Yoann Cote1, Iris W Fu2, Eric T Dobson3, Joshua E Goldberger3, Hung D Nguyen2, Jana K Shen4. 1. The Institute of Genetics and Molecular and Cellular Biology , 67404 Illkirch Cedex, France. 2. Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, The Henry Samueli School of Engineering, University of California , Irvine, California 92697, United States. 3. Department of Chemistry, Ohio State University , Columbus, Ohio 43210, United States. 4. Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland , Baltimore, Maryland 21201, United States.
Abstract
Stimuli-responsive, self-assembling nanomaterials hold a great promise to revolutionize medicine and technology. However, current discovery is slow and often serendipitous. Here we report a multiscale modeling study to elucidate the pH-controlled self-assembly of nanofibers from the peptide amphiphiles, palmitoyl-I-A3E4-NH2. The coarse-grained simulations revealed the formation of random-coil based spherical micelles at strong electrostatic repulsion. However, at weak or no electrostatic repulsion, the micelles merge into a nanofiber driven by the β-sheet formation between the peptide segments. The all-atom constant pH molecular dynamics revealed a cooperative transition between random coil and β-sheet in the pH range 6-7, matching the CD data. Interestingly, although the bulk pKa is more than one unit below the transition pH, consistent with the titration data, the highest pKa's coincide with the transition pH, suggesting that the latter may be tuned by modulating the pKa's of a few solvent-buried Glu side chains. Together, these data offer, to our best knowledge, the first multiresolution and quantitative view of the pH-dependent self-assembly of nanofibers. The novel protocols and insights gained are expected to advance the computer-aided design and discovery of pH-responsive nanomaterials.
Stimuli-responsive, self-assembling nanomaterials hold a great promise to revolutionize medicine and technology. However, current discovery is slow and often serendipitous. Here we report a multiscale modeling study to elucidate the pH-controlled self-assembly of nanofibers from the peptide amphiphiles, palmitoyl-I-A3E4-NH2. The coarse-grained simulations revealed the formation of random-coil based spherical micelles at strong electrostatic repulsion. However, at weak or no electrostatic repulsion, the micelles merge into a nanofiber driven by the β-sheet formation between the peptide segments. The all-atom constant pH molecular dynamics revealed a cooperative transition between random coil and β-sheet in the pH range 6-7, matching the CD data. Interestingly, although the bulk pKa is more than one unit below the transition pH, consistent with the titration data, the highest pKa's coincide with the transition pH, suggesting that the latter may be tuned by modulating the pKa's of a few solvent-buried Glu side chains. Together, these data offer, to our best knowledge, the first multiresolution and quantitative view of the pH-dependent self-assembly of nanofibers. The novel protocols and insights gained are expected to advance the computer-aided design and discovery of pH-responsive nanomaterials.
Peptide amphiphiles (PAs) are peptides
with a terminal group covalently linked to a long hydrophobic chain.
Over the past decade, biocompatible PAs have attracted much attention
as building blocks of nanomaterials due to the ability to self-assemble
into supramolecular structures at specific solution conditions relevant
for biomedical and biotechnological applications (see a recent review[1] and references therein). Using TEM, FTIR, and
other techniques, Stupp and co-workers showed that PAs self-assemble
into nanofibers[2] upon a change in the external
stimuli such as solution pH and ionic concentrations and that the
morphology, surface chemistry, and potential bioactivity of the nanomaterials
can be controlled by the selection of amino acid sequence or the modification
of the alkyl tail.[3] This pioneering work
set the stage for designing PA-based nanomaterials with desired properties
to target specific applications.[4]Of particular interest to us are the PAs that can form nanocarriers
for delivery of therapeutic or imaging agents in response to endogenous
stimuli such as a drop in pH at tumor site.[5] Toward this end, Goldberger and co-workers designed a series of
PAs that can self-assemble into nanofibers when the solution pH is
decreased from the normal physiological condition 7.4 to 6.6, the
mild acidic condition found in the microenvironment of malignant tumor
tissues.[6] The PAs used are the charged
polypeptides palmitoylated at the N-terminus, CH3-(CH2)14CO-NH-X-Ala3-Glu4-CO-NH2, where X is a hydrophobic residue, such as Ile, Phe, Val,
or Tyr, with a varying propensity for β-sheet formation. The
Glu residues are present to allow pH response. CD and TEM experiments
