A new peptide sequence (MB1) has been designed which, in the presence of a trivalent lanthanide ion, has been programmed to self-assemble to form a three stranded metallo-coiled coil, Ln(III)(MB1)3. The binding site has been incorporated into the hydrophobic core using natural amino acids, restricting water access to the lanthanide. The resulting terbium coiled coil displays luminescent properties consistent with a lack of first coordination sphere water molecules. Despite this the gadolinium coiled coil, the first to be reported, displays promising magnetic resonance contrast capabilities.
A new peptide sequence (MB1) has been designed which, in the presence of a trivalent lanthanide ion, has been programmed to self-assemble to form a three stranded metallo-coiled coil, Ln(III)(MB1)3. The binding site has been incorporated into the hydrophobic core using natural amino acids, restricting water access to the lanthanide. The resulting terbium coiled coil displays luminescent properties consistent with a lack of first coordination sphere water molecules. Despite this the gadolinium coiled coil, the first to be reported, displays promising magnetic resonance contrast capabilities.
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
is a noninvasive imaging technique routinely employed in medical diagnostics.
Commonly paramagnetic agents, such as Gd(III) complexes, are utilized
to enhance the image contrast.[1] Factors
that are important for optimal performance of these contrast agents
include the number of coordinated water molecules, the rate at which
they exchange with the bulk water, and the tumbling rate of the complex
in solution. However, the majority of Gd(III) complexes used as MRI
contrast agents do not display optimal relaxivity, due to their small
size and rapid tumbling in solution. Efforts have therefore been directed
toward the preparation of macromolecular Gd(III)-based contrast agents.
These have included modified dendrimers, nanotubes, polymers, and
liposomes, as well as natural biological macromolecules such as proteins
and chimeric proteins.[2−7] The latter are extremely attractive as they offer opportunities
to incorporate biomolecular recognition, specificity, and targeting
into the design. Nonetheless, drawbacks are associated with their
intrinsic complexity, rendering it challenging to correlate Gd(III)
coordination chemistry with changes to the primary amino acid sequence,
and therefore difficult to redesign optimal Gd(III)–protein
structures for use in MRI.An attractive approach would thus
be to employ de novo (from “first
principles”) peptide design in order to develop simplified
protein folds with which structure–function relationships can
be more readily ascertained. Though a range of different structural
motifs have been studied, including β-sheets and mixed α/β-motifs,
the majority of work has focused on coiled coils, in which multiple
α-helices are supercoiled around one another. Metal ion binding
sites have been successfully engineered into the interior of these
structures, and one can take advantage of various design features
to alter the metal ion coordination chemistry.[8−11] This can include the hydration
state of a coordinated metal ion, a crucial parameter for MRI.[5,12−14]Of particular relevance to this work are the
reports by Hodges
and co-workers on the design of a coiled coil that folds in the presence
of Ln(III) by binding to charged residues at the α-helical interface.[15,16] More recently, Kashiwada and co-workers described the design of
a Ln(III) binding site within the hydrophobic core of a coiled coil
using γ-carboxy glutamic acid.[17] However,
the use of non-natural amino acids such as these (or related derivatives)
is expensive and limits their use to peptides that are readily synthesized,
making the design of Ln(III) binding sites with natural amino-acids
very attractive. Furthermore, in both examples no details were provided
concerning the hydration state of the Ln(III) ions, and no reports
exist on Gd(III) binding. Ultimately, the opportunity to rationally
design a Gd(III) binding site for MRI applications, has not been explored.
