Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Oct 25.
Published in final edited form as: Org Lett. 2010 Oct 14;12(22):10.1021/ol102092r. doi: 10.1021/ol102092r

Computational Design of a Self-Assembling β-Peptide Oligomer

Ivan V Korendovych †, Yong Ho Kim †, Andrew H Ryan †, James D Lear †, William F DeGrado †,‡, Scott J Shandler †,§,*
PMCID: PMC3807245  NIHMSID: NIHMS509913  PMID: 20945888

Abstract

graphic file with name nihms509913f5.jpg

The first computationally designed self-assembling oligomer consisting of exclusively β-amino acids (βAAs) is presented. The packing of a β-314 helix into coiled-coils of varying stoichiometries as a function of amino acid sequence is examined. β-Peptides with hVal repeating every third residue in the sequence appeared to have a strong propensity to pack into hexameric bundles. The designed sequence was synthesized and characterized with CD spectroscopy, NMR, and analytical ultracentrifugation, suggesting that the peptide adopts a well-folded hexameric structure.


Recently, there has been progress in the studies of the β-peptide class of foldamers.1–4 The principles required for stabilization of secondary structure have been developed, and the design of protein-like tertiary structures is becoming feasible. Gellman and co-workers have studied the effects of alternating α and β amino acids (AAs)5–9 and have established new rules regarding the stability and folding of these hybrid peptides. Zuckermann and Dill et al. have constructed nonbiological peptoids (N-alkyl-polyglycines) that assemble into water-soluble oligomeric bundles using amphiphilic sequence patterning.10,11 Schepartz et al. recently demonstrated that sequence patterns similar to those found in αAA coiled-coils, adapted for βAA, allowed synthesis of an octameric β-peptide bundle.12 Using the crystal structure of this bundle, the octamer was successfully converted into a tetramer by the inclusion of a linking loop region,13 approaching natural protein-like properties.

Thus, these previous studies have achieved considerable success by considering relatively coarse-grained concepts such as amphiphilicity and hydrophobic sequence patterning. More fine-grain computational methods should allow additional control, as recently demonstrated in the area of protein design. For example, computational methods have enabled design of new enzyme-like proteins,14,15 sequence-specific transmembrane helix-binding peptides,16 metallo-proteins, 17–20 and self-assembling materials.21,22

In this work, we developed a new computational design algorithm, NAPOLI (Non-natural Automated Protein or LIgand), that accommodates a variety of backbones, secondary structure parametrizations, rotamer libraries, and energy functions. The name also recognizes early contributions to foldamer design made in Naples.23 NAPOLI allows the use of arbitrary backbones (α, β, γ amino acids, cyclic structures, etc.) by indicating a branch point, where a variety of R-group atoms can be substituted.

The library of substitutable R-groups contains the 20 α-amino acid side chains as well as a subset of commercially available Cβ-substituted derivatives. CHARMM24,25 parameters for these atoms are applied at runtime. Side chain geometries are selected from either backbone-dependent or -independent rotamer libraries,26,27 including one specifically calculated for various βAA helical structures.28 NAPOLI allows users to select from a variety of energetic terms and weights, including different treatments of van der Waals interactions, solvation, and electrostatics.

Computational Design

Design of coiled-coils has played an important role in development of protein design and computational algorithms. Similarly, here we seek to design homo-oligomeric β-peptide coiled-coils. We used a variation of the Crick formula29 to transform ideal β-314 helices into radially symmetric parallel coiled-coils with different core residues (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Scaffold design. From a β3hV-peptide helical scaffold to a β3hV hexameric bundle with optimized local helix parameters.

The packing of poly-β3 homoAlanine (hA), poly-β3 homoValine (hV), and poly-β3 homoIsoleucine (hI) was examined. These sequences were modeled into different stoichiometries. The hA and hV sequences showed particularly good packing. The interhelical Lennard-Jones30 and electrostatic energies on a per helix basis were systematically evaluated as a function of a bundle radius, helix phase, and supercoil pitch (Table S5, Supporting Information). The results were ranked by normalized interhelical interaction energy (energy per helix relative to the minimal energy computed for the dimer) (Figure 2, Table S6, Supporting Information). hV showed a particularly strong minimum at n = 6, associated with tight packing of every third hV side chain in the core. This finding suggested that β-peptides with hV in the core could show good geometric specificity for this hexameric association state.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Interhelical packing energies of the poly-β3 homoAlanine (hA, triangles) and poly-β3 homoValine (hV, circles) bundles as a function of the bundle size n. The values represent the difference between the energies of the monomer and the packed n-mer and are normalized to those of the corresponding dimers that represent the minimal entity for a coiled-coil.