revealed that, at high pH, PAs at low concentrations are in random-coil
states whilePAs at high concentrations form micelles. Goldberger
and co-workers also conducted titration experiments, which showed
that the bulk pKa of the nanofibers remains
at 4.7, while the self-assembly transition pH decreases from 6.6 to
6.0, when Ile is substituted by Tyr. Thus, they concluded that the
transition pH is not dependent on the pKa of the Glu side chains but rather on the β propensity of the
X residue. The transition pH is shifted lower because Tyr has a lower
beta propensity than Ile.[7] Below we will
refer to the sequence of the PA with X being Ile as PA1.In
order to systematically design PAs that can self-assemble into nanomaterials
at specified pH conditions with desired properties, it is desirable
to learn the detailed mechanism of the pH-induced self-assembly process
and to make quantitative prediction of the transition pH. Using the
standard all-atom molecular dynamics (MD) as well as various coarse-grained
Monte Carlo and MD simulations, studies led by Stupp, Ratner, and
de la Cruz groups have provided valuable insights into the structural
and kinetic aspects of the PA self-assembly.[8−11] However, there are two limitations
of these studies. First, the secondary structure change that accompanies
the nanofiber formation cannot be described by the coarse-grained
models used. And importantly, the pH-dependent mechanism of the self-assembly
cannot be studied by the standard all-atom MD simulations.Here
we present a multiscale MD study to elucidate the pH-dependent kinetic
and thermodynamic aspects of the nanofiber self-assembly from the
aforementioned PA synthesized in the Goldberger lab.[6] The kinetic details will be qualitatively mapped out using
discrete molecular dynamics with the Protein Intermediate Resolution
model (PRIME)[12−14] that was originally developed by the Hall group and
recently extended by Nguyen and co-workers (ePRIME).[15] The mechanism of the pH-dependence will be quantitatively
uncovered by studying the unfolding of a tetrameric β-sheet
model using the recently developed all-atom version[16] of the continuous constant pH molecular dynamics (CpHMD)
technique[17,18] with the pH-based replica-exchange protocol.[19] The CG simulations showed that the PAs self-assemble
into micelles, which merge into an elongated nanofiber driven by the
β-sheet formation at low pH conditions. The all-atom CpHMD simulations
revealed a cooperative transition from β-sheet to random coil
and were able to determine the bulk pKa as well as individual pKa’s of
Glu side chains, both of which are in quantitative agreement with
the experiment. Surprisingly, the data showed that the transition
pH is determined by the deprotonation of the central Glu residues.
The combined coarse-grained and all-atom simulation data offer, to
our best knowledge, the first multiresolution and quantitative view
of the pH-dependent mechanism of PA self-assembly.
The self-assembly
process was simulated using the discontinuous molecular dynamics[20] with our newly developed coarse-grained model
ePRIME for the representation of the PA molecule, CH3-(CH2)14CO-Ile-Ala3-Glu4-CO-NH2.[15] ePRIME is an extension of the
original PRIME model, in which each amino acid residue is represented
by four beads, three of which represent the backbone while a single
bead represents the side chain.[12−14] The ePRIME model offers representations
for all 20 amino acid side chains by taking into account size, hydrophobicity,
and charge using well-established experimental data and modeling parameters.[21,22] The discontinuous molecular dynamics (MD) is orders of magnitude
faster than regular molecular dynamics because the forces are modeled
by hard-sphere or square-well potentials. Solvent effect is included
implicitly as a potential of mean force in the energy function. Hydrogen
bonding between the backbone amide and carbonyl groups is represented
by a directionally square-well attraction potential of the magnitude
εHB, which serves as a reference strength for other
types of interactions.The self-assembly simulations were initiated
from a configuration in which 800 PA molecules were randomly placed
in a cubic box with periodic boundary dimensions of 250 Å ×
250 Å × 250 Å. The system contained 42 400 particles
representing a PA concentration of 85 mM. Each simulation was heated
at high temperature (reduce temperature of 5.0) to reach an unbiased
initial configuration and then quickly cooled to the temperature of
interest (reduced temperature of 0.08–0.15), for a constant-temperature
production run until equilibration. To mimic the effect of pH, each
simulation was conducted at an electrostatic repulsion strength of
0%, 200%, 400%, and 600%, relative to that of the hydrogen bond, εE/εHB. Each simulation was
independently repeated ten times to ensure statistical significance.
