| Literature DB >> 24778717 |
Michał Jewgiński1, Joanna Krzciuk-Gula1, Maciej Makowski2, Rafał Latajka1, Paweł Kafarski1.
Abstract
Structural studies of pentapeptides containing an achiral block, built from two dehydroamino acid residues (Δ(Z)Phe and ΔAla) and two glycines, as well as one chiral L-Val residue were performed using NMR spectroscopy. The key role of the L-Val residue in the generation of the secondary structure of peptides is discussed. The obtained results suggest that the strongest influence on the conformation of peptides arises from a valine residue inserted at the C-terminal position. The most ordered conformation was found for peptide Boc-Gly-ΔAla-Gly-Δ(Z)Phe-Val-OMe (3), which adopts a right-handed helical conformation.Entities:
Keywords: NMR; conformation; dehydroalanine; dehydropeptide; dehydrophenylalanine
Year: 2014 PMID: 24778717 PMCID: PMC3999861 DOI: 10.3762/bjoc.10.58
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Beilstein J Org Chem ISSN: 1860-5397 Impact factor: 2.883
Figure 1Sequences of the investigated dehydropeptides.
Temperature dependence of the chemical shifts of amide protons of the investigated peptides – temperature coefficient dδ/dT [ppb/K].
| peptide | |||||
| HN Val(1) | HN ΔzPhe(2) | HN Gly(3) | HN Gly(4) | HN ΔAla(5) | |
| 14.0 | 6.2 | 11.0 | 11.1 | ||
| HN Gly(1) | HN Val(2) | HN ΔzPhe(3) | HN Gly(4) | HN ΔAla(5) | |
| 11.0 | 7.3 | 9.5 | 6.1 | 7.3 | |
| HN Gly(1) | HN ΔAla(2) | HN Gly(3) | HN ΔzPhe(4) | HN Val(5) | |
| 13.1 | 10.9 | 10.2 | 11.7 | ||
Number of structural constraints used during calculations.
| NOE constraints | ||||
| peptide | Strong | Medium | Weak | 3 |
| 3 | 14 | 10 | 1 | |
| 7 | 13 | 40 | 1 | |
| 7 | 16 | 20 | 1 | |
Average values of dihedral angles [°] obtained on base of XPLOR-NIH calculations.
| Peptide | Size of cluster | Dihedral angle [°] with standard deviation | ||||||||
| φ1 | ψ1 | φ2 | ψ2 | φ3 | ψ3 | φ4 | ψ4 | φ5 | ||
| 15.5% | −88 ± 4 | 19 ± 12 | 79 ± 15 | 69 ± 5 | −91 ± 22 | −8 ± 28 | 112 ± 44 | NE | NE | |
| 13.0% | −79 ± 10 | −15 ± 16 | −59 ± 20 | −76 ± 5 | −70 ± 16 | −27 ± 21 | 123 ± 39 | NE | NE | |
| 25.4% | NE | NE | NE | −63 ± 17 | −35 ± 16 | 79 ± 4 | 77 ± 5 | −3 ± 9 | 43 ± 9 | |
| 22.1% | NE | NE | NE | −72 ± 7 | 132 ± 13 | −76 ± 3 | −64 ± 8 | −9 ± 22 | 20 ± 32 | |
| ~100% | NE | NE | −80 ± 11 | −74 ± 5 | −65 ± 7 | −49 ± 9 | −72 ± 10 | −75 ± 11 | NE | |
NE – Not estimated during cluster analysis.
Figure 2The most stable conformation of peptide 1 proposed based on XPLOR-NIH calculations. Conformation 1a (left), conformation 1b (middle) and a superposition of both conformations (right).
Figure 3Proposal of the most stable conformation of peptide 2 based on XPLOR-NIH calculation. Conformation 2a (left), conformation 2b (middle) and a superposition of both conformation (right).
Figure 4Proposal of the most stable conformation of peptide 3 based on XPLOR-NIH calculations.