We study the self-assembly of genetically engineered protein-based triblock copolymers consisting of a central pH-responsive silk-like middle block (S(H)n, where S(H) is a silk-like octapeptide, (GA)3GH and n is the number of repeats) flanked by hydrophilic random coil outer blocks (C2). Our previous work has already shown that triblocks with very long midblocks (n = 48) self-assemble into long, stiff protein filaments at pH values where the middle blocks are uncharged. Here we investigate the self-assembly behavior of the triblock copolymers for a range of midblock lengths, n = 8, 16, 24, 48. Upon charge neutralization of S(H)n by adjusting the pH, we find that C2S(H)8C2 and C2S(H)16C2 form spherical micelles, whereas both C2S(H)24C2 and C2S(H)48C2 form protein filaments with a characteristic beta-roll secondary structure of the silk midblocks. Hydrogels formed by C2S(H)48C2 are much stronger and form much faster than those formed by C2S(H)24C2. Enzymatic digestion of much of the hydrophilic outer blocks is used to show that with much of the hydrophilic outer blocks removed, all silk-midblocks are capable of self-assembling into stiff protein filaments. In that case, reduction of the steric repulsion by the hydrophilic outer blocks also leads to extensive fiber bundling. Our results highlight the opposing roles of the hydrophilic outer blocks and central silk-like midblocks in driving protein filament formation. They provide crucial information for future designs of triblock protein-based polymers that form stiff filaments with controlled bundling, that could mimick properties of collagen in the extracellular matrix.
We study the self-assembly of genetically engineered protein-based triblock copolymers consisting of a central pH-responsive silk-like middle block (S(H)n, where S(H) is a silk-like octapeptide, (GA)3GH and n is the number of repeats) flanked by hydrophilic random coil outer blocks (C2). Our previous work has already shown that triblocks with very long midblocks (n = 48) self-assemble into long, stiff protein filaments at pH values where the middle blocks are uncharged. Here we investigate the self-assembly behavior of the triblock copolymers for a range of midblock lengths, n = 8, 16, 24, 48. Upon charge neutralization of S(H)n by adjusting the pH, we find that C2S(H)8C2 and C2S(H)16C2 form spherical micelles, whereas both C2S(H)24C2 and C2S(H)48C2 form protein filaments with a characteristic beta-roll secondary structure of the silk midblocks. Hydrogels formed by C2S(H)48C2 are much stronger and form much faster than those formed by C2S(H)24C2. Enzymatic digestion of much of the hydrophilic outer blocks is used to show that with much of the hydrophilic outer blocks removed, all silk-midblocks are capable of self-assembling into stiff protein filaments. In that case, reduction of the steric repulsion by the hydrophilic outer blocks also leads to extensive fiber bundling. Our results highlight the opposing roles of the hydrophilic outer blocks and central silk-like midblocks in driving protein filament formation. They provide crucial information for future designs of triblock protein-based polymers that form stiff filaments with controlled bundling, that could mimick properties of collagen in the extracellular matrix.
Designed recombinant
protein-based polymers are a promising class
of new polymer materials with potential applications in fields such
as tissue engineering, drug- and gene delivery or self-healing biomaterials.[1−8] A major advantage of recombinant protein-based polymers over polymers
produced using synthetic chemistry is that the route of genetic engineering
provides in principle a virtually perfect control over size, amino
acid sequence and stereochemistry of the polymers. As a consequence,
the final degree of control over the relevant physicochemical properties
of materials made of these polymers is superior to that of any established
chemical polymerization method. Being based on amino acids, a vast
array of naturally occurring peptide sequences or domains can be used
as inspiration for new designs. Domains that have been extensively
explored in recent years include those with sequences inspired by,
or based on, structural proteins known for their superior stimulus-responsive,
mechanical, biocompatible, and structural properties. These include
natural elastin,[9−15] collagen,[16−19] silk,[9,19−24] and resilin.[25−27]A key challenge in biomaterials is to mimic
the extracellular matrix
in order to make materials that can act as scaffolds for cell and
tissue growth. Stiff collagen-like fibers are thought to be an important
element in such materials. We have previously designed pH-responsive
recombinant protein-based polymers that self-assemble into stiff fibers.
Those polymers have a symmetric triblock structure and are composed
of a silk-like midblock flanked on both sides by hydrophilic random
coiling outer blocks.The proteins in this study have a triblock
conformation, with a
silk-like middle block and random coiling hydrophilic outer blocks.
