalai

    D. Thirumalai. Statistical Mechanics, Protein Structure, and Protein - Substrate Interactions, chapter Theoretical Perspectives on In Vitro and In Vivo Protein Folding, pages 115 – 134. Plenum, New York, 1994

    1994

  7. [13]

    Taming free energy landscapes with RNA chaperones

    Sarah A Woodson. Taming free energy landscapes with RNA chaperones. RNA biology, 7(6):677– 686, 2010

    2010

  8. [14]

    Rna chaperones, rna annealers and rna helicases

    Lukas Rajkowitsch, Doris Chen, Sabine Stampfl, Katharina Semrad, Christina Waldsich, Oliver Mayer, Michael F Jantsch, Robert Konrat, Udo Bl¨ asi, and Ren´ ee Schroeder. Rna chaperones, rna annealers and rna helicases. RNA biology, 4(3):118–130, 2007

    2007

  9. [15]

    Herschlag

    D. Herschlag. RNA Chaperones and the RNA Folding Problem. J. Biol. Chem., 270:20871–20874, 1995

    1995

  10. [16]

    Toward a molecular understanding of RNA remodeling by DEAD-box proteins

    Rick Russell, Inga Jarmoskaite, and Alan M Lambowitz. Toward a molecular understanding of RNA remodeling by DEAD-box proteins. RNA Biology, 10(1):44–55, 2013

    2013

  11. [18]

    Sassi, Bruno Fauvet, Alessandro Barducci, and Paolo De los Rios

    Pierre Goloubinoff, Alberto S. Sassi, Bruno Fauvet, Alessandro Barducci, and Paolo De los Rios. Chaperones convert the energy from ATP into the nonequilibrium stabilization of native proteins. Nat. Chem. Biol., 14(4):388–394, 2018

    2018

  12. [19]

    Iterative annealing mechanism explains the functions of the groel and rna chaperones

    D Thirumalai, George H Lorimer, and Changbong Hyeon. Iterative annealing mechanism explains the functions of the groel and rna chaperones. Protein Sci., 29(2):360–377, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    A quantitative assessment of the role of the chaperonin proteins in protein folding in vivo

    GH Lorimer. A quantitative assessment of the role of the chaperonin proteins in protein folding in vivo. F ASEB J., 10(1):5, 1996

    1996

  14. [22]

    Residues in substrate proteins that interact with groel in the capture process are buried in the native state

    George Stan, Bernard R Brooks, George H Lorimer, and D Thirumalai. Residues in substrate proteins that interact with groel in the capture process are buried in the native state. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 103(12):4433–4438, 2006

    2006

  15. [23]

    Physical studies of the interaction of a calf thymus helix-destabilizing protein with nucleic acids

    Richard L Karpel and Ann C Burchard. Physical studies of the interaction of a calf thymus helix-destabilizing protein with nucleic acids. Biochemistry, 19(20):4674–4682, 1980

    1980

  16. [24]

    S. Mohr, J. M. Stryker, and A. M. Lambowitz. A dead-box protein functions as an atp-dependent rna chaperone in group i intron splicing. Cell, 109:769–779, 2002

    2002

  17. [25]

    A protein required for rna processing and splicing in neurospora mitochondria is related to gene products involved in cell cycle protein phosphatase functions

    Beatrice Turcq, Katherine F Dobinson, Nobufusa Serizawa, and Alan M Lambowitz. A protein required for rna processing and splicing in neurospora mitochondria is related to gene products involved in cell cycle protein phosphatase functions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 89(5)...

    1992

  18. [26]

    The splicing of yeast mitochondrial group I and group II introns requires a DEAD- box protein with RNA chaperone function

    Hon-Ren Huang, Claire E Rowe, Sabine Mohr, Yue Jiang, Alan M Lambowitz, and Philip S Perlman. The splicing of yeast mitochondrial group I and group II introns requires a DEAD- box protein with RNA chaperone function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(1):163–...

