Detailed computational and experimental studies reveal the crucial role that hydrophobic interactions play in the self-assembly of small molecule-DNA hybrids (SMDHs) into cyclic nanostructures. In aqueous environments, the distribution of the cyclic structures (dimers or higher-order structures) greatly depends on how well the hydrophobic surfaces of the organic cores in these nanostructures are minimized. Specifically, when the cores are attached to the 3'-ends of the DNA component strands, they can insert into the minor groove of the duplex that forms upon self-assembly, favoring the formation of cyclic dimers. However, when the cores are attached to the 5'-ends of the DNA component strands, such insertion is hindered, leading to the formation of higher-order cyclic structures. These computational insights are supported by experimental results that show clear differences in product distributions and stabilities for a broad range of organic core-linked DNA hybrids with different linkage directions and flexibilities.
Detailed computational and experimental studies reveal the crucial role that hydrophobic interactions play in the self-assembly of small molecule-DNA hybrids (SMDHs) into cyclic nanostructures. In aqueous environments, the distribution of the cyclic structures (dimers or higher-order structures) greatly depends on how well the hydrophobic surfaces of the organic cores in these nanostructures are minimized. Specifically, when the cores are attached to the 3'-ends of the DNA component strands, they can insert into the minor groove of the duplex that forms upon self-assembly, favoring the formation of cyclic dimers. However, when the cores are attached to the 5'-ends of the DNA component strands, such insertion is hindered, leading to the formation of higher-order cyclic structures. These computational insights are supported by experimental results that show clear differences in product distributions and stabilities for a broad range of organic core-linked DNA hybrids with different linkage directions and flexibilities.
Recently,
a new class of hybrid materials has been generated by
attaching DNA to organic molecules,[1−11] polymers,[12−14] metal complexes,[15−21] and nanoparticles.[22,23] Some of the resulting 2D[24−26] and 3D[27−30] nanostructures have been used in DNA detection[31−33] and electronic
applications;[34−38] other applications such as drug delivery and therapeutics are emerging.
A key factor that enables these applications is the degree of structural
control available when DNA are linked to other molecules. Types of
linkers and linkage direction are crucial for providing the desired
control on product distributions of the assemblies and their stability.[39−41]Recent investigations into the self-assembly of small molecule-DNA
hybrids in aqueous media have demonstrated that the structures of
these assemblies are dictated by several factors, including the number
of single-strand (ss) DNAs attached to the organic cores, the specific
geometry and concentration of the DNA strands, and the type (Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, etc.) and
concentration of ions used in aqueous media. We additionally showed
that the hydrophobic properties of organic cores is an important parameter
to be considered in the self-assembly of the small-molecule-DNA hybrids
(SMDHs).[39] Indeed, Richert and co-workers
have utilized the hydrophobic properties of stilbenes and anthraquinones
linked to DNA duplexes to stabilize small-duplex DNA-detection probes.[42,43] In a related study, Bergstrom and co-workers end-capped small DNA
hairpins with rigid, hydrophobic organic molecules to afford enhanced
stability.[44] Moreover, perylenedimide (PDI)-DNA
hybrids have been found to form stable hairpin dimers[45] and larger supramolecular oligomers due to the hydrophobicity
of the PDI cores, which leads to PDI–PDI stacking via π–π
interactions.[2,4]Despite emerging evidences
concerning the critical importance of
the hydrophobic interactions between organic cores and DNA duplexes
in organic-DNA hybrids, the factors that give rise to these interactions
are not well understood. Specifically, the effects of linking hydrophobic
organic cores to DNA strands through either 3′- or 5′-ends
are still not known although it is clear that such different linkages
will lead to different types of hydrophobic interactions—such
as insertion into the minor groove, intercalation, and π–π
stacking—in the self-assembly of the small molecule-DNA building
blocks into DNA-hybrid nanostructures. Probing these interactions
experimentally is a challenging task, so we decided to combine experimental
studies with molecular dynamics (MD) simulations at the atomistic
level with the goal of unraveling the assembly of two complementary
SMDHs into a cyclic dimer, the simplest DNA-hybrid nanostructure possible.
With the continuous improvements in computer technology, utilization
of computational methods and tools to describe self-assembly is gaining
popularity. While there are different methods available to describe
the properties of nucleic acid systems such as melting, mechanical
properties, and conformations[46−49] using coarse-grain simulations,[46,47] the atomistic details of these systems at long time scales can best
be described using atom-based force fields, such as AMBER[50−52] and CHARMM.[53,54]Previously, we reported
the remarkable effects of hydrophobic organic
cores in the assembly of small-molecule DNA hybrids (SMDHs) into caged
structures.[39] Our experimental results
and computational simulations showed that the final nanostructures
assemble in aqueous environments in a manner that minimizes exposure
of the hydrophobic surfaces of the organic cores to solvent. These
hydrophobic interactions are greatly influenced by the incorporation
of multiple noncomplementary deoxythymidine (T) spacers between the
core and the DNA duplex, as the solvent-accessible surface area (SASA)
of the hydrophobic cores is greatly reduced when these spacers are
wrapped around the cores. Soon after our report, Sleiman and co-workers
published a broad study on the self-assembly of cyclic nanostructures
made from SMDH2 building blocks.[40,41] They showed that while the small molecule-DNA hybrid derived from
the flexible organic core 1 (fSMDH2) assembled
exclusively into cyclic dimers, that derived from the rigid organic
core 2 (SMDH2) assembled into a mixture of
dimers and higher-order (tetramer, hexamer, etc.) cyclic nanostructures
(Figure 1). They proposed that the presence
of rigid cores at either the 3′- or 5′-ends of DNA duplexes
constrains the ways in which these duplexes can assemble and affects
the distributions of the final products (dimer, tetramer, hexamer,
etc.).
Figure 1
Schematic descriptions of the assembly of cyclic nanostructures
(dimer, tetramer, hexamer) from SMDH2 building blocks containing
organic cores described by the Sleiman group[40] (1, flexible; 2, rigid) and us (3, partially rigid).
Schematic descriptions of the assembly of cyclic nanostructures
(dimer, tetramer, hexamer) from SMDH2 building blocks containing
organic cores described by the Sleiman group[40] (1, flexible; 2, rigid) and us (3, partially rigid).To explain why cyclic dimers are preferred in the case of
core 1, Sleiman and co-workers invoked a “strand-end
alignment”
model that focuses only on the importance of duplex alignment; once
the DNA duplexes are ideally aligned by the first rigid core, dimers
can form if the other ends of these duplexes are properly aligned
to accommodate the second rigid core.[40,41] The orientation
of the ends of the DNA duplexes was defined as either convergent (i.e.,
can accommodate the second rigid core) or divergent (i.e., cannot
accommodate the second rigid core). While this assumption appears
to be a reasonable one, it was based on two cores that are quite different:
one (1) that is flexible and moderately hydrophilic and
the other (2) that is quite rigid and very hydrophobic.
