Abstract:This Perspective is intended to raise questions about the conventional interpretation of protein folding. According to the conventional interpretation, developed over many decades, a protein population can visit a vast number of conformations under unfolding conditions, but a single dominant native population emerges under folding conditions. Accordingly, folding comes with a substantial loss of conformational entropy. How is this price paid? The conventional answer is that favorable interactions between and among the side chains can compensate for entropy loss, and moreover, these interactions are responsible for the structural particulars of the native conformation.Challenging this interpretation, the Perspective introduces a proposal that high energy (i.e., unfavorable) excluding interactions winnow the accessible population substantially under physical‐chemical conditions that favor folding. Both steric clash and unsatisfied hydrogen bond donors and acceptors are classified as excluding interactions, so called because conformers with such disfavored interactions will be largely excluded from the thermodynamic population. Both excluding interactions and solvent factors that induce compactness are somewhat non‐specific, yet together they promote substantial chain organization.Moreover, proteins are built on a backbone scaffold consisting of α‐helices and strands of β‐sheet, where the number of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors is exactly balanced. These repetitive secondary structural elements are the only two conformers that can be both completely hydrogen‐bond satisfied and extended indefinitely without encountering a steric clash. Consequently, the number of fundamental folds is limited to no more than ~10,000 for a protein domain. Once excluding interactions are taken into account, the issue of "frustration" is largely eliminated and the Levinthal paradox is resolved.Putting the "bottom line" at the top: it is likely that hydrogen‐bond satisfaction represents a largely under‐appreciated parameter in protein folding models.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Side chain burial and hydrophobic core packing in protein folding transition states

Cooperativity, Local-Nonlocal Coupling, and Nonnative Interactions: Principles of Protein Folding from Coarse-Grained Models

The Folding Transition State of Protein L is Extensive with Nonnative Interactions (and Not Small and Polarized)

Solvation and Desolvation Effects in Protein Folding: Native Flexibility, Kinetic Cooperativity and Enthalpic Barriers under Isostability Conditions

Probing Possible Downhill Folding: Native Contact Topology Likely Places a Significant Constraint on the Folding Cooperativity of Proteins with ∼40 Residues

Interplaying Roles of Native Topology and Chain Length in Marginally Cooperative and Noncooperative Folding of Small Protein Fragments

Chevron Behavior and Isostable Enthalpic Barriers in Protein Folding: Successes and Limitations of Simple Gō-like Modeling.

The Major Transition State in Folding Need Not Involve the Immobilization of Side Chains

Simple Two-State Protein Folding Kinetics Requires Near-Levinthal Thermodynamic Cooperativity

Structural Basis of Folding Cooperativity in Model Proteins: Insights from a Microcanonical Perspective

Transition states for folding of circular-permuted proteins.

Folding Behavior of Ribosomal Protein S6 Studied by Modifiedgo¯-Like Model

Distinguishing Between Cooperative And Unimodal Downhill Protein Folding

Protein folding as a jamming transition

The Finite Size Effects and Two-State Paradigm of Protein Folding

The Multi-Factor Coupled Protein Folding: Insights From Molecular Dynamics Simulations

Protein folding ‐ seeing is deceiving

Effects of Turn Stability and Side-Chain Hydrophobicity on the Folding of Β-Structures

Structural Correlations In Protein Folding Funnels

Entropy-Enthalpy Compensations Fold Proteins in Precise Ways

Excluded volume, local structural cooperativity,and the polymer physics of protein folding rates