    2005

  19. [27]

    Thirumalai and S

    D. Thirumalai and S. A. Woodson. Kinetics of Folding of Proteins and RNA. Acc. Chem. Res., 29:433–439, 1996

    1996

  20. [28]

    S. J. Chen and K. A. Dill. RNA folding energy landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 97:646–651, 2000. 19

    2000

  21. [29]

    From Levinthal to pathways to funnels

    Ken A Dill and Hue Sun Chan. From Levinthal to pathways to funnels. Nature structural biology, 4(1):10–19, 1997

    1997

  22. [30]

    Hyeon and D

    C. Hyeon and D. Thirumalai. Can Energy Landscape Roughness of Proteins and RNA be Measured by Using Mechanical Unfolding Experiments? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 100:10249–10253, 2003

    2003

  23. [31]

    J. D. Bryngelson and P. G. Wolynes. Spin glasses and the statistical mechanics of protein folding,. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 84:7524–7528, 1987

    1987

  24. [32]

    Navigating the folding routes

    Peter G Wolynes, Jose N Onuchic, and D Thirumalai. Navigating the folding routes. Science, pages 1619–1619, 1995

    1995

  25. [33]

    Nymeyer, A

    H. Nymeyer, A. E. Garc?a, and J. N. Onuchic. Folding funnels and frustration in off-lattice minimalist protein landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 95:5921–5928, 1998

    1998

  26. [34]

    Thirumalai and C

    D. Thirumalai and C. Hyeon. RNA and Protein folding: Common Themes and Variations. Bio- chemistry, 44(13):4957–4970, 2005

    2005

  27. [35]

    Guo and D

    Z. Guo and D. Thirumalai. Kinetics of Protein Folding: Nucleation Mechanism, Time Scales, and Pathways. Biopolymers, 36:83–102, 1995

    1995

  28. [36]

    M. J. Todd, P. V. Viitanen, and G. H. Lorimer. Dynamics of the chaperonin ATPase cycle: implications for facilitated protein folding. Science, 256:659 – 666, 1994

    1994

  29. [37]

    Thirumalai, D

    D. Thirumalai, D. K. Klimov, and S. A. Woodson. Kinetic partitioning mechanism as a unifying theme in the folding of biomolecules. Theor. Chem. Acc., 96:14–22, 1997

    1997

  30. [38]

    The origin of the α-domain intermediate in the folding of hen lysozyme

    Andr´ e Matagne, Evonne W Chung, Linda J Ball, Sheena E Radford, Carol V Robinson, and Christopher M Dobson. The origin of the α-domain intermediate in the folding of hen lysozyme. J. Mol. Biol., 277(5):997–1005, 1998

    1998

  31. [39]

    Tehver and D

    R. Tehver and D. Thirumalai. Kinetic Model for the Coupling between Allosteric Transitions in GroEL and Substrate Protein Folding and Aggregation. J. Mol. Biol., 377:1279–1295, 2008

    2008

  32. [40]

    Zhuang, L.E

    X. Zhuang, L.E. Bartley, A.P. Babcock, R. Russell, T. Ha, D. Hershlag, and S. Chu. A single- molecule study of RNA catalysis and folding. Science, 288:2048–2051, 2000

    2000

  33. [41]

    J. Pan, M. L. Deras, and S. A. Woodson. Fast Folding of a Ribozyme by Stabilization Core Interactions: Evidence for Multiple Folding Pathways in RNA. J. Mol. Biol., 296:133–144, 2000

    2000

  34. [42]

    Interactions of bacteriophage and host macromolecules in the growth of bacteriophage lambda.Microbiol

    DA VID I Friedman, ER Olson, C Georgopoulos, K Tilly, I Herskowitz, and F Banuett. Interactions of bacteriophage and host macromolecules in the growth of bacteriophage lambda.Microbiol. Rev., 20 48(4):299–325, 1984

    1984

  35. [43]

    ATP-released large subunits participate in the assembly of RuBP carboxylase

    Patrice Milos and Harry Roy. ATP-released large subunits participate in the assembly of RuBP carboxylase. J. Cell. Biochem., 24(2):153–162, 1984

    1984

  36. [44]

    Golouginoff, A

    P. Golouginoff, A. A. Gatenby, and G. H. Lorimer. GroEL heat-shock proteins promote assembly of foreign prokaryotic ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase oligomers in Escherichia-Coli. Nature, 337:44–47, 1989

    1989

  37. [45]

    Protein folding in mitochondria requires complex formation with hsp60 and ATP hydrolysis

    Joachim Ostermann, Arthur L Horwich, Walter Neupert, and F-Ulrich Hartl. Protein folding in mitochondria requires complex formation with hsp60 and ATP hydrolysis. Nature, 341(6238):125– 130, 1989

    1989

  38. [46]