We suspect that a model built upon two such different cores may not
accurately reflect the assembly process of SMDH2, particularly
when the hydrophobic nature of the organic cores can force them to
interact very strongly with the bases of the DNA component strands
as well as with stacked base-pairs of the assembled duplexes in aqueous
environments. Furthermore, the magnitude of this hydrophobic interaction
would be strongly modulated by the flexibility of the connection points
between the cores and the DNA component strands. Indeed, we have observed
for the SMDH3 system[39] that
when there is not enough flexibility at the connection points, the
drive to minimize exposure of the hydrophobic organic cores to water
can sometime become so overwhelming that the system will destabilize
some of the DNA base pairings in the assembled duplex arms. These
observations prompted us to explore the assembly of SMDH2 further using the core 3, which is hydrophobic but
much more flexible than 2.Herein, we present a
detailed computational study, supported by
experimental results, which suggests that both the hydrophobic nature
and the flexibility of the organic core play very important roles
in the self-assembly of SMDH2s into cyclic dimers and higher-order
nanostructures. While duplex alignment may be important, the interactions
between the cores and the DNA duplexes to minimize their SASA comprise
a dominant force that cannot be ignored, especially when there is
restricted flexibility. Indeed for cyclic dimers involving core 3, when the cores are attached to the 3′-ends of the
DNA component strands, they prefer to insert into the minor groove
of the DNA duplexes in the product dimers to minimize their SASA.
In contrast when cores such as 3 are attached to the
5′-ends of the DNA component strands, they can only partially
insert themselves into the minor groove of the DNA duplexes in the
product dimers, resulting in much less stable cyclic dimers. Consistent
with these insights, SMDH2 building blocks containing cores
linked to 3′-ends of the DNA duplexes were found to yield higher
percentages of cyclic dimers compared to that obtained from 5′-linked
SMDH2s. The important roles that such hydrophobic interactions
play in SMDH2 assembly is further supported by the enhanced
thermodynamic stability of face-to-face (ff) dimers over analogous
cyclic dimers; the former benefits from strong interactions between
two overlapping hydrophobic cores.
Methods
Experimental
Details
Synthesis of unsymmetric SMDH2s was achieved
by adding the phosphoramidite core[55] (Scheme
S1 in the Supporting
Information) to the initial DNA arm grown from the surface
of a controlled porosity glass bead (CPG) from either the 3′-
or 5′-end of the DNA strand, followed by synthesis of the second
arm via either 3′-normal or 5′-reverse phosphoramidite
chemistry (Scheme S2 in the Supporting Information).[8] The final DMT-protected products were
then cleaved from the solid support, purified by reverse-phase (RP)
high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and subjected to DMT
deprotection to yield the desired SMDH2s (Table 1). The purities of all SMDH2s were ascertained
via analytical RP-HPLC and their length and base compositions were
confirmed via MALDI-ToF mass spectrometry (see Figures S1–S14
in the Supporting Information). Building
blocks (SMDH2s, Table 1) containing
two different strands (one of the strands is the reverse sequence
of the other to maintain similar thermal properties) were designed
to control the formation of cyclic (Figure 1) versus ff SMDH2 (Figure S15 in the Supporting Information) nanostructures, depending on the orientation
of the linkage between the core and the DNA strands. The SMDH2 assemblies and their controls (Table 2) were prepared by combining equimolar amounts of two complementary
components (Table 1) in TAMg buffer (40 mM
Tris base, 20 mM acetic acid, 7.5 mM MgCl2·6H2O) and annealing the resulting mixtures using both normal
and slow-cooling methods (see Section S3 in the Supporting Information for more details).
Table 1
List of the SMDH2 Oligonucleotides
Used in This Work
#
full name
short name
1
3′-X-5′-C-3′-Y-5′
[5′-C-3′]
2
3′-X′-5′-C-3′-Y′-5′
[5′-C-3′]′
3
3′-X-5′-C-5′-Y-3′
[5′-C-5′]
4
3′-X′-5′-C-5′-Y′-3′
[5′-C-5′]′
5
5′-X-3′-C-3′-Y-5′
[3′-C-3′]
6
5′-X′-3′-C-3′-Y′-5′
[3′-C-3′]′
7
3′-X-5′-T3CT3-3′-Y-5′
[5′-T3CT3-3′]
8
3′-X′-5′-T3CT3-3′-Y′-5′
[5′-T3CT3-3′]′
9
3′-X-5′-T6-3′-Y-5′
[5′-T6-3′]
10
3′-X′-5′-T6-3′-Y′-5′
[5′-T6-3′]′
11
3′-X-5′-T6-5′-Y-3′
[5′-T6-5′]
12
3′-X′-5′-T6-5′-Y′-3′
[5′-T6-5′]′
13
3′-X-5′-T3-3′-Y-5′
[5′-T3-3′]
14
3′-X′-5′-T3-3′-Y′-5′
[5′-T3-3′]′
Sequence X: 3′-ATC CTT ATC AAT ATT-5′
Sequence X′: 5′-TAG GAA TAG TTA TAA-3′
Sequence Y: 3′-TTA
TAA CTA TTC CTA-5′
Sequence Y′: 5′-AAT ATT GAT
AAG GAT-3′
To maintain similar thermal properties, sequence X is the reverse
of Y and sequence X′ is the reverse of Y′.
Table 2
List of SMDH2 Assemblies
Used in This Work, Including Cyclic and ff Structures and the Appropriate
Controls
#
componentsa
short name
1
3′-X-5′-C-3′-Y-5′
cyclic-[5′-C-3′]:[5′-C-3′]′
3′-X′-5′-C-3′-Y′-5′
2
3′-X-5′-C-5′-Y-3′
cyclic-[5′-C-5′]:[5′-C-5′]′
3′-X′-5′-C-5′-Y′-3′
3
5′-X-3′-C-3′-Y-5′
cyclic-[3′-C-3′]:[3′-C-3′]′
5′-X′-3′-C-3′-Y′-5′
4
3′-X-5′-T3CT3-3′-Y-5′
cyclic-[5′-T3CT3-3′]:[5′-T3CT3-3′]′
3′-X′-5′-T3CT3-3′-Y′-5′
5
3′-X-5′-T6-3′-Y-5′
cyclic-[5′-T6-3′]:[5′-T6-3′]′
3′-X′-5′-T6-3′-Y′-5′
6
3′-X-5′-T6-5′-Y-3′
cyclic-[5′-T6-5′]:[5′-T6-5′]′
3′-X′-5′-T6-5′-Y′-3′
7
3′-X-5′-T3-3′-Y-5′
cyclic-[5′-T3-3′]:[5′-T3-3′]′
3′-X′-5′-T3-3′-Y′-5′
8
3′-X-5′-C-3′-Y-5′
cyclic-[5′-C-3′]:[5′-T6-3′]′
3′-X′-5′-T6-3′-Y′-5′
9
3′-X-5′-C-5′-Y-3′
cyclic-[5′-C-5′]:[5′-T6-5′]′
3′-X′-5′-T6-5′-Y′-3′
10
3′-X-5′-C-3′-Y-5′
cyclic-[5′-C-3′]:[5′-T3CT3-3′]′
3′-X′-5′-T3CT3-3′-Y′-5′
11
5′-X-3′-C-3′-Y-5′
ff-[3′-C-3′]:[5′-C-5′]′
3′-X′-5′-C-5′-Y′-3′
12
5′-X-3′-C-3′-Y-5′
ff-[3′-C-3′]:[5′-T6-5′]′
3′-X′-5′-T6-5′-Y′-3′
13
3′-X′-5′, 3′-Y′-5′
control-[5′-C-3′]
3′-X-5′-C-3′-Y-5′
14
3′-X′-5′, 5′-Y′-3′
control-[5′-C-5′]
3′-X-5′-C-5′-Y-3′
15
5′-X′-3′, 3′-Y′-5′
control-[3′-C-3′]
5′-X-3′-C-3′-Y-5′
16
3′-X′-5′, 3′-Y′-5′
control-[5′-T3CT3-3′]
3′-X-5′-T3CT3-3′-Y-5′
Total DNA concentration = 5 μM
in TAMg buffer.
