Abstract

The best‐characterized model pathway of protein folding, that of disulphide bond formation in the small protein BPTI, has been questioned recently. A reinvestigation of that pathway, using alternative methods, concluded that the intermediates with non‐native disulphide bonds accumulated to lower levels than previously had been observed(17). On this basis, a revised pathway was proposed that simply omitted those intermediates. Even if totally correct, however, the new observations are not inconsistent with the important characteristics of the original pathway and even confirmed many of them. Certain crucial observations that were the experimental basis for the original pathway were ignored, and these observations invalidate the revised pathway.