We report the transition dipole strengths and frequencies of the amyloid β-sheet amide I mode for the aggregated proteins amyloid-β1-40, calcitonin, α-synuclein, and glucagon. According to standard vibrational coupling models for proteins, the frequencies of canonical β-sheets are set by their size and structural and environmental disorder, which determines the delocalization length of the vibrational excitons. The larger the delocalization the lower the frequency of the main infrared-allowed transition, A⊥. The models also predict an accompanying increase in transition dipole strength. For the proteins measured here, we find no correlation between transition dipole strengths and amyloid β-sheet transition frequency. To understand this observation, we have extracted from the protein data bank crystal structures of amyloid peptides from which we calculate the amide I vibrational couplings, and we use these in a model β-sheet Hamiltonian to simulate amyloid vibrational spectra. We find that the variations in amyloid β-sheet structures (e.g., dihedral angles, interstrand distances, and orientations) create significant differences in the average values for interstrand and nearest neighbor couplings, and that those variations encompass the variation in measured A⊥ frequencies. We also find that off-diagonal disorder about the average values explains the range of transition dipole strengths observed experimentally. Thus, we conclude that the lack of correlation between transition dipole-strength and frequency is caused by variations in amyloid β-sheet structure. Taken together, these results indicate that the amide I frequency is very sensitive to amyloid β-sheet structure, the β-sheets of these 4 proteins are not identical, and the assumption that frequency of amyloids scales with β-sheet size cannot be adopted without an accompanying measurement of transition dipole strengths.
We report the transition dipole strengths and frequencies of the amyloid β-sheet n class="Chemical">amide I mode for the aggregated proteins amyloid-β1-40, calcitonin, α-synuclein, and glucagon. According to standard vibrational coupling models for proteins, the frequencies of canonical β-sheets are set by their size and structural and environmental disorder, which determines the delocalization length of the vibrational excitons. The larger the delocalization the lower the frequency of the main infrared-allowed transition, A⊥. The models also predict an accompanying increase in transition dipole strength. For the proteins measured here, we find no correlation between transition dipole strengths and amyloid β-sheet transition frequency. To understand this observation, we have extracted from the protein data bank crystal structures of amyloid peptides from which we calculate the amide I vibrational couplings, and we use these in a model β-sheet Hamiltonian to simulate amyloid vibrational spectra. We find that the variations in amyloid β-sheet structures (e.g., dihedral angles, interstrand distances, and orientations) create significant differences in the average values for interstrand and nearest neighbor couplings, and that those variations encompass the variation in measured A⊥ frequencies. We also find that off-diagonal disorder about the average values explains the range of transition dipole strengths observed experimentally. Thus, we conclude that the lack of correlation between transition dipole-strength and frequency is caused by variations in amyloid β-sheet structure. Taken