Quantitative results in this paper are the averages of the last 10%
of simulation data with error bars taken from the standard deviation.
The secondary structures were defined through the implementation of
STRIDE.[23] Here we focused on α-helix,
β-strand or β-sheet, and random coil that also contains
turn. An aggregate is defined if each peptide in a group of PA molecules
has at least two interpeptide hydrogen bonds or four hydrophobic interactions
with a neighboring PA molecule in the same group.
The initial structure of
the tetrameric β-sheet of PA1 was built with PyMOL[24] in which the four PA1peptides were placed in
a well-defined parallel β-sheet conformation with protonated
Glu side chains. The β-sheet was immersed in a cubic box of
4296 water molecules, keeping a minimal distance of 9 Å between
the solute and each face of the box. The system was then subjected
to energy minimization prior to a 100 ns standard molecular dynamics
(MD) run with fixed protonation states using the GROMACS package.[25] The CHARMM C36 force field was used to represent
the proteins,[26] and the modified TIP3P
model was used for water.[27] The MD run
was performed with periodic boundary conditions at constant temperature,
pressure, and fixed protonation states. The temperature was maintained
at 298 K using the Nosé–Hoover thermostat,[28,29] while the pressure was maintained at 1 atm using the Parrinello–Rahman
barostat.[30] The LINCS algorithm[31] was used to constrain all bonds containing hydrogen
atoms, allowing an integration time step of 2 fs. The coordinates
were saved every 2 ps. The particle-mesh-Ewald method[32,33] was used for the calculation of electrostatic interactions, and
a cutoff of 12 Å was used for the calculation of van der Waals
interactions. If not specified, the default setting was used for all
other input parameters.Final snapshots of the PA1 tetramer
were extracted from the above simulations to initiate the all-atom,
pH-based replica-exchange (REX)[16] continuous
constant pH MD (CpHMD)[17,18] using an in-house modified version
of the CHARMM package (c37b1).[34] The same
force fields as in the GROMACS simulations were used. The tetramer
was resolvated in a cubic box filled with 5013 TIP3P water molecules.
Sixteen co-ions were added to level the total charge,[16] while 16 sodium ions were added for neutralizing the system.
No additional salt ions were added to avoid the possible convergence
issue related to the insufficient sampling of salt ions. In the pH-based
REX protocol,[19] 24 replicas were placed
in the range of pH 3–11 with an interval of 0.5 pH units. The
exchange of pH was attempted every 250 steps or 0.5 ps between replicas
adjacent in the pH ladder. Additional replicas were added in order
to achieve an exchange ratio of at least 15% at all pH conditions.
Each pH replica underwent 12 ns molecular dynamics at constant temperature,
pressure, and pH. The temperature was 298 K using the Hoover thermostat,[29] while the pressure was maintained at 1 atm using
the Langevin piston pressure coupling algorithm.[35] The SHAKE algorithm was applied to all the hydrogen bonds
and angles to allowed a time step of 2 fs, and the coordinates were
saved every 0.5 ps. The electrostatic interactions were calculated
using the generalized reaction field method with a cutoff of 14 Å.
The same cutoff distance was used in the calculation of van der Waals
interactions. The REX all-atom CpHMD was repeated once by starting
from a different set of initial velocities.Following our previous
work,[18] the protonated and unprotonated
forms of a titratable side chain are defined as the states with λ
value below 0.1 and above 0.9, respectively. After each replica-exchange
attempt, the λ values of all Glu’s were recorded. The
unprotonated fractions were calculated for individual Glu’s
as well as by taking into account all 16 Glu’s. Fitting the
former data at different the pH values to the generalized Henderson–Hasselbalch
equation gives the microscopic pKa’s,
while fitting the latter data gives the macroscopic or bulk pKa of the β-sheet. The data from the last
2 ns (per replica) was used for analysis and pKa calculations.
