Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) are a newly recognized class of functional proteins that rely on a lack of stable structure for function. They are highly prevalent in biology, play fundamental roles, and are extensively involved in human diseases. For signaling and regulation, IDPs often fold into stable structures upon binding to specific targets. The mechanisms of these coupled binding and folding processes are of significant importance because they underlie the organization of regulatory networks that dictate various aspects of cellular decision-making. This review first discusses the challenge in detailed experimental characterization of these heterogeneous and dynamics proteins and the unique and exciting opportunity for physics-based modeling to make crucial contributions, and then summarizes key lessons from recent de novo simulations of the structure and interactions of several regulatory IDPs.
References
[1]
Kriwacki, RW; Hengst, L; Tennant, L; Reed, SI; Wright, PE. Structural studies of p21(Waf1/Cip1/Sdi1) in the free and Cdk2-bound state: Conformational disorder mediates binding diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA？1996, 93, 11504–11509.
[2]
Wright, PE; Dyson, HJ. Intrinsically unstructured proteins: Re-assessing the protein structure-function paradigm. J. Mol. Biol？1999, 293, 321–331.
[3]
Tompa, P. Intrinsically unstructured proteins. Trends Biochem. Sci？2002, 27, 527–533.
Dyson, HJ; Wright, PE. Intrinsically unstructured proteins and their functions. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol？2005, 6, 197–208.
[8]
Uversky, VN; Oldfield, CJ; Dunker, AK. Showing your ID: Intrinsic disorder as an ID for recognition, regulation and cell signaling. J. Mol. Recognit？2005, 18, 343–384.
Mittag, T; Orlicky, S; Choy, WY; Tang, XJ; Lin, H; Sicheri, F; Kay, LE; Tyers, M; Forman-Kay, JD. Dynamic equilibrium engagement of a polyvalent ligand with a single-site receptor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA？2008, 105, 17772–17777.
[14]
Mittag, T; Marsh, J; Grishaev, A; Orlicky, S; Lin, H; Sicheri, F; Tyers, M; Forman-Kay, JD. Structure/function implications in a dynamic complex of the intrinsically disordered Sic1 with the Cdc4 subunit of an SCF ubiquitin lLigase. Structure？2010, 18, 494–506.
[15]
Meekin, TJ. Milk Proteins. J. Food Protect？1952, 15, 57–63.
[16]
Jirgensons, B. Classification of proteins according to conformation. Macromol. Chem. Phys？1966, 91, 74–86.
[17]
Doolittle, RF. Structural aspects of the fibrinogen to fibrin conversion. Adv. Protein Chem？1973, 27, 1–109.
[18]
Doolittle, RF; Kollman, JM. Natively unfolded regions of the vertebrate fibrinogen molecule. Proteins？2006, 63, 391–397.
[19]
Oldfield, CJ; Meng, J; Yang, JY; Yang, MQ; Uversky, VN; Dunker, AK. Flexible nets: disorder and induced fit in the associations of p53 and 14-3-3 with their partners. BMC Genomics？2008, 9, S1.
[20]
Dunker, AK; Cortese, MS; Romero, P; Iakoucheva, LM; Uversky, VN. Flexible nets - The roles of intrinsic disorder in protein interaction networks. FEBS J？2005, 272, 5129–5148.
[21]
Hilser, VJ; Thompson, EB. Intrinsic disorder as a mechanism to optimize allosteric coupling in proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA？2007, 104, 8311–8315.
[22]
Sugase, K; Dyson, HJ; Wright, PE. Mechanism of coupled folding and binding of an intrinsically disordered protein. Nature？2007, 447, 1021–1025.
[23]
Narayanan, R; Ganesh, OK; Edison, AS; Hagen, SJ. Kinetics of folding and binding of an intrinsically disordered protein: The inhibitor of yeast aspartic proteinase YPrA. J. Am. Chem. Soc？2008, 130, 11477–11485.
[24]
Lu, Q; Lu, HP; Wang, J. Exploring the mechanism of flexible biomolecular recognition with single molecule dynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett？2007, 98, 128105.
[25]
Keskin, O; Gursoy, A; Ma, B; Nussinov, R. Principles of protein-protein interactions: What are the preferred ways for proteins to interact? Chem. Rev？2008, 108, 1225–1244.
