Xueyun Zheng1, Deyu Liu1, Frank-Gerrit Klärner2, Thomas Schrader2, Gal Bitan3, Michael T Bowers1. 1. †Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106, United States. 2. ‡Institute of Organic Chemistry, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen 45117, Germany. 3. §Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Brain Research Institute, and Molecular Biology Institute, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States.
Abstract
The early oligomerization of amyloid β-protein (Aβ) has been shown to be an important event in the pathology of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Designing small molecule inhibitors targeting Aβ oligomerization is one attractive and promising strategy for AD treatment. Here we used ion mobility spectrometry coupled to mass spectrometry (IMS-MS) to study the different effects of the molecular tweezers CLR01 and CLR03 on Aβ self-assembly. CLR01 was found to bind to Aβ directly and disrupt its early oligomerization. Moreover, CLR01 remodeled the early oligomerization of Aβ42 by compacting the structures of dimers and tetramers and as a consequence eliminated higher-order oligomers. Unexpectedly, the negative-control derivative, CLR03, which lacks the hydrophobic arms of the tweezer structure, was found to facilitate early Aβ oligomerization. Our study provides an example of IMS as a powerful tool to study and better understand the interaction between small molecule modulators and Aβ oligomerization, which is not attainable by other methods, and provides important insights into therapeutic development of molecular tweezers for AD treatment.
The early oligomerization of amyloid β-protein (Aβ) has been shown to be an important event in the pathology of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Designing small molecule inhibitors targeting Aβ oligomerization is one attractive and promising strategy for AD treatment. Here we used ion mobility spectrometry coupled to mass spectrometry (IMS-MS) to study the different effects of the molecular tweezers CLR01 and CLR03 on Aβ self-assembly. CLR01 was found to bind to Aβ directly and disrupt its early oligomerization. Moreover, CLR01 remodeled the early oligomerization of Aβ42 by compacting the structures of dimers and tetramers and as a consequence eliminated higher-order oligomers. Unexpectedly, the negative-control derivative, CLR03, which lacks the hydrophobic arms of the tweezer structure, was found to facilitate early Aβ oligomerization. Our study provides an example of IMS as a powerful tool to study and better understand the interaction between small molecule modulators and Aβ oligomerization, which is not attainable by other methods, and provides important insights into therapeutic development of molecular tweezers for AD treatment.
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the
most common form of dementia,
affecting over 44 million people worldwide.[1] AD is a progressive brain disorder that damages synapses and brain
cells and causes decline of memory, loss of cognitive and executive
functions, and eventually death.[2] There
is no known cure for AD, and the etiology of the disease is not well
understood. Previous studies have shown that amyloid β-protein
(Aβ) plays an important role in AD pathogenesis.[3] Aβ is, in reality, not one but a group of peptides
derived from the type-1 transmembrane protein, amyloid β-protein
precursor (APP), through cleavage by β- and γ-secretases.Aβ exists in vivo primarily as 40 or 42
amino acid long peptides with Aβ40 constituting 90% and Aβ42
∼9% of all Aβ species.[4] Even
though Aβ42 is a relatively minor constituent, it has been found
to be the primary component of amyloid plaques, which are an important
pathologic hallmark of AD.[5] In the plaques,
Aβ is found as fibrillar, β-sheet-rich aggregates. Formation
of Aβ fibrils in vitro and in vivo is a complex process involving multiple intermediate oligomeric
species, which are highly neurotoxic and are believed to be the proximal
neurotoxins acting in AD.[6−9] Immediately upon dissolution in vitro, Aβ42 forms small oligomers, including dimers and tetramers,
as well as paranuclei (pentamers and hexamers) that self-associate
to form decamers and dodecamers.[10−12] Among these species,
the 56 kDa dodecamer has been identified as a plausible cause of memory
deficits in the AD brain[13] and in transgenic
mice.[14] Thus, targeting and remodeling
Aβ42 oligomers is a primary therapeutic strategy for AD.[15]One strategy for AD treatment and prevention
is preventing Aβ
formation, which could be achieved by inhibiting or modulating the
β- and/or γ-secretase enzymes.[16] However, this approach has been problematic because both secretases
cleave substrates other than APP, which are important in other functional
biological processes.[17−19] Another potential strategy is enhancing clearance
of Aβ oligomers and aggregates from the brain.[20] This can be accomplished either by facilitating degradation
of Aβ by proteases[21] or other clearance
mechanisms, or by directly remodeling the aggregation of Aβ
into clearance-prone structures using suitable peptides or small molecules.Many natural proteins, peptides, and small molecules have been
discovered to interact with Aβ and modulate Aβ self-assembly.[22] Among them, small molecules are particularly
attractive as a direct therapeutic strategy for the treatment of AD.[23,24] For instance, biologically active molecules from green-tea ((−)epigallocatechin-3-gallate,
EGCG) or the Indian spice turmeric (curcumin) have been found to prevent
Aβ aggregation and inhibit Aβ-induced toxicity.[25,26] Inositol stereoisomers have been found to interact with Aβ
and attenuate its neurotoxic effects.[27,28] Z-Phe-Ala-diazomethylketone
(PADK), which acts as a lysosomal modulator up-regulating the expression
of cathepsin B in lysosomes, has been shown to interact with Aβ42
directly and modulate Aβ42 oligomerization.[29] C-terminal fragments of Aβ42 and many polyphenol
molecules have been shown to inhibit Aβ oligomerization, aggregation,
and toxicity,[30−34] and molecules have been specially designed to inhibit not only aggregation
of Aβ but also its metal binding and oxidation.[35]Molecular tweezers (MTs), which possess a torus-shaped
cavity with
a surrounding belt of alternating aromatic and aliphatic rings, were
designed to serve as host molecules binding specifically to lysine
and to a lesser extent to arginine residues.[36−38] MTs were shown
to be modulators of the aggregation of Aβ and other amyloidogenic
proteins and effective inhibitors of the toxicity of these proteins.[39] A lead MT derivative, CLR01 (Figure 1a), was shown to inhibit the toxicity of multiple
amyloidogenic proteins in cell viability assays using cell lines and
primary cell cultures[39−42] and protected synaptic integrity and function of hippocampal and
cortical neurons against the synaptotoxicity of Aβ42.[41] In addition, peripheral administration of CLR01
in transgenic mice led to a decrease in amyloid plaques, neurofibrillary
tangles, and brain inflammation, suggesting that it is a promising
candidate for therapeutic development.[41]
Figure 1
Different binding effects
of CLR01 and CLR03 on Aβ42. (a,
b) Molecular structures of CLR01 and CLR03 compounds; (c–e)
mass spectra of Aβ42 samples: (c) 1:10 mixture of Aβ42
and CLR01; (d) 1:10 mixture of Aβ42 and CLR03; (e) Aβ42
alone. Each species is noted in brackets where the first number is
the number of Aβ42 molecules and the second number represents
the number of bound small molecules. The charge is noted as a superscript.