To complete the design of a water-soluble bundle, the optimized hydrophobic hV core was fixed, while the identity and conformations of exterior residues were allowed to vary. We introduced water-solubilizing residues and stabilizing interhelical salt bridges at these positions. While it is possible to stabilize the 314 helix through electrostatic interactions between residues one turn apart in the helix, such intrahelical interactions would not provide specificity for the desired tertiary structure versus other possible associations. Thus, to specifically stabilize the desired bundle rather than just the secondary structure, neutral residues were alternated with charged residues along a given face of the helices (Figure 3). Specifically, charged and neutral residues alternate at positions i, i + 3, i + 6, etc. in the sequence. A variety of sequence patterns consistent with this restraint were examined (Table S7, Figure S4, Supporting Information).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Final modeled β-peptide bundle. (A) N-terminal view of the designed bundle; chains shown in different colors. (B) Side view of the bundle showing packing of hydrophobic residues and designed electrostatic interactions. The backbone and the hV cores are shown in gray.

Experimental Characterization

The final sequence (hKhKhVhKhE-hVhFhFhVhK-hEhVhFhFhV-hKhEhVhYhK), nicknamed beta Vhex, contains C- and N-terminal β3-homoLysine (hK) residues to improve solubility. To examine the role of the hydrophobic hV residues, we have also prepared a sequence with hA in the core: betaAhex (hKh- KhAhKhE-hAhFhFhAhK-hEhAhFhFhA-hKhEhAhYhK). Furthermore, we have synthesized a corresponding α-peptide, alpha Vhex (KKVKE-VFFVK-EVFFV-KEVYK). Circular dichroism (CD) spectroscopy data show that the designed β-peptide beta Vhex adopts a 314-helical conformation in a concentration-dependent manner as expected for a self-associating system in which secondary structure formation and association are thermodynamically linked. At high peptide concentrations (more than ca. 360 µM, Figure 4) the spectrum of beta Vhex shows a minimum at 211 nm, consistent with that reported for β-314 helices.31–36 The concentration dependence of the MRE at 211 nm conforms well to a highly cooperative monomer–hexamer equilibrium with the free energy of association of 27.8 kcal/mol·hexamer (1 M standard state) (Figure 4). By contrast, the negative controls betaAhex as well as alpha Vhex displayed CD spectra more typical of unordered polypeptides over the same concentration range(Figures S5 and S6, Supporting Information).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Mean residue ellipticity (MRE) of beta Vhex at indicated concentrations in an aqueous environment at 20 °C. The coincidence of the spectra at 360 and 620 µM suggests saturation of helical content between the two concentrations. Inset: MRE215 (points) as a function of beta Vhex concentration fit (soild line) to a monomer–hexamer equilibrium model.

The hexameric oligomerization state of beta Vhex was confirmed by analytical ultracentrifugation (AUC). Equilibrium sedimentation data were well described by a monomer–hexamer equilibrium model. The free energy of hexamerization of 26.5 kcal/mol·hexamer obtained from the fit (Figure S7, Supporting Information) is in very good agreement with the CD data (27.8 kcal/mol·hexamer). Attempts to fit the data to other monomer-n-mer models (n = 4, 5, 7, 8) resulted in a poorer fit, confirming the hexameric state and the cooperativity of the assembly.

The thermal stability of the designed β3-peptide was monitored using CD spectroscopy. A sigmoidal melting curve was observed indicative of a cooperative unfolding process. The designed bundle demonstrated an enthalpic unfolding transition, similar to other recently published β3-peptides12 (Figures S8 and S9, Supporting Information). The Tm (>96 °C) indicates a highly stable, well-folded β-peptide when compared to α -peptides (ubiquitin’s Tm = 90 °C).