The silk-like middle block consists of a number of repeats of the
octapeptide GAGAGAGX (SX). This amino acid sequence
is inspired by natural silk produced by the silk worm Bombyx mori(23) and is known
to trigger self-assembly into a filamentous structure that most likely
is a stack of so-called β-rolls.[19,20,28] Charges on the residue X prevent the self-assembly,
and by choosing amino acids with basic or acidic side chains, self-assembly
of the protein filaments can be controlled by pH. The random coiling
hydrophilic outer blocks are essential, since without them, the protein
filaments aggregate and precipitate.[29] Hence,
their role is to provide colloidal stability by exposing a hydrophilic
polymer brush on the outside of the filaments.[30] The block is rich in hydrophilic amino acids glutamine,
asparagine and serine and has a sequence that has similarities to
natural collagen (GXY triplets). The basic repeating unit for this
protein-based polymer is a 99 amino acid long “C”-block.[19,30] The exact sequence can be found in the Supporting
Information (Figure S1).In previous studies, we have
characterized protein filaments and
gels formed by C2SX48C2 protein-based triblock copolymers, where C2 is a dimer
of the “C” block, and SX48 is
a 48-fold repetition of the silk-like octapeptide SX. pH-responsive
residues in our previous studies have been glutamic acid (X = E),
histidine (X = H), or lysine (X = K).[19,20,31]For use of these and other protein filaments
in applications, one
ideally should have full and independent control over the relevant
material properties such as gelling time after a pH adjustment, control
of gel rheology independent from polymer concentration, and so on.
This, in turn, requires full control over the properties of the protein
filaments: growth kinetics, length and rigidity, and lateral association
into fiber bundles. A key variable in controlling the self-assembly
of our triblock copolymers into filaments obviously is the relative
size of the various blocks. Therefore, we here study the role of the
balance of self-assembling and random coiling domains for pH-responsive
silk-collagen-like protein-based polymers.We focus on the effect
of changing the size of the central silk-like
domain. As the X residue, we choose histidine, since this results
in protein filament formation at physiological pH,[32] which is most relevant for biomedical applications. A series
of four protein-based polymers C2SHC2 was constructed, produced, and characterized
with a number n of octapeptide repeats of n = 8, 16, 24, and 48. As we will show, the silk-like blocks
SH with n = 8, 16, 24, and 48, all have a tendency to form protein filaments,
but the driving force for doing so increases with the number of repeats n. Filament formation is opposed by the C2 side
blocks, and below a certain critical number of repeats n of the silk block, C2SHC2 polymers start forming micelles rather than filaments.
Our study provides insights into the driving forces of filament formation
of protein-based polymers that are crucial for future protein-based
polymer designs with improved independent control over filament growth,
lateral association of protein filaments and the resulting hydrogel
properties.
Experimental Section
Construction of Recombinant
Strains and Protein Biosynthesis
The cloning of the triblock
C2SH48C2 has been described
by us previously.[32,33] The DNA fragment encoding the
midblock in this protein consists
of 24 repeats of a [(GAGAGAGH]2-encoding BsaI/BanI fragment. The DNA fragments encoding the
shorter mid blocks studied here, SH (n = 8, 16, and 24), were constructed in
the same manner. These fragments consist of 4, 8, and 12 repeats of
the BsaI/BanI fragment, respectively,
and were released from their vector by digestion with AccI/BanI. Vector pMTL23-C2[32] was opened with AccI/BsaI, after which the SHn fragments were inserted.
The resulting plasmids were openened with AccI/BsaI, after which the second C2-encoding DNA
fragment was inserted. This fragment had been obtained by digestion
of pMTL23-C2[32] with AccI/BanI. The final C2SHC2-encoding genes
were cloned into expression vector pPIC9 (Invitrogen) via EcoRI/NotI. Transformation of P. pastoris and protein production in bioreactors
were as before.[34]
Purification
The
purification of the three smallest
proteins (C2SH8C2, C2SH16C2, C2SH24C2) was performed by first selectively
precipitating the protein polymers from cell-free fermentation broth
in a similar way as for C2SH48C2.[32] This was done by adding ammonium
sulfate up to 45% saturation. After an incubation time of 30 min at
room temperature, the solution was centrifuged (16000g, 40 min, 4 °C). The protein polymer pellet was resuspended
in 60% of the original volume of 50 mM formic acid. The precipitation
step with ammonium sulfate (45% saturation) was repeated once. After
the centrifugation step the protein polymers were resuspended in 100
mL 50 mM formic acid and extensively dialyzed against 10 mM formic
acid at 4 °C. Finally the proteins were freeze-dried for storage.
MALDI-TOF
Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization
(MALDI) mass spectrometry was performed using an ultrafleXtreme mass
spectrometer (Bruker). Samples were prepared by the dried droplet
method on a 600 μm AnchorChip target (Bruker), using 5 mg/mL
2,5-dihydroxyacetophenone, 1.5 mg/mL diammonium hydrogen citrate,
25% (v/v) ethanol, and 1% (v/v) trifluoroacetic acid as matrix. Spectra
were derived from 10 500-shot (1000 Hz) acquisitions taken at nonoverlapping
locations across the sample. Measurements were made in the positive
linear mode, with ion source 1, 25.0 kV; ion source 2, 23.3 kV; lens,
6.5 kV; pulsed ion extraction, 680 ns. Protein Calibration Standard
II (Bruker) was used for external calibration.