Mechanistic investigation showed that disruption of Aβ
self-assembly
is mediated by CLR01 binding to the two lysine and the single arginine
residues in Aβ.[39] Dynamic light scattering
(DLS) and electron microscopy (EM) experiments suggested that CLR01
does not prevent oligomer formation but rather modulates Aβ
self-assembly into formation of structures that are neither amyloidogenic
nor toxic.[39] Interestingly, by the relatively
low resolution of DLS and EM, these structures were similar in size
to the toxic and amyloidogenic oligomers of Aβ alone, suggesting
that subtle conformational changes in Aβ might account for the
apparent loss of amyloidogenic potential and toxic activity. However,
the low-resolution methods could not provide information about what
these changes might be. In addition, whether CLR01 binds Aβ
monomers, oligomers, and/or larger aggregates has not been demonstrated
directly.In several previous studies, a derivative called CLR03
(Figure 1b) was used as a negative control.[39,41] This compound shares the polar bridgehead structure with CLR01 but
lacks the hydrophobic arms, and therefore is not expected to bind
specifically to lysine or arginine. Consequently, CLR03 indeed acted
as a negative control and was not found to inhibit the aggregation
and/or toxicity of amyloidogenic proteins. Nonetheless, how CLR03
interacts with Aβ and whether it has any effect on early Aβ
oligomerization of Aβ remains to be uncovered.To address
all these questions, here we used ion mobility spectrometry
coupled mass spectrometry (IMS-MS)[43,44] to investigate
the effect of CLR01 and CLR03 on Aβ assembly. IMS-MS has been
utilized successfully in the past to study Aβ and amyloid assembly[12,45−49] and the effects of various small molecules on the assembly process.[29,32,35,50]
Experimental Methods
Peptide and Sample Preparation
Full-length
Aβ40
and Aβ42 were synthesized by N-9-fluorenylmethoxycarbonyl
(FMOC) chemistry. The peptides were purified by reverse-phase HPLC
and their integrity validated by mass spectrometry and amino acid
analysis as described previously.[51]The samples were prepared in 10 mM ammonium acetate, and the pH was
adjusted to 7.4. Samples contained 10 μM Aβ42 and molecular
tweezers at different concentration ratios. An Aβ42 sample without
MTs was prepared under the same procedure as a positive control.
Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)
Microscopic
analysis was performed using a FEI T-20 transmission electron microscope
operating at 200 kV. The Aβ samples with and without molecular
tweezers were prepared using the same procedure as that for the mass
spectrometry analysis. The samples were kept at 4 °C for 2 weeks.
For TEM measurements, 10 μL aliquots of samples were spotted
on glow-discharged, carbon-coated copper grids (Ted Pella, Inc.).
The samples were stained with 10 mM sodium metatungstate for 10 min
and gently rinsed twice with deionized water. The sample grids were
then dried at room temperature before TEM analysis.
Mass Spectrometry
and Ion Mobility Spectrometry Analysis
Samples were analyzed
on a home-built ion mobility spectrometry-mass
spectrometer[43] which is composed of a nanoelectrospray
ionization (nano-ESI) source, an ion funnel, a temperature-controlled
drift cell, and a quadrupole mass filter followed by an electron multiplier
for ion detection.Briefly, for ion-mobility measurements, ions
are generated continuously by a nano-ESI source, focused and stored
in the ion funnel. A pulse of ions is injected into a temperature-controlled
drift cell filled with 3–5 Torr helium gas, where they gently
pass through under the influence of a weak electric field. The injection
energy can be varied from ∼20 to ∼150 eV, but it is
usually kept as low as possible to minimize thermal heating of the
ions during the injection process. The ions exiting the drift cell
are mass analyzed with a quadrupole mass filter, detected by the conversion
dynode and channel electron multiplier, and recorded as a function
of their arrival time distribution (ATD).The ions in the drift
cell experience a constant force from the
electric field, E. This force is balanced by a retarding
frictional force due to collisions with the buffer gas, resulting
in a constant drift velocity, vd. The
drift velocity is proportional to the electric field:Here, the proportionality constant K is termed the
ion mobility. The absolute ion mobility
is dependent on the temperature (T) and the pressure
(P) of the buffer gas, so it is typically converted
to the reduced mobility K0:The ions exiting the drift cell are mass analyzed
and detected as a function of the arrival time, tA. The reduced mobility K0 can be determined from the instrument parameters by using eq 3 and plotting tA versus P/V[52]In eq 3, l is the length of the drift cell
(4.503 cm), V is
the voltage across the drift cell, and t0 is the time the ions spend outside the drift cell before hitting
the detector. All of these quantities are either known constants or
are measured for each experiment.The reduced ion mobility K0 can be
related to the collision cross section Ω using kinetic theory[53]Here, q is the ion charge, N is the buffer gas number density
at STP, μ is the
reduced mass of the ion–He collision, and kB is the Boltzmann constant. The measured reduced mobility
(K0) and the collision cross section (Ω)
provide information about the three-dimensional configurations of
the ions. For peptide and protein ions, the secondary and tertiary
structural information and the oligomeric states can be identified
by comparison with modeling.Experimental arrival time distributions
can be fitted by calculating
the flux of ions exiting the drift tube using ion transport theory.[53] The ion packet is taken as a periodic delta
function, and the flux is given by eq 5:Here z is the ion charge, r0 is the radius of the initial ion packet, a is the area of the exit aperture, DL and DT are the longitudinal and
transverse diffusion coefficients, s is the initial
ion density, and α is the loss of ions due to reactions in the
drift cell. The fitted feature represents the theoretical ATD for
one species with a given cross section. If a feature in the experimental
ATD is broader than the fitted one, then the feature possibly represents
a family of structures, rather than a single structure.
Results
For the IMS-MS experiments performed here, Aβ and the molecular
tweezers were prepared in ammonium acetate buffer, in contrast to
previous experiments in which they were studied in sodium phosphate
buffer. This change in condition was not expected to cause major changes
in Aβ assembly or its inhibition. To verify this expectation
experimentally, we assessed samples of Aβ42 in the absence or
presence of CLR01 or CLR03 by TEM. Aβ42 was incubated with CLR01
at 1:1 or 1:10 concentration ratio, respectively, and with CLR03 at
1:10 concentration ratio.As shown in Figure S1 (Supporting Information), Aβ42 shows long
fibrils in the absence of tweezers or in
the presence of CLR03, as observed previously in sodium phosphate
buffer.[39] In the presence of an equimolar
concentration of CLR01, the Aβ42 sample shows a few protofibril-like
structures and amorphous structures. At 1:10 Aβ42:CLR01 concentration,
only small amorphous structures are observed. These TEM results show
that CLR01 inhibits the fibril formation by Aβ42, whereas CLR03
does not, which is consistent with previous studies in sodium phosphate
buffer. These results indicate that the change of buffer has a minimal
effect on Aβ fibrillogenesis and the way it is impacted by CLR01
or CLR03, supporting the comparison between the data shown below and
previous biophysical investigations of these systems.