[26]
Receveur-Brechot, V; Bourhis, JM; Uversky, VN; Canard, B; Longhi, S. Assessing protein disorder and induced folding. Proteins？2006, 62, 24–45.
[27]
Fuxreiter, M; Simon, I; Friedrich, P; Tompa, P. Preformed structural elements feature in partner recognition by intrinsically unstructured proteins. J. Mol. Biol？2004, 338, 1015–1026.
[28]
Zor, T; Mayr, BM; Dyson, HJ; Montminy, MR; Wright, PE. Roles of phosphorylation and helix propensity in the binding of the KIX domain of CREB-binding protein by constitutive (c-Myb) and inducible (CREB) activators. J. Biol. Chem？2002, 277, 42241–42248.
[29]
Bienkiewicz, EA; Adkins, JN; Lumb, KJ. Functional consequences of preorganized helical structure in the intrinsically disordered cell-cycle inhibitor p27(Kip1). Biochemistry？2002, 41, 752–759.
[30]
Dunker, AK; Silman, I; Uversky, VN; Sussman, JL. Function and structure of inherently disordered proteins. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol？2008, 18, 756–764.
[31]
Bourhis, JM; Canard, B; Longhi, S. Predicting protein disorder and induced folding: From theoretical principles to practical applications. Curr. Protein Pept. Sci？2007, 8, 135–149.
[32]
Bracken, C; Iakoucheva, LM; Rorner, PR; Dunker, AK. Combining prediction, computation and experiment for the characterization of protein disorder. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol？2004, 14, 570–576.
[33]
Bartlett, AI; Radford, SE. An expanding arsenal of experimental methods yields an explosion of insights into protein folding mechanisms. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol？2009, 16, 582–588.
[34]
Eliezer, D. Biophysical characterization of intrinsically disordered proteins. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol？2009, 19, 23–30.
[35]
Noivirt-Brik, O; Prilusky, J; Sussman, JL. Assessment of disorder predictions in CASP8. Proteins？2009, 77, S210–S216.
[36]
Meszaros, B; Tompa, P; Simon, I; Dosztanyi, Z. Molecular principles of the interactions of disordered proteins. J. Mol. Biol？2007, 372, 549–561.
[37]
Keskin, O; Gursoy, A; Ma, B; Nussinov, R. Towards drugs targeting multiple proteins in a systems biology approach. Curr. Top Med. Chem？2007, 7, 943–951.
[38]
Dyson, HJ; Wright, PE. Unfolded proteins and protein folding studied by NMR. Chem. Rev？2004, 104, 3607–3622.
[39]
Wishart, DS; Sykes, BD. The C-13 Chemical-Shift Index—a simple method for the identification of protein secondary structure using C-13 chemical-shift data. J. Biomol. NMR？1994, 4, 171–180.
[40]
Wang, AC; Bax, A. Determination of the backbone dihedral angles phi in human ubiquitin from reparametrized empirical Karplus equations. J. Am. Chem. Soc？1996, 118, 2483–2494.
[41]
Cornilescu, G; Delaglio, F; Bax, A. Protein backbone angle restraints from searching a database for chemical shift and sequence homology. J. Biomol. NMR？1999, 13, 289–302.
[42]
Marsh, JA; Singh, VK; Jia, ZC; Forman-Kay, JD. Sensitivity of secondary structure propensities to sequence differences between alpha- and gamma-synuclein: Implications for fibrillation. Protein Sci？2006, 15, 2795–2804.
[43]
Gillespie, JR; Shortle, D. Characterization of long-range structure in the denatured state of staphylococcal nuclease. 1. Paramagnetic relaxation enhancement by nitroxide spin labels. J. Mol. Biol？1997, 268, 158–169.
[44]
Gillespie, JR; Shortle, D. Characterization of long-range structure in the denatured state of staphylococcal nuclease. 2. Distance restraints from paramagnetic relaxation and calculation of an ensemble of structures. J. Mol. Biol？1997, 268, 170–184.
[45]
Shortle, D; Ackerman, MS. Persistence of native-like topology in a denatured protein in 8 M urea. Science？2001, 293, 487–489.
[46]
Mittag, T; Forman-Kay, JD. Atomic-level characterization of disordered protein ensembles. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol？2007, 17, 3–14.
[47]
Vendruscolo, M. Determination of conformationally heterogeneous states of proteins. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol？2007, 17, 15–20.
