Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 278

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Protein unfolding: Rigidity lost

Open access
Rader, A. J., Hespenheide, Brandon M., Kuhn, Leslie A., Thorpe, M. F.·2002·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

We relate the unfolding of a protein to its loss of structural stability or rigidity. Rigidity and flexibility are well defined concepts in mathematics and physics, with a body of theorems and algorithms that have been applied successfully to materials, allowing the constraints in a network to be related to its deformability. Here we simulate the weakening or dilution of the noncovalent bonds during protein unfolding, and identify the emergence of flexible regions as unfolding proceeds. The transition state is determined from the inflection point in the change in the number of independent bond-rotational degrees of freedom (floppy modes) of the protein as its mean atomic coordination decreases. The first derivative of the fraction of floppy modes as a function of mean coordination is similar to the fraction-folded curve for a protein as a function of denaturant concentration or temperature. The second derivative, a specific heat-like quantity, shows a peak around a mean coordination of 〈r〉 = 2.41 for the 26 diverse proteins we have studied. As the protein denatures, it loses rigidity at the transition state, proceeds to a state where just the initial folding core remains stable, then becomes entirely denatured or flexible. This universal behavior for proteins of diverse architecture, including monomers and oligomers, is analogous to the rigid to floppy phase transition in network glasses. This approach provides a unifying view of the phase transitions of proteins and glasses, and identifies the mean coordination as the relevant structural variable, or reaction coordinate, along the unfolding pathway.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.062492699

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 278

Metadata

Authors
Rader, A. J., Hespenheide, B. M., Kuhn, L. A., & Thorpe, M. F.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2002-03-12
Volume
99
Issue
6
Pages
3540-3545
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2137496915
Cited by
278
References
4
FWCI
4.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Protein unfolding: Rigidity lost. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.062492699
The paper
Rader, A. J., Hespenheide, B. M., Kuhn, L. A., & Thorpe, M. F. (2002). Protein unfolding: Rigidity lost. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.062492699

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.