Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Levinthal's paradox

Levinthal's paradox is a thought experiment in protein biophysics highlighting the apparent impossibility of a protein reaching its native three-dimensional structure through a random search of its vast conformational space within the biologically observed folding timescales.^[1] Named after Cyrus Levinthal, who noted it in a 1969 presentation, the paradox considers a typical protein of 100 amino acids. Assuming each residue independently adopts one of three possible states (e.g., alpha-helix, beta-sheet, or coil), the protein could have approximately 3^{100} (∼5 × 10^{47}) conformations. With transitions between conformations occurring roughly every 10^{-13} seconds, an exhaustive random search would take about 10^{27} years—far exceeding the age of the universe by about 10^{17} times—yet proteins fold spontaneously in milliseconds to seconds under physiological conditions.^[1]^[2] This vast discrepancy demonstrates that protein folding must be guided by non-random mechanisms that constrain the search space, rather than brute-force exploration.^[2]

Fundamentals of Protein Folding

Native Structure and Function

The native structure of a protein refers to its thermodynamically stable, functional three-dimensional conformation achieved under physiological conditions, arising from non-covalent interactions among its amino acid residues.^[3] This folded state minimizes the free energy of the protein, enabling it to perform its biological roles efficiently while resisting denaturation.^[4] The specificity of this structure is encoded directly in the protein's primary amino acid sequence, as established by Christian Anfinsen's thermodynamic hypothesis, which posits that the native conformation is the lowest-energy state dictated solely by the sequence in its native environment.^[3] The native structure is essential for a protein's biological function, as it positions key residues to form active sites for catalysis, binding interfaces for molecular recognition, and scaffolds for mechanical integrity. For instance, enzymes like ribonuclease A rely on their precisely folded tertiary structures to create catalytic pockets that accelerate biochemical reactions by orders of magnitude.^[3] In cellular signaling, proteins such as G-protein-coupled receptors adopt native conformations that allow ligand binding and conformational changes to transmit signals across membranes.^[5] Structural proteins, including actin and tubulin in the cytoskeleton or collagen in extracellular matrices, maintain their native helical or fibrous arrangements to provide tensile strength and support cellular architecture.^[6] Failure to attain or maintain the native structure leads to protein misfolding, which disrupts function and can trigger pathological aggregation.^[1] In Alzheimer's disease, misfolded amyloid-β peptides form extracellular plaques that impair neuronal signaling and contribute to cognitive decline.^[7] Similarly, prion diseases arise when the prion protein (PrP) adopts an abnormal β-sheet-rich conformation (PrP^Sc), which propagates by templating misfolding in normal PrP, leading to spongiform encephalopathy and neurodegeneration.^[8] These examples underscore how deviations from the native state not only abolish function but also initiate self-perpetuating cascades of cellular damage.

Random Conformation Search Model

The polypeptide backbone exhibits flexibility primarily through the dihedral angles φ (phi) and ψ (psi) associated with each amino acid residue, which govern the local conformation of the chain. These angles are subject to steric constraints, as mapped by Ramachandran plots, limiting them to specific allowed regions that avoid atomic clashes. In the simplified random conformation search model, this flexibility is approximated by assuming each residue can independently adopt roughly 3 stable states, corresponding to prevalent motifs such as right-handed α-helices, β-strands, and other turns or loops. This per-residue approximation leads to a combinatorial explosion in the total number of possible conformations. For a typical protein with 100 residues, the model estimates approximately $3^{100} distinct states, equivalent to about $5 \times 10^{47} configurations, assuming independence between residues and neglecting side-chain contributions or long-range interactions. The random conformation search model further assumes an unbiased, exhaustive exploration of this space, where the protein samples conformations randomly without preferential guidance toward lower-energy states. Sampling occurs at a rate derived from molecular vibration timescales, approximately $10^{13} conformations per second, based on the picosecond period of bond rotations and torsional adjustments in the polypeptide. Collectively, these elements define the configuration space as a vast, high-dimensional landscape encompassing all feasible backbone arrangements, with dimensionality scaling with the number of residues and rotatable bonds—typically hundreds of degrees of freedom for a small protein. This space underscores the model's emphasis on the sheer scale of exploration required in an unguided search.