SDS-PAGE
Electrophoresis
(SDS-PAGE) was performed using
the NuPAGE Novex system with 10% Bis-Tris gels, MES-SDS running buffer,
and Novex Sharp Protein Standard prestained molecular mass markers.
Gels were stained with Coomassie SimplyBlue SafeStain (all Invitrogen).
Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS)
DLS measurements were
performed using a Zetasizer NanoZS (Malvern Instruments, U.K.), equipped
with a He–Ne laser (4 mW), operating at a wavelength of 633
nm. Each measurement was performed at an angle of 173° and a
temperature of 25 °C. Measurements at pH 2 were performed by
dissolving protein in 10 mM HCl at a concentration of 1 g/L. Solutions
were filtrated (200 nm, Millipore). Measurements at pH 8 were performed
by diluting the former solutions a factor 2, using filtrated 100 mM
phosphate buffer (pH 8). Reported hydrodynamic radii are z-averaged values determined by DTS Software, version 5.10. Reversibility
was examined by adding an excess of 1 M filtered HCl to solutions
containing protein micelles or fibers.
Atomic Force Microscopy
AFM samples were made by applying
a drop of protein solution on a 10 × 10 mm hydrophilic silicon
wafer (Siltronic Corp.) bearing a thin oxide layer, rinsing the wafer
with milli-Q water to remove any nonadsorbed material, and drying
it under a stream of nitrogen. The samples were analyzed using a Digital
Instruments Nanoscope V in ScanAsyst mode and NP-10 silicon nitride
tips with a spring constant of 0.350 N/m and a 10 nm tip radius (Bruker,
CA, U.S.A.). Images were processed using NanoScope Analysis 1.40.
All samples contained 1 g/L of protein and a 50 mM phosphate buffer
(pH 8).
Circular Dichroism
CD measurements were performed on
a Jasco J-715 spectropolarimeter at 298 K. The spectra were recorded
between 190 and 260 nm with a resolution of 0.2 nm and a scanning
speed of 1 nm/s. Each spectrum was an average of 20 measurements.
A quartz cuvette with a path length of 0.5 mm was used. Protein concentration
was 0.25 g/L and the solvent was 10 mM HCl (pH 2) or 50 mM phosphate
buffer (pH 8). For the kinetic study, 1 g/L solutions in 50 mM phosphate
buffer (pH 8) were used, which were diluted 4× with the same
buffer prior to measuring. Ellipticity was measured at a wavelength
of 198 nm.
Rheology
Rheological measurements
were performed on
an Anton Paar MCR 301 rheometer with Couette CC10/TI geometry. Cup
and bob radii were 5.420 mm and 5.002 mm, respectively. A solvent
trap was used to prevent evaporation. Samples containing 25 g/L of
protein were adjusted to pH 8 in a 50 mM phosphate buffer. Immediately
after adjusting the pH the storage modulus was measured using oscillatory
deformation (f = 1 Hz and γ = 0.1%) until a
plateau value was reached. Temperature was controlled by a Peltier
element at 298 K during measurements.
Enzymatic Digestion
Trypsin from bovine pancreas (Sigma-Aldrich)
was used to digest the C2-block of C2SH8C2, C2SH16C2, and C2SH24C2. Samples contained 1 g/L of protein and 0.02 g/L of trypsin. After
mixing protein and enzyme, we adjusted the pH to 8 in 50 mM phosphate
buffer. Samples were incubated for 72 h at 310 K before measuring
them with AFM and SDS-PAGE.
Results and Discussion
Protein
Characterization
The four proteins described
in this study include three new constructs and one described previously.[32] The molecular weight (MW) of each newly constructed
protein was measured with MALDI-TOF MS and compared to the theoretical
mass predicted from the amino acid composition. As shown in Table 1, experimentally determined masses match those expected
theoretically within the experimental uncertainty. Additionally, Dynamic
Light Scattering (DLS) was used to determine the size of the proteins
when fully charged at pH 2. Hydrodynamic sizes of the four proteins
C2SHC2 with n = 8, 16, 24, and 48 in solution at pH 2
are shown in Table 1 and are typical for molecularly
dissolved nonglobular proteins of these molar masses.
Table 1
Characterization of Protein–Polymers
Described in This Study; Theoretical and Measured (MALDI-TOF MS) Mass,
and hydrodynamic radius (Rh), as Measured
by DLS at pH 2 (10 mM HCl)
protein
theoretical MW (Da)
measured MW (Da)
Rh at pH 2 (nm)
C2SH8C2
42992
42952
4.9 ± 0.2
C2SH16C2
47621
47617
5.6 ± 0.6
C2SH24C2
52249
52242
6.2 ± 0.2
C2SH48C2
66135
66076[32]
6.8 ± 0.6
Protein–polymers are secreted in the medium
by the production
organism, Pichia pastoris, and simple
ammonium sulfate precipitation suffices to obtain highly pure protein
polymers. SDS-PAGE gels for the newly constructed proteins C2SH8C2, C2SH16C2, and C2SH24C2 after purification using ammonium sulfate precipitation
are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1
SDS-PAGE gel of purified
and trypsin treated protein–polymers.
