Comment on "A Criterion that determines foldability of proteins" by D. Klimov and D. Thirumalai (PRL,v.76, p.4070 (1996))

TL;DR

This paper critiques Klimov and Thirumalai's folding criterion, arguing it is similar to earlier work and that their conclusion dismissing the gap criterion is based on a misunderstanding of prior research.

Contribution

It clarifies the relationship between the proposed folding criterion and previous work, correcting a misinterpretation that led to invalidating the gap criterion.

Findings

The folding criterion by Klimov and Thirumalai aligns with earlier published criteria.

Their conclusion on the gap criterion's invalidity is based on a misunderstanding.

The paper emphasizes the importance of correctly interpreting prior research in folding studies.

Abstract

We argue that that the folding criterion suggested by Klimov and Thirumalai is similar to the one published earlier and that their conclusion of invalidity of the ``gap criterion'' is due to misunderstanding of previous work