Statement of the Paradox

Levinthal's Original Argument

In 1969, Cyrus Levinthal presented his seminal argument on protein folding during a lecture that was later published in the proceedings of a symposium on Mössbauer spectroscopy in biological systems.^[2] He highlighted a profound discrepancy: while an unfolded polypeptide chain possesses an astronomically large number of possible conformations, proteins in vivo achieve their native structures in mere seconds, far too rapidly for an exhaustive random search to account for the process.^[2] Levinthal paraphrased the core issue by noting that "a random search [of conformations] would require geological time," vastly exceeding the age of the universe, yet empirical observations show folding times on the order of seconds for typical proteins.^[2] This argument contextualized the paradox as a direct challenge to the prevailing view of protein folding as a purely thermodynamic process driven by minimization of free energy without specific guidance, implying that such a mechanism alone could not explain the efficiency observed in nature.^[2] In the protein folding field, Levinthal's formulation was initially received as a thought experiment that underscored the necessity of directed pathways in folding, stimulating early discussions on mechanisms involving local interactions to bias the conformational search toward the native state.^[9]

Estimated Folding Times

In the random conformation search model underlying Levinthal's paradox, the total number of possible configurations for a protein is estimated by assuming each residue can adopt approximately three distinct states, leading to N \approx 3^n possible conformations, where n is the number of residues.^[10] For a typical small protein with 100 residues, this yields N \approx 5 \times 10^{47} conformations.^[1] The rate at which a protein could theoretically sample these conformations is limited by the physical speed of molecular rotations, estimated at about $10^{-13} seconds per conformational change, or roughly $10^{13} conformations per second.^[10] Under this model, the time required to exhaustively search all possibilities for a 100-residue protein is thus t = N / rate \approx 5 \times 10^{34} seconds, equivalent to approximately $10^{27} years.^[1] In stark contrast, experimental observations show that small proteins fold into their native structures in milliseconds to seconds, often on the order of 5 milliseconds for two-state folders.^[11] This discrepancy highlights the paradox, as $10^{27} years vastly exceeds the age of the universe, estimated at about $1.4 \times 10^{10} years.^[1] These estimates, derived from Levinthal's original conceptual argument, underscore the improbability of random sampling as a viable folding mechanism.

Historical Development

Levinthal's 1969 Contribution

Cyrus Levinthal (1922–1990) was a prominent American biophysicist and molecular biologist who made significant contributions to the understanding of genetic coding and protein structure in the mid-20th century. After earning his Ph.D. in physics from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1951, Levinthal held faculty positions at the University of Michigan and MIT before joining Columbia University in 1968 as Professor of Biological Sciences and holder of the William R. Kenan, Jr., Chair in Biophysics.^[12] His early work focused on the genetic code, bacteriophage genetics, and pioneering computer-based molecular graphics for visualizing protein structures, which laid the groundwork for computational approaches in biology.^[12] In 1969, Levinthal presented his seminal ideas on protein folding during a symposium, captured in the proceedings as "How to Fold Graciously." This short piece, published in the University of Illinois Press volume Mössbauer Spectroscopy in Biological Systems, marked the first explicit articulation of what would become known as Levinthal's paradox, emphasizing that proteins could not reach their native conformations through exhaustive random searches of possible structures.^[2] Delivered amid the post-DNA structure era—following the 1953 discovery of DNA's double helix and Christian Anfinsen's 1960s experiments demonstrating that proteins could spontaneously refold—the work reflected growing interest in how linear amino acid sequences dictate three-dimensional structures essential for biological function.^[13] Levinthal's 1969 contribution immediately influenced the field by igniting debates on protein folding kinetics, challenging simplistic random diffusion models and prompting researchers to explore guided pathways involving local interactions.^[13] This shift underscored the need for interdisciplinary approaches, contributing to increased funding and resources for computational biology initiatives aimed at simulating and predicting folding processes.^[13] Following Levinthal's 1969 presentation, researchers in the 1970s and 1980s began formalizing and expanding the paradox through more precise kinetic models that accounted for non-random conformational sampling, including contributions from side-chain entropy losses upon folding. These efforts highlighted how local interactions, such as hydrogen bonding and hydrophobic effects, bias the search away from exhaustive enumeration, with side-chain rotamer restrictions reducing the effective conformational space by factors of 10^2 to 10^3 per residue compared to fully flexible chains. For instance, the diffusion-collision model proposed by Karplus and Weaver in 1976 modeled folding as sequential collisions between preformed secondary structure elements, quantifying entropy penalties for side-chain immobilization in compact intermediates and estimating folding times on the order of milliseconds for small proteins. Similarly, the nucleation-growth framework by Wetlaufer (1973) and later refinements by Go (1983) emphasized initial nucleus formation where side-chain packing entropy guides rapid propagation, reducing the search complexity from Levinthal's exponential estimate.^[14] In the mid-1990s, Robert Zwanzig further refined these ideas with a simplified statistical mechanical model that treated protein folding as a biased random walk on a one-dimensional reaction coordinate representing the fraction of correct native contacts. By incorporating a small energetic bias (on the order of 0.4 kT per incorrect residue) against non-native configurations, Zwanzig demonstrated that mean folding times could drop to biologically plausible values like 10^{-2} seconds for a 100-residue protein, even without assuming rigid pathways, thus formalizing how minimal frustration resolves the temporal contradiction without exhaustive search. This model built on earlier entropy quantifications by showing that side-chain and backbone conformational penalties are offset by cooperative stabilization, influencing subsequent lattice simulations.^[15] By the 1980s, Levinthal's paradox had become a standard pedagogical example in protein biochemistry textbooks, such as Thomas E. Creighton's Proteins: Structures and Molecular Properties (1984), where it was presented as a key challenge to understanding folding kinetics and the role of sequence-specific entropy in directing native state selection. Creighton's discussion integrated experimental data from disulfide folding studies to illustrate how partial entropy losses in intermediates accelerate the process beyond random diffusion limits. This evolution transformed the paradox from a mere thought experiment into a catalyst for experimental and computational kinetic studies, spurring investigations into real-time folding trajectories using techniques like stopped-flow spectroscopy and early molecular dynamics simulations in the late 1980s.^[9]