Results and Discussion
Kinetic Mechanism of the
Self-Assembly Process
Discrete molecular dynamics with the
ePRIME model[15] was applied to study the
self-assembly process of 800 PA1 molecules (CH3-(CH2)14CO-NH-I-A3-E4-CO-NH2) that were randomly distributed in the simulation box at
the beginning. To mimic the varying degree of ionization of the EEEE-stretch
under different pH conditions, the strength of the electrostatic repulsion
between the peptide segments was varied, relative to that of a hydrogen
bond, i.e., εES/εHB. Driven by hydrophobic
forces, small spherical micelles were quickly formed, burying the
alkyl groups in the interior and exposing the peptide segments on
the surface (Figure 1). However, the next sequence
of kinetic steps was determined by the strength of the electrostatic
repulsion between the EEEE-stretches. When the electrostatic repulsion
is strong, i.e., εE/εHB ≥ 200%, representing the high pH conditions, under
which some or all of the Glu side chains were deprotonated or charged,
the micelles remain in the spherical arrangement with the peptide
segments uniformly distributed along the surface to minimize repulsion
between neighboring EEEE-stretches (Figure 1A).
Figure 1
Snapshots of the self-assembly process of PA1 molecules as a function
of CG simulation time (in reduced time units). (A) A spherical micelle
without β-sheet content is formed at a strong electrostatic
repulsion (200% εHB). (B) A cylindrical nanofiber with β-sheet
content is formed at zero electrostatic repulsion. PA1 molecules are
colored as follows: alkyl tail in red, isoleucine in green, alanine
in blue, and glutamic acid in pink.
Snapshots of the self-assembly process of PA1 molecules as a function
of CG simulation time (in reduced time units). (A) A spherical micelle
without β-sheet content is formed at a strong electrostatic
repulsion (200% εHB). (B) A cylindrical nanofiber with β-sheet
content is formed at zero electrostatic repulsion. PA1 molecules are
colored as follows: alkyl tail in red, isoleucine in green, alanine
in blue, and glutamic acid in pink.By contrast, in the absence of electrostatic repulsion, representing
the low pH conditions, under which the Glu side chains are fully protonated
or neutral, hydrogen bonds started to form between the backbone amide
and carbonyl groups of the adjacent peptide segments, leading to the
formation of β-sheets (Figure 1B). As
a result, the peptide segments on the surface of the micelle were
no longer uniformly distributed, creating segregation that facilitates
the exposure of hydrophobic alkyl groups to the surface. These micelles
subsequently merged at the exposed locations through hydrophobic interactions
between the alkyl groups. Thus, the early stage of the nanofiber self-assembly
was characterized by the sharp increase in the β-sheet content,
which accompanies the highly frequent events of micelle merging. Therefore,
a kinetic mechanism for the formation of nanofibers is deciphered,
involving the following steps: (1) simultaneous formation of multiple
spherical micelles driven by hydrophobic interactions between alkyl
tails and (2) micelle-merging events prompted by the exposure of the
hydrophobic core due to the change in the architecture of the spherical
micelles that ultimately leads to the fabrication of one continuous
rod-shaped nanostructure. The latter supports the notion that β-sheet
promotes fiber formation based on the existing experimental data.[36]
Structural Details of the Self-Assembled
Nanofiber in Agreement with Experiment
The in silico observation
that PA1 molecules self-assemble into spherical micelles and a rod-shaped
nanofiber at conditions of high and low electrostatic repulsion, respectively,
is in agreement with the CD and TEM data of Goldberger lab, which
showed the formation of spherical micelles at high pH and nanofibers
at low pH when the PA concentrations were high (corresponding to the
simulation condition).[6] The in silico observation
of β-sheet formation in the nanofiber and not in the micelles
also agrees with the aforementioned CD data[6] as well as the earlier studies of Stupp and co-workers using FTIR[2] and CD experiments.[4] The rod-shaped nanofiber with exposed peptide segments and buried
alkyl tails observed in the simulation is consistent with the model
proposed by Stupp and co-workers over a decade ago based on cryo-TEM
imaging and staining, which showed PA molecules forming cylindrical
nanofiber with the charged amino acids on the surface and alkyl tails
buried in the core.[2]
Electrostatic