Lane 1: C2SH8C2; lane
2: C2SH8C2 after trypsin
digestion; lane 3: C2SH16C2; lane 4: C2SH16C2, C2SH16C2 after trypsin digestion;
lane 5: C2SH24C2; lane
6: C2SH24C2 after trypsin
digestion.
SDS-PAGE gel of purified
and trypsin treated protein–polymers.
Lane 1: C2SH8C2; lane
2: C2SH8C2 after trypsin
digestion; lane 3: C2SH16C2; lane 4: C2SH16C2, C2SH16C2 after trypsin digestion;
lane 5: C2SH24C2; lane
6: C2SH24C2 after trypsin
digestion.For each of the three proteins,
there was a clear main band corresponding
to the protein polymer. Note that the migration of the protein-based
polymers is anomalously slow due to the poor SDS-binding capacity
of the hydrophilic C2-blocks, as has been described before.[19,30] This leads to an apparent mass of approximately 120 kDa. The band
that is visible for all proteins migrating to an apparent mass of
60 kDa is similar to the band found in purified C2SH48C2. This band represents an SDS-PAGE
artifact, as N-terminal sequencing combined with MALDI-TOF showed
it was the intact protein.[35] We attribute
the band at 200 kDa to multimers of the intact protein. The high purity
of the protein samples is also confirmed with MALDI-TOF (Figure S2). Figure 1 also
shows SDS-PAGE of purified proteins treated with trypsin to remove
most of the outer blocks. These digested protein–polymers are
also used in our physical studies and will be discussed in detail
later on.
AFM
First we study the self-assembly of the protein–polymers
after a pH shift from pH 2 to pH 8 using Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM)
imaging. As is shown by the AFM images in Figure 2a,b, after prolonged incubation at pH 8 (72 h) the proteins
with the longest silk-like midblocks, C2SH48C2 and C2SH24C2, form long, stiff filaments. For both proteins, the
filaments have a height of approximately 2 nm and lengths up to many
micrometers. We did not find significant differences in the final
filament lengths for the two proteins. The average width of the C2SH24C2 is 7 nm smaller than
that of the C2SH48C2 filaments,
which is close to half of the expected width of the folded S48 blocks.[19,28] In contrast, the proteins with the shorter
silk-like midblocks, C2SH16C2 and C2SH8C2,
did not form filaments after a pH shift from pH 2 to pH 8, after prolonged
incubation. Instead, these proteins appear to form micelles, as suggested
by the pancake-like structures found with AFM and shown in Figure 2c,d.
Figure 2
AFM images of self-assembled protein–polymers (1
g/L), adsorbed
to silica 72 h after a pH quench from pH 2 to pH 8 (50 mM phosphate
buffer): (a) C2SH48C2,
(b) C2SH24C2, (c) C2SH16C2, (d) C2SH8C2. Images are 5 × 5 μm
(a, b) or 2 × 2 μm (c, d).
AFM images of self-assembled protein–polymers (1
g/L), adsorbed
to silica 72 h after a pH quench from pH 2 to pH 8 (50 mM phosphate
buffer): (a) C2SH48C2,
(b) C2SH24C2, (c) C2SH16C2, (d) C2SH8C2. Images are 5 × 5 μm
(a, b) or 2 × 2 μm (c, d).
DLS
Dynamic light scattering confirms the appearance
of micelles at pH 8 in samples of C2SH16C2 and C2SH8C2. While at pH 2 both proteins are present as single molecules with Rh = 5.6 and 4.9 nm, at pH 8 they assemble into
micelles with hydrodynamic radii more than doubled: 12.6 and 11.2
nm, respectively.When the pH of a solution containing micelles
or fibers was lowered well below the pKa of histidine by the addition of an excess HCl, we observed an immediate
drop in scattered intensity and observed molecularly dissolved protein
polymers. This shows that the self-assembly of all four protein polymers
is fully reversible.The very different
self-assembled
structures of the proteins with the longest silk-like midblocks versus
those with the shorter ones raises the question whether their secondary
structure is also different. In order to assess changes in secondary
structure after the pH shift from pH 2 to pH 8, we have performed
circular dichroism (CD) spectroscopy of all proteins, both in their
fully charged, monomeric form at pH 2, and in their neutralized and
self-assembled form at pH 8.Figure 3 shows that at pH 2 all proteins have nearly identical spectra. These
spectra clearly have the signature of a random coil and are very similar
to that of a pure C4 block, for which it was previously
shown that it behaves as a random coil over a wide range of solution
conditions.[30] The similarity of the spectra
over the entire series of triblocks leads us to conclude that at pH
2, both the hydrophilic outer blocks and the silk-like middle blocks
have a random coil conformation.