Mass Spectrometry Reveals Different Binding Effects of CLR01
and CLR03 on Aβ42
Mass spectra of Aβ42 samples
in the absence or presence of MTs are shown in Figure 1. In the mass spectrum of Aβ42 alone (Figure 1e), there are four peaks, which correspond to Aβ42
species with charge states z/n =
−4, −3, −5/2, and −2 (where z represents charge and n represents oligomer order),
respectively, as described previously.[12,45] In the mass
spectrum of a 1:10 mixture of Aβ42 and CLR01 (Figure 1c), there are three sets of peaks which correspond
to −4, −5, and −6 charge states of the complexes
of Aβ42 with one, two, three, or four CLR01 molecules bound.
As the mass spectrometry study was conducted in negative ion mode,
the binding form of CLR01 is with loss of sodium ions, which results
in producing Aβ42 and CLR01 complexes with higher charge states.
Note that no −5/2 Aβ42 peak (m/z = 1805), which represents dimer or higher order oligomers,
is observed. This indicates that CLR01 disrupts the formation of Aβ42
dimers and higher order oligomers. No peaks of uncomplexed Aβ42
are observed in the mass spectrum, suggesting that CLR01 binds to
Aβ42 directly with high affinity and there are no CLR01-free
Aβ42 species present in solution.Different binding effects
of CLR01 and CLR03 on Aβ42. (a,
b) Molecular structures of CLR01 and CLR03 compounds; (c–e)
mass spectra of Aβ42 samples: (c) 1:10 mixture of Aβ42
and CLR01; (d) 1:10 mixture of Aβ42 and CLR03; (e) Aβ42
alone. Each species is noted in brackets where the first number is
the number of Aβ42 molecules and the second number represents
the number of bound small molecules. The charge is noted as a superscript.In contrast, the spectrum of a
1:10 mixture of Aβ42 and CLR03
(Figure 1d) shows four peaks corresponding
to the −4, −3, −5/2, and −2 Aβ42
species, similarly to Aβ42 alone (Figure 1e). There are two additional small peaks tailing the −3 and
−4 Aβ42 peaks corresponding to the −3 and −4
complex species of Aβ42 with one CLR03 bound, respectively.
The intensities of these two complex peaks are much lower than those
with CLR01 bound, suggesting that the affinity of CLR03 binding to
Aβ42 is much lower than that of CLR01.To better understand
the effects of CLR01 on Aβ42, the mass
spectra of Aβ42 with different ratios of CLR01 (1:1, 1:2, 1:5,
and 1:10) were recorded. The mass spectrum of a 1:1 mixture is shown
in Figure 2d as an example, and others are
provided in Figure S2 (Supporting Information). The mass spectrum of the 1:5 mixture of Aβ42 and CLR01 is
similar to that of the 1:10 mixture (Figure 1c) with peaks corresponding to complex species Aβ42 and CLR01
with charge states −4, −5, and −6. As the concentration
of CLR01 decreases (1:2 and 1:1 ratios), the complex species of Aβ42
and CLR01 with lower charge states (−4, −3, −5/2)
are observed in the mass spectra. One possible explanation is that
CLR01 itself is slightly basic in aqueous solution and the observed
binding form of CLR01 is CLR01 with loss of sodium ions; therefore,
the complexes tend to carry more charges in the presence of high concentration
CLR01. Note that no z/n = −5/2
CLR01-free Aβ42 dimer peak is observed in any of the mixtures.
However, in the low-ratio mixtures (1:1 and 1:2, see Figure 2d and Figure S2, Supporting
Information), the −5/2 complex peaks of Aβ42 oligomers
with CLR01 molecules bound are observed (m/z = 1950, 2096, and 2241 representing [2+1],
[2+2], and [2+3] Aβ42–CLR01
complexes, respectively). These results suggest that CLR01 not only
binds to Aβ42 monomers but also to small Aβ42 oligomers
with relatively high affinity, thereby disrupting the formation of
larger Aβ42 oligomers even at 1:1 ratio. As the concentration
of CLR01 increases, the Aβ42 oligomers decrease in abundance
or altogether disappear.
Figure 2
Effects of low concentration CLR01 on Aβ42
early oligomerization.
ATDs of (a) z/n = −5/2 Aβ42
(m/z = 1805) in an Aβ42 sample
without CLR01; (b) z/n = −5/2
Aβ42 and CLR01 complex (m/z = 1950); and (c) z/n = −5/2
Aβ42 and CLR01 complex (m/z = 2096) in a 1:1 mixture of Aβ42 and CLR01. Each ATD is fit
with multiple features using the procedure described in the Experimental Methods section, and the oligomer order
(n) is noted for each feature. (d) A mass spectrum
of the 1:1 mixture of Aβ42 and CLR01 is shown as an example.
Each species is noted in brackets where the first number is the number
of Aβ42 molecules and the second number represents the number
of bound CLR01 molecules. The charge is noted as a superscript. The
dashed line represents the theoretical position for the uncomplexed
−5/2 peak. Mass spectra of mixtures of Aβ42 and CLR01
with different ratios are shown in Figure S2 (Supporting Information). (e) Cross sections of dimer and tetramer
in the uncomplexed or CLR01-complexed −5/2 Aβ42. The
error for the cross sections reported here is between 0 and 1%.
Effects of low concentration CLR01 on Aβ42
early oligomerization.
ATDs of (a) z/n = −5/2 Aβ42
(m/z = 1805) in an Aβ42 sample
without CLR01; (b) z/n = −5/2
Aβ42 and CLR01 complex (m/z = 1950); and (c) z/n = −5/2
Aβ42 and CLR01 complex (m/z = 2096) in a 1:1 mixture of Aβ42 and CLR01. Each ATD is fit
with multiple features using the procedure described in the Experimental Methods section, and the oligomer order
(n) is noted for each feature. (d) A mass spectrum
of the 1:1 mixture of Aβ42 and CLR01 is shown as an example.
Each species is noted in brackets where the first number is the number
of Aβ42 molecules and the second number represents the number
of bound CLR01 molecules. The charge is noted as a superscript. The
dashed line represents the theoretical position for the uncomplexed
−5/2 peak. Mass spectra of mixtures of Aβ42 and CLR01
with different ratios are shown in Figure S2 (Supporting Information). (e) Cross sections of dimer and tetramer
in the uncomplexed or CLR01-complexed −5/2 Aβ42. The
error for the cross sections reported here is between 0 and 1%.