Repulsion Controls the Micelle-to-Nanofiber Transition
Since
the intermolecular electrostatic repulsion between the charged Glu
side chains favors the formation of micelle, while the backbone hydrogen
bonding between peptide segments drives the distortion and subsequent
merging of spherical micelles leading to the formation of nanofiber,
weakening electrostatic repulsion would shift the equilibrium from
micelle to nanofiber. The latter corresponds to a decrease in the
degree of ionization of Glu side chains and therefore mimics the condition
of lowering pH. In fact, the coarse-grained simulations resulted in
a nanofiber when the electrostatic repulsion strength is below 200%
relative to the hydrogen bonding (εES/εHB) (Figure 2A). In the absence of electrostatic
repulsion (all Glu side chains are neutral), the self-assembled nanofiber
contains a β-sheet content of almost 35% (Figure 2A). As the relative electrostatic repulsion strength is at
or above 200%, β-sheet content drops below 5% (Figure 2A). The typical size of a β-sheet in the cylindrical
nanofiber fluctuates between two and four (Figure 2B). The range of β-sheet content observed in our simulation
is in good agreement with the CD data by Stupp and co-workers, who
showed the β-sheet population of IKVAV-bearing PAs to be 25
± 20%.[4] The electrostatic repulsion
strength at the micelle-to-fiber transition for PA1 is lower than
but consistent with that for the palmitoyl-V3A3E3 molecules (εE/εHB ≤ 300–400%) from our previous work,[15] likely due to the fact that the latter sequence
has one fewer charged residue and two extra hydrophobic residues as
compared to PA1.
Figure 2
A. β-sheet content at varying strength of electrostatic
repulsion in the CG simulation. B. Snapshot of a typical β-sheet
in the CG simulation.
A. β-sheet content at varying strength of electrostatic
repulsion in the CG simulation. B. Snapshot of a typical β-sheet
in the CG simulation.
Establishing a Tetrameric β-Sheet Model for the All-Atom CpHMD
Simulations
The coarse-grained simulations have established
the pH-induced β-sheet formation as the hallmark and driving
force for the creation of nanofibers. To understand the details of
the pH-dependent transition between the random coil (as present in
micelle) and β-sheet
(nanofiber), we employed the all-atom continuous constant pH molecular
dynamics (CpHMD) simulations with the pH replica-exchange sampling
protocol. To make the study amenable to the current computational
capability, we focused on the pH-dependent stability of a minimal
β-sheet model comprising four PA1peptides (NH2-IAAAEEEE-CO-NH2), consistent with the observed sheet size in the CG simulation
(Figure 2). The alkyl tails were omitted as
they do not contain ionizable residues and as such do not influence
the pH dependence. The tetramer was prebuilt with four parallel β-strands,
and all Glu were protonated to represent the least electrostatic repulsion,
which is the most favorable condition for the formation of the β-sheet
based nanofiber. The tetramer was then subjected to the standard all-atom
MD simulations with fixed protonation states to verify stability and
establish the starting structure as well as control for the subsequent
pH-dependent simulations. Indeed, within 100 ns, the PA1 tetramer
remained stable with a well-defined β-sheet along the Glu sequences.
A snapshot for the tetramer is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3
Snapshot of the PA1 tetramer obtained from the 100 ns standard MD
simulation with all Glu side chains fully protonated. Two views (related
by a 180° rotation) are presented. The Glu side chains are highlighted
in blue stick representation. The shade of blue (white to blue) corresponds
to the pKa value (0 to 8). The pKa values are extracted from an explicit-solvent
CpHMD simulation (see Figure 5).
Snapshot of the PA1 tetramer obtained from the 100 ns standard MD
simulation with all Glu side chains fully protonated. Two views (related
by a 180° rotation) are presented. The Glu side chains are highlighted
in blue stick representation. The shade of blue (white to blue) corresponds
to the pKa value (0 to 8). The pKa values are extracted from an explicit-solvent
CpHMD simulation (see Figure 5).
Figure 5
Titration of
Glu residues in the PA1 tetrameric β-sheet. (a) Calculated pKa values of the individual Glu side chains.
The black dashed line indicates an average pKa of 5.4. (b) The unprotonated fraction averaged over all the
Glu’s of the PA1 tetramer as a function of pH. The curve represents
the fitting to the generalized Henderson–Hasselbalch equation.