Our efforts have therefore been directed toward designing a Gd(III)
binding site within a de novo designed α-helical coiled coil
using natural amino acids and evaluating the Gd(III) coordination
chemistry, with the view to investigating the potential of Gd(III)-coiled
coils for MRI applications.In this study, a coiled coil structure
has been designed based
on the sequence Ac-G(IaAbAcIdEeQfKg)xG-NH2, which utilizes the heptad (a–g) repeat
approach. Isoleucine (Ile, I) residues located in the a and d positions of the heptad generate the hydrophobic
core and favor the formation of a three-stranded coiled coil (vide
infra).[18] Alanine (Ala, A) residues in
the b and c positions are helix inducing,
and favorable interhelical salt bridges are formed between glutamate
(Glu, E) and lysine (Lys, K) side chains in the e and g positions.[19] The Glu and Lys
residues, in addition to the glutamine (Gln, Q) residue in the f position, help solubilize the coiled coil. A rationally
designed lanthanide binding site has been introduced in the hydrophobic
interior of the coiled coil by replacing two adjacent Ile residues
with an asparagine (Asn, N) and aspartate (Asp, D), so as to generate
a hard oxygen binding site with which to sequester, for example, Gd(III)
or Tb(III) ions that possess similar radii and coordination preferences.
A three-stranded coiled coil was selected so that the negative charge
of the Asp residues would be neutralized on coordinating the Ln(III)
ion. The Asn residue was introduced at the d site in
the second heptad (position 12), as d sites have been
reported to favor formation of three-stranded coiled coils, whereas
its introduction in an a site would encourage the formation
of a two-stranded coiled coil.[18] The introduction
of Asp in the layer directly below (position 16, a site)
completes our Ln(III) binding site, which is otherwise flanked by
hydrophobic Ile layers. Finally, a tryptophan (Trp, W) was introduced
adjacent to the designed metal binding site (in position 14, a f site) as it offers a number of advantages: it absorbs light
at 280 nm (ε280 = 5690 M–1 cm–1), allowing the concentration of the peptide to be
readily determined in solution; its emission peak is highly sensitive
to its environment; and finally, the Trp indole is capable of sensitizing
lanthanide luminescence (vide infra).(A) Structure of Gd(MB1)3 after
10.0 ns of MD simulations,
and close-up (B) side-on and (C) top-down views of the Gd(III) coordination
site. Shown are the main chain atoms represented as helical ribbons
(green), the Asn and Asp side chains in stick form (oxygen in red
and nitrogen in blue), a water molecule in ball-and-stick form, and
the Gd(III) ion as a sphere (gray).The Ln(III) binding site was modeled, and the structure was
minimized
and subjected to 10.0 ns of molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, see
Figure 1. According to this model, the Ln(III)
ion is coordinated through three Asp side chains and three carbonyl
oxygen atoms from the Asn residues in the layer above, to generate
an attractive Ln(III) coordination site. These simulations suggest
that a water molecule could coordinate directly to the Ln(III) ion.
No significant change was observed between the energy-minimized built
structure of the binding site and the equilibrated structure, suggesting
a high degree of stability when the ion is bound.
Figure 1
(A) Structure of Gd(MB1)3 after
10.0 ns of MD simulations,
and close-up (B) side-on and (C) top-down views of the Gd(III) coordination
site. Shown are the main chain atoms represented as helical ribbons
(green), the Asn and Asp side chains in stick form (oxygen in red
and nitrogen in blue), a water molecule in ball-and-stick form, and
the Gd(III) ion as a sphere (gray).
The incorporation
of Asn and Asp residues within the hydrophobic
core of the coiled coil was anticipated to be highly destabilizing.
Thus in an effort to compensate for this, our designed peptide (MB1)
contains five heptad repeats (x = 5), Ac-G IAAIEQK
IAANEWK DAAIEQK IAAIEQK IAAIEQK G-NH2, as a fifth heptad
has previously been reported to stabilize a coiled coil by ∼5
kcal mol–1.[20] The predicted
destabilizing effect of the Ln(III) binding site, was clearly evident
in the circular dichroism (CD) spectrum of MB1 in the absence of a
metal ion. The low intensity at 222 nm (Θ222 = −10178
deg dmol–1 cm2 res–1), which is an indication of the α-helical content, was consistent
with a poorly folded peptide (>25%), see Figure 2A. In the absence of Ln(III) the negative charges on the Asp
residues
repel each other, destabilizing the coiled coil. However, the intensity
of the minima at 222 nm becomes more negative on addition of GdCl3 into a 30 μM peptide monomer solution in 5 mM HEPES
buffer pH 7.0, reaching a plateau after addition of one Gd(III) per
three-stranded coiled coil (see Figure 2B).