Resolutions to the Paradox

Hierarchical Folding Pathways

One resolution to Levinthal's paradox posits that protein folding proceeds through hierarchical pathways, where local secondary structures such as alpha-helices and beta-sheets form rapidly and independently before the assembly of the global tertiary structure, thereby drastically reducing the conformational search space from an astronomical number of possibilities to a more manageable sequence of constrained steps.^[13] This hierarchical model suggests that short-range interactions stabilize these secondary elements early in the process, limiting the flexibility of the polypeptide chain and guiding subsequent long-range contacts, as opposed to a random exploration of all possible conformations.^[16] A key framework within this hierarchical approach is the diffusion-collision model, which describes how preformed secondary structural units diffuse through space and collide to coalesce into the native tertiary fold.^[17] In this model, folding begins with the independent formation of stable local segments, such as helical or sheet motifs, driven by local sequence preferences; these units then undergo Brownian motion until productive collisions occur, forming higher-order structures with rates proportional to their diffusion coefficients and collision probabilities. By partitioning the folding process into these modular stages, the model resolves the paradox by estimating folding times on the order of seconds for typical proteins, rather than the eons required for exhaustive searching.^[18] Central to these pathways are molten globule intermediates, compact yet dynamic states characterized by native-like secondary structure but disordered tertiary packing, which serve as transient guides that narrow the folding route. These partially folded species, often observed under mildly denaturing conditions, exhibit a hydrophobic core collapse and significant chain compaction while retaining flexibility in side-chain arrangements, facilitating efficient progression to the native state without extensive reconfiguration. The molten globule thus acts as a kinetic checkpoint, channeling the protein away from kinetic traps and toward productive assembly. Experimental support for this hierarchical mechanism comes from early stopped-flow spectroscopy studies, which demonstrate a rapid initial collapse of the unfolded chain into a compact intermediate within milliseconds, preceding slower tertiary rearrangements.^[19] For instance, in lysozyme refolding, fluorescence and circular dichroism measurements reveal a burst-phase compaction occurring in under 5 ms, consistent with secondary structure nucleation and molten globule formation, followed by rate-limiting docking steps. Such observations underscore how structured pathways enable biologically relevant folding speeds. This kinetic hierarchy complements thermodynamic perspectives like energy landscape theory by emphasizing sequential structural milestones.^[20]