Ion Mobility Spectrometry
Reveals CLR01 Inhibiting Early Aβ42
Oligomerization
To better understand the effects of CLR01
on Aβ42 oligomerization, an ion mobility study was conducted.
No ATDs for the z/n = −5/2
Aβ42 peak (m/z = 1805) could
be recorded, as it was not observed in any of the mixtures of Aβ42
and CLR01 (Figures 1c and 2d and Figure S2, Supporting Information). The ATDs of the [2+1] and [2+2] complex
peaks were recorded and are shown in Figure 2b and c (the signal of [2 + 3] complex species was too weak to obtain
a reliable ATD). The ATD of the −5/2 Aβ42 peak of pure
Aβ42 (Figure 2a) shows four features
with arrival times of ∼712, 680, 620, and 540 μs, which
were previously assigned as Aβ42 dimer, tetramer, hexamer, and
dodecamer, respectively, based on their cross section values (see
refs (12) and (45) for a detailed discussion
of the −5/2 peak assignment). In contrast, in the 1:1 mixture
of Aβ42 and CLR01, the ATD of the m/z = 1950 peak (Figure 2b, labeled
as [2+1] species) shows only two features with arrival
times of 690 and 640 μs, which are assigned as dimer and tetramer,
respectively. This indicates there is one CLR01 molecule bound to
the Aβ42 dimer and two CLR01 molecules bound to the Aβ42
tetramer, respectively. No features at lower arrival times are observed,
suggesting there are no Aβ42 hexamers, dodecamers, or other
larger oligomers formed in the presence of CLR01. The ATD of the m/z = 2096 peak (Figure 2c, labeled as [2+2] species) also shows two dominant
features with arrival times of ∼700 and 660 μs, which
correspond to Aβ42 dimer and tetramer, respectively. This indicates
that there are two CLR01 molecules bound to the Aβ42 dimer and
four CLR01 molecules bound to the Aβ42 tetramer. Again, the
highest oligomers with CLR01 bound observed are tetramers and absence
of features at lower arrival times indicates no hexamer, dodecamer,
or higher order oligomer formation. These results indicate that CLR01
not only binds to Aβ42 monomers but also to small oligomers
and inhibits the formation of hexamer and higher order oligomers.The cross sections of oligomer complexes are given in Figure 2e. Interestingly, the cross sections of dimers with
one or two CLR01 molecules bound are significantly smaller than those
of the dimer with no ligands attached, even though their mass has
increased. This result suggests CLR01 induces more interaction between
the two monomers, leading to a compact conformation and overall size
reduction. Similarly, the cross sections of tetramers with two or
four CLR01 molecules bound are smaller than those of the tetramer
with no CLR01 bound. In addition, the tetramer ATD peaks with CLR01
bound (Figure 2b, c) are much narrower than
in wild type Aβ42. This indicates there is little structure
variation in the CLR01 bound tetramer while in wt Aβ42 the tetramer
family of structures is both larger and more varied. The unbound Aβ42
tetramer normally adopts a family of structures that have a bent arrangement
(∼120° angle).[12] It is likely
that the tetramers with CLR01 bound adopt either a more closed square
ring structure or a pyramidal structure accounting for the fact they
are smaller than CLR01-free Aβ42 tetramers and that dimer cannot
be added to form hexamer. A similar effect prevents Aβ40 from
growing beyond tetramer and explains its greatly reduced toxicity
relative to Aβ42.[12]
CLR01 Remodels
Preformed Aβ42 Oligomers
To explore
whether CLR01 can remodel the early oligomerization of Aβ42
not only immediately upon dissolution but also after the oligomers
have already formed, Aβ42 was incubated for 4 h on ice, following
which CLR01 was added to the samples. The samples were incubated at
a low temperature to allow quasi-equilibrium of small oligomers to
be reached but avoid extensive aggregation, which happens at higher
temperatures and leads to clogging of the nano-ESI capillaries, preventing
further analysis. The results are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3
CLR01 remodels the early oligomerization of Aβ42. (a) Mass
spectrum of Aβ42 alone with ∼4 h of incubation on ice;
(b) mass spectrum of the Aβ42 sample immediately after the addition
of 1:1 CLR01. Each species is noted in brackets where the first number
is the number of Aβ42 and the second number represents the number
of bound CLR01 molecules. The charge is noted as a superscript. (c)
ATD of the z/n = −5/2 Aβ42
peak for the Aβ42 in the absence of CLR01 after ∼4 h
of incubation on ice. (d) ATD of the z/n = −5/2 Aβ42 peak after addition of 1:1 CLR01. (e and
f) ATDs of −5/2 Aβ42 oligomer complexes after addition
of 1:1 CLR01 to the preaggregated Aβ42 sample. Each ATD is fit
with multiple features using the procedure described in the Experimental Methods section, and the oligomer order
(n) is noted for each feature.
CLR01 remodels the early oligomerization of Aβ42. (a) Mass
spectrum of Aβ42 alone with ∼4 h of incubation on ice;
(b) mass spectrum of the Aβ42 sample immediately after the addition
of 1:1 CLR01. Each species is noted in brackets where the first number
is the number of Aβ42 and the second number represents the number
of bound CLR01 molecules. The charge is noted as a superscript. (c)
ATD of the z/n = −5/2 Aβ42
peak for the Aβ42 in the absence of CLR01 after ∼4 h
of incubation on ice. (d) ATD of the z/n = −5/2 Aβ42 peak after addition of 1:1 CLR01. (e and
f) ATDs of −5/2 Aβ42 oligomer complexes after addition
of 1:1 CLR01 to the preaggregated Aβ42 sample. Each ATD is fit
with multiple features using the procedure described in the Experimental Methods section, and the oligomer order
(n) is noted for each feature.Following incubation, the mass spectrum of Aβ42 (Figure 3a) shows four peaks with charge states of z/n = −4, −3, −5/2,
and −2. The ATD of the −5/2 peak shows four features
corresponding to dimer, tetramer, hexamer, and dodecamer, similar
to Figure 2a. Upon addition of CLR01 at 1:1
concentration ratio, new peaks appeared corresponding to z/n = −4, −3 monomer complexes and z/n = −5/2 oligomer complexes (Figure 3b). Overall, the spectrum was similar to the one
obtained in the inhibition study (Figure 2d),
with the exception that no peaks were observed with 3 or 4 CLR01 molecules
bound. The data indicate that CLR01 binds to Aβ42 monomers and
preformed Aβ42 oligomers directly, mostly with 1:1 or 1:2 stroichiometry,
whereas binding of additional CLR01 molecules is less likely after
incubation. This suggests the existence of two main binding sites
for CLR01 on Aβ, Lys16, and Lys28.[39]Interestingly, the ATD of the z/n = −5/2 unbound Aβ42 peak (Figure 3d) showed only three features representing dimer, tetramer, and a
small amount of hexamer after the addition of equimolar CLR01. The
feature representing Aβ42 dodecamer was eliminated after the
addition of CLR01, suggesting that the binding of CLR01 dissociated
the preformed Aβ42 dodecamer. Moreover, the relative intensity
of the hexamer decreased significantly compared to that before CLR01
addition (Figure 3c), suggesting CLR01 began
to also dissociate hexamers. The ATDs of the z/n = −5/2 Aβ42:CLR01 oligomer complex peaks
(Figure 3e, f) showed only the two features
corresponding to dimer and tetramer with CLR01 molecules bound, as
observed immediately upon mixing of Aβ42 and CLR01 (Figure 2b and c), suggesting that binding of CLR01 to Aβ42
dimers or tetramers changes their structure so that additional dimers
cannot be added to form hexamers. The ATDs of the z/n = −5/2 peaks were monitored again after
1 day of incubation at 4 °C, and the results (see Figure S3, Supporting Information) were similar to those
obtained following 4 h of incubation, suggesting that CLR01 maintained
the distribution of Aβ42 oligomers, in which dodecamers were
excluded and hexamers were a minor species.To test the effect
of the Aβ42:CLR01 concentration ratio
on the remodeling of Aβ42 oligomerization, higher ratios of
CLR01 (1:5 and 1:10, respectively) were added to 4 h incubated Aβ42.