The conformation of beta Vhex was also investigated by NMR. The 1D 1H NMR spectrum of beta Vhex shows (Figure S10, Supporting Information) peptide amide resonances well dispersed over the range of ca. 1.5 ppm, suggesting formation of a distinct quarternary structure that provides a differentiated electronic environment, similarly to previously reported β-peptide bundles.12,37

In summary, we have extended computational methods originally developed for α-peptides and proteins to β-peptides. Interestingly, while conformational search algorithms for α-peptides with core valines showed a strong preference for a trimeric association,38,39 314 helical β-peptides showed optimal packing with six monomers. This reflects differences in shape and axial cross-sectional area between α- and β-peptides.

To test this computational result, we designed peptide beta Vhex, which was indeed found to form a hexameric coiled-coil structure. The difference in the secondary structure has a large influence on the preferred association state for α- vs β-peptides. A tendency for higher-order association was also observed by Schepartz et al. who synthesized β-peptides with hydrophobic sequence repeats patterned after those seen in 2- and 3-stranded α-helical coiled-coils.12 In related studies, Gellman et al.9 have systematically introduced βAAs into α-peptide coiled-coils. Two interesting features were observed in this work. First, βAA residues could be inserted into an α-helix with minimal perturbation of its geometric parameters, and second, the packing patterns observed for the βAA core are quite different from those observed in α-helical coiled-coil quarternary structures. Therefore, we expect that utilizing intrinsic properties of βAA with this computational platform will pave a way to novel functional β-peptide-based molecules.

Supplementary Material

Support

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Dr. Cinque Soto and Dr. Dan Kulp for spirited and constructive comments and Dr. John Gledhill for help with acquisition of the NMR spectra. We thank NIH (GM54616 to W.F.D.) and DOE (DEFG-02-04ER46156-A006 to W.F.D.) for financial support.

Footnotes

Supporting Information Available: Detailed description of the NAPOLI platform as well as experimental procedures for preparation and characterization of peptides, along with CD and AUC data. Requests for NAPOLI should be sent directly to S.J.S. at scott.shandler@longevitybiotech.com. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