Total DNA concentration = 5 μM
in TAMg buffer.
Computational
Details
AMBER force field parameters
for the organic core were calculated as previously described (Section
S4 in the Supporting Information).[39] The AMBER99 force field[56,57] with revised χ[58] and α/γ[59] torsional parameter sets was used to define
the DNA parameters. All the model DNA systems (with sequences described
in Table 1) were created in B-form using the
nucgen module of AMBER 9.[50] The SMDH2 systems (Table 2, entries 1–5
and 13) were then prepared, where the organic cores were attached
at either 3′- or 5′-ends of the DNA sequences (Section
S5 in the Supporting Information). Most
MD simulations were run in a Generalized Born implicit-solvent model
(GBHCT)[60,61] with 0.3 M salt concentrations.
Unrestrained GB MD simulations were carried for our three different
cyclic dimers (Table 2, entries 1–3)
and the cyclic tetramer and hexamer for one SMDH2 system
(Table 2, entry 1, see Section S6 in the Supporting Information for details). Restrained
GB MD simulations (both normal and annealed) were carried out for
cyclic dimers (Table 2, entries 1–3)
with varying DNA duplex lengths (11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 23 base
pairs) and a model system (used for explicit solvent calculations
that were used to calibrate the GB model) consisting of an 11 bp DNA
duplex with a single organic core attached at either 3′- or
5′-end of the DNA strands (see Section S7 in the Supporting Information). SASA and root-mean-square
deviation (rmsd) analysis for all the MD simulations were performed
according to our previously published work (see Sections S5 in the Supporting Information for details).[39]The implicit-solvent model used in this
study is preferred over explicit-solvent ones due to the large size
of our systems, whose computation would be quite long and expensive
if explicit-solvent models were used. Compared to explicit-solvent
MD simulations, the viscosity in implicit-solvent MD simulations is
low and this accelerates the sampling of MD space. Yet, implicit-solvent
models are less realistic because they employ empirical parameters
to calculate the solvation free energies. To date, implicit-solvent
simulations of proteins are well developed[62,63] while the corresponding simulations of nucleic acids still require
improvements. While GB implicit-solvent simulations of regular DNA
oligomers produce average structures that are in line with explicit-solvent
MD simulations,[64] the formers can distort
the DNA backbone and promote fraying effects at terminal base pairs
that might not be physical. This is one of the shortcomings of implicit-solvent
models and can cause DNA to be more flexible than it actually is.
Indeed, Harris and co-workers showed that the use of implicit solvents
in DNA minicircle topoisomers with varying lengths display structures
that are different from those seen in explicit-solvent simulation,
which can be attributed to DNA flexibility.[65] One of the reasons for this outcome is the neglect of specific interactions
of water molecules with DNA in implicit-solvent models (such as the
“spine of hydration” observed in the minor grooves of
A-tracks). Thus, the improper description of DNA flexibility will
show its effects in exotic systems such as in DNA minicircles[65] and SMDH molecules. As a result, to keep the
DNA structures in their known native B-form, we had to use Watson–Crick
and torsional restraints so that the MD simulations have a physical
meaning. Additionally, explicit-solvent calculations were carried
out on our smallest model system (see Section S7 in the Supporting Information for more details) to verify
the accuracy of the GB calculations with restraints.
Results
and Discussion
Self-Assembly and Characterization of Cyclic
Nanostructures
Combining equimolar amounts of [5′--3′], [5′--5′],
[3′--3′], [5′--3′], [5′--3′], [5′--5′], [5′--3′] with their complements,
[5′--3′]′, [5′--5′]′, [3′--3′]′, [5′--3′]′,
[5′--3′]′, [5′--5′]′,
and [5′--3′]′, respectively, was expected to
result in cyclic structures (Figure 1; see
also Table 2, entries 1–7) as previously
reported.[1,8,40] Our earlier
study showed that systems with core 3 with noncomplementary
T spacers (Table 2, entry 4) exclusively formed
cyclic dimers at low concentrations of ss-DNA (up to 5 μM total
ss-DNA concentration in which each arm’s concentration in the
SMDH2 was calculated separately).[8] However, Sleiman and co-workers recently reported that the rigidity
of the core and the linkage between the core and the DNA strands (3′3′,
5′5′, and 3′5′ orientations; see Figure 1, inset B) directly influence the product distributions:[40] systems with flexible core 1 (Figure 1, inset A) attached to 3′- or 5′-end
of DNA strands mostly formed cyclic dimers, while those with rigid
core 2 (Figure 1, inset A) afforded
a mixture of all cyclic products. Interestingly, PAGE-gel analysis
of the [5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′, [5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′, and [3′--3′]:[3′--3′]′
combinations in our present work revealed a mixture of cyclic structures
(Figure 2) instead of solely cyclic dimers
even though our core 3 can be classified as being overall
flexible with highly flexible (−CH2OCH2CH2O−) arms flanking a rigid 1,3-bis(ethynylphenyl)phenyl
component (Figure 1, inset A).
Figure 2
Nondenaturing PAGE-gel
image (6%) of DNA assemblies with 5 μM
total ss-DNA concentration (gel was prepared in 1× TAMg buffer
(40 mM Tris base, 20 mM acetic acid, 7.5 mM MgCl2·6H2O), and run at 4 °C for 2 h at a 200 V potential). From
left to right: lane 1 = HL5 DNA ladder, lane 2 = cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ (normal annealing), lane 3 = cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ (slow annealing), lane 4 = control-[5′--3′], lane 5 = cyclic-[5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′ (normal annealing), lane 6 = cyclic-[5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′ (slow annealing), lane 7 = control-[5′--5′], lane 8 = cyclic-[3′--3′]:[3′--3′]′ (normal annealing), lane 9 = cyclic-[3′--3′]:[3′--3′]′ (slow annealing), and lane 10 = control-[3′--3′].