The mass spectrum of the 1:5 mixture is shown in Figure S4c (Supporting Information) (the result of the 1:10
ratio was similar to that of the 1:5 mixture and therefore is not
shown). The mass spectrum of the 1:5 mixture showed mostly complexes
of Aβ42 monomer with CLR01 molecules. No z/n = −5/2 peak of CLR01-free or CLR01-complexed Aβ42
was observed. These results suggest that high concentrations of CLR01
dissociate preformed Aβ42 oligomers. Taken together, these results
indicate that CLR01 remodels Aβ42 oligomerization both at low
and high concentration ratios.
Ion Mobility Spectrometry
of Aβ42 Monomer Complexes
The ATDs of z/n = −3 of
Aβ42 monomer in the absence or presence of CLR01 (1:1) are shown
in Figure S5 (Supporting Information).
In the ATD of the −3 monomer peak of Aβ42 alone, there
are two dominant peaks with arrival times of ∼640 and ∼680
μs, previously identified as a solvent-free conformer and a
solution-like conformer, respectively.[49] The ATD for the −3 peak of Aβ42 complexed with one
CLR01 molecule shows two similar features with arrival times of ∼668
and ∼712 μs. By analogy, these are assigned as the solvent-free
and solution-like conformers of Aβ42 monomer with one CLR01
bound, respectively.The ATDs of z/n = −4 and −5 complexes of Aβ42 with
one, two, three, or four CLR01 molecules bound in a 1:5 mixture, respectively,
are shown in Figure S6 (Supporting Information). Those for z/n = −4 have
two features in their ATDs, and as the number of bound CLR01 molecules
increases, the intensity of the compact, shorter-time feature increases,
relative to the more extended, longer-time feature. Overall, there
are no features with shorter arrival times detected which indicates
that only monomer with CLR01 complexed is present in solution. The
cross sections of the Aβ42:CLR01 monomer complexes are shown
in Figure S6c (Supporting Information).
Addition of each CLR01 ligand increases the size of the complex by
an amount comparable to the size of CLR01, suggesting that no major
structural transitions occur in the monomers upon CLR01 binding.
Effects of CLR01 on Aβ40 Assembly
Aβ40
has an identical sequence to that of Aβ42 except for absence
of Ile41 and Ala42 residues at the C-terminus but has very different
assembly and pathological properties. Thus, it is interesting to examine
how CLR01 affects its early oligomerization in comparison to Aβ42.
The mass spectra of Aβ40 alone and Aβ40 mixed with CLR01
at different ratios are provided in Figure S7 (Supporting Information). The mass spectrum of Aβ40 alone
shows three peaks which correspond to z/n = −4, −3, and −5/2, similar to the spectrum
of the Aβ42. The mass spectra of mixtures of Aβ40 and
CLR01 at different ratios show sets of peaks at charge states −3,
−4, −5, and −6 corresponding to Aβ40:CLR01
complexes. Up to four CLR01 molecules are observed bound to Aβ40.
At lower CLR01 concentration (1:1 ratio, Figure S7b, Supporting Information), there are three z/n = −5/2 peaks at m/z = 1876, 2021, and 2167, corresponding to [2+1], [2+2], and [2+3] oligomer complexes
of Aβ40 and CLR01. At higher concentrations of CLR01 (1:5 and
1:10 ratios), no −5/2 oligomer complexes were detected, suggesting
that no dimer or higher-order oligomers formed.The ATDs of
these −5/2 oligomer peaks are shown in Figure 4 (the signal of the [2+3] complex was too weak to obtain a
reliable ATD and therefore is not shown). The −5/2 peak of
Aβ40 (m/z = 1731, Figure 4a) shows two features with arrival times of ∼690
and ∼620 μs which previously were assigned as Aβ40
dimer and tetramer (see ref (12) for a detailed discussion of the −5/2 peak assignment).
For the 1:1 mixture of Aβ40 and CLR01, the ATDs of −5/2
[2+1] and [2+2] oligomer complexes (Figure 4b and c) show two primary features, which can be
assigned as dimer and tetramer based on their cross sections. These
results indicate that there are one or two CLR01 molecules bound to
Aβ40 dimers and two or four CLR01 molecules bound to Aβ40
tetramers. No features at shorter arrival times were observed, indicating
that there are no hexamer or larger oligomers formed. Interestingly,
the intensities of the tetramer feature for [2+1] and
[2+2] complex species (Figure 4b and c) are lower than that of the −5/2, CLR01-free Aβ40
tetramer feature, which indicates that the formation of tetramer is
slower in the presence of CLR01 in the Aβ40 sample than in its
absence.
Figure 4
Effects of low concentration CLR01 on Aβ40 oligomerization.
(a) ATD of z/n = −5/2 Aβ40
(m/z = 1731) for Aβ40 alone;
(b and c) ATDs of z/n = −5/2
Aβ40 and CLR01 complexes (m/z = 1876 and 2021) in the 1:1 mixture of Aβ40 and CLR01. Each
ATD is fit with multiple features using the procedure described in
the Experimental Methods section, and the
oligomer order (n) is noted for each feature. Note
the ATDs with CLR01 bound, panels b and c, are significantly narrower
than wild type, panel a.
Effects of low concentration CLR01 on Aβ40 oligomerization.