Energy Landscape Theory

Energy landscape theory emerged in the 1990s as a pivotal resolution to Levinthal's paradox, conceptualizing protein folding within a multidimensional free energy surface that biases the conformational search toward the native state. Pioneered by Peter G. Wolynes, José N. Onuchic, and Ken A. Dill, this framework describes the energy landscape as rugged yet funnel-shaped, with a broad, high-entropy ensemble of unfolded states narrowing progressively to a low-entropy native basin at minimal free energy.^[21]^[22] The funnel topology ensures that folding proceeds downhill thermodynamically, dramatically reducing the effective search space compared to a random exploration, thereby enabling folding on experimentally observed timescales of milliseconds to seconds rather than the astronomical durations predicted by naive models.^[21] Central to this theory is the Gibbs free energy equation, \Delta G = \Delta H - T \Delta S, which governs the folding process. As the protein progresses along the funnel, enthalpic contributions (\Delta H) decrease due to stabilizing interactions such as hydrogen bonds and hydrophobic effects, while entropic penalties (-T \Delta S) arise from the loss of conformational freedom as unstructured chains adopt a compact, ordered native fold. The landscape's ruggedness stems from inherent frustrations—competing local interactions that create kinetic traps in the form of metastable minima—but evolution has shaped protein sequences to minimize such roughness, ensuring a relatively smooth descent.^[22] This ruggedness can be further alleviated in vivo by molecular chaperones, which prevent prolonged entrapment in kinetic traps, or through mutations that reduce energetic conflicts, thereby optimizing the funnel's slope and breadth.^[21] Mathematically, statistical mechanics underpins the theory by modeling the landscape as a random energy surface where the density of states funnels trajectories toward convergence at local minima that approximate the global native minimum, effectively partitioning the configuration space to accelerate folding without exhaustive sampling. This convergence mechanism highlights how the paradox's vast combinatorial possibilities are navigated efficiently through biased, parallel pathways on the energy surface.^[21]

Modern Implications

Computational Modeling Advances

Computational modeling has significantly advanced the understanding and resolution of Levinthal's paradox by enabling simulations that capture protein folding dynamics on biologically relevant timescales, demonstrating that folding proceeds through biased pathways rather than exhaustive random searches. Early efforts in the 2000s leveraged distributed computing to overcome hardware limitations, allowing for the first atomistic simulations of folding events at microsecond scales. The Folding@home project, initiated in 2000, utilized volunteer computing networks to perform extensive molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, achieving microsecond-long trajectories for small proteins and revealing multiple folding pathways that align with experimental rates.^[23] These simulations addressed the paradox by showing how parallel sampling of conformational space could mimic efficient biological folding without exploring all possible states.^[24] A major milestone came in 2010 with the Anton supercomputer, a specialized machine designed for MD simulations, which extended folding observations to millisecond timescales for proteins in explicit solvent. Anton's hardware optimizations enabled all-atom simulations of proteins like bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor, producing trajectories over 1 millisecond and confirming the presence of rugged yet funnel-shaped energy landscapes that guide folding efficiently.^[25] This scale was crucial for validating Levinthal's paradox resolutions, as it allowed direct comparison with experimental folding times and kinetics. Key methods in these advances include all-atom MD using force fields such as AMBER, which parameterize atomic interactions to model folding thermodynamics and kinetics accurately. For instance, AMBER simulations of the villin headpiece subdomain reproduced folding in about 1 microsecond, matching experiments and highlighting force field sensitivity to pathway details.^[26] To accelerate computations for larger systems, coarse-grained approaches like alpha-carbon models reduce representation to Cα atoms, treating side chains as pseudoatoms and achieving 10- to 10^4-fold speedups while preserving essential folding motifs.^[27] These models facilitate broader exploration of the conformational space, underscoring the paradox's solution in hierarchical assembly. Simulations of small proteins, such as the 35-residue villin headpiece, have provided seminal evidence for funnel-shaped energy landscapes, where the free energy decreases toward the native state, biasing exploration away from unproductive conformations. Using all-atom MD with modified AMBER-like force fields and basin-hopping methods, these studies mapped a smooth funnel topography, confirming rapid folding via cooperative helix formation without trapping in local minima. Such findings directly counter the paradox by illustrating how evolutionary-tuned interactions create directed pathways. Post-2020 developments have integrated these simulation insights with artificial intelligence, exemplified by AlphaFold2, which predicts structures with near-atomic accuracy by learning folding biases from evolutionary data, effectively navigating the vast search space implied by Levinthal's paradox. In the 2020 CASP14 competition, AlphaFold achieved a median GDT-TS score of 92.4, surpassing physics-based methods and enabling predictions for proteins up to thousands of residues long. This AI approach incorporates funnel landscape concepts, using iterative refinement to converge on native-like structures, thus accelerating structure prediction beyond traditional MD timescales.^[28] Building on this, AlphaFold3, released in May 2024, extends predictions to biomolecular complexes including proteins with DNA, RNA, and ligands, achieving unprecedented accuracy in interaction modeling and further demonstrating efficient navigation of conformational spaces. The foundational work on AlphaFold was recognized with the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry awarded to Demis Hassabis, John Jumper, and David Baker for computational protein structure prediction.^[29]^[30]