Figure 3
Molar ellipticity per amino acid of protein–polymer
solutions
of C2SH8C2 (a), C2SH16C2 (b), C2SH24C2 (c), and C2SH48C2 (d) in 10 mM HCl (pH 2) and 50
mM phosphate buffer (pH 8). Samples at pH 8 have been measured 96
h after adjusting the pH from pH 2 to pH 8.
Figure 3 also shows the CD spectra for the
proteins at pH 8. The micelle-forming proteins with the shortest silk-like
middle blocks only show a minor spectral shift as compared to the
spectra at pH 2. The spectrum at pH 8 still mostly resembles that
of a random coil. Note, however, that this could still simply be a
consequence of the relatively small contributions of the rather short
silk-like middle-blocks to the total spectra. In contrast, the spectra
of the filament forming proteins with the longer silk-like midblocks
at pH 8 show a very clear spectral shift as compared to pH 2. For
this case, it is clear that a significant change of secondary structure
occurs upon adjusting the pH.Molar ellipticity per amino acid of protein–polymer
solutions
of C2SH8C2 (a), C2SH16C2 (b), C2SH24C2 (c), and C2SH48C2 (d) in 10 mM HCl (pH 2) and 50
mM phosphate buffer (pH 8). Samples at pH 8 have been measured 96
h after adjusting the pH from pH 2 to pH 8.In order to isolate the contribution of the silk-like midblocks
to the total CD spectra, we have also acquired the spectra of a pure
C4 polymer, that should be identical to the combined spectrum
of the two C2 outer-blocks. Difference spectra pertaining
to the isolated silk-like midblocks obtained by subtracting the spectra
of the outer blocks are shown, for all four proteins, in Figure 4. For each protein, the mass fraction of the outer
blocks was determined and the spectrum of the corresponding concentration
of C2 blocks was subtracted from the spectrum of the whole
protein. It is clear that the absence of a change in secondary structure
for the two proteins with the shortest silk-like midblocks is real,
and is not caused by the signal of the outer blocks overwhelming that
of the silk-like midblocks: for this case, the difference spectrum
still has the signature characteristic of a random coil. Difference
spectra for the SH24 and SH48 midblocks at pH 8 are also very similar but have a distinctly different
CD spectrum suggesting that both have a secondary structure that is
very different from a random coil. Molecular Dynamics simulations
have indicated that the neutralized and folded silk-like block SE48 obtains a β-roll structure in solution.[28] This structure consists of two interconnected
parallel β-sheets and is consistent with fiber dimensions found
with AFM and SAXS.[19] The CD spectra at
pH 8 of C2SH24C2 and C2SH48C2 are very similar to
that of neutralized C2SE48C2,[19] leading us to conclude the same β-roll
structure is present in the folded C2SH24C2 and C2SH48C2.
Figure 4
Molar ellipticity per
amino acid of the isolated SH8 and SH16 (a) and SH24 and SH48 (b) after subtraction of
the signal of the C2 side chains from the signal of the
triblock protein–polymers. All samples contained a total of
0.25 g/L of protein and were measured at pH 8 (50 mM phosphate buffer)
96 h after a pH adjustment from pH 2.
Moreover, from the fact that after extensive
incubation at pH 8
the ellipticities per amino acid estimated for the SH24 and SH48 midblocks are very nearly
equal in magnitude, we conclude that, most likely, in both cases virtually
all protein molecules self-assemble into filaments.Molar ellipticity per
amino acid of the isolated SH8 and SH16 (a) and SH24 and SH48 (b) after subtraction of
the signal of the C2 side chains from the signal of the
triblock protein–polymers. All samples contained a total of
0.25 g/L of protein and were measured at pH 8 (50 mM phosphate buffer)
96 h after a pH adjustment from pH 2.
Time Resolved AFM
For the two proteins that self-assemble
into filaments (C2SH48C2 and C2SH24C2), we have
also elucidated the kinetics of filament formation using time-resolved
AFM imaging. This was achieved by taking aliquots after different
times of incubation at pH 8, after the pH adjustment from acidic pH.
Immediately after taking the aliquot, it was deposited on a silica
wafer, to quench the filament growth. For each aliquot, the length
of a fair number of filaments (50–90) was determined and used
to estimate the average filament length and its standard deviation.
Results of this analysis are shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5
Average fiber length (n = 50–90) as a function
of the time after shift from pH 2 to pH 8 (50 mM phosphate buffer)
for 1 g/L solutions of C2SH24C2 and C2SH48C2,
as measured by AFM. Error bars represent standard deviations.