The obtained bulk pKa is 5.4 with a Hill
coefficient of 0.6. The error bars correspond to the standard deviation
among the unprotonated fractions of all the Glu’s.
Tetrameric β-Sheet that Undergoes a
pH-Dependent Unfolding Transition
We next performed the all-atom
replica-exchange (REX) CpHMD simulations[16] on the PA1 tetramer starting from the structures extracted from
the aforementioned standard MD simulations. Two independent runs of
REX CpHMD simulations were performed. Each run of simulations included
pH replicas in the pH range 3–10. Simulation of each replica
lasted 12 ns per replica. More details are given in Simulation Methods. The discussion below will focus on simulation
run 1. Figure 4a shows the residue-based β-sheet
content. At pH 3, the β-sheet is most stable and spans residues
2–7 (AAAEEE) in the monomer. As pH is increased to 6.5, the
β-sheet is shortened to residues 4–6 (AEEE). As pH is
increased further to 8, the β content reduces to below 20% in
those regions, indicating that the tetramer is nearly unfolded. It
is worthwhile to notice that the β-sheet is less stable in the
two edge monomers as compared to the central ones, as a result of
solvent exposure.
Figure 4
pH-dependent β-sheet content of the PA1 tetramer.
(a) Residue-based β-sheet content calculated as the percentage
residence time of a residue in the β-sheet conformation (assigned
using the DSSP algorithm[37]). Blue, green,
and red represent pH 3, 6.5, and 8, respectively. The four monomers
correspond to residues 1–8, 9–16, 17–24, and
25–32, respectively. (b) Total number of backbone hydrogen
bonds as a function of pH. Data points are the averages while the
error bars represent the standard deviation. Data from the last 2
ns of the all-atom CpHMD simulation run 2 were used.
pH-dependent β-sheet content of the PA1 tetramer.
(a) Residue-based β-sheet content calculated as the percentage
residence time of a residue in the β-sheet conformation (assigned
using the DSSP algorithm[37]). Blue, green,
and red represent pH 3, 6.5, and 8, respectively. The four monomers
correspond to residues 1–8, 9–16, 17–24, and
25–32, respectively. (b) Total number of backbone hydrogen
bonds as a function of pH. Data points are the averages while the
error bars represent the standard deviation. Data from the last 2
ns of the all-atom CpHMD simulation run 2 were used.To quantitatively characterize the pH-dependent
unfolding transition, we calculated the total number of backbone hydrogen
bonds for each snapshot (Figure 4b). At low
pH conditions, pH 3–6, there are on average 11 backbone hydrogen
bonds, corresponding to a β-sheet content of 26%, in good agreement
with the coarse-grained data (35%, see Figure 2). At high pH conditions, pH 7.5–11, the average number of
hydrogen bonds is 4.5, in agreement with the β-content found
for individual residues (Figure 4a). Interestingly,
a sharp drop in the number of hydrogen bonds occurs in a narrow pH
range of 6–7, indicating that the β-sheet starts to unfold
at pH 6 and the unfolding is complete at pH 7. The latter is in a
quantitative agreement with the CD data, indicating that at 10 μM
the PA1 molecules undergo a random-coil to β-sheet transition
in the pH range pH 6.8–6.0 with an estimated transition pH
of 6.6.[6] To verify convergence, a second
set of replica-exchange CpHMD simulations was performed starting from
a different velocity seed. The resulting transition pH region remains
the same.
pKa Values for the Glu’s
in the Central Strands Determine the Transition pH
To further
understand the pH-dependent β-sheet formation, we examine the
calculated pKa values of individual Glu
side chains in the PA1 tetramer and their degree of ionization (also
known as unprotonated fractions) at different pH values. The individual
pKa’s range from 4.2 to 6.6 with
most of them shifted up from the model value of 4.4, giving an average
pKa of 5.4 (Figure 5a), which is 0.7 units
higher than the measured average pKa of
the PA1 solution based on acid-based titration.[6] We note the second set of simulations gave an average pKa of 5.2. The pKa up-shifts are due to the intermolecular electrostatic repulsion
between the ionizedGlu’s on the adjacent β-strands.