Under these conditions the CD profile resembled that of a well folded
α-helical coiled coil (Θ222 = −29857
deg dmol–1 cm2 res–1, ca. 76% folded) consistent with formation of the intended Gd(MB1)3, see Figure 2A. Mass spectrometry
studies are also consistent with the proposed Gd(III)(MB1)3 complex (see Figure S2A). The sedimentation
equilibrium data in the presence of Gd(III) were best fit to a monomer-to-trimer
model (see Figure S3 and Table S1). The
CD metal titration data were therefore fit to 1/3 Ln(III) + MB1 ↔ 1/3 (Ln(III)MB13), to yield an association constant (log Ka) of 5.11 ± 0.04, see Figure 2B. This corresponds to an estimated 86% of the total Gd(III) complexed
to the peptide, at 33 μM GdCl3 and 100 μM (3
equiv) MB1 (see Figure S4). A related titration
of TbCl3 into a solution of peptide MB1 monitored by CD
yields very similar results as for GdCl3, resulting in
the formation of Tb(MB1)3 with log Ka = 5.03 ± 0.04, see Figure 2B. Similar induced folding was observed by CD on addition of Ce(III),
Nd(III), Eu(III), Dy(III), Er(III), and Yb(III).
Figure 2
(A) GdCl3 titration
into 100 μM MB1 monomer in
5 mM HEPES buffer pH 7.0 monitored by CD, going from 0 to 100 μM
Gd(III). (B) Plot of normalized fraction folded peptide (based on
molar ellipticity at 222 nm) as a function of Gd(III) (blue diamonds)
and Tb(III) (red triangles) equivalents per trimer. Lines represent
best fits using eq 4 (Supporting Information).
(A) GdCl3 titration
into 100 μM MB1 monomer in
5 mM HEPES buffer pH 7.0 monitored by CD, going from 0 to 100 μM
Gd(III). (B) Plot of normalized fraction folded peptide (based on
molar ellipticity at 222 nm) as a function of Gd(III) (blue diamonds)
and Tb(III) (red triangles) equivalents per trimer. Lines represent
best fits using eq 4 (Supporting Information).A thermal unfolding experiment
of the apo peptide found it to be
largely unfolded over the temperature range 20–90 °C;
however, a related experiment performed in the presence of Gd(III),
displayed the beginning of a characteristic sigmoidal unfolding curve
(see Figure S5). Extrapolation of the data
indicates that the Tm is likely to be
ca. 60 °C, but importantly the Gd(MB1)3 complex remains
largely folded at biologically relevant temperatures (310 K). Combined,
the CD and thermal unfolding data indicate that the Gd(III) ion behaves
like a structural metal which is capable of inducing and stabilizing
the correct peptide fold on binding.We studied the luminescence
properties of Tb(III) in order to obtain
insight into the coordination environment around the metal. The Trpindole located at position 14, directly adjacent to the Tb(III) binding
site, can act as a sensitizer for Tb(III) luminescence. Microliter
quantities of a solution of TbCl3 (1 mM) were added to
a solution of MB1 peptide monomer (27 μM) in HEPES buffer pH
7.0 and the Tb(III) emission monitored between 475 and 700 nm upon
excitation at 280 nm (Figure 3A). The characteristic
sharp Tb(III) emission profile with peaks at 490, 545, 585, 620, and
650 nm is obtained, and a plot of the integrated emission intensity
over the range 530–560 nm, as a function of Tb(III) equivalents,
shows a sharp increase followed by a plateau which is consistent with
saturation of the binding site with Tb(III) ions (Figure 3B). The saturation curve suggests that a stoichiometry
of 1:3 Tb:MB1 exists in agreement with the designed Tb(MB1)3 formulation, again supported by mass spectrometry (Figure S2B). The data can be fit to yield log Ka = 4.96 ± 0.37. A comparison of the emission
intensity of Tb(MB1)3 with a solution of TbCl3 at the same concentration shows a 30-fold enhancement of the Tb(III)
emission in the presence of MB1. The emission enhancement is attributed
to both coordination to the binding site and sensitization by the
Trp unit, as shown by excitation spectroscopy when the Tb(III) luminescence
signal is monitored (Figure S6).