[48]
Bloembergen, N; Morgan, LO. Proton relaxation times in paramagnetic solutions effecs of electron spin relaxation. J. Chem. Phys？1961, 34, 842–850.
[49]
Lindorff-Larsen, K; Kristjansdottir, S; Teilum, K; Fieber, W; Dobson, CM; Poulsen, FM; Vendruscolo, M. Determination of an ensemble of structures representing the denatured state of the bovine acyl-coenzyme A binding protein. J. Am. Chem. Soc？2004, 126, 3291–3299.
[50]
Vise, P; Baral, B; Stancik, A; Lowry, DF; Daughdrill, GW. Identifying long-range structure in the intrinsically unstructured transactivation domain of p53. Proteins？2007, 67, 526–530.
[51]
Ganguly, D; Chen, J. Structural interpretation of paramagnetic relaxation enhancement-derived distances for disordered protein states. J. Mol. Biol？2009, 390, 467–477.
[52]
Delaglio, F; Kontaxis, G; Bax, A. Protein structure determination using molecular fragment replacement and NMR dipolar couplings. J. Am. Chem. Soc？2000, 122, 2142–2143.
[53]
Hus, JC; Marion, D; Blackledge, M. Determination of protein backbone structure using only residual dipolar couplings. J. Am. Chem. Soc？2001, 123, 1541–1542.
[54]
Rathinavelan, T; Im, W. A novel strategy to determine protein structures using exclusively residual dipolar coupling. J. Comput. Chem？2008, 29, 1640–1649.
[55]
Jha, AK; Colubri, A; Freed, KF; Sosnick, TR. Statistical coil model of the unfolded state: Resolving the reconciliation problem. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA？2005, 102, 13099–13104.
[56]
Bernado, P; Blanchard, L; Timmins, P; Marion, D; Ruigrok, RWH; Blackledge, M. A structural model for unfolded proteins from residual dipolar couplings and small-angle x-ray scattering. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA？2005, 102, 17002–17007.
[57]
Marsh, JA; Baker, JMR; Tollinger, M; Forman-Kay, JD. Calculation of residual dipolar couplings from disordered state ensembles using local alignment. J. Am. Chem. Soc？2008, 130, 7804–7805.
[58]
Jensen, MR; Salmon, L; Nodet, G; Blackledge, M. Defining conformational ensembles of intrinsically disordered and partially folded proteins directly from chemical shifts. J. Am. Chem. Soc？2010, 132, 1270–1272.
[59]
Felitsky, DJ; Lietzow, MA; Dyson, HJ; Wright, PE. Modeling transient collapsed states of an unfolded protein to provide insights into early folding events. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA？2008, 105, 6278–6283.
[60]
Jensen, MR; Houben, K; Lescop, E; Blanchard, L; Ruigrok, RW; Blackledge, M. Quantitative conformational analysis of partially folded proteins from residual dipolar couplings: application to the molecular recognition element of Sendai virus nucleoprotein. J. Am. Chem. Soc？2008, 130, 55–61.
[61]
Marsh, JA; Neale, C; Jack, FE; Choy, WY; Lee, AY; Crowhurst, KA; Forman-Kay, JD. Improved structural characterizations of the drkN SH3 domain unfolded state suggest a compact ensemble with native-like and non-native structure. J. Mol. Biol？2007, 367, 1494–1510.
[62]
Mackerell, AD. Empirical force fields for biological macromolecules: Overview and issues. J. Comput. Chem？2004, 25, 1584–1604.
[63]
Ponder, JW; Case, DA. Force fields for protein simulations. Adv. Protein Chem？2003, 66, 27–85.
[64]
Yoda, T; Sugita, Y; Okamoto, Y. Secondary-structure preferences of force fields for proteins evaluated by generalized-ensemble simulations. Chem. Phys？2004, 307, 269–283.
[65]
Best, RB; Buchete, NV; Hummer, G. Are current molecular dynamics force fields too helical? Biophys. J？2008, 95, L07–L09.
[66]
Kang, M; Smith, PE. A Kirkwood-Buff derived force field for amides. J. Comput. Chem？2006, 27, 1477–1485.
[67]
Lindorff-Larsen, K; Piana, S; Palmo, K; Maragakis, P; Klepeis, JL; Dror, RO; Shaw, DE. Improved side-chain torsion potentials for the Amber ff99SB protein force field. Proteins？2010, 78, 1950–1958.