Nondenaturing PAGE-gel
image (6%) of DNA assemblies with 5 μM
total ss-DNA concentration (gel was prepared in 1× TAMg buffer
(40 mM Tris base, 20 mM acetic acid, 7.5 mM MgCl2·6H2O), and run at 4 °C for 2 h at a 200 V potential). From
left to right: lane 1 = HL5 DNA ladder, lane 2 = cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ (normal annealing), lane 3 = cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ (slow annealing), lane 4 = control-[5′--3′], lane 5 = cyclic-[5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′ (normal annealing), lane 6 = cyclic-[5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′ (slow annealing), lane 7 = control-[5′--5′], lane 8 = cyclic-[3′--3′]:[3′--3′]′ (normal annealing), lane 9 = cyclic-[3′--3′]:[3′--3′]′ (slow annealing), and lane 10 = control-[3′--3′].According to the strand-end alignment model,[40,41] the flexible arms of our core 3 should be long enough
to accommodate any strain put on the DNA duplexes by the rigid 1,3-bis(ethynylphenyl)phenyl
component, favoring the formation of cyclic dimers. However, this
was not experimentally observed. Rather, exclusive formation of cyclic
dimers is observed when three noncomplementary deoxythymidine spacers
(T3) were added to each side of our core 3 ([5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′),
according to the nondenaturing PAGE-gel analysis (see Figure S17 in
the Supporting Information, lane 9). These
results, however, are in agreement with our previous report, which
concluded that dimer formation is favored when T3 spacers
are available to shield the hydrophobic surfaces of the cores from
the aqueous media.[39]The nondenaturing
PAGE-gel analysis also revealed that there is
a higher percentage of dimer formed for [3′--3′]:[3′--3′]′
compared to the [5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′ and [5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ combination (Figure 2, lanes 8, 5, and 2, respectively). To further probe this
observation and eliminate the possibility that the formation of cyclic
dimers may be affected by the length of the annealing time, we annealed
our SMDH2 systems (Table 2, entries
1–3) with a cooling rate of 0.01 °C/minute in a PCR instrument
in the range of 60–25 °C, which is 34 times slower than
our normal annealing protocol (0.34 °C/minute in the 60–40
°C range (Figure S16 in the Supporting Information), where the complete melting of a mixture of cyclic structures occur).
Analysis of the nondenaturing PAGE-gel image (Figure 2) showed a clear increase in dimer formation for all cases
during slow annealing. Moreover, the cyclic dimer formed in high yield
(79%) for [3′--3′]:[3′--3′]′ in slow annealing, much
higher than the [5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ and [5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′ combinations (43 and 34%, respectively).
The latter afforded the highest percentage of large cyclic structures
(31%, Figure 2, lane 6) in the slow annealing
method compared to the former two (11 and 5%, respectively). Similar
observations were also reported by Sleiman and co-workers for systems
derived from core 2.[40] Cyclic
dimers were formed exclusively in the nondenaturing PAGE-gel analysis
when deoxythymidine linkers (T3 and T6, Table 2, entries 5–7) were used in place of organic
core 3 (see Figure S18 in the Supporting
Information, lanes 3–5).
Molecular Dynamics Simulations
Our previous computational
work showed that hydrophobic interactions between the organic cores
and noncomplementary T spacers in SMDH3 building blocks
play a crucial role in the self-assembly process and the final properties
of SMDH3-based nanostructures.[39] In such structures, the cores “strive” to minimize
their SASA values through interaction with both the T spacer and the
base pairs of the duplexes. When the SASA values were too high for
dimers, other structures with lower SASA become dominant. Nevertheless,
we were surprised to observe that the directionality of the linkage
(3′- or 5′-) between the core and the duplex dramatically
affected the product distributions in the assembly of SMDH2-based nanostructures in the absence of noncomplementary T spacers
(see the discussion of experimental results). As such, we utilized
MD simulations to elucidate the details of the self-assembly process.
Computationally, we began by examining the simpler DNA-hybrid components
that constitute the larger cyclic nanostructures (dimers, tetramers,
hexamers, etc.): (1) organic core 3 attached to either
3′- or 5′-ends of a DNA duplex (Figure 3a); (2) single organic core attached at 3′- and 5′-ends
of two DNA duplexes, control-[5′-C-3′]
(Figure 3b); (3) cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ structures (dimer structure is shown
in Figure 3c; tetramer and hexamer structures
are shown in Figure 1).
Figure 3
Initial
modeling of (a) organic core 3 attached to
a DNA duplex, (b) control-[5′--3′], and (c) cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′
dimer.
Initial
modeling of (a) organic core 3 attached to
a DNA duplex, (b) control-[5′--3′], and (c) cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′
dimer.
MD Simulations of Organic Core 3 Attached
to the 3′-
or 5′-End of a DNA Duplex
The simplest component system,
consisting of the organic core 3 attached to an 11 bp
DNA duplex, allows us to investigate how the organic cores attached
to either 3′- or 5′-ends of DNA duplexes (see Section
S7 in the Supporting Information) interact
with these duplexes in an aqueous environment. An initial set of MD simulations utilized GB implicit solvent models
while Watson–Crick base pairing and torsional restraints were
applied to DNA duplexes to keep them in their native B-form since
GB implicit solvent MD simulations can distort the DNA backbone and
cause fraying at terminal base pairs (see the discussions below concerning
unrestrained and restrained MD simulations and Section S7 in the Supporting Information).[65] After 10 ns of MD simulations, the 3′-linked organic core
is already inserted fully into the DNA minor groove (Figure 4b) while the 5′-linked core is only partially
inserted (Figure 4c). Average SASA values for
the 3′- and 5′-linked organic cores are 153.7 ±
19.6 and 250.8 ± 18.4 Å2, respectively, and remain
constant over the course of the simulation time (55 ns, Figure 4a). Because the 3′-ends of DNA duplexes are
spatially closer to the minor grooves compared to 5′-ends,
it is easier for a 3′-linked organic core to be fully inserted
into the DNA minor groove. On the other hand, the 5′-linked
organic core needs to stretch over the terminal base pairs before
it can reach DNA minor grooves; so it is only partially inserted,
has a much larger SASA value, and is less stable in aqueous solution.
These results suggest that the differences in the distribution of
cyclic nanostructures, as observed in the PAGE-gel experiments (Figure 2, lanes 6 versus 9), can be rationalized by how
well organic cores are inserted in DNA minor grooves to minimize exposure
to the aqueous outside environment.
Figure 4
MD simulation
results for 3′- and 5′-linked core-DNA
duplex systems. (a) SASA values of hydrophobic cores attached at 3′-
(black) and 5′-ends (red) of DNA duplexes over the course of
the simulation. Final structures of 3′- and 5′-linked 3-DNA hybrids are shown in (b,c), respectively. The 3′-linked
core is fully inserted into DNA minor groove compared to the 5′-linked
core (see Figure S22 in the Supporting Information).