The pKa shifts are more pronounced for
Glu’s in the central strands (residues 13–16 and 21–24)
as compared to those in the edge strands (residues 5–8 and
29–32), because the central Glu’s are shielded from
solvent, as evident from the significantly smaller solvent accessible
surface area of the carboxylic groups in the protonated form as compared
to those of the edge residues (data not shown). Thus, the wide spread
in the individual pKa’s is a result
of different local environment of Glu side chains, which can be visualized
by projecting the pKa values onto the
initial structure of the PA1 tetramer (Figure 3). It can be seen that the lowest pKa values are from those Glu side chains in the edge strands pointing
out to solvent, while the highest pKa’s
are from those Glu side chains in the two central strands that are
in a confined configuration (Figure 3). Interestingly,
the Glu side chains in the edge strands, which have a relatively higher
pKa value (see n = 7
and 31), point inside the tetramer and interact with the Glu’s
in the central strands (Figure 3).Titration of
Glu residues in the PA1 tetrameric β-sheet. (a) Calculated pKa values of the individual Glu side chains.
The black dashed line indicates an average pKa of 5.4. (b) The unprotonated fraction averaged over all the
Glu’s of the PA1 tetramer as a function of pH. The curve represents
the fitting to the generalized Henderson–Hasselbalch equation.
The obtained bulk pKa is 5.4 with a Hill
coefficient of 0.6. The error bars correspond to the standard deviation
among the unprotonated fractions of all the Glu’s.Structure analysis revealed that, at low pH conditions,
the carboxylic groups of the Glu’s in the central β-strands
form hydrogen bonds, which disappear at high pH conditions (data not
shown). These hydrogen bonds stabilize the β-sheet as well as
the protonated state. Thus, in addition to intermolecular charge–charge
repulsion, hydrogen bonding is another contributor to the pKa upshift for the central Glu’s. Interestingly,
intermolecular hydrogen bonding between carboxylic side chains and
the effect on the pKa shift have also
been suggested for fatty acids in the premicellar aggregates based
on experimental data[38] and recently confirmed
by simulation.[39]Related to the large
variation in the pKa’s is the varying
degree of ionization of the individual Glu’s at a specific
pH (Figure 5b). The variation is particularly
large in the pH region where the unfolding of the β-sheet occurs.
For example, at pH 6, the degree of ionization for individual Glu’s
can be as low as 30% and as high as 100% (error bars in Figure 5b). Similar effects of interpeptide electrostatic
repulsion leading to a wide range of pKa values have been suggested for the β-sheet self-assembly of
small peptides containing Glu and Arg residues.[40] It is reasonable to hypothesize that the tetramer β-sheet
unfolds when all the Glu side chains become ionized. Indeed, above
pH 7, when the unfolding transition is complete (Figure 4), the Glu’s are at least 95% ionized including those
in the two central strands (Figure 5b). By
contrast, at pH 6, when the β-sheet starts to unfold, the Glu’s
in the two edge strands are completed ionized, while those in the
two central strands become ionized by at least 30%. The average ionization
is about 65%. Thus, these data suggest that, to completely unfold
the β-sheet, all Glu’s need to be ionized. Since Glu’s
of the central strands ionize at much higher pH than those of the
edge strands, their pKa’s determine
the transition pH. The average degree of ionization (unprotonated
fraction) over all the Glu’s as a function of pH can be fit
to the Hill equation, giving an average or bulk pKa of 5.4 (Figure 5b), in agreement
with the one obtained by averaging the individual pKa’s (Figure 5a). The Hill
coefficient is 0.6 (Figure 5b), indicating
a high degree of anticooperativity due to electrostatic repulsion
between the charged Glu side chains.
Conclusions
In
this study we employed the state-of-the-art coarse-grained (CG) and
all-atom molecular dynamics simulations to elucidate the kinetic and
thermodynamic mechanisms of the pH-dependent self-assembly of PA1
molecules. The CG simulations revealed that the PA1 molecules initially
aggregate to form multiple spherical micelles with the palmitoyl tails
buried in the micellar core and the PA1peptides in the random-coil
state exposed to solvent. When the electrostatic repulsion between
the peptide segments is weak, corresponding to the low pH conditions
when the Glu side chains are (mainly) neutral, interpeptide hydrogen
bonds begin to form, which perturbs the spherical shape of the micelle,
leading to the exposure of hydrophobic regions. The latter drives
the micelles to merge, ultimately leading to the formation of one
continuous rod-shaped nanofiber with the PA1peptides aligned in a β-sheet
configuration. The kinetic pathway to nanofiber driven by the β-sheet
formation is in agreement with existing experimental work.[2,4,6]To investigate the pH-dependent
thermodynamic aspect, conformational dynamics of a PA1 tetrameric
β-sheet model was studied using the all-atom CpHMD simulations.