    Structure and function in groel-mediated protein folding

    Paul B Sigler, Zhaohui Xu, Hays S Rye, Steven G Burston, Wayne A Fenton, and Arthur L Horwich. Structure and function in groel-mediated protein folding. Annu. Rev. Biochem., 67:581– 608, 1998

    1998

  39. [47]

    The groel/groes cis cavity as a passive anti-aggregation device

    Arthur L Horwich, Adrian C Apetri, and Wayne A Fenton. The groel/groes cis cavity as a passive anti-aggregation device. FEBS letters, 583(16):2654–2662, 2009

    2009

  40. [48]

    Single-molecule spectroscopy of protein folding in a chaperonin cage

    Hagen Hofmann, Frank Hillger, Shawn H Pfeil, Armin Hoffmann, Daniel Streich, Dominik Haenni, Daniel Nettels, Everett A Lipman, and Benjamin Schuler. Single-molecule spectroscopy of protein folding in a chaperonin cage. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 107(26):11793–11798, 2010

    2010

  41. [49]

    Kerner, Dean J

    Achim Brinker, Guenther Pfeifer, Michael J. Kerner, Dean J. Naylor, F. Ulrich Hartl, and Manajit Hayer-Hartl. Dual Function of Protein Confinement in Chaperonin-Assisted Protein Folding. Cell, 107:223–233, 2001

    2001

  42. [50]

    Active cage mechanism of chaperonin-assisted protein folding demonstrated at single-molecule level

    Amit J Gupta, Shubhasis Haldar, Goran Miliˇ ci´ c, F Ulrich Hartl, and Manajit Hayer-Hartl. Active cage mechanism of chaperonin-assisted protein folding demonstrated at single-molecule level. J. Mol. Biol., 426(15):2739–2754, 2014

    2014

  43. [51]

    Thirumalai and G

    D. Thirumalai and G. H. Lorimer. Chaperonin-mediated protein folding. Ann. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct., 30:245–269, 2001

    2001

  44. [52]

    Hyeon, G

    C. Hyeon, G. H. Lorimer, and D. Thirumalai. Dynamics of allosteric transition in GroEL. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 103:18939–18944, 2006

    2006

  45. [53]

    Horovitz, Y

    A. Horovitz, Y. Fridmann, G. Kafri, and O. Yifrach. Review:allostery in chaperonins. J. Struct. Biol., 135:104–114, 2001

    2001

  46. [54]

    Horovitz, E

    A. Horovitz, E. S. Bochkareva, O. Yifrach, and A. S. Girshovich. Prediction of an Inter-residue 21 Interaction in the Chaperonin GroEL from Multiple Sequence Alignment is Confirmed by Double- mutant Cycle Analysis . J. Mol. Biol., 238:133–138, 1994

    1994

  47. [55]

    A diminished hy- drophobic effect inside the groel/es cavity contributes to protein substrate destabilization

    Ilia Korobko, Robin Benjamin Eberle, Mousam Roy, and Amnon Horovitz. A diminished hy- drophobic effect inside the groel/es cavity contributes to protein substrate destabilization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 119(48):e2213170119, 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    Retardation of folding rates of substrate proteins in the nanocage of groel

    Eda Koculi and D Thirumalai. Retardation of folding rates of substrate proteins in the nanocage of groel. Biochemistry, 60(6):460–464, 2021

    2021

  49. [57]

    Measuring protein stability in the groel chaperonin cage reveals massive destabilization

    Ilia Korobko, Hisham Mazal, Gilad Haran, and Amnon Horovitz. Measuring protein stability in the groel chaperonin cage reveals massive destabilization. Elife, 9:e56511, 2020

    2020

  50. [58]

    Denatured proteins facilitate the formation of the football-shaped GroEL–(GroES) 2 complex

    Tomoya Sameshima, Ryo Iizuka, Taro Ueno, and Takashi Funatsu. Denatured proteins facilitate the formation of the football-shaped GroEL–(GroES) 2 complex. Biochem. J., 427(2):247–254, 2010

    2010

  51. [59]

    Single-molecule observation of protein folding in symmetric GroEL-(GroES) 2 complexes

    Yodai Takei, Ryo Iizuka, Taro Ueno, and Takashi Funatsu. Single-molecule observation of protein folding in symmetric GroEL-(GroES) 2 complexes. J. Biol. Chem., 287(49):41118–41125, 2012

    2012

  52. [60]

