Proline versus charge concept for protein stabilization against proteolytic attack

The virtue of the so‐called ‘proline concept’ and the ‘charge concept’ for stabilizing protease‐susceptible regions of a protein structure was compared on bovine pancreatic ribonuclease A. Alanine 20 and serine 21, both of which are located in a loop that is susceptible to the unspecific proteases subtilisin Carlsberg, subtilisin BPN′, proteinase K and elastase, were replaced with proline or lysine by site‐directed mutagenesis. The rate constant of proteolysis was decreased by up to three orders of magnitude for the proline mutants depending on the site of the mutation and the protease used. In contrast, substitution by lysine increased the proteolytic resistance by only one order of magnitude characterizing the ‘proline concept’ as superior to the ‘charge concept’. Although the four applied proteases are considered to be unspecific, the degree of stabilization of the ribonuclease molecule varied considerably, indicating the impact of individual differences in their substrate specificity on the proteolytic resistance and degradation pathway of the target protein.