(a) ATD of z/n = −5/2 Aβ40
(m/z = 1731) for Aβ40 alone;
(b and c) ATDs of z/n = −5/2
Aβ40 and CLR01 complexes (m/z = 1876 and 2021) in the 1:1 mixture of Aβ40 and CLR01. Each
ATD is fit with multiple features using the procedure described in
the Experimental Methods section, and the
oligomer order (n) is noted for each feature. Note
the ATDs with CLR01 bound, panels b and c, are significantly narrower
than wild type, panel a.The ATDs of monomer complexes with charge states z/n = −3, −4, −5,
or −6
are shown in Figures S8 and S9 (Supporting Information). The z/n = −4 species
(Figure S9a, Supporting Information) show
two features in their ATDs corresponding to the solvent-free conformer
and the solution-like conformer of Aβ40 complexed with CLR01.
Taken together, these results indicate that CLR01 binds to Aβ40
with relatively high affinity and inhibits its early oligomerization.
The cross sections of Aβ40 monomer complexes are shown in Figure
S9b (Supporting Information). Similarly
to the Aβ42 case, addition of each CLR01 ligand increases the
size of the monomer complex by an amount comparable to the size of
CLR01, suggesting that no major structural transitions occur in the
monomers upon CLR01 binding.
IMS Reveals That CLR03 Facilitates Early
Aβ42 Oligomerization
As noted above, CLR03 has been
used as a negative-control compound,
which was not expected to inhibit Aβ oligomerization or aggregation.
Hence, we felt it was important to do similar experiments that are
reported here.Time-dependent ion mobility study of the effects of CLR03
on Aβ42
early oligomerization. (a–c) ATDs of the −5/2 Aβ42
peak (m/z = 1805) for the 1:10 mixture
of Aβ42 and CLR03 at different time points; (d–f) ATDs
of the −5/2 Aβ42 peak (m/z = 1805) for Aβ42 alone at different time points. Each ATD
is fit with multiple features using the procedure described in the Experimental Methods section. The oligomer order
(n) and cross section are noted for each feature.A time-dependent study of the
ATDs of the −5/2 Aβ42
peak (m/z = 1805) of Aβ42
alone and the 1:10 mixture of Aβ42 and CLR03 is shown in Figure 5. The ATD of the −5/2 Aβ42 peak for
the 1:10 mixture of Aβ42 and CLR03 at 30 min (Figure 5a) shows four features that can be assigned as Aβ42
dimer, tetramer, hexamer, and dodecamer based on their cross sections,
which is similar to the results of Aβ42 alone at 30 min (Figure 5d). Interestingly, the intensity of the dodecamer
feature of the −5/2 peak for the mixture of Aβ42 and
CLR03 is relatively higher than other features, whereas the intensity
of the dodecamer feature of Aβ42 alone at 30 min is relatively
lower than other features, suggesting that the growth of dodecamer
in the presence of CLR03 is faster than in its absence. After up to
24 h of incubation, the dodecamer in the Aβ42 and CLR03 mixture
becomes an even more dominant feature in the ATDs (Figure 5b and c), whereas the CLR01-free Aβ42 sample
does not change substantially and appears to be in a state of quasi-equilibrium
(Figure 5e and f). The observation of dodecamer
and the significant rapid growth of dodecamer in the Aβ42 sample
in the presence of CLR03 suggest that CLR03 not only does not inhibit
the formation of Aβ42 dodecamer but actually facilitates the
dodecamer formation.
Figure 5
Time-dependent ion mobility study of the effects of CLR03
on Aβ42
early oligomerization. (a–c) ATDs of the −5/2 Aβ42
peak (m/z = 1805) for the 1:10 mixture
of Aβ42 and CLR03 at different time points; (d–f) ATDs
of the −5/2 Aβ42 peak (m/z = 1805) for Aβ42 alone at different time points. Each ATD
is fit with multiple features using the procedure described in the Experimental Methods section. The oligomer order
(n) and cross section are noted for each feature.
ATDs of z/n = −3 and −4
peaks for Aβ42 alone and a 1:1 mixture of Aβ42 and CLR03
are shown in Figure 6. The ATD of the z/n = −3 Aβ42 peak for the
mixture of Aβ42 and CLR03 (Figure 6b)
shows two features at ∼640 and ∼680 μs corresponding
to the compact and extended conformers, respectively, which is similar
to those of Aβ42 alone (Figure 6a). Remarkably,
there is another feature at a substantially shorter arrival time (∼500
μs) as noted by the arrow in addition to the two monomer features,
which is not observed for Aβ42 alone. This indicates the presence
of relatively large oligomers (n ≥ 2) formed
in the presence of CLR03. A similar feature is observed in the ATD
of the z/n = −3 peak of Aβ42
with one CLR03 bound, which corresponds to large oligomers (n ≥ 2). In Figure 6e and f,
dominant features with shorter arrival times are observed in the ATDs
for z/n = −4 peaks of Aβ42
with and without CLR03 bound, in addition to the monomer feature,
indicating the presence of large oligomers (n ≥
2). These results are consistent with the results of the ATDs of the z/n = −5/2 Aβ42 peak (m/z = 1805, Figure 5) and further support the fact that CLR03 facilitates self-assembly
of Aβ42.
Figure 6
CLR03 facilitates Aβ42 oligomer formation: (a) ATD
of the z/n = −3 peak for
Aβ42 alone,
(b and c) ATDs of z/n = −3
Aβ42 without and with CLR03 bound for a 1:10 mixture of Aβ42
and CLR03, (d) ATD of the z/n =
−4 peak for Aβ42 alone, (e and f) z/n = −4 Aβ42 without and with CLR03 bound for
a 1:10 mixture of Aβ42 and CLR03. Each ATD is fit with multiple
features using the procedure described in the Experimental
Methods section. M1 and M2 represent
two conformations of the Aβ42 monomer. The arrows indicate the
formation of oligomers (n ≥ 2) in the mixture
of Aβ42 and CLR03.
CLR03 facilitates Aβ42 oligomer formation: (a) ATD
of the z/n = −3 peak for
Aβ42 alone,
(b and c) ATDs of z/n = −3
Aβ42 without and with CLR03 bound for a 1:10 mixture of Aβ42
and CLR03, (d) ATD of the z/n =
−4 peak for Aβ42 alone, (e and f) z/n = −4 Aβ42 without and with CLR03 bound for
a 1:10 mixture of Aβ42 and CLR03. Each ATD is fit with multiple
features using the procedure described in the Experimental
Methods section. M1 and M2 represent
two conformations of the Aβ42 monomer. The arrows indicate the
formation of oligomers (n ≥ 2) in the mixture
of Aβ42 and CLR03.