    Substrate protein switches groe chaperonins from asymmet- ric to symmetric cycling by catalyzing nucleotide exchange

    Xiang Ye and George H Lorimer. Substrate protein switches groe chaperonins from asymmet- ric to symmetric cycling by catalyzing nucleotide exchange. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 110(46):E4289–E4297, 2013

    2013

  53. [61]

    Symmetric GroEL:GroES2 complexes are the protein-folding functional form of the chaperonin nanomachine

    Dong Yang, Xiang Ye, and George H Lorimer. Symmetric GroEL:GroES2 complexes are the protein-folding functional form of the chaperonin nanomachine. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 110(46):E4298–E4305, 2013

    2013

  54. [62]

    The formation of symmet- rical groel-groes complexes in the presence of atp

    Oscar Llorca, Sergio Marco, Jos´ e L Carrascosa, and Jos´ e M Valpuesta. The formation of symmet- rical groel-groes complexes in the presence of atp. FEBS letters, 345(2-3):181–186, 1994

    1994

  55. [63]

    Kinetic significance of groel14 ·(groes7) 2 complexes in molecular chaperone activity

    Fernando J Corrales and Alan R Fersht. Kinetic significance of groel14 ·(groes7) 2 complexes in molecular chaperone activity. Folding and Design, 1(4):265–273, 1996

    1996

  56. [64]

    X. Fei, D. Yang, N. LaRonade-LeBlanc, and G. H. Lorimer. Crystal structure of a groel-adp complex in the relaxed allosteric state at 2.7 ˚ a resolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 110(32):E2958–E2966, 2013

    2013

  57. [65]

    X. Fei, X. Ye, N. A. LaRonade, and G. H. Lorimer. Formation and structures of groel:groes2 chap- eronin footballs, the protein-folding functioal form. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 111(35):12775– 12780, 2014. 22

    2014

  58. [66]

    Kirkpatrick, D

    S. Kirkpatrick, D. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science, 220:671–680, 1983

    1983

  59. [67]

    Diffusion with stochastic resetting

    Martin R Evans and Satya N Majumdar. Diffusion with stochastic resetting. Physical review letters, 106(16):160601, 2011

    2011

  60. [68]

    Thermodynamic trade-off relation for first passage time in resetting processes

    Priyo Shankar Pal, Arnab Pal, Hyunggyu Park, and Jae Sung Lee. Thermodynamic trade-off relation for first passage time in resetting processes. Physical Review E, 108(4):044117, 2023

    2023

  61. [69]

    Mugnai, Changbong Hyeon, Michael Hinczewski, and D

    Mauro L. Mugnai, Changbong Hyeon, Michael Hinczewski, and D. Thirumalai. Theoretical per- spectives on biological machines. Rev. Mod. Phys., 92:025001, Apr 2020

    2020

  62. [70]

    Thermodynamic uncertainty relation to assess biological processes

    Yonghyun Song and Changbong Hyeon. Thermodynamic uncertainty relation to assess biological processes. J. Chem. Phys., 154(13):130901, 2021

    2021

  63. [71]

    Out-of-equilibrium conformational cycling of groel under saturating atp concentrations

    Gabriel A Frank, Mila Goomanovsky, Amit Davidi, Guy Ziv, Amnon Horovitz, and Gilad Haran. Out-of-equilibrium conformational cycling of groel under saturating atp concentrations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 107(14):6270–6274, 2010

    2010

  64. [72]

    Probing the mechanisms of DEAD-box proteins as general RNA chaperones: the C-terminal domain of CYT-19 mediates general recognition of RNA

    Jacob K Grohman, Mark Del Campo, Hari Bhaskaran, Pilar Tijerina, Alan M Lambowitz, and Rick Russell. Probing the mechanisms of DEAD-box proteins as general RNA chaperones: the C-terminal domain of CYT-19 mediates general recognition of RNA. Biochemistry, 46(11):3013– 3022, 2007

    2007

  65. [73]

    ATP utilization by a DEAD-box protein during refolding of a misfolded group I intron ribozyme

    Inga Jarmoskaite, Pilar Tijerina, and Rick Russell. ATP utilization by a DEAD-box protein during refolding of a misfolded group I intron ribozyme. J. Biol. Chem., 296, 2021

    2021

  66. [74]

    Bhaskaran and R

    H. Bhaskaran and R. Russell. Kinetic redistribution of native and misfolded rnas by dead-box chaperone. Nature, 449:1014–1018, 2007