To calibrate the stabilities
of these restrained GB-based structures, we also performed explicit-solvent
calculations for the same model. In these calculations, each final
conformation from the GB calculations was solvated with Na+/Cl– ions and water molecules and the imposed restraints
were removed on the DNA duplexes (see Section S7 in the Supporting Information for more details). The
simulations show that the 3′-linked organic core stays in the
DNA minor groove while the global DNA conformation remains in B-form
(Figure S22 in the Supporting Information). It is also found that the organic core in the 5′-linked
core-DNA system is dynamic and does not stay in the DNA minor groove
for a long time. The terminal base pair is broken, and the organic
core stacks within the bases of the distorted terminal side (Figure
S22 in the Supporting Information). This
clearly shows that DNA minor groove insertion is a viable option for
3′-linked organic cores to lower their SASA without distorting
the DNA. This is not the case in 5′-linked core-DNA systems,
where the only option for organic cores to lower their SASA is through
stacking within terminal bases after disrupting the canonical base
pairing. These results indicate that the restrained implicit-solvent
MD simulations exhibit similar behavior for the hydrophobic organic
cores to the explicit-solvent MD simulations without restraints.MD simulation
results for 3′- and 5′-linked core-DNA
duplex systems. (a) SASA values of hydrophobic cores attached at 3′-
(black) and 5′-ends (red) of DNA duplexes over the course of
the simulation. Final structures of 3′- and 5′-linked 3-DNA hybrids are shown in (b,c), respectively. The 3′-linked
core is fully inserted into DNA minor groove compared to the 5′-linked
core (see Figure S22 in the Supporting Information).
MD Simulations of Organic
Core 3 Attached at 3′- and
5′-Ends of Two DNA Duplexes
We next examined the control-[5′--3′] system (Figure 3b) to evaluate potential interactions between organic core 3 and the two DNA duplex arms that are linked to it. After
96 ns, restrained implicit-solvent MD simulations showed that the
organic core already minimized its SASA by inserting itself within
the minor groove of one DNA duplex and “stacking” with
the terminal DNA base pairs of the other duplex (Figure 5; see also Movie S1
in the Supporting Information). As a result,
the control-[5′--3′]
system forms an almost continuous 30 bp DNA duplex with a single core
stacked in the middle.
Figure 5
Molecular surface representations of initial (top) and
final (below,
after 96 ns) structures of the control-[5′--3′] system obtained from MD simulations. The organic
core 3 is shown in green color. The two 15 bp DNA duplexes
are brought together by the hydrophobic nature of 3.
Two MD simulations were carried out; see Movie S1 in the Supporting Information for further details.
Molecular surface representations of initial (top) and
final (below,
after 96 ns) structures of the control-[5′--3′] system obtained from MD simulations. The organic
core 3 is shown in green color. The two 15 bp DNA duplexes
are brought together by the hydrophobic nature of 3.
Two MD simulations were carried out; see Movie S1 in the Supporting Information for further details.
Unrestrained MD Simulations
of Cyclic Nanostructures
As we have shown in previous MD
simulations,[39] the hydrophobic nature of
core 3 forces it to minimize
its exposed surfaces in an aqueous environment through interactions
with the DNA duplexes. To simulate the cyclic nanostructures that
may form in an experiment, we carried out implicit-solvent MD simulations
(this is a more feasible option compared to expensive explicit-solvent
MD simulations for these large systems; see detailed discussion in
Section S7 in the Supporting Information) for all possible combinations of cyclic dimers (Figure 6) as well as tetramer and hexamer structures (Figures 7a-b) for the [5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′
system without any restraints on DNA duplexes (see Section S6 in the Supporting Information for more details). A SASA
analysis of the cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ dimer, tetramer, and hexamer
systems shows that the organic cores 3 in these structures
can lower their SASA better in higher-order structures (Table 3, entries 1–3). While the average SASA value
of the cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ dimer is 200 Å2, it is reduced to 134 Å2 in the tetramer
and 122 Å2 in the hexamer (Table 3). In the cyclic dimer, the organic cores cannot lower their
SASA as much due to strain. As shown above for the 3′-linked
core model system, the organic cores in cyclic dimers can minimize
their SASAs through interactions with the DNA minor grooves, which
severely distort the two DNA arms (Figure 6). On the other hand, the organic cores in the tetramer and hexamer
have additional means to minimize their SASAs (Figures 7c–f), such as “stacking” with the terminal
base pairs of the adjacent DNA duplex, as shown for the control-[5′--3′] system (Figure 5).
Figure 6
Schematic representations of initial (top) and lowest SASA (below)
cyclic-dimer structures after 91 ns MD simulations. Residues colored
with blue are deoxythymidine (T) linkers. Note that due to the flexible
T linkers, DNA deformations in (d,e) are not severe compared to (a–c)
(see Table S2 in the Supporting Information).
Figure 7
Molecular surface representations of the initial
(left) and final
(middle) structures of the cyclic tetramer (a) and hexamer (b) formed
from the [5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ system (see Figures S20
and S21 in the Supporting Information).
The organic cores 3 are represented in green color and
are shown interacting with neighboring DNA duplexes in different manners:
(c) being sandwiched between neighboring DNA duplexes via π-stacking,
(d) fully inserting into the minor groove, (e) inserting into the
minor groove in a distorted manner, and (f) π-stacking with
distorted terminal base pairs of neighboring DNA duplexes (the DNA
distortions are not as severe in comparison to that observed in the
cyclic-dimer structures shown in Figure 6).
Table 3
RMSD, SASA, and H-Bond
Analysis of
Unrestrained MD Simulations for Cyclic-Dimer, -Tetramer, and -Hexamer
Systemsa
entry
components
structure
duplex
rmsd
(Å)
SASA (Å2 per
core)
% loss of
H-bonds
1
[5′-C-3′]:[5′-C-3′]′
hexamer
6.63
122.21
% 17
2
[5′-C-3′]:[5′-C-3′]′
tetramer
6.50
133.79
% 22
3
[5′-C-3′]:[5′-C-3′]′
dimer
6.82
200.39
% 24
4
[3′-C-3′]:[3′-C-3′]′
dimer
6.64
163.56
% 22
5
[5′-C-5′]:[5′-C-5′]′
dimer
5.88
140.37
% 31
6
[5′-T3CT3-3′]:[5′-T3CT3-3′]′
dimer
5.37
118.90
% 5
7
[5′-T6-3′]:[5′-T6-3′]′
dimer
5.89
% 9
One MD simulation was carried
out for each of the hexamer and tetramer; four independent MD simulations
were carried out for cyclic-dimer systems but only the lowest rmsd
results are shown (see Section S6 in the Supporting
Information for more details).