[68]
Best, RB; Mittal, J. Balance between alpha and beta structures in ab initio protein folding. J. Phys. Chem. B？2010, 114, 8790–8798.
[69]
Mittal, J; Best, RB. Tackling force-field bias in protein folding simulations: folding of Villin HP35 and Pin WW domains in explicit water. Biophys. J？2010, 99, L26–L28.
[70]
Chen, JH; Brooks, CL; Khandogin, J. Recent advances in implicit solvent based methods for biomolecular simulations. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol？2008, 18, 140–148.
Im, WP; Lee, MS; Brooks, CL. Generalized born model with a simple smoothing function. J. Comput. Chem？2003, 24, 1691–1702.
[73]
Chen, JH; Im, WP; Brooks, CL. Balancing solvation and intramolecular interactions: Toward a consistent generalized born force field. J. Am. Chem. Soc？2006, 128, 3728–3736.
[74]
Khandogin, J; Brooks, CL. Toward the accurate first-principles prediction of ionization equilibria in proteins. Biochemistry？2006, 45, 9363–9373.
[75]
Khandogin, J; Chen, JH; Brooks, CL. Exploring atomistic details of pH-dependent peptide folding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA？2006, 103, 18546–18550.
[76]
Khandogin, J; Brooks, CL. Linking folding with aggregation in Alzheimer’s beta-amyloid peptides. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA？2007, 104, 16880–16885.
[77]
Khandogin, J; Raleigh, DP; Brooks, CL. Folding intermediate in the villin headpiece domain arises from disruption of a N-terminal hydrogen-bonded network. J. Am. Chem. Soc？2007, 129, 3056–3057.
[78]
Chen, JH; Brooks, CL. Can molecular dynamics simulations provide high-resolution refinement of protein structure? Proteins？2007, 67, 922–930.
[79]
Ganguly, D; Chen, J. Atomistic details of the disordered states of KID and pKID. implications in coupled binding and folding. J. Am. Chem. Soc？2009, 131, 5214–5223.
[80]
Chen, JH. Intrinsically disordered p53 extreme C-terminus binds to S100B(betabeta) through “fly-casting”. J. Am. Chem. Soc？2009, 131, 2088–2089.
[81]
Okur, A; Strockbine, B; Hornak, V; Simmerling, C. Using PC clusters to evaluate the transferability of molecular mechanics force fields for proteins. J. Comput. Chem？2003, 24, 21–31.
[82]
Jang, S; Kim, E; Pak, Y. Direct folding simulation of alpha-helices and beta-hairpins based on a single all-atom force field with an implicit solvation model. Proteins？2007, 66, 53–60.
[83]
Vitalis, A; Pappu, RV. ABSINTH: A New Continuum Solvation Model for Simulations of Polypeptides in Aqueous Solutions. J. Comput. Chem？2009, 30, 673–699.
[84]
Masunov, A; Lazaridis, T. Potentials of mean force between ionizable amino acid side chains in water. J. Am. Chem. Soc？2003, 125, 1722–1730.
[85]
Chen, JH; Brooks, CL. Critical importance of length-scale dependence in implicit modeling of hydrophobic interactions. J. Am. Chem. Soc？2007, 129, 2444–2445.
[86]
Chen, JH; Brooks, CL. Implicit modeling of nonpolar solvation for simulating protein folding and conformational transitions. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys？2008, 10, 471–481.
[87]
Scheraga, HA; Khalili, M; Liwo, A. Protein-folding dynamics: Overview of molecular simulation techniques. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem？2007, 58, 57–83.
[88]
Lei, H; Duan, Y. Improved sampling methods for molecular simulation. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol？2007, 17, 187–191.
[89]
Sugita, Y; Okamoto, Y. Replica-exchange molecular dynamics method for protein folding. Chem. Phys. Lett？1999, 314, 141–151.
[90]
Zuckerman, DM; Lyman, E. A second look at canonical sampling of biomolecules using replica exchange simulation. J. Chem. Theor. Comput？2006, 2, 1200–1202.
[91]
Zheng, W; Andrec, M; Gallicchio, E; Levy, RM. Simulating replica exchange simulations of protein folding with a kinetic network model. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA？2007, 104, 15340–15345.
[92]
Nymeyer, H. How efficient is replica exchange molecular dynamics? An analytic approach. J. Chem. Theor. Comput？2008, 4, 626–636.