Biological and Evolutionary Insights

Evolution has shaped protein sequences to favor folding pathways that minimize the search space outlined in Levinthal's paradox, selecting for "foldable" energy landscapes that guide polypeptides toward native structures efficiently while avoiding kinetic traps. This evolutionary constraint ensures that natural protein families exhibit funneled energy landscapes, where sequences are optimized to reduce off-pathway misfolding events, as evidenced by comparative analyses of structural homologs across species. Intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) play a key role in this adaptation, providing conformational flexibility that circumvents deep kinetic traps during cotranslational folding, particularly in misfolding-prone proteins, by allowing modular assembly rather than rigid global searches.^[31]^[32] Cellular mechanisms further resolve the paradox in vivo, with chaperone proteins such as Hsp70 actively assisting in protein folding by binding nascent or misfolded chains to prevent aggregation and promote refolding along productive pathways. Hsp70 systems, conserved across domains of life, utilize ATP-dependent cycles to unfold kinetic traps and facilitate escape from metastable states, thereby ensuring timely folding under physiological conditions. Differences between prokaryotes and eukaryotes highlight evolutionary adaptations to folding efficiency: prokaryotic proteins, synthesized at elongation rates up to 20 amino acids per second, fold faster—for example, up to 6 times faster than eukaryotic homologs in vitro—due to simpler cellular environments and fewer post-translational modifications that could introduce delays.^[33]^[34] These biological solutions have profound implications for disease when disrupted, as evolutionarily conserved proteins prone to misfolding can lead to amyloidosis, where kinetic traps result in toxic fibril formation. For instance, proteins like amyloid-beta and prion protein, highly conserved across vertebrates, aggregate into amyloids under stress or mutation, contributing to neurodegenerative disorders by overwhelming proteostasis networks. This underscores how evolutionary pressures for foldability, while effective, leave vulnerabilities in conserved sequences that manifest as proteinopathies when chaperones or folding aids fail.