Schematic representations of initial (top) and lowest SASA (below)
cyclic-dimer structures after 91 ns MD simulations. Residues colored
with blue are deoxythymidine (T) linkers. Note that due to the flexible
T linkers, DNA deformations in (d,e) are not severe compared to (a–c)
(see Table S2 in the Supporting Information).Molecular surface representations of the initial
(left) and final
(middle) structures of the cyclic tetramer (a) and hexamer (b) formed
from the [5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ system (see Figures S20
and S21 in the Supporting Information).
The organic cores 3 are represented in green color and
are shown interacting with neighboring DNA duplexes in different manners:
(c) being sandwiched between neighboring DNA duplexes via π-stacking,
(d) fully inserting into the minor groove, (e) inserting into the
minor groove in a distorted manner, and (f) π-stacking with
distorted terminal base pairs of neighboring DNA duplexes (the DNA
distortions are not as severe in comparison to that observed in the
cyclic-dimer structures shown in Figure 6).Interestingly, MD simulations
of the cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ dimer
structure show average SASA values around ∼119 Å2 (Table 3). The rmsd’s of the DNA duplexes
are lower than those for the other cyclic-dimer systems that have
only organic cores 3, implying that introducing T3 spacers provides additional flexibility that helps to minimize
the SASAs of the cores without distorting the DNA duplexes (Table 3 and Figure 6d). Consistently,
the percentage of hydrogen bond loss in the cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ dimer
is only 5% while those for the cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′,
cyclic-[3′--3′]:[3′--3′]′, and cyclic-[5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′ dimers are over 20% (Table 3). These results are in line with our previous work[39] and PAGE-gel experiments, which show exclusive
formation of dimer structures in cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ (see Figure S17 in the Supporting Information, lane 9). In the absence of the organic
cores 3, exclusive cyclic dimer formation was observed
for [5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′, [5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′, and [5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ (see Figure S17
in the Supporting Information, lanes 3–5).
Similarly, the MD simulations show no major DNA distortions in [5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′, with ∼9%
hydrogen bond loss (Table 3 and Figure 6e).One MD simulation was carried
out for each of the hexamer and tetramer; four independent MD simulations
were carried out for cyclic-dimer systems but only the lowest rmsd
results are shown (see Section S6 in the Supporting
Information for more details).
Restrained MD Simulations of Cyclic Dimer
Nanostructures
In the unrestrained MD simulations of the
cyclic dimers discussed
above, the DNA duplexes can be easily distorted due to the conformational
stress put on by the organic cores while trying to minimize their
SASAs (Figures 6a–c). One consequence
of this is excessive fraying of the terminal base pairs in the DNA
duplex arms of the dimers (Figures 6a–c),
making it difficult to evaluate their relative stabilities. Thus,
restrained MD simulations (see detailed discussion in Section S7 of
the Supporting Information) were carried
out where the DNA duplex arms of the dimers were constrained in B-form
while their lengths were varied over one helix turn (11, 13, 15, 17,
19, 21, and 23 bp, see Section S7 in the Supporting
Information for more details). On average, the total SASA values
of the organic cores in the [3′--3′]:[3′--3′]′
systems are lower than those for the [5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′
and [5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′ systems (see Figure S23
and Table S3 in the Supporting Information), suggesting that the manner in which the cores are attached to
the DNA duplexes does matter.
Simulated Annealing of
Cyclic Dimer Nanostructures
While constraining the DNA duplex
arms gave us a starting point to
compare the three different dimer systems via MD simulations, these
structures may be trapped in local minima and do not accurately reflect
the energy landscape of the system. Thus, we performed simulated annealing
on all of the 21 SMDH2 dimers shown in Table S4 in the Supporting Information (see also Section S8 in
the Supporting Information). While the
DNA structures were kept in B-form conformations with Watson–Crick,
torsional, and chirality restraints, the temperature of each system
was increased to 3000 K and gradually cooled down to 100 K. For each
system, 301 simulated annealing MD simulations were run sequentially
where the starting structure for each run was taken from the final
structure of the previous run. This way, each system was allowed to
move away from any potential minimum state and sample other regions
in phase space. For each dimer, SASA values of the organic cores were
calculated from the simulated annealing MD simulations for structures
having final restraint energies and duplex rmsd values less than 10
kcal/mol and 10 Å, respectively. Within these structures, SASA
values that are uniformly lower than those obtained for the restrained
MD simulations shown earlier can be obtained for each cyclic dimer
(see data in Table S3 in Supporting Information and Figure 8; see also Figures S23 and S24
in the Supporting Information), suggesting
that simulated annealing offers a more self-consistent basis for comparing
the dimers.
Figure 8
SASA values
of the organic cores in SMDH2 cyclic dimers
as a function of DNA length. The black, red, and green trends represent
the results for [3′--3′]:[3′--3′]′, [5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′, and [5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′,
respectively, where the lowest SASA values for the organic cores were
extracted from simulated annealing MD simulations with final restraint
energies and duplex rmsd values less than 10 kcal/mol and 10 Å,
respectively.
As discussed above, implicit-solvent simulations
of SMDH2 can yield unphysical structures if no restraints
are imposed on DNA to keep them in their native B-form conformation.
To see the effects of removal of restraints imposed on DNA duplexes
in these cyclic dimers, the lowest SASA structures were simulated
for over 125 ns without restraints. As expected and similar to the
results shown in Figure 6, the DNA duplexes
are distorted from the B-form conformation (Table S5 in the Supporting Information). In some cases, one of
the DNA duplexes in these cyclic dimers is fully unfolded (see Table
S5 in the Supporting Information, bp_17
[5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′). Furthermore, the % of
hydrogen bonds lost increased with the size of the duplex while the
SASA of the organic cores decreased suggesting that DNA duplexes are
more flexible than they actually are (Table S5 in the Supporting Information). Therefore, to study
these types of large DNA-hybrid systems with the current implicit-solvent
models one is required to impose restraints on DNA structures to keep
them in B-form conformation so that results have physical meaning.SASA values
of the organic cores in SMDH2 cyclic dimers
as a function of DNA length. The black, red, and green trends represent
the results for [3′--3′]:[3′--3′]′, [5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′, and [5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′,
respectively, where the lowest SASA values for the organic cores were
extracted from simulated annealing MD simulations with final restraint
energies and duplex rmsd values less than 10 kcal/mol and 10 Å,
respectively.As shown in Figure 8, there is a clear overall
trend, which shows that the dimers with organic cores linked at the
3′-ends of the DNA strands (cyclic-[3′--3′]:[3′--3′]′) are much better at minimizing the SASAs of their
organic cores than the other two dimer systems. There is a higher
chance for the organic cores 3 to be inserted into the
minor grooves of the flanking DNA duplex in cyclic-[3′--3′]:[3′--3′]′. As a result, organic cores can lower
their SASAs more significantly in these systems than would be possible
for the cores in the cyclic-[5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′
systems, which prevent full minor groove insertion of organic cores.