CLR03 Facilitates Aβ40 Assembly
The effect of
CLR03 on Aβ40 oligomerization is shown in Figure 7. The mass spectrum of a 1:10 mixture of Aβ40 and CLR03
shows peaks corresponding to z/n = −3 and z/n = −4
monomer with one CLR03 bound but no CLR03 attachment to the z/n = −5/2 peak (Figure S10b, Supporting Information). However, the ATD of
the −5/2 Aβ40 peak (m/z = 1731) in the presence of CLR03 (Figure 7b) shows formation of both Aβ40 hexamer and dodecamer based
on their cross sections. In Figure 7c, the
cross sections for the dimers and tetramers of Aβ40 are given
for Aβ40 alone and for Aβ40 mixed with CLR01 and CLR03.
Note that CLR03 significantly increases both cross sections, whereas
CLR01 significantly decreases both cross sections. Further aggregation
is enhanced by CLR03 and inhibited by CLR01.
Figure 7
CLR03 facilitates Aβ40
assembly. (a, b) ATDs of the −5/2
Aβ40 peak (m/z = 1731) for
the Aβ40 samples in the absence or presence of CLR03. Each ATD
is fit with multiple features using the procedure described in the Experimental Methods section, and the oligomer order
(n) is noted for each feature. (c) Cross sections
of −5/2 Aβ40 oligomers for samples of Aβ40 in the
absence or presence of CLR01 or CLR03. The error for the cross sections
reported here is between 0 and 1%.
CLR03 facilitates Aβ40
assembly. (a, b) ATDs of the −5/2
Aβ40 peak (m/z = 1731) for
the Aβ40 samples in the absence or presence of CLR03. Each ATD
is fit with multiple features using the procedure described in the Experimental Methods section, and the oligomer order
(n) is noted for each feature. (c) Cross sections
of −5/2 Aβ40 oligomers for samples of Aβ40 in the
absence or presence of CLR01 or CLR03. The error for the cross sections
reported here is between 0 and 1%.The ATDs of z/n = −3
and
−4 peaks of the 1:10 Aβ40:CLR03 mixture (Figure S11, Supporting Information) show features at arrival
times shorter than those of monomers, suggesting formation of large
oligomers (n ≥ 2) in the presence of CLR03.
Overall, these results reveal that CLR03 facilitates early oligomerization
of Aβ40.
Discussion and Conclusions
Our mass
spectrometry study of the lead molecular tweezer, CLR01,
and the related derivative, CLR03, provides novel observations that
could not have been obtained previously due to the low resolution
of the methods used. Our investigation reveals that CLR01 and CLR03
bind to Aβ with very different affinities. Three CLR01 molecules
bind with relatively higher affinity and a fourth weakly, but only
one CLR03 molecule binds weakly to Aβ.The Aβ:CLR01
stoichiometry found in our study is consistent
with previous data suggesting that there are three possible binding
sites for molecular tweezers on Aβ at Arg5, Lys16, and Lys 28.[39] Possible explanations for our observation of
a fourth CLR01 molecule weakly binding to Aβ40 and Aβ42
could simply stem from differences in instrumentation, or might reflect
nondiscriminating electrostatic and/or aromatic interactions between
Aβ and CLR01 molecules, which might have been broken under harsher
ionization conditions in the study by Sinha et al.[39] These nonspecific dispersive interactions could also explain
the weak binding of one CLR03 molecule to Aβ, which was not
observed within the limits of NMR detection in the previous study.[39]The observation of three z/n =
−5/2 oligomer complexes in the 1:1 and 1:2 mixtures of Aβ42
and CLR01, respectively, suggests that CLR01 not only binds to Aβ42
monomers but also to small Aβ42 oligomers (dimers and tetramers).
Moreover, IMS reveals that CLR01 inhibits the formation of hexamers
and dodecamers. This is important, as dodecamers have been identified
as probable toxic agents in AD.[12−14] Understanding the mechanism of
how CLR01 blocks dodecamer formation is crucial for developing a therapeutic
strategy for AD. Remarkably, the cross sections of the dimer and tetramer
decreased substantially upon binding of CLR01 (see Figure 2e). These results suggest that CLR01 interacts with
Aβ42 to change the folding of the monomer, which in turn changes
the binding interface in dimer and tetramer formation, resulting in
compact structures that resist further aggregation. Once multiple
CLR01 ligands bind to the monomer, even dimer formation is prevented.The ability of CLR01 to remodel early Aβ42 oligomerization
after the oligomers had an opportunity to form and reach a quasi-equilibrium
state for 4 h was assessed by IMS as well. Interestingly, even at
low concentration (1:1 ratio), CLR01 was capable of removing preformed
Aβ42 dodecamers and hexamers. At high concentrations (1:5 and
1:10 ratios), CLR01 removes essentially all preformed Aβ42 oligomers.
These data are consistent with the inhibition results immediately
upon mixing Aβ42 and CLR01. It is possible that CLR01 binds
to Aβ42 monomers and oligomers and redirects them into either
a slower aggregation process or an off-pathway set of structures.
In either case, the resulting structures are nonamyloidogenic and
nontoxic.[39−41] Our data reveal for the first time that the loss
of amyloid-formation propensity and toxicity correlate with disruption
of the oligomerization process and compaction of oligomers formed
in the presence of CLR01.Surprisingly, the related derivative,
CLR03, was found to facilitate
the early aggregation of Aβ42, especially promoting the formation
of hexamers and dodecamers. Perhaps even more surprisingly, CLR03
also facilitated the formation of hexamers and dodecamers in Aβ40,
which does not form these oligomers on its own. Previous studies showed
that CLR03 did not inhibit Aβ42- or Aβ40-induced neurotoxicity.[39] However, how CLR03 interacts with Aβ has
been unclear. Given the fact that CLR03 is an organic phosphate, we
wondered whether it is possible the addition of CLR03 has a simple
“salting out”-like effect, which would thereby promote
Aβ aggregation. To address this possibility, an organic phosphate, p-nitrophenylphosphate (PNPP), was added to Aβ samples
and was found not to induce significant changes in Aβ oligomerization
(see Figure S12, Supporting Information). This result implies a simple “salting out”-like
effect is not occurring for CLR03 and that CLR03 interacts with Aβ
in a specific manner.A major difference between the structures
of CLR01 and CLR03 is
that CLR01 has a torus-shaped cavity whereas CLR03 does not have a
cavity structure. CLR03 carries a bridge-like structure with negatively
charged phosphate groups on each side. It is possible that one of
the phosphate groups on CLR03 interacts with positively charged residues
(Lys, Arg, N-terminus) of Aβ through Coulombic interactions.
The other phosphate group on the other side of CLR03 could then attract
a positively charged residue of another Aβ or Aβ oligomer.