Average fiber length (n = 50–90) as a function
of the time after shift from pH 2 to pH 8 (50 mM phosphate buffer)
for 1 g/L solutions of C2SH24C2 and C2SH48C2,
as measured by AFM. Error bars represent standard deviations.Clearly, the average length of
the C2SH48C2 filaments
increases at a much higher rate than
the average length of the C2SH24C2 filaments. For both proteins, the size distribution of the
filaments quite dramatically broadens with incubation time. This must
mean that there is continuous nucleation of filaments, with existing
fibers elongating by the attachment of additional proteins, and new
filaments being formed at the same time. Such a continuous nucleation
is very different from the self-assembly of proteins of an inverted
silk-collagen triblocks SE24C2C2SE24 that we have studied before. For
that polymer, we observed fast nucleation immediately after the pH
induced charge neutralization, followed by elongation of existing
fibers without the formation of many new ones.[20] Such a mechanism obviously leads to a much narrower size
distribution than the continuous nucleation mechanism that we observe
for C2SH48C2 and C2SH24C2. The inverted sequence
of SE24C2C2SE24 results in an extra complicating factor for nucleation,
namely the meeting of the two ends of one molecule. This can slow
down homogeneous nucleation of new fibers severely. We anticipate
that the occurrence of heterogeneous nucleation (possibly initiated
by a small fraction of irreversibly folded protein, partially degraded
protein or impurities that bind protein) leads to a fast nucleation
step, followed by elongation of growing fibers. During this elongation,
homogeneous nucleation is almost nonexisting. C2SH48C2 and C2SH24C2 do not require this extra step during homogeneous nucleation
and can therefore combine a quick heterogeneous nucleation with a
continuous homogeneous one.
Time Resolved CD
While time resolved
AFM is a powerful
tool to obtain kinetic data on the growth of individual protein filaments,
it does not provide information on the total conversion of protein
monomers into filaments. To obtain such data, we have used time-resolved
CD. As the spectrum of this type of proteins only changes when they
assemble into filaments,[20] one can use
the magnitude of this spectral shift as a measure for the total fraction
of proteins that have self-assembled. At a wavelength of 198 nm, where
the change in ellipticity (θ) between pH 2 and pH 8 is the largest,
we have followed the change in ellipticity over time, for both C2SH48C2 and C2SH24C2. The fraction f of unfolded (and thus molecularly dissolved) proteins at time t is estimated fromThe result of the analysis of the time-resolved
CD experiment for the fraction f of unfolded protein
as a function of incubation time is shown in Figure 6 for both C2SH48C2 and C2SH24C2.
Figure 6
Fraction f of unfolded protein of C2SH24C2 and C2SH48C2 in time after incubation in 50 mM phosphate
buffer (pH 8). Both solutions contained 1 g/L of protein.
Fraction f of unfolded protein of C2SH24C2 and C2SH48C2 in time after incubation in 50 mM phosphate
buffer (pH 8). Both solutions contained 1 g/L of protein.The CD data fully confirm the conclusion from the
AFM data that
under the same conditions (pH and weight concentration), the self-assembly
of C2SH48C2 into filaments
is significantly faster than that of C2SH24C2, This must mean that the folding of the silk-like
block is not the rate-determining step. The fact that C2SH48C2 has twice the hydrophobic
surface area compared to C2SH24C2, must be a key factor in the docking of a new protein onto
a growing end of an existing fiber. Next we consider implications
of the differences in filament formation and filament properties for
gels that form when letting the proteins self-assemble into filaments
at much higher concentrations.C2SH48C2 is already known to
form hydrogels at neutral or higher pH,[32] at weight concentrations exceeding 10 g/L. Here
we have shown that the C2SH24C2 protein also self-assembles into protein filaments, and that
after prolonged incubation, essentially all protein is incorporated
in protein filaments. Next, we follow the gelation of 25 g/L solutions
of both proteins by online rheometry, as a function of the incubation
time at pH 8, for a time period of up to 2 days. Figure 7 shows the development of the storage modulus of both solutions
in time. There are two distinct differences between the curves for
the two proteins. First, gelation of C2SH24C2 is very much slower than that of C2SH48C2. The graph shows a lag time
of several hours before the storage modulus starts increasing, while
C2SH48C2 starts gelling
virtually instantaneously. This observation is in line with our findings
with Time Resolved AFM of much slower filament growth rates. Apparently,
filaments of C2SH24C2 grow
so slowly that it takes a significant time to reach the overlap concentration,
while this transition point is reached much faster for the case of
C2SH48C2. Second, the
limiting value of the storage modulus (after 48 h of incubation time
at pH 8) differs by almost an order of magnitude. Since it appears
that all protein is eventually incorporated into protein filaments,
at identical weight concentrations, we anticipate that the total length
of protein filament should be roughly equal, and the difference observed
must be due to differences in either the length or structural organization
of the fibers in the network structure. For dilute samples we have
observed that final filament lengths are comparable for the two proteins.