References

[1]
[PDF] How to fold graciously
Speaker: Cyrus Levinthal. Retranscribed: B. Krantz. Proteins are macromolecules which possess several unique properties. They are very large (containing 2,000.
[2]
Protein folding problem: enigma, paradox, solution - PMC - NIH
This is the so-called “Levinthal's paradox.” In this review, we discuss the key ideas and discoveries leading to the current understanding of protein folding ...
[3]
Protein folding: from the levinthal paradox to structure prediction
This article is a personal perspective on the developments in the field of protein folding over approximately the last 40 years.Missing: original | Show results with:original
[4]
Principles that Govern the Folding of Protein Chains - Science
Principles that Govern the Folding of Protein Chains. Christian B. AnfinsenAuthors Info & Affiliations. Science. 20 Jul 1973 ... Anfinsen, C. B., Advan. Prot.
[5]
Conformational Stability and Denaturation Processes of Proteins ...
The native conformation of proteins is thermodynamically the most stable under optimum physicochemical conditions. Under these conditions, the free energy ...<|separator|>
[6]
How special is the biochemical function of native proteins? - PMC
Feb 23, 2016 · Native proteins perform an amazing variety of biochemical functions, including enzymatic catalysis, and can engage in protein-protein and ...Small Molecule... · Enzymatic Active Sites · Art Protein-Protein And...
[7]
The Shape and Structure of Proteins - Molecular Biology of the Cell
From a chemical point of view, proteins are by far the most structurally complex and functionally sophisticated molecules known.
[8]
The Levinthal paradox: yesterday and today - ScienceDirect
The Levinthal paradox suggests protein folding is a random search, leading to long times, but proteins fold rapidly, creating a paradox.
[9]
[PDF] Protein Structure Prediction Levinthal's Paradox The Central Dogma ...
If each amino acid can adopt only 3 possible conformations, the total number of conformations is. 3^100 = 5 x 10^47. • Assuming it would take 10^(-13) ...
[10]
How fast can a protein fold? | Oxford Protein Informatics Group
Jun 21, 2021 · Most proteins fold on timescales on the order of a millisecond, with a median of ~5 milliseconds for its 2-state folding proteins.
[11]
https://www.blopig.com/blog/2021/06/how-fast-can-a-protein-fold/
[12]
[PDF] Cyrus Levinthal - Biographical Memoirs
In 1968 he became professor of biological sciences at Columbia. University, where he held the William R. Kenan, Jr., Chair in Biophysics until his death on ...
[13]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283699930061
[14]
Simple model of protein folding kinetics. - PNAS
A simple model of the kinetics of protein folding is presented. The reaction coordinate is the "correctness" of a configuration compared with the native ...
[15]
Is protein folding hierarchic? I. Local structure and peptide folding
At least three arguments support the proposition that non-local interactions play an essential role in secondary-structure formation. (1) The accuracy of ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[16]
Diffusion–collision model for protein folding - Karplus - 1979
The basic equations for the elementary step in the diffusion–collision–coalescence model of protein folding are derived for the case of two radially ...
[17]
Protein folding dynamics: the diffusion-collision model and ... - NIH
A description is given of the qualitative aspects and quantitative results of the diffusion-collision model and their relation to available experimental data.
[18]
Kinetics of lysozyme refolding: structural characterization of a non ...
This initial burst phase of folding usually occurs in the dead-time of stopped-flow mixing (∼1 to 2 ms) and has been interpreted as a molecular collapse of the ...
[19]
From Levinthal to pathways to funnels - Nature
Jan 1, 1997 · A new view of protein folding kinetics replaces the idea of 'folding pathways' with the broader notions of energy landscapes and folding funnels.
[20]
[PDF] THEORY OF PROTEIN FOLDING: The Energy Landscape Perspective
ABSTRACT. The energy landscape theory of protein folding is a statistical description of a protein's potential surface. It assumes that folding occurs ...
[21]
From Levinthal to pathways to funnels - Nature
The new view of protein folding replaces 'folding pathways' with energy landscapes and folding funnels, emphasizing ensembles and multiple routes.
[22]
https://www.nature.com/articles/nsb0197-10.pdf
[23]
Folding@home: achievements from over twenty years of citizen ...
Folding@home is a distributed computing project using citizen scientists for biomolecular simulations, achieving computing records and scientific advances, ...Missing: milestones | Show results with:milestones
[24]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10055475/
[25]
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1187409
[26]
Coarse-Grained Protein Models and Their Applications
Jun 22, 2016 · In this review we provide an overview of coarse-grained models focusing on their design, including choices of representation, models of energy functions, ...<|separator|>
[27]
[PDF] Computational Protein Design and Protein Structure Prediction
Oct 9, 2024 · Cyrus Levinthal estimated this number and gave name to what is called “Levinthal's paradox”.6 It is often stated in terms of the number of ...
[28]
Evolution, Energy Landscapes and the Paradoxes of Protein Folding
The exhaustive search through minima envisioned in Levinthal's paradox scales exponentially with protein length but even an algorithm that takes a time ...
[29]
Cotranslational Folding Allows Misfolding-Prone Proteins ... - PubMed
Jan 21, 2020 · Cotranslational Folding Allows Misfolding-Prone Proteins to Circumvent Deep Kinetic Traps ... Intrinsically Disordered Proteins; MarR ...
[30]
Protein Folding in the Cytoplasm and the Heat Shock Response - PMC
Chaperones such as Hsp70 prevent protein misfolding and aggregation. They are up-regulated when cells are stressed but decline during aging.Protein Folding In The... · Ribosome-Associated... · The Chaperonins
[31]
Comparison of folding rates of homologous prokaryotic ... - PubMed
Jun 23, 2000 · The rate of polypeptide chain elongation is up to one order of magnitude faster in prokaryotic cells than in eukaryotes.