    2007

  67. [75]

    Intracellular folding of the tetrahymena group i intron depends on exon sequence and promoter choice

    Sujatha P Koduvayur and Sarah A Woodson. Intracellular folding of the tetrahymena group i intron depends on exon sequence and promoter choice. Rna, 10(10):1526–1532, 2004

    2004

  68. [76]

    Self-splicing of a group I intron reveals partitioning of native and misfolded RNA populations in yeast

    Scott A Jackson, Sujatha Koduvayur, and Sarah A Woodson. Self-splicing of a group I intron reveals partitioning of native and misfolded RNA populations in yeast. RNA, 12(12):2149–2159, 2006

    2006

  69. [77]

    Universal trade-off relation between power and efficiency for heat engines

    Naoto Shiraishi, Keiji Saito, and Hal Tasaki. Universal trade-off relation between power and efficiency for heat engines. Phys. Rev. Lett., 117(19):190601, 2016

    2016

  70. [78]

    Universal trade-off between power, efficiency, and constancy in steady-state heat engines

    Patrick Pietzonka and Udo Seifert. Universal trade-off between power, efficiency, and constancy in steady-state heat engines. Physical review letters, 120(19):190602, 2018. 23

    2018

  71. [79]

    Entropic bounds on currents in langevin systems

    Andreas Dechant and Shin-ichi Sasa. Entropic bounds on currents in langevin systems. Phys. Rev. E, 97(6):062101, 2018

    2018

  72. [80]

    Energetic costs, precision, and transport efficiency of molecular motors

    Wonseok Hwang and Changbong Hyeon. Energetic costs, precision, and transport efficiency of molecular motors. J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 9:513–520, 2018

    2018

  73. [81]

    A. C. Barato and U. Seifert. Thermodynamic Uncertainty Relation for Biomolecular Processes. Phys. Rev. Lett., 114(15):158101, 2015

    2015

  74. [82]

    From stochastic thermodynamics to thermodynamic inference

    Udo Seifert. From stochastic thermodynamics to thermodynamic inference. Annu. Rev. Cond. Matt. Phys., 10:171–192, 2019

    2019

  75. [83]

    Flow of energy and information in molecular machines

    Matthew P Leighton and David A Sivak. Flow of energy and information in molecular machines. Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, 76, 2024

    2024

  76. [84]

    The groES and groEL heat shock gene products of Escherichia coli are essential for bacterial growth at all temperatures

    Olivier Fayet, Thomas Ziegelhoffer, and C Georgopoulos. The groES and groEL heat shock gene products of Escherichia coli are essential for bacterial growth at all temperatures. Journal of bacteriology, 171(3):1379–1385, 1989

    1989

  77. [85]

    Suppression of the escherichia coli dnaa46 mutation by amplification of the groes and groel genes

    Olivier Fayer, Jean-Michel Louarn, and Costa Georgopoulos. Suppression of the escherichia coli dnaa46 mutation by amplification of the groes and groel genes. Molecular and General Genetics MGG, 202:435–445, 1986

    1986

  78. [86]

    Demonstration by genetic sup- pression of interaction of groe products with many proteins

    Tina K Van Dyk, Anthony A Gatenby, and Robert A LaRossa. Demonstration by genetic sup- pression of interaction of groe products with many proteins. Nature, 342(6248):451–453, 1989

    1989

  79. [87]

    Selective in vivo rescue by groel/es of thermolabile folding intermediates to phage p22 structural proteins

    Carl L Gordon, Susan K Sather, Sherwood Casjens, and Jonathan King. Selective in vivo rescue by groel/es of thermolabile folding intermediates to phage p22 structural proteins. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 269(45):27941–27951, 1994

    1994

  80. [88]

    Protein quality control acts on folding intermediates to shape the effects of mu- tations on organismal fitness

    Shimon Bershtein, Wanmeng Mu, Adrian WR Serohijos, Jingwen Zhou, and Eugene I Shakhnovich. Protein quality control acts on folding intermediates to shape the effects of mu- tations on organismal fitness. Molecular cell, 49(1):133–144, 2013

    2013

  81. [89]

    Disassembly of unstable rna structures by an e

    Yunsheng Sun and Sarah A Woodson. Disassembly of unstable rna structures by an e. coli dead- box chaperone accelerates ribosome assembly. Nucleic Acids Research, 53(4):gkaf104, 2025. 24

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.