On the basis of the number of backbone hydrogen bonds, the unfolding
of the β-sheet occurs between pH 6 and pH 7 with the transition
midpoint at about pH 6.5. Remarkably, the individual pKa’s of the Glu’s in the tetramer vary widely,
and the calculated average or bulk pKa is 5.3 (5.4 and 5.2 in two independent runs). The Glu’s of
the edge strands are generally solvent exposed and have pKa’s close to the model value of 4.4. By contrast,
the Glu’s of the central strands, especially those three next
to Ala, are shielded from solvent and have pKa’s that are shifted to 6–6.6. Together, these
data suggest that ionization of the three Glu’s next to Ala
in the central peptides induces unfolding of the β-sheet. Their
pKa’s determine the pH condition
for the transition from nanofiber to micelle. The cooperative unfolding
transition of PA1 β-sheet is reminiscent of the pH-dependent
phase behavior of self-assembling peptides containing Glu’s,
for which the ionization of single Glu was suggested to be responsible.[40]Finally, we remark on the caveats of the
simulations. In the coarse-grained simulations, the PA concentration
(85 mM) was more than 3 orders of magnitude higher than the experimental
condition (10 μM). Therefore, alternative kinetic pathways such
as the direct formation of nanofiber from single PA molecules can
not be studied as it would require orders of magnitude longer simulation
time which is currently not feasible. In the all-atom simulations,
since only counterions and no additional salt ions were included (to
avoid the potential convergence problem due to limited sampling of
ions), the ionic strength was lower than that in experiment (150 mM).[6] We suggest that this is a major cause for the
calculated average pKa to be about 0.6
units higher than the measured value, as lower ionic strength leads
to the overestimation of electrostatic repulsion which increases the
pKa’s. Another limitation of the
all-atom simulation is that the concentration effect is not accounted
for due to the nature of the unfolding simulation. However, despite
these limitations, the data show that the combined coarse-grained
and all-atom constant pH molecular dynamics simulations present an
attractive strategy that may be used to guide the design and discovery
of pH-responsive nanomaterials.
Authors: B R Brooks; C L Brooks; A D Mackerell; L Nilsson; R J Petrella; B Roux; Y Won; G Archontis; C Bartels; S Boresch; A Caflisch; L Caves; Q Cui; A R Dinner; M Feig; S Fischer; J Gao; M Hodoscek; W Im; K Kuczera; T Lazaridis; J Ma; V Ovchinnikov; E Paci; R W Pastor; C B Post; J Z Pu; M Schaefer; B Tidor; R M Venable; H L Woodcock; X Wu; W Yang; D M York; M Karplus Journal: J Comput Chem Date: 2009-07-30 Impact factor: 3.376
Authors: Sander Pronk; Szilárd Páll; Roland Schulz; Per Larsson; Pär Bjelkmar; Rossen Apostolov; Michael R Shirts; Jeremy C Smith; Peter M Kasson; David van der Spoel; Berk Hess; Erik Lindahl Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Joshua E Goldberger; Eric J Berns; Ronit Bitton; Christina J Newcomb; Samuel I Stupp Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2011-05-30 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Robert B Best; Xiao Zhu; Jihyun Shim; Pedro E M Lopes; Jeetain Mittal; Michael Feig; Alexander D Mackerell Journal: J Chem Theory Comput Date: 2012-07-18 Impact factor: 6.006
Authors: C J Buettner; A J Wallace; S Ok; A A Manos; M J Nicholl; A Ghosh; M F Tweedle; J E Goldberger Journal: Org Biomol Chem Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 3.876
Authors: Rikkert J Nap; Baofu Qiao; Liam C Palmer; Samuel I Stupp; Monica Olvera de la Cruz; Igal Szleifer Journal: Front Chem Date: 2022-03-16 Impact factor: 5.221