| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
* Department of Food Sciences, Stocking Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York; and H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, Department of Biochemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
Correspondence: Address reprint requests and inquiries to Chris Dempsey, Tel.: 44-117-928-7427; E-mail: c.dempsey{at}bris.ac.uk, or John Brady, Tel.: 607-255-2897; E-mail: jwb7{at}cornell.edu.
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Protein denaturants such as urea and guanidinium (Gdm+) chloride preferentially accumulate at the surface of folded proteins, and the extent of this accumulation is related to their denaturant activities (1
). Thus Gdm+ has a partition coefficient, Knat, for accumulation at the surface of bovine serum albumin, of 
1.6 relative to the bulk solution concentration, whereas Knat for urea is 1.1 (2). These observations reflect a general phenomenon, since protein-stabilizing solutes (osmolytes such as trimethylammonium oxide or strongly hydrated ions like sulfate) are excluded from the protein surface (2,3). Although the polypeptide backbone makes a strong contribution to solute effects on protein stability (3), preferential partitioning of solutes, including denaturants, can be measured with folded proteins. The nature of the solute-protein interactions that underlie this observation is not known at the molecular level.
Previous molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of proteins in urea identified hydrogen bonding with exposed polar groups as a mechanism for surface accumulation of urea (4–6). Recent studies from our groups indicate that the hydration properties of Gdm+ might support alternative binding modes relevant to its surface accumulation and denaturant activity (7–9). Neutron diffraction with isotopic substitution demonstrates that Gdm+ forms hydrogen bonds with water in the molecular plane, but is weakly hydrated above and below the molecular plane (7). The hydrophobic nature of the face of the Gdm+ cation results in homo-ion pairing (i.e., stacking) in MD simulations of strongly denaturing salts [Gdm+Cl–; Gdm+SCN–] (8,9). This behavior indicates that Gdm+ ions might stack against hydrophobic side chains, reducing the entropic cost of hydrophobic hydration by displacing waters (10,11), while also hydrogen-bonding to the backbone in unfolded proteins. Homo-ion stacking suggests that Gdm+ should interact with the planar guanidine moiety of Arg, and possibly with aromatic side chains and planar side-chain amide groups. Such behavior might explain the enhanced preferential partitioning and denaturant activity of Gdm+ over urea that is not fully represented in the relative activities of these denaturants to attenuate structure stabilized by hydrogen bonds (12).
To examine the interactions of the Gdm+ ion with the surface of a folded polypeptide, we have run MD simulations of a helical peptide, melittin, in a solution of GdmCl. Melittin, the membrane-active toxin from bee venom (13), is a 26-amino-acid peptide with the sequence GIGAVLKVLTTGLPALISWIKRKRQQ-NH2. It is soluble in both the tetrameric 
-helical form and the monomeric random coil (14). The melittin monomer does not normally exist as an -helix, and the peptide only assumes this form in water as the structured tetramer. However, our goal was to use melittin as a model peptide with a representative mix of hydrophilic and hydrophobic groups exposed to water. For example, one face of the melittin helix has a hydrophobic surface made up largely of aliphatic side chains that are normally buried in the helical tetramer. Simulation of the monomer allows us to assess the interactions of Gdm+ with hydrophobic regions not normally accessible in a folded polypeptide or proteins.
Simulation details are available in the Supplementary Material. An 8 ns NVE-ensemble simulation (the first 0.5 ns used as equilibration) was calculated using CHARMM (15). The system consisted of a 44.7 Å cube containing 125 GdmCl units, one melittin, six Cl– counterions, and 2319 TIP3P waters (16). Density maps were calculated for Gdm+ nitrogen atoms relative to melittin, as has previously been done for water around small rigid solutes (17,18). The size and flexibility of the melittin helix make it more difficult to analyze Gdm+ density around the peptide than in previous applications (19), and only local densities could be compared due to motional smearing on a larger scale.
Apart from some fraying at the N- and C-termini, and bending near Pro14, the helix remains largely intact throughout the simulation. The ion densities are statistically converged and temporally stable on this timescale; the average densities for the two halves of the simulation are statistically equivalent. As predicted, the Gdm+ ions were found to bind weakly to melittin by stacking against the hydrophobic groups of the peptide. In addition, Gdm+ ions also complex with the like-charged guanidine groups of Arg22 and Arg24 in a stacked manner (Fig. 1) similar to that found for Gdm+ ions in GdmCl and GdmSCN solutions (8,9). Preferential partitioning of Gdm+ by weak stacking interactions was also observed for the indole group of Trp19 (Fig. 1) and the planar side-chain amides of the Gln25/26 residues (see Supplementary Material).
|
|
-systems of Arg, Trp, and Gln (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Material).
|
30 ps, which was almost the same as the lifetime for Gdm+-Gdm+ interactions. The residence times for Gdm+ ions adjacent to neutral hydrophilic residues (Ser, Gln, Thr) were also similar to those adjacent to the hydrophobic residues (Ala, Val, Ile), which is somewhat different from previous findings with urea (4–6). Averaged over the simulation, 7.6 Gdm+ ions bound to the peptide. This coordination number does not equate to an accumulation relative to the bulk Gdm+ concentration, a consequence of the very high positive charge (+6) of the peptide. We ran two further 4-ns simulations in which the net positive charge of the peptide was reduced to +2 and +1, respectively, first by deprotonating the amino groups of the N-terminus and Lys-7,21,23, and secondly by additionally deamidating the C-terminus. The coordination number for Gdm+ peptide-interactions was 11.0 in the +1 simulation, corresponding to a local concentration of Gdm+ of 1.13 relative to the bulk concentration (Supplementary Material Table), and further enhancement of the negative surface charge density is expected to yield local concentrations approaching that measured experimentally for bovine serum albumin. As expected, Gdm+ interacts strongly with the C-terminal carboxylate group in the +1 simulation (not shown).
These observations indicate that the experimentally observed accumulation of Gdm+ at the protein surface (1,2) can be understood in terms of the properties of this complex cation. While a dominant interaction of urea with surface groups in protein simulations involves hydrogen bonding with polar side-chain functions (4–6), the unique hydration properties of the Gdm+ ion (7) support alternative interaction modes involving stacking with side-chain planar and hydrophobic groups. The existence of these binding modes is supported by experimental observations of extremely high sensitivity to Gdm+ denaturation of tryptophan-zipper peptides in which side-chain indole-indole interactions provide the dominant contribution to the stability of the folded state (12). This strong stacking with side-chain aromatic groups may also explain the particularly effective promotion of water solubility of the aromatic amino acids by GdmCl (21). Overall, these observations reinforce the utility of MD simulations in providing interpretations of the interactions of ions at the protein surface at the molecular scale (e.g., (22)).
|
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTSUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTSUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Submitted on March 7, 2007; accepted for publication April 17, 2007.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTSUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
2. Courtenay, E. S., M. W. Capp, and M. T. Record, Jr. 2001. Thermodynamics of interactions of urea and guanidinium salts with protein surface: relationship between solute effects on protein processes and changes in water-accessible surface area. Prot. Sci. 10:2485–2497.
3. Auton, M., and D. W. Bolen. 2005. Predicting the energetics of osmolyte-induced protein folding/unfolding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 102:15065–15068.
4. Tirado-Rives, L., M. Orozco, and W. L. Jorgensen. 1997. Molecular dynamics simulations of the unfolding of barnase in water and 8 M aqueous urea. Biochemistry. 36:7313–7329.[CrossRef][Medline]
5. Caflisch, A., and M. Karplus. 1999. Structural details of urea binding to barnase: a molecular dynamics analysis. Struct. Fold. Des. 7:477–488.[Medline]
6. Bennion, B. J., and V. Daggett. 2003. The molecular basis for the chemical denaturation of proteins by urea. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 100:5142–5147.
7. Mason, P. E., G. W. Neilson, C. E. Dempsey, A. C. Barnes, and J. M. Cruickshank. 2003. The hydration structure of guanidinium and thiocyanate ions: implications for protein stability in aqueous solution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 100:4557–4561.
8. Mason, P. E., G. W. Neilson, J. E. Enderby, M.-L. Saboungi, C. E. Dempsey, A. D. MacKerrell, Jr., and J. W. Brady. 2004. The structure of aqueous guanidinium chloride solution. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 126:11462–11470.[CrossRef][Medline]
9. Mason, P. E., C. E. Dempsey, G. W. Neilson, and J. W. Brady. 2005. Nanometer-scale ion aggregates in aqueous electrolyte solutions: guanidinium sulfate and guanidinium thiocyanate. J. Phys. Chem. B. 109:24185–24196.[Medline]
10. Kuharski, R. A., and P. J. Rossky. 1984. Solvation of hydrophobic species in aqueous urea solution—a molecular-dynamics study. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 106:5794–5800.[CrossRef]
11. Muller, N. 1990. A model for the partial reversal of hydrophobic hydration by addition of a urea-like cosolvent. J. Phys. Chem. 94:3856–3859.[CrossRef]
12. Dempsey, C. E., T. J. Piggott, and P. E. Mason. 2005. Dissecting contributions to the denaturant sensitivities of proteins. Biochemistry. 44:775–781.[CrossRef][Medline]
13. Terwilliger, T. C., and D. Eisenberg. 1982. The structure of melittin. structure determination and partial refinement. J. Biol. Chem. 257:6010–6015.
14. Brown, L. R., J. Lauterwein, and K. Wuthrich. 1980. High-resolution H1NMR studies of self-aggregation of melittin in aqueous-solution. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 622:231–244.[Medline]
15. Brooks, B. R., R. E. Bruccoleri, B. D. Olafson, D. J. States, S. Swaminathan, and M. Karplus. 1983. CHARMM—a program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations. J. Comput. Chem. 4:187–217.[CrossRef]
16. Jorgensen, W. L., J. Chandrasekhar, J. D. Madura, R. W. Impey, and M. L. Klein. 1983. Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J. Chem. Phys. 79:926–935.[CrossRef]
17. Schmidt, R. K., M. Karplus, and J. W. Brady. 1996. The anomeric equilibrium in d-xylose: free energy and the role of solvent structuring. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 118:541–546.[CrossRef]
18. Liu, Q., and J. W. Brady. 1996. Anisotropic solvent structuring in aqueous sugar solutions. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 118:12276–12286.[CrossRef]
19. Liu, Q., R. K. Schmidt, B. Teo, P. A. Karplus, and J. W. Brady. 1997. Molecular dynamics studies of the hydration of ,-trehalose. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 119:7851–7862.[CrossRef]
20. Humphrey, W., A. Dalke, and K. Schulten. 1996. VMD: visual molecular dynamics. J. Mol. Graph. 14:33–38.[CrossRef][Medline]
21. Nozaki, Y., and C. Tanford. 1970. Solubility of amino acids, diglycine, and triglycine in aqueous guanidine hydrochloride solutions. J. Biol. Chem. 245:1648–1652.
22. Vrbka, L., J. Vondrasek, B. Jagoda-Cwiklik, R. Vacha, and P. Jungwirth. 2006. Quantification and rationalization of the higher affinity of sodium over potassium to protein surfaces. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 103:15440–15444.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  C. Camilloni, A. G. Rocco, I. Eberini, E. Gianazza, R. A. Broglia, and G. Tiana Urea and Guanidinium Chloride Denature Protein L in Different Ways in Molecular Dynamics Simulations Biophys. J., June 15, 2008; 94(12): 4654 - 4661. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