Assuming that this also holds for more concentrated samples, a possible
cause could be a difference in filament–filament interactions,
that lead to a different structural organization of the fibers in
the network structure. The C2SH48C2 fibers have twice the exposed histidine rich (hydrogen
bonding and aromatic character) surface area as compared to C2SH24C2 fibers, and this might
leads to a stronger attractive force between fibers. The difference
in size of the tightly packed silk-like domain in the protein filaments
may result in a difference in stiffness of the filaments. This might
contribute to the difference in gel properties as well. If these hypotheses
are true, a further increase of the silk-like domain, or a decrease
of the random coiling domain (facilitating contact between the silk-like
domains of neighboring filaments) should lead to stronger hydrogels,
at even lower concentrations than those we observe here for C2SH48C2.
Figure 7
Storage modulus in time
of 25 g/L solutions of C2SH24C2 and C2SH48C2 directly
after quenching to pH 8 in 50 mM phosphate
buffer at 298 K.
Storage modulus in time
of 25 g/L solutions of C2SH24C2 and C2SH48C2 directly
after quenching to pH 8 in 50 mM phosphate
buffer at 298 K.
Enzymatic Digestion of
the C2 Blocks
So
far, our analysis of the series of triblocks has shown that decreasing
the ratio of the self-assembling silk-like block to the random coiling
blocks by reducing the length of the former, leads to a transition
from fibers to micelles at pH 8. This raises the question whether
the tendency of the triblocks to self-assemble into filaments is completely
lost below a certain length of the silk-like midblocks, or that below
this critical length, filament growth is simply opposed too much by
the random coiling outer blocks. In order to distinguish between these
cases, we have used enzymatic degradation by trypsin of the C2 blocks for the three smallest triblocks. Trypsin typically
cleaves at sites immediately following a lysine or arginine, except
when this amino acid is followed by proline.[100] The C2 block has a total of eight putative cleavage sites,
while the silk-like blocks have none. Hence, we expect the size of
the C2 block can be reduced down to 42 amino acids on the
N-terminus and 23 amino acids on the C-terminus using trypsin digestion.
The enzyme works optimally at pH 8, corresponding to the conditions
that the proteins self-assemble into either micelles or protein filaments.
The presence of a clear main band in the SDS-PAGE gels in Figure 1 of digested C2SH8C2, C2SH16C2, and C2SH24C2, with
highly increased mobilities compared to the intact protein polymers,
confirms that indeed much of the hydrophilic C2 blocks
was removed by the enzyme. Note that the C-fragments after digestion
are smaller than 4 kDa and are therefore not visible on the gel. After
extensive trypsin digestion, AFM imaging was used to check for changes
in the self-assembled structures. Selected images are shown in Figure 8. For C2SH8C2, we find very few micellar structures, plus some short filaments.
For C2SH16C2, there is
a very clear transition from micelle formation to filament formation
upon removal of much of the outer block by trypsin digestion. We also
find that the filaments formed by trypsin-treated triblocks have a
notable tendency to bundle. Finally, for C2SH24C2, we find that trypsin digestion leads
to very strong filament bundling. Returning to the question posed
at the beginning of this paragraph, it is now clear that even the
shorter silk-like midblocks do have an intrinsic tendency to fold
and stack into filaments, but that filament-formation can apparently
be halted by the hydrophilic random coiling outer blocks, if these
are sufficiently long. It is also clear that the precise length of
the outer blocks not only determines whether micelles will be formed
or filaments, but that it also determines the likelihood of the silk-like
midblocks of neighboring filaments coming into contact, and leading
to lateral filament-filament association and bundling, which is crucial
in determining the final mechanical properties of hydrogels formed
by our triblock protein-based polymers.
Figure 8
Effect of trypsin digestion
on fiber formation and fiber bundling.
AFM pictures of C2SH8C2 (a), C2SH16C2 (b), and
C2SH24C2 (c) adsorbed
on silica after digestion by trypsin. All samples contained 1 g/L
protein and 0.02 g/L trypsin. Samples were analyzed after 72 h of
incubation at pH 8 (50 mM phosphate buffer) at 310 K. Image size is
5 × 5 μm (a, b) or 2 × 2 μm (c).
Effect of trypsin digestion
on fiber formation and fiber bundling.
AFM pictures of C2SH8C2 (a), C2SH16C2 (b), and
C2SH24C2 (c) adsorbed
on silica after digestion by trypsin. All samples contained 1 g/L
protein and 0.02 g/L trypsin. Samples were analyzed after 72 h of
incubation at pH 8 (50 mM phosphate buffer) at 310 K. Image size is
5 × 5 μm (a, b) or 2 × 2 μm (c).