For the [5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ cyclic dimer, where the
organic cores are linked at both 5′- and 3′-ends of
the DNA strands, the cores can be inserted into the minor groove only
if the DNA orientations are favorable. Not surprisingly, the SASA
values for this system lie in the middle of the other two. (For a
more detailed discussion of this system, please see Section S8 in
the Supporting Information)One interesting
result shown in Figure 8 is the nonmonotonic
behavior observed around base pair lengths 11
and 21. This phenomenon could be due to the DNA helical turn, which
is approximately 10 base pairs, suggesting a real connection to the
physical system. The SASA of organic cores in the 11 base paired cyclic-[5′-C-3′]:[5′-C-3′]′
system is lower than the cyclic-[3′-C-3′]:[3′-C-3′]′
system. After adding 10 base pairs to the DNA sequences, which results
in DNA duplexes with 21 base pairs, a similar result was observed
(Figure S8 and Table S24 in the Supporting Information). In cyclic-[5′-C-3′]:[5′-C-3′]′
systems with 11 and 21 DNA base pairs the organic cores almost fully
insert themselves into the DNA minor grooves, which provides an explanation
for the nonmonotonic behavior observed in these DNA sequences (Figure
S23 in the Supporting Information). Note
that no such behavior has been observed in cyclic-[5′-C-5′]:[5′-C-5′]′
systems (green curve in Figure 8).
Comparison
of Theory and Experiment
The idea that the
hydrophobic organic cores 3 in SMDH2 cyclic
dimers can be stabilized in aqueous solutions by inserting into the
minor groove can be used to explain the results that we reported above
for the slow-cooling experiments of 15 bp SMDH2 systems
(Figure 2). In that experiment, the percentage
of cyclic dimers formed in [3′--3′]:[3′--3′]′
is 79%, much higher than those observed for [5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ and [5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′
(43 and 34%, respectively; see Figure 2, lanes
3, 6, and 9). This trend closely follows the simulated
annealing MD simulation results described in Figure 8: a higher proportion of dimers can form when the cores are
linked to both 3′-ends of the DNAs because the cores can be
better stabilized by inserting into the minor grooves of the two DNA
arms. In other SMDH2 systems where the cores are linked
to 5′-ends of DNAs, other higher-order structures are formed
because there is no predominant stabilization mechanism for the core
in the dimer structures.
Synthesis and Characterization
of Cyclic Structures with Mixed
Cores
To further test the insights obtained from our MD calculations,
we designed an SMDH system where one side of the cyclic dimer had
the organic core 3 and the other side had flexible linkers
such as T3--T3 and T6 (Table 2, entries 8–10).
These systems would also allow us to assess the relative importance
of minimizing hydrophobicity versus strand-end alignment. If strand-end
alignment is of primary importance, cyclic dimers would form predominantly
if one of the linkage sites is flexible (i.e., with T3--T3 or T6 linkers) enough
to alleviate the strain resulting from the rigid core on the other
side. However, as shown in Figure 9, the nondenaturing
PAGE-gel analyses for [5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′, [5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′, and [5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ systems,
both normal and slow-annealing, all afforded a mixture of dimers,
tetramers, and hexamers.
Figure 9
Nondenaturing
PAGE-gel image (6%) of DNA assemblies from an SMDH
component possessing the organic core 3 and the complementary
SMDH component possessing a flexible linker (either T3--T3 or T6) with 5 μM
total ss-DNA concentration. (Gel was prepared in 1× TAMg buffer
(40 mM Tris base, 20 mM acetic acid, 7.5 mM MgCl2·6H2O), and run at 4 °C for 2 h under a 200 V field). From
left to right: lane 1 = HL5 DNA ladder, lane 2 = cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′
(normal annealing), lane 3 = cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ (slow annealing),
lane 4 = cyclic-[5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′ (normal annealing), lane 5 = cyclic-[5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′
(slow annealing), lane 6 = cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ (normal
annealing), lane 7 = cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ (slow annealing).
That all six experiments shown in Figure 9 formed a mixture of products instead of only cyclic
dimers points to the importance of the organic core not having the
freedom to isolate its hydrophobic surface. Moreover, imageJ analysis
of the gel image showed that [5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ gave higher percentages
of cyclic dimer (82% dimer, 14% tetramer, slow cooling, Figure 9, lanes 2 and 3) compared to [5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′
(62% dimer, 29% tetramer, slow cooling, Figure 9, lanes 4 and 5), which is consistent with the 3′-linkage
providing better shielding for the hydrophobic organic cores via minor-groove
insertion. In effect, the better that the organic cores insert into
the minor groove, the larger is the fraction of cyclic dimers formed.
This argument is further supported by the results for [5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′
(Figure 9, lanes 6 and 7), both of which show
higher cyclic dimer formation than [5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′.Nondenaturing
PAGE-gel image (6%) of DNA assemblies from an SMDH
component possessing the organic core 3 and the complementary
SMDH component possessing a flexible linker (either T3--T3 or T6) with 5 μM
total ss-DNA concentration. (Gel was prepared in 1× TAMg buffer
(40 mM Tris base, 20 mM acetic acid, 7.5 mM MgCl2·6H2O), and run at 4 °C for 2 h under a 200 V field). From
left to right: lane 1 = HL5 DNA ladder, lane 2 = cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′
(normal annealing), lane 3 = cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ (slow annealing),
lane 4 = cyclic-[5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′ (normal annealing), lane 5 = cyclic-[5′--5′]:[5′--5′]′
(slow annealing), lane 6 = cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ (normal
annealing), lane 7 = cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ (slow annealing).
Melting Properties of Cyclic
and Face-to-Face (ff) Dimers
The strong hydrophobic interactions
between cores can also be invoked
to explain the exclusive formation of ff dimers in the [3′--3′]:[5′--5′]′ and [3′--3′]:[5′--5′]′ systems
(Table 2, entries 11 and 12; see also Figure
S18 in the Supporting Information, lanes
9 and 10).[66] We attribute this behavior
to the combination of reduced configurational entropy and increased
ion-cloud sharing that occurs when the organic linkages bring the
DNA duplexes into close proximity. Notably, the [3′-C-3′]:[5′-C-5′]′
ff dimer has a much higher thermal stability, as illustrated by its
higher Tm, compared to the cyclic-[5′--3′]:[5′--3′]′ dimer, whose T3 linker is comparable in size to the core (Figure 10). Indeed, the [3′-C-3′]:[5′-C-5′]′
ff dimer is consistently more stable than all the cyclic dimers that
we examined (Tm = 52.4–53 °C,
Table 4, cf entry 10 and entries 7–9).
However, when the linker for one side of the ff dimer was changed
to a flexible T6 ([3′-C-3′]:[5′-T-5′]′), the Tm was decreased by 4.7 °C (Table 4, cf entries 10 and 11).
Figure 10
Melting profiles for
control, cyclic-, and ff-dimer SMDH2 assemblies (5 μM)
in TAMg buffer (40 mM Tris base, 20 mM acetic
acid, 7.5 mM MgCl2·6H2O).
