Karunakar Kar1, Matthew A Baker2, George A Lengyel2, Cody L Hoop1, Ravindra Kodali1, In-Ja Byeon1, W Seth Horne2, Patrick C A van der Wel1, Ronald Wetzel3. 1. Department of Structural Biology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA. 2. Department of Chemistry, Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA. 3. Department of Structural Biology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA. Electronic address: rwetzel@pitt.edu.
Abstract
Candidates for the toxic molecular species in the expanded polyglutamine (polyQ) repeat diseases range from various types of aggregates to "misfolded" monomers. One way to vet these candidates is to develop mutants that restrict conformational landscapes. Previously, we inserted two self-complementary β-hairpin enhancing motifs into a short polyQ sequence to generate a mutant, here called "βHP," that exhibits greatly improved amyloid nucleation without measurably enhancing β-structure in the monomer ensemble. We extend these studies here by introducing single-backbone H-bond impairing modifications αN-methyl Gln or l-Pro at key positions within βHP. Modifications predicted to allow formation of a fully H-bonded β-hairpin at the fibril edge while interfering with H-bonding to the next incoming monomer exhibit poor amyloid formation and act as potent inhibitors in trans of simple polyQ peptide aggregation. In contrast, a modification that disrupts intra-β-hairpin H-bonding within βHP, while also aggregating poorly, is ineffective at inhibiting amyloid formation in trans. The inhibitors constitute a dynamic version of the edge-protection negative design strategy used in protein evolution to limit unwanted protein aggregation. Our data support a model in which polyQ peptides containing strong β-hairpin encouraging motifs only rarely form β-hairpin conformations in the monomer ensemble, but nonetheless take on such conformations at key steps during amyloid formation. The results provide insights into polyQ solution structure and fibril formation while also suggesting an approach to the design of inhibitors of polyQ amyloid growth that focuses on conformational requirements for fibril and nucleus elongation.
Candidates for the toxic molecular species in the expanded polyglutamine (n class="Chemical">polyQ) repeat diseases range from various types of aggregates to "misfolded" monomers. One way to vet these candidates is to develop mutants that restrict conformational landscapes. Previously, we inserted two self-complementary β-hairpin enhancing motifs into a short polyQ sequence to generate a mutant, here called "βHP," that exhibits greatly improved amyloid nucleation without measurably enhancing β-structure in the monomer ensemble. We extend these studies here by introducing single-backbone H-bond impairing modifications αN-methylGln or l-Pro at key positions within βHP. Modifications predicted to allow formation of a fully H-bonded β-hairpin at the fibril edge while interfering with H-bonding to the next incoming monomer exhibit poor amyloid formation and act as potent inhibitors in trans of simple polyQ peptide aggregation. In contrast, a modification that disrupts intra-β-hairpin H-bonding within βHP, while also aggregating poorly, is ineffective at inhibiting amyloid formation in trans. The inhibitors constitute a dynamic version of the edge-protection negative design strategy used in protein evolution to limit unwanted protein aggregation. Our data support a model in which polyQpeptides containing strong β-hairpin encouraging motifs only rarely form β-hairpin conformations in the monomer ensemble, but nonetheless take on such conformations at key steps during amyloid formation. The results provide insights into polyQ solution structure and fibril formation while also suggesting an approach to the design of inhibitors of polyQ amyloid growth that focuses on conformational requirements for fibril and nucleus elongation.
Authors: Kalkena Sivanesam; Irene Shu; Kelly N L Huggins; Marianna Tatarek-Nossol; Aphrodite Kapurniotu; Niels H Andersen Journal: FEBS Lett Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 4.124
Authors: Kenneth W Drombosky; Sascha Rode; Ravi Kodali; Tija C Jacob; Michael J Palladino; Ronald Wetzel Journal: Neurobiol Dis Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 5.996
Authors: Di Wu; Jan J Vonk; Felix Salles; Danara Vonk; Martin Haslbeck; Ronald Melki; Steven Bergink; Harm H Kampinga Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Imola Cs Szigyártó; Judith Mihály; András Wacha; Dóra Bogdán; Tünde Juhász; Gergely Kohut; Gitta Schlosser; Ferenc Zsila; Vlada Urlacher; Zoltán Varga; Ferenc Fülöp; Attila Bóta; István Mándity; Tamás Beke-Somfai Journal: Chem Sci Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 9.825
Authors: Xingyue Li; Andrew L Sabol; Michał Wierzbicki; Patrick J Salveson; James S Nowick Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2021-09-12 Impact factor: 16.823