Conclusions
We have constructed
a series of recombinant triblock protein polymers
that consist of a hydrophilic inert random coiling block and a pH-responsive
silk-like block. The number of octapeptide repeats in the silk-like
midblock was varied over a broad range: 8, 16, 24, and 48. All proteins
show pH-responsive self-assembly behavior. In each case there was
a transition from molecularly dissolved charged proteins at pH 2 to
self-assembled structures at pH 8. We observed a transition from spherical
micelles (C2SH8C2 and
C2SH16C2) to fiber formation
(C2SH24C2 and C2SH48C2). The longest silk-like block
yields the strongest and fastest forming hydrogels. Enzymatic digestion
of the random coiling block triggered the micelle forming proteins
into forming fibers. It also leads to more sticky fibers than the
ones formed by intact C2SH24C2 and C2SH48C2.In our previous work, we have described fiber-forming triblock
protein–polymers with the structure C2SX48C2 that form dilute hydrogels, for some residues
X (notably histidine) at physiological conditions (pH, temperature,
ionic strength).[20,31,32] Although the current dimensions of the two different domains are
suitable for making hydrogels, they may not be ideal when aiming for
strong hydrogels at extremely dilute concentrations, or for hydrogels
with large pore sizes. Bundling of protein filaments can lead to both
gelation at very low concentrations[36] and
to large pore sizes that may be desirable in applications such as
tissue culture. This leads us to believe that a further increase of
the silk-like block or a decrease of the hydrophilic random coiling
block could give controlled bundling of the protein filaments, leading
to extremely long and stiff fiber bundles, more faithfully mimicking
the structure of collagen bundles in the extracellular matrix. Such
control over bundling would very much broaden the range of moduli
and pore sizes that can be acquired using our fiber based gels.The micelles formed by C2SH8C2 and C2SH16C2 might
be worthwhile candidates for nanodelivery vehicles that release their
contents in acidic environments such as the stomach. For example,
this could be useful in taste-masking. It would also be interesting
to aim for a much more precise control of the pH dependence of the
self-assembly, in view of delivery to tumor cells exploiting the somewhat
more acidic extracellular environment of tumor cells (6.5–6.9
compared to 7.2–7.4 around healthy cells).[37]Finally,
our work highlights how the familiar concept of the control
of block copolymer self-assembly by tuning block lengths, translates
to the case of protein-based polymers, with blocks that not merely
self-assemble, but have well-defined folds into specific secondary
structures. Specifically, our results point to the possibility to
design self-assembling triblock protein–polymers with not only
controlled fiber growth, but also controlled fiber bundling.
Authors: Catarina I F Silva; Paulina J Skrzeszewska; Monika D Golinska; Marc W T Werten; Gerrit Eggink; Frits A de Wolf Journal: Biomacromolecules Date: 2012-04-02 Impact factor: 6.988
Authors: Yun Yan; Aernout A Martens; Nicolaas A M Besseling; Frits A de Wolf; Arie de Keizer; Markus Drechsler; Martien A Cohen Stuart Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2008 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Paulina J Skrzeszewska; Leon N Jong; Frits A de Wolf; Martien A Cohen Stuart; Jasper van der Gucht Journal: Biomacromolecules Date: 2011-05-09 Impact factor: 6.988
Authors: Monika D Golinska; Thao T H Pham; Marc W T Werten; Frits A de Wolf; Martien A Cohen Stuart; Jasper van der Gucht Journal: Biomacromolecules Date: 2012-12-27 Impact factor: 6.988
Authors: Małgorzata K Włodarczyk-Biegun; Marc W T Werten; Frits A de Wolf; Jeroen J J P van den Beucken; Sander C G Leeuwenburgh; Marleen Kamperman; Martien A Cohen Stuart Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 8.947
Authors: Piyush Koria; Hiroshi Yagi; Yuko Kitagawa; Zaki Megeed; Yaakov Nahmias; Robert Sheridan; Martin L Yarmush Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2010-12-30 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Sarah R MacEwan; Isaac Weitzhandler; Ingo Hoffmann; Jan Genzer; Michael Gradzielski; Ashutosh Chilkoti Journal: Biomacromolecules Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 6.988
Authors: Arijit Ghosh; Christian J Buettner; Aaron A Manos; Ashley J Wallace; Michael F Tweedle; Joshua E Goldberger Journal: Biomacromolecules Date: 2014-11-12 Impact factor: 6.988
Authors: Whitney L Stoppel; Chiara E Ghezzi; Stephanie L McNamara; Lauren D Black; David L Kaplan Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2014-12-24 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Lione Willems; Larissa van Westerveld; Stefan Roberts; Isaac Weitzhandler; Carlos Calcines Cruz; Armando Hernandez-Garcia; Ashutosh Chilkoti; Enrico Mastrobattista; John van der Oost; Renko de Vries Journal: Biomacromolecules Date: 2019-08-29 Impact factor: 6.988