Thus, by attracting positively charged residues in Aβ, CLR03
could facilitate Aβ oligomerization and aggregation.Alternatively,
CLR03 may interact weakly with two positively charged
groups in a single Aβ, resulting in no observation of peaks
for single Aβ with multiple CLR03 in the mass spectra (Figure 1d). As a consequence, conformation change may occur
that promotes Aβ assembly. This is a form of salting out, and
it may be more effective than PNPP. However, the fact that assembly
is promoted to structures similar to wt Aβ42 speaks against
salting out as a dominant assembly mechanism.CLR01, which also
carries two phosphate groups, however, does not
catalyze Aβ oligomerization. This suggests that inclusion of
lysine or arginine inside the cavity of CLR01 is of paramount importance
for CLR01’s mode of action. The central hydrophobic region
of Aβ is regarded to be important for the hydrophobic clustering
of Aβ. Recently, a macrocyclic inhibitor cucurbit[7]uril has
been shown to inhibit amyloid fibrillation by hydrophobic interactions
with nonpolar phenylalanine residues of Aβ.[54] CLR01, which has hydrophobic arms, is likely to have additional
hydrophobic interactions with lysine residues. The binding of CLR01
to lysine residues, especially Lys16 which is close to the central
hydrophobic region of Aβ, may result in conformation change
of Aβ and compaction of Aβ oligomers. Our data suggest
that binding of CLR01 causes Aβ monomers to either resist oligomer
formation altogether or to redirect them to nontoxic oligomer assembly.Previous detailed analysis showed that Aβ40 formed a nearly
closed planar tetramer that resisted further dimer addition.[12] Here, we found that adding CLR01 to Aβ40
significantly reduced the cross sections of both the dimer and tetramer,
leading to nearly isotropic assembly and reducing the likelihood of
even forming the tetramer, much less higher-order oligomers. On the
other hand, the presence of CLR03 in the solution significantly extended
both the dimer and tetramer, yielding cross sections similar to those
of the corresponding Aβ42 oligomers and leading to hexamer and
dodecamer formation.The essential features of these results
are given in cartoon style
in Figure 8. Aβ42 wt rapidly forms dodecamer,
but addition of the molecular tweezerCLR01 eliminates dodecamer formation
by inducing the dimer and tetramer to form compact species that cannot
add additional Aβ42. The opposite effect is obtained by CLR03.
Aβ40 wt forms terminal compact tetramers, but addition of CLR03
leads to open tetramer formation and eventual dodecamer formation.
These contrary effects are potentially of great importance in Aβ
assembly and require further study to reveal the details involved.
These studies, which will include both high level molecular dynamics
modeling and additional direct sampling of structures of Aβ
oligomers, are underway.
Figure 8
Different effects of CLR01 and CLR03 on Aβ
early oligomerization.
Oligomerization of (a) Aβ42 wild type, (b) Aβ42 with the
presence of CLR01, (c) Aβ40 wild type, and (d) Aβ40 with
the presence of CLR03. Aβ42 and Aβ40 are represented with
blue and red balls, respectively. CLR01 and CLR03 molecules are noted
as X and Y.
Different effects of CLR01 and CLR03 on Aβ
early oligomerization.
Oligomerization of (a) Aβ42 wild type, (b) Aβ42 with the
presence of CLR01, (c) Aβ40 wild type, and (d) Aβ40 with
the presence of CLR03. Aβ42 and Aβ40 are represented with
blue and red balls, respectively. CLR01 and CLR03 molecules are noted
as X and Y.
Authors: Summer L Bernstein; Thomas Wyttenbach; Andrij Baumketner; Joan-Emma Shea; Gal Bitan; David B Teplow; Michael T Bowers Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2005-02-23 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Fusheng Yang; Giselle P Lim; Aynun N Begum; Oliver J Ubeda; Mychica R Simmons; Surendra S Ambegaokar; Pingping P Chen; Rakez Kayed; Charles G Glabe; Sally A Frautschy; Gregory M Cole Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2004-12-07 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Summer L Bernstein; Nicholas F Dupuis; Noel D Lazo; Thomas Wyttenbach; Margaret M Condron; Gal Bitan; David B Teplow; Joan-Emma Shea; Brandon T Ruotolo; Carol V Robinson; Michael T Bowers Journal: Nat Chem Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 24.427
Authors: Yuesong Gong; Lei Chang; Kirsten L Viola; Pascale N Lacor; Mary P Lambert; Caleb E Finch; Grant A Krafft; William L Klein Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-08-18 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Gal Bitan; Marina D Kirkitadze; Aleksey Lomakin; Sabrina S Vollers; George B Benedek; David B Teplow Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2002-12-27 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Robin Roychaudhuri; Xueyun Zheng; Aleksey Lomakin; Panchanan Maiti; Margaret M Condron; George B Benedek; Gal Bitan; Michael T Bowers; David B Teplow Journal: ACS Chem Neurosci Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 4.418
Authors: Tobias Vöpel; Kenny Bravo-Rodriguez; Sumit Mittal; Shivang Vachharajani; David Gnutt; Abhishek Sharma; Anne Steinhof; Oluwaseun Fatoba; Gisa Ellrichmann; Michael Nshanian; Christian Heid; Joseph A Loo; Frank-Gerrit Klärner; Thomas Schrader; Gal Bitan; Erich E Wanker; Simon Ebbinghaus; Elsa Sanchez-Garcia Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Ravinder Malik; Helen Meng; Piriya Wongkongkathep; Christian I Corrales; Niki Sepanj; Ryan S Atlasi; Frank-Gerrit Klärner; Thomas Schrader; Melissa J Spencer; Joseph A Loo; Martina Wiedau; Gal Bitan Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2019-01-02 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Edina Lump; Laura M Castellano; Christoph Meier; Janine Seeliger; Nelli Erwin; Benjamin Sperlich; Christina M Stürzel; Shariq Usmani; Rebecca M Hammond; Jens von Einem; Gisa Gerold; Florian Kreppel; Kenny Bravo-Rodriguez; Thomas Pietschmann; Veronica M Holmes; David Palesch; Onofrio Zirafi; Drew Weissman; Andrea Sowislok; Burkhard Wettig; Christian Heid; Frank Kirchhoff; Tanja Weil; Frank-Gerrit Klärner; Thomas Schrader; Gal Bitan; Elsa Sanchez-Garcia; Roland Winter; James Shorter; Jan Münch Journal: Elife Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Natália E C de Almeida; Thanh D Do; Nichole E LaPointe; Michael Tro; Stuart C Feinstein; Joan-Emma Shea; Michael T Bowers Journal: Int J Mass Spectrom Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 1.986
Authors: Albert W Pilkington; Jane Schupp; Morgan Nyman; Stephen J Valentine; David M Smith; Justin Legleiter Journal: ACS Chem Neurosci Date: 2019-12-27 Impact factor: 4.418