Figure 3
(A) Emission
spectra upon titration of Tb(III) into 26.7 μM
MB1 monomer in 5 mM HEPES buffer pH 7.0, ranging from 0 (dark red)
to 30 μM Tb(III) (orange), λexc = 280 nm. (B)
Relative integrated emission intensity as a function of the equivalents
of Tb(III) per trimer. Line represents best fit using eq 4 (Supporting Information).
(A) Emission
spectra upon titration of Tb(III) into 26.7 μM
MB1 monomer in 5 mM HEPES buffer pH 7.0, ranging from 0 (dark red)
to 30 μM Tb(III) (orange), λexc = 280 nm. (B)
Relative integrated emission intensity as a function of the equivalents
of Tb(III) per trimer. Line represents best fit using eq 4 (Supporting Information).Monitoring the Trp emission signal (305–450 nm) upon
titration
of TbCl3 into MB1 monomer under the same conditions as
above, shows a 30% signal increase compared to the apo-peptide. This
is accompanied by a 1 nm blue shift in the UV–vis titration,
and a 6% increase in absorption. These results indicate that although
there is sensitization from Trp to Tb(III) an apparent decrease of
Trp signal is not observed. This is attributed to a change in the
environment of the Trp side chain upon complexation of the Tb(III)
and folding of the coiled coil.[21,22]The large majority
of engineered Ln(III) binding sites in proteins
are inspired by Ca(II) binding loops.[23−25] Despite the fact that
our Ln(III) binding site did not evolve from a native Ca(II) binding
site, we wished to evaluate whether Ca(II) binding would compete or
interfere with the intended Ln(III) binding. CD spectra recorded in
the absence or presence of 10 mM CaCl2, were consistent
with no substantial change to the solution structure of the peptide
either in the absence or presence of Gd(III), see Figure S7. Similarly, Tb(III) luminescence experiments performed
in the presence of 10 mM CaCl2 resulted in no change to
the Tb(III) emission signal which would have decreased if Tb(III)
was displaced by Ca(II), see Figure S8.
Importantly, these experiments demonstrate that our designed peptide
displays selectivity toward trivalent lanthanide ions, consistent
with the complementary charge of our designed site and their preference
for bidentate coordination in confined coordination environments.[26]To obtain further information about the
Tb(III) coordination environment
we studied the luminescence lifetimes of Tb(MB1)3 in H2O and D2O. The luminescence lifetime decays of
Tb(MB1)3 at 545 nm were recorded as 2.05 ms in H2O and 2.48 ms in D2O. Applying the Horrocks–Sudnick
equation, 0.4 water molecules are estimated to be bound to the Tb(III)
ion.[27] To correct for the contribution
of the outer sphere water molecules we employed the Parker–Beeby
equation, which results in 0.1 water molecules being bound to the
Tb(III) ion.[28] These results infer that
although there is some contribution from outer sphere water molecules
in quenching Tb(III) luminescence, the contribution from directly
coordinated water is minimal. However, these results do not conclusively
predict the hydration state of the Gd(III) coiled coil, as it has
previously been noted that in some cases the hydration of Gd(III)
complexes behaves more like their Eu(III) analogues than their Tb(III)
analogues. To make further conclusions on this matter, NMRD experiments
are required to determine distances between Gd(III) and water molecules.It therefore remained for us to evaluate the MRI properties of
the resulting Gd(MB1)3 complex. The longitudinal (T1) and transverse (T2) magnetic resonance relaxation times of water protons were monitored
in the presence of increasing concentrations of Gd(MB1)3 and Gd(DOTA) in 10 mM HEPES, pH 7.0, respectively, using CPMG and
inversion recovery experiments[1] at 300
MHz (7 T) (Figure S9). These experiments
reveal a comparable longitudinal (r1 =
6.3 ± 2.1 mM–1 s–1) and enhanced
transverse (r2 = 18.9 ± 1.5 mM–1 s–1) relaxivity of Gd(MB1)3 compared to the widely used contrast agent, Dotarem (GdDOTA)
(r1 = 4.3 ± 1.0 mM–1 s–1; r2 = 5.7 ±
1.8 mM–1 s–1). Multiple mechanisms