[93]
Zhang, W; Wu, C; Duan, Y. Convergence of replica exchange molecular dynamics. J Chem Phys？2005, 123, 154105:1–154105:9.
[94]
Periole, X; Mark, AE. Convergence and sampling efficiency in replica exchange simulations of peptide folding in explicit solvent. J Chem Phys？2007, 126, 014903:1–014903:11.
[95]
Sindhikara, D; Meng, YL; Roitberg, AE. Exchange frequency in replica exchange molecular dynamics. J Chem Phys？2008, 128, 024103:1–024103:10.
[96]
Rao, F; Caflisch, A. Replica exchange molecular dynamics simulations of reversible folding. J. Chem. Phys？2003, 119, 4035–4042.
[97]
Rico, F; Moy, VT. Energy landscape roughness of the streptavidin-biotin interaction. J. Mol. Recognit？2007, 20, 495–501.
[98]
Janovjak, H; Sapra, KT; Kedrov, A; Muller, DJ. From valleys to ridges: Exploring the dynamic energy landscape of single membrane proteins. ChemPhysChem？2008, 9, 954–966.
[99]
Kapon, R; Nevo, R; Reich, Z. Protein energy landscape roughness. Biochem. Soc. Trans？2008, 36, 1404–1408.
[100]
Zwanzig, R. Diffusion in a rough potential. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA？1988, 85, 2029–2030.
[101]
Shirts, M; Pande, VS. Computing-Screen savers of the world unite! Science？2000, 290, 1903–1904.
[102]
Bowman, GR; Beauchamp, KA; Boxer, G; Pande, VS. Progress and challenges in the automated construction of Markov state models for full protein systems. J Chem Phys？2009, 131, 124101:1–124101:11.
[103]
Bowman, GR; Huang, XH; Pande, VS. Using generalized ensemble simulations and Markov state models to identify conformational states. Methods？2009, 49, 197–201.
[104]
Bowman, GR; Ensign, DL; Pande, VS. Enhanced modeling via network theory: Adaptive sampling of markov state models. J. Chem. Theor. Comput？2010, 6, 787–794.
[105]
Bowman, GR; Pande, VS. Protein folded states are kinetic hubs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA？2010, 107, 10890–10895.
[106]
Voelz, VA; Bowman, GR; Beauchamp, K; Pande, VS. Molecular Simulation of ab Initio Protein Folding for a Millisecond Folder NTL9(1-39). J. Am. Chem. Soc？2010, 132, 1526–1528.
[107]
Voelz, VA; Singh, VR; Wedemeyer, WJ; Lapidus, LJ; Pande, VS. Unfolded-state dynamics and structure of protein L characterized by simulation and experiment. J. Am. Chem. Soc？2010, 132, 4702–4709.
[108]
Schaeffer, RD; Fersht, A; Daggett, V. Combining experiment and simulation in protein folding: closing the gap for small model systems. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol？2008, 18, 4–9.
[109]
Daggett, V. Protein folding-simulation. Chem. Rev？2006, 106, 1898–1916.
[110]
Chen, HF; Luo, R. Binding induced folding in p53-MDM2 complex. J. Am. Chem. Soc？2007, 129, 2930–2937.
[111]
Verkhivker, GM; Bouzida, D; Gehlhaar, DK; Rejto, PA; Freer, ST; Rose, PW. Simulating disorder-order transitions in molecular recognition of unstructured proteins: Where folding meets binding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA？2003, 100, 5148–5153.
[112]
Joerger, AC; Fersht, AR. Structure-function-rescue: the diverse nature of common p53 cancer mutants. Oncogene？2007, 26, 2226–2242.
[113]
Lane, DP; Hupp, TR. Drug discovery and p53. Drug. Discov. Today？2003, 8, 347–355.
[114]
Wells, M; Tidow, H; Rutherford, TJ; Markwick, P; Jensen, MR; Mylonas, E; Svergun, DI; Blackledge, M; Fersht, AR. Structure of tumor suppressor p53 and its intrinsically disordered N-terminal transactivation domain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA？2008, 105, 5762–5767.
[115]
Demarest, SJ; Martinez-Yamout, M; Chung, J; Chen, HW; Xu, W; Dyson, HJ; Evans, RM; Wright, PE. Mutual synergistic folding in recruitment of CBP/p300 by p160 nuclear receptor coactivators. Nature？2002, 415, 549–553.
