How important are helical propensities in determining the conformations of globular proteins? Using the twodimensional lattice model and two monomer types, H (hydrophobic) and P (polar), we explore both nonlocal interactions, through an HH contact energy, E, as developed in earlier work, and local interactions, through a helix energy, u. By computer enumeration, the partition functions for short chains are obtained without approximation for the full range of both types of energy. When nonlocal interactions dominate, some sequences undergo coil-globule collapse to a unique native structure. When local interactions dominate, all sequences undergo helix-coil transitions. For two different conformational properties, the closest correspondence between the lattice model and proteins in the Protein Data Bank is obtained if the model local interactions are made small compared to the HH contact interaction, suggesting that helical propensities may be only weak determinants of globular protein structures in water. For some HP sequences, varying U/E leads to additional sharp transitions (sometimes several) and to "conformational switching" between unique conformations. This behavior resembles the transitions of globular proteins in water to helical states in alcohols. In particular, comparison with experiments shows that whereas urea as a denaturant is best modeled as weakening both local and nonlocal interactions, trifluoroethanol is best modeled as mainly weakening HH interactions and slightly enhancing local helical interactions.Keywords: alcohol denaturation; compact conformations; helical propensities; HP lattice model; hydrophobic interaction What is the relative importance of local interactions (helical propensities) compared to nonlocal interactions (mainly solvent-mediated and hydrophobic interactions) in determining the native structures of globular proteins? One view has held that the local interactions are the main determinants of structure, while the nonlocal interactions just provide nonspecific stability to the compact state (Anfinsen & Scheraga, 1975). That is, interactions among adjacent and near-neighbor peptide units tend to drive proteins to configure into helices at certain points in the sequence, which ultimately end up as helices in the native structure. In this view, helices should be identifiable by factors that are local within the sequence, and this should strongly specify how they can pack to form the native structure. Recently, an alternative view has developed that nonlocal interactions may be a major determinant not only of the stabilities but also of the structures of globular Reprint requests to: Ken A. Dill, Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Box 1204, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143-1204. proteins Chan & Dill, 1991b). In this view, a major factor in determining where helices form in native structures is the sequence positions of hydrophobic monomers. That is, predicting helices (and also sheets) in native structures is more a matter of finding the...