exist whereby the relaxation time of bulk water protons can be reduced
by a paramagnetic Gd(III). However, the luminescence decay data are
inconsistent with a mechanism which involves exchange of a directly
coordinated water molecule, as the Gd(III) is buried within the hydrophobic
core, restricting water coordination and exchange with the bulk. Therefore
the enhancement in relaxivity is likely due to a combination of outer
sphere effects and reduced tumbling. Potential outer sphere mechanisms
could involve the formation of a hydrogen bonding network between
the peptide scaffold and water molecules, aligning these in close
proximity to the Gd(III) for sufficient time for the magnetization
to be transferred to the water protons. This is similar to a mechanism
proposed for the T2 superparamagnetic
iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs).[29] Additionally,
the large number of exchangeable peptide protons in close proximity
to the Gd(III) could also be a mechanism by which the relaxation time
of bulk water protons is reduced.T1 and T2 maps were recorded of phantom
samples containing 100 μM GdCl3 in 10 mM HEPES buffer
pH 7.0. On addition of MB1 and subsequent
formation of Gd(MB1)3, one observes a reduction in the T2 relaxation time, consistent with a negative
contrast agent, see Figure 4. The T1 maps show a less pronounced change due to the lower
longitudinal relaxivity determined for Gd(MB1)3, see Figure S10. Our efforts are currently directed
toward trying to understand the mechanism by which our designed Gd(MB1)3 alters the relaxation rate of bulk water.
Figure 4
T2 map of phantom samples containing
100 μM Gd(III) in 10 mM HEPES buffer pH 7.0. Samples a–h
contain increasing amounts of (MB1)3: 0.0 (a), 0.1 (b),
0.2 (c), 0.3 (d), 0.4 (e), 0.6 (f), 0.8 (g), and 1.0 equiv (h).
T2 map of phantom samples containing
100 μM Gd(III) in 10 mM HEPES buffer pH 7.0. Samples a–h
contain increasing amounts of (MB1)3: 0.0 (a), 0.1 (b),
0.2 (c), 0.3 (d), 0.4 (e), 0.6 (f), 0.8 (g), and 1.0 equiv (h).In summary, we report the de novo
design of a novel peptide sequence
which when in the presence of a trivalent lanthanide ion and under
the appropriate conditions is programmed to yield a well folded lanthanide-coiled
coil, a model of which has been subjected to 10.0 ns of MD simulations.
Both Tb(III) and Gd(III) coiled coils were investigated, the latter
representing the first example of its kind to be reported. The Tb(III)
complex was studied by luminescence, and the Gd(III) complex has been
shown by MRI to display promising T2 contrast
agent capabilities. Notably Ln(III) binding was achieved using natural
amino acids and was not based on a native Ca(II) binding site. As
a result the designed peptide displayed important selectivity for
Ln(III) over Ca(II). By designing the binding site within the hydrophobic
core we believe we will be able to control water access to the paramagnetic
metal ion in future designs.[11] Work is
currently being undertaken to enhance the Ln(III) binding constant
and to increase the number of first coordination sphere water molecules,
so as to yield complexes with improved relaxation efficiency. Importantly,
this work has, for the first time, investigated the use of an entirely
new class of ligands for Ln(III) ions, with the view to their potential
applications as luminescent probes (Tb) and MRI contrast agents (Gd).
Authors: William C Floyd; Piper J Klemm; Danil E Smiles; Ayano C Kohlgruber; Valérie C Pierre; Justin L Mynar; Jean M J Fréchet; Kenneth N Raymond Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2011-02-04 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: B Sitharaman; K R Kissell; K B Hartman; L A Tran; A Baikalov; I Rusakova; Y Sun; H A Khant; S J Ludtke; W Chiu; S Laus; E Tóth; L Helm; A E Merbach; L J Wilson Journal: Chem Commun (Camb) Date: 2005-07-08 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Albert Kakkis; Derek Gagnon; Julian Esselborn; R David Britt; F Akif Tezcan Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 16.823