[116]
Bertoncini, CW; Rasia, RM; Lamberto, GR; Binolfi, A; Zweckstetter, M; Griesinger, C; Fernandez, CO. Structural characterization of the intrinsically unfolded protein beta-synuclein, a natural negative regulator of alpha-synuclein aggregation. J. Mol. Biol？2007, 372, 708–722.
[117]
Sung, YH; Eliezer, D. Residual structure, backbone dynamics, and interactions within the synuclein family. J. Mol. Biol？2007, 372, 689–707.
Yoon, MK; Venkatachalam, V; Huang, A; Choi, BS; Stultz, CM; Chou, JJ. Residual structure within the disordered C-terminal segment of p21(Waf1/Cip1/Sdi1) and its implications for molecular recognition. Protein Sci？2009, 18, 337–347.
[120]
Tran, HT; Mao, A; Pappu, RV. Role of backbone-solvent interactions in determining conformational equilibria of intrinsically disordered proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc？2008, 130, 7380–7392.
[121]
Mao, AH; Crick, SL; Vitalis, A; Chicoine, CL; Pappu, RV. Net charge per residue modulates conformational ensembles of intrinsically disordered proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA？2010, 107, 8183–8188.
[122]
Marsh, JA; Forman-Kay, JD. Sequence determinants of compaction in intrinsically disordered proteins. Biophys. J？2010, 98, 2383–2390.
[123]
Vuzman, D; Azia, A; Levy, Y. Searching DNA via a “Monkey Bar” mechanism: The Significance of disordered tails. J. Mol. Biol？2010, 396, 674–684.
[124]
Sugase, K; Dyson, HJ; Wright, PE. Mechanism of coupled folding and binding of an intrinsically disordered protein. Nature？2007, 447, 1021–1025.
[125]
Parker, D; Ferreri, K; Nakajima, T; Morte, VJL; Evans, R; Koerber, SC; Hoeger, C; Montminy, MR. Phosphorylation of CREB at Ser-133 induces complex formation with CREB-binding protein via a direct mechanism. Mol. Cell. Biol？1996, 16, 694–703.
[126]
Chrivia, JC; Kwok, RPS; Lamb, N; Hagiwara, M; Montminy, MR; Goodman, RH. Phosphorylated creb binds specifically to the nuclear-protein Cbp. Nature？1993, 365, 855–859.
[127]
Radhakrishnan, I; PerezAlvarado, GC; Parker, D; Dyson, HJ; Montminy, MR; Wright, PE. Solution structure of the KIX domain of CBP bound to the transactivation domain of CREB: A model for activator: Coactivator interactions. Cell？1997, 91, 741–752.
[128]
Radhakrishnan, I; Perez-Alvarado, GC; Dyson, HJ; Wright, PE. Conformational preferences in the Ser(133)-phosphorylated and non-phosphorylated forms of the kinase inducible transactivation domain of CREB. FEBS Lett？1998, 430, 317–322.
[129]
Solt, I; Simon, I; Tompa, P; Fuxreiter, M. Phosphorylation induced preformed structural element in KID contributes to recognition by KIX. FEBS J？2005, 272, 391–392.
[130]
Parker, D; Jhala, US; Radhakrishnan, I; Yaffe, MB; Reyes, C; Shulman, AI; Cantley, LC; Wright, PE; Montminy, M. Analysis of an activator : coactivator complex reveals an essential role for secondary structure in transcriptional activation. Mol. Cell？1998, 2, 353–359.
[131]
Mandell, DJ; Chorny, I; Groban, ES; Wong, SE; Levine, E; Rapp, CS; Jacobson, MP. Strengths of hydrogen bonds involving phosphorylated amino acid side chains. J. Am. Chem. Soc？2007, 129, 820–827.
[132]
Verkhivker, GM; Bouzida, D; Gehlhaar, DK; Rejto, PA; Freer, ST; Rose, PW. Simulating disorder-order transitions in molecular recognition of unstructured proteins: where folding meets binding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA？2003, 100, 5148–5153.
[133]
Shoemaker, BA; Portman, JJ; Wolynes, PG. Speeding molecular recognition by using the folding funnel: The fly-casting mechanism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA？2000, 97, 8868–8873.
[134]
Trizac, E; Levy, Y; Wolynes, PG. Capillarity theory for the fly-casting mechanism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA？2010, 107, 2746–2750.
