E nergy-landscape descriptions of protein folding emphasize the roles of free energy and energy-surface ruggedness as key determinants of folding dynamics (1-3). The many correlations of folding times with free energy support this point of view, but it is difficult to reconcile the model with the seemingly simple kinetics that often are observed. Analyses of experimental data point to a relationship between the folding kinetics and the topology of the native protein structure (4-8). Proteins that, on average, have a large number of long-range contacts in the folded state tend to fold more slowly than those with a preponderance of short-range contacts. The questions remain: is it the depth and roughness of the funnel, the topology of the folded state, or some combination of the two that determines the folding mechanism? Short-range contacts outnumber long-range interactions in helical bundles; if topology is the key, then these proteins should fold rapidly (4, 5). Highly helical ferrocytochrome b 562 (Fe II -Cyt b 562 ) (9, 10), acyl-CoA binding protein (ACBP) (11)(12)(13)(14), the E colicin binding immunity proteins Im7 and Im9 (15,16), and the N-terminal domain of phage repressor (17) all fold on the millisecond time scale. These observations appear to support the notion that folded-state structural topology is of central importance in folding dynamics and that helical bundle structures are inherently fast folding.