References

  • 1.Kritzer JA, Stephens OM, Guarracino DA, Reznik SK, Schepartz A. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2005;13:11–16. doi: 10.1016/j.bmc.2004.09.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Seebach D, Gardiner J. Acc. Chem. Res. 2008;41:1366–1375. doi: 10.1021/ar700263g. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lee EF, Sadowsky JD, Smith BJ, Czabotar PE, Peterson-Kaufman KJ, Colman PM, Gellman SH, Fairlie WD. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2009;48:4318–4322. doi: 10.1002/anie.200805761. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Goodman CM, Choi S, Shandler S, DeGrado WF. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2007;3:252–262. doi: 10.1038/nchembio876. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Horne WS, Boersma MD, Windsor MA, Gellman SH. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008;47:2853–2856. doi: 10.1002/anie.200705315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Horne WS, Gellman SH. Acc. Chem. Res. 2008;41:1399–1408. doi: 10.1021/ar800009n. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Horne WS, Price JL, Keck JL, Gellman SH. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007;129:4178–4180. doi: 10.1021/ja070396f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Price JL, Horne WS, Gellman SH. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007;129:6376–6377. doi: 10.1021/ja071203r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Giuliano MW, Horne WS, Gellman SH. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009;131:9860–9861. doi: 10.1021/ja8099294. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Burkoth TS, Beausoleil E, Kaur S, Tang D, Cohen FE, Zuckermann RN. Chem. Biol. 2002;9:647–654. doi: 10.1016/s1074-5521(02)00140-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lee BC, Zuckermann RN, Dill KA. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005;127:10999–11009. doi: 10.1021/ja0514904. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Petersson EJ, Craig CJ, Daniels DS, Qiu JX, Schepartz A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007;129:5344–5345. doi: 10.1021/ja070567g. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Daniels DS, Petersson EJ, Qiu JX, Schepartz A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007;129:1532–1533. doi: 10.1021/ja068678n. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Nanda V. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2008;4:273–275. doi: 10.1038/nchembio0508-273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Jiang L, Althoff EA, Clemente FR, Doyle L, Röthlisberger D, Zanghellini A, Gallaher JL, Betker JL, Tanaka F, Barbas CF, Hilvert D, Houk KN, Stoddard BL, Baker D. Science. 2008;319:1387–1391. doi: 10.1126/science.1152692. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Yin H, Slusky JS, Berger BW, Walters RS, Vilaire G, Litvinov RI, Lear JD, Caputo GA, Bennett JS, DeGrado WF. Science. 2007;315:1817–1822. doi: 10.1126/science.1136782. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ghosh D, Pecoraro VL. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2005;9:97–103. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2005.02.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lu Y, Yeung N, Sieracki N, Marshall NM. Nature. 2009;460:855–862. doi: 10.1038/nature08304. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Faiella M, Andreozzi C, de Rosales RTM, Pavone V, Maglio O, Nastri F, DeGrado WF, Lombardi A. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2009;5:882–884. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Summa CM, Rosenblatt MM, Hong JK, Lear JD, DeGrado WF. J. Mol. Biol. 2002;321:923–938. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2836(02)00589-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zhao Y, Thorkelsson K, Mastroianni AJ, Schilling T, Luther JM, Rancatore BJ, Matsunaga K, Jinnai H, Wu Y, Poulsen D, Frechet JMJ, Alivisatos AP, Xu T. Nat. Mater. 2009;8:979–985. doi: 10.1038/nmat2565. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Maskarinec SA, Tirrell DA. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2005;16:422–426. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2005.06.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Di Blasio B, Pavone V, Lombardi A, Pedone C, Benedetti E. Biopolymers. 1993;33:1037–1049. doi: 10.1002/bip.360330706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Brooks BR, Bruccoleri RE, Olafson DJ, States DJ, Swaminathan S, Karplus M. J. Comput. Chem. 1983;4:187–217. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.MacKerel AD, Jr, Brooks CL, III, Nilsson L, Roux B, Won Y, Karplus M. The Encyclopedia of Computational Chemistry. Vol. 1. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 1998. pp. 271–277. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Dunbrack RL, Karplus M. J. Mol. Biol. 1993;230:543–574. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1993.1170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Dunbrack RL. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2002;12:431–440. doi: 10.1016/s0959-440x(02)00344-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Shandler S, Shapovalov MV, Dunbrack RL, DeGrado WF. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010;132:7312–7320. doi: 10.1021/ja906700x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Crick FHC. Acta Crystallogr. 1953;6:689–697. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Lennard-Jones JE. Proc. Phys. Soc. 1931;43:461–482. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Guarracino DA, Chiang HR, Banks TN, Lear JD, Hodsdon ME, Schepartz A. Org. Lett. 2006;8:807–810. doi: 10.1021/ol0527532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Cheng RP, Gellman SH, DeGrado WF. Chem. ReV. 2001;101:3219–3232. doi: 10.1021/cr000045i. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cheng RP, DeGrado WF. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002;124:11564–11565. doi: 10.1021/ja020728a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Seebach D, Sifferlen T, Mathieu PA, Häne AM, Krell CM, Bierbaum DJ, Abele S. HelV. Chim. Acta. 2000;83:2849–2864. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Seebach D, Schreiber JV, Arvidsson PI, Frackenpohl J. HelV. Chim. Acta. 2001;84:271–279. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Daura X, Bakowies D, Seebach D, Fleischhauer J, van Gunsteren WF, Krüger P. Eur. Biophys. J. 2003;32:661–670. doi: 10.1007/s00249-003-0303-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Goodman JL, Petersson EJ, Daniels DS, Qui JX, Schepartz A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007;129:14746–14751. doi: 10.1021/ja0754002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Harbury PB, Tidor B, Kim PS. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1995;92:8408–8412. doi: 10.1073/pnas.92.18.8408. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Harbury PB, Plecs JJ, Tidor B, Alber T, Kim PS. Science. 1998;282:1462–1467. doi: 10.1126/science.282.5393.1462. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Support

RESOURCES