Table 4
Melting Data for Cyclic Dimers, ff
Dimers, and the Controls with 5 μM total DNA Concentration in
TAMg Buffer (40 mM Tris Base, 20 mM Acetic Acid, 7.5 mM MgCl2·6H2O)a
entry
short nameb
Tm (°C)
fwhm (°C)
1
X:X′
49.7 ± 0.1
10.7 ± 0.1
2
control-[5′-C-3′]c
49.9 ± 0.2
8.9 ± 0.1
3
control-[5′-C-5′]
50.4 ± 0.1
8.7 ± 0.1
4
control-[3′-C-3′]
49.6 ± 0.1
8.9 ± 0.1
5
control-[3′-T3CT3-5′]
48.6 ± 0.2
10.0 ± 0.1
6
cyclic-[5′-T3CT3-3′]:[5′-T3CT3-3′]′c
52.6 ± 0.2
7.4 ± 0.1
7
cyclic-[5′-T6-3′]:[5′-T6-3′]′
52.8 ± 0.2
6.7 ± 0.1
8
cyclic-[5′-T6-5′]:[5′-T6-5′]′
53.0 ± 0.1
7.1 ± 0.1
9
cyclic-[5′-T3-3′]:[5′-T3-3′]′
52.4 ± 0.1
7.6 ± 0.1
10
ff-[3′-C-3′]:[5′-C-5′]′c
62.9 ± 0.2
7.3 ± 0.1
11
ff-[3′-C-3′]:[5′-T6-5′]′c
58.2 ± 0.1
7.2 ± 0.1
For accurate
comparison to ff
dimers, only systems that afford cyclic dimers exclusively are listed.
For details, see Tables 1 and 2.
Melting profiles for these systems
are shown in Figure 10.
Melting profiles for
control, cyclic-, and ff-dimer SMDH2 assemblies (5 μM)
in TAMg buffer (40 mM Tris base, 20 mM acetic
acid, 7.5 mM MgCl2·6H2O).For accurate
comparison to ff
dimers, only systems that afford cyclic dimers exclusively are listed.For details, see Tables 1 and 2.Melting profiles for these systems
are shown in Figure 10.The aforementioned results are consistent
with our previous work,[39] indicating that
hydrophobic interactions between
the two organic cores (and that between cores and the DNA duplexes)
can play a major role in determining the thermal properties of the
final hybridized systems. Thus, such hydrophobic interactions must
be taken into account in the consideration of product distributions
in the assembly of organic-linked DNA materials. We note that Sleiman
and co-workers have also observed similar thermal stability enhancements
for ff dimers that are analogous to the one reported herein.[40] However, these Tm increases were only attributed to allosteric and chelate cooperativities
of the DNAs; contributions by hydrophobic interactions were not discussed.
Comparing to the cyclic dimers, the increases in thermal stabilities
for our ff-[3′-C-3′]:[5′-C-5′]′ and ff-[3′-C-3′]:[5′-T-5′]′ dimer systems can be attributed to two factors:
(1) hydrophobic interactions between the cores, and (2) effective
extension of the DNA helix through the organic core/linkers,[67] which was referred by Sleiman and co-workers
as chelate cooperativity.[40] The first effect
is strongly supported by fluorescent studies in similar ff diphenyl
acetylene-[68] and 1,3,5-tris(p-ethynylphenyl)benzene-linked dimer systems.[39] The second factor has been ascribed by Leumann and co-workers as
due to close structural communications between the two linked helical
domains.[67] While chelate cooperativity
may be important, our thermal data clearly point to hydrophobic interactions
between the cores as a major effect.
Conclusions
In
summary, we have elucidated the effect of linking hydrophobic
organic cores to the 3′- and 5′- ends of the DNA components
used in the assembly of SMDH2 materials. MD simulations[39] show that the organic cores of these building
blocks minimize their hydrophobic surfaces by choosing the best stacking
pattern possible when they self-assemble in aqueous media. Computational
results indicate a high correlation between the linkage type (3′
or 5′) and the final SASA of organic cores that can be attributed
to the extent that the cores can insert into the DNA minor grooves
in the duplex arms of the resulting SMDH2. While 3′-linked
organic cores can insert almost perfectly into the minor groove, 5′-linked
cores can only insert partially, resulting in less-stable dimers (i.e.,
with higher SASA). These results can be used to explain why higher
percentages of cyclic dimers form in SMDH2 materials with
3′-linked organic cores in comparison to those with 5′-linked
cores, as observed experimentally for a broad range of structures:
SMDH2 materials with 5′-linked cores are simply
less stable in aqueous media due to the inability of the hydrophobic
cores to insert completely into the minor groove. Inadequate shielding
of the hydrophobic cores then forces these systems to choose other
assembly patterns such as higher-order structures (tetramer, hexamer,
etc.), as shown by nondenaturing PAGE gel analysis.Notably,
the important role that hydrophobic organic cores play
in the assembly of SMDH2 hybrids is strongly supported
by comparing the thermodynamic stability of several ff and cyclic
dimers: ff-dimer systems consistently have Tm’s that are several degrees higher than analogous cyclic
dimers, suggesting that hydrophobic interactions between the cores
as a major factor contributing to stability. Together with the strong
interactions observed between 3′-linked cores and the minor
groove in SMDH2, this result opens up the possibility of
controlling the product distribution in SMDH assembly using the hydrophobic
nature of the organic cores in conjunction with the different linking
modes (3′ and 5′) to DNA strands. Incorporating these
design parameters to the synthesis of small molecule-DNA hybrids should
expand the range of future applications for DNA-based hybrid materials.
Authors: Zeynep Dogan; Ralph Paulini; Jan A Rojas Stütz; Sukunath Narayanan; Clemens Richert Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2004-04-21 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Robert J Macfarlane; Byeongdu Lee; Matthew R Jones; Nadine Harris; George C Schatz; Chad A Mirkin Journal: Science Date: 2011-10-14 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Martin Meng; Carolin Ahlborn; Matthias Bauer; Oliver Plietzsch; Shahid A Soomro; Arunoday Singh; Thierry Muller; Wolfgang Wenzel; Stefan Bräse; Clemens Richert Journal: Chembiochem Date: 2009-05-25 Impact factor: 3.164
Authors: Mahesh Hariharan; Yan Zheng; Hai Long; Tarek A Zeidan; George C Schatz; Josh Vura-Weis; Michael R Wasielewski; Xiaobing Zuo; David M Tiede; Frederick D Lewis Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2009-04-29 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Bong Jin Hong; Ibrahim Eryazici; Reiner Bleher; Ryan V Thaner; Chad A Mirkin; SonBinh T Nguyen Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2015-06-19 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Anastasia A Zamoskovtseva; Victor M Golyshev; Valeria A Kizilova; Georgiy Yu Shevelev; Dmitrii V Pyshnyi; Alexander A Lomzov Journal: RSC Adv Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 3.361