Cyclol - Stabilizing Energies

Stabilizing Energies

In two tandem Letters to the Editor (1936), Wrinch and Frank addressed the question of whether the cyclol form of the peptide group was indeed more stable than the amide form. A relatively simple calculation showed that the cyclol form is significantly less stable than the amide form. Therefore, the cyclol model would have to be abandoned unless a compensating source of energy could be identified. Initially, Frank proposed that the cyclol form might be stabilized by better interactions with the surrounding solvent; later, Wrinch and Irving Langmuir hypothesized that hydrophobic association of nonpolar sidechains provides stabilizing energy to overcome the energetic cost of the cyclol reactions.

The lability of the cyclol bond was seen as an advantage of the model, since it provided a natural explanation for the properties of denaturation; reversion of cyclol bonds to their more stable amide form would open up the structure and allows those bonds to be attacked by proteases, consistent with experiment. Early studies showed that proteins denatured by pressure are often in a different state than the same proteins denatured by high temperature, which was interpreted as possibly supporting the cyclol model of denaturation.

The Langmuir-Wrinch hypothesis of hydrophobic stabilization shared in the downfall of the cyclol model, owing mainly to the influence of Linus Pauling, who favored the hypothesis that protein structure was stabilized by hydrogen bonds. Another twenty years had to pass before hydrophobic interactions were recognized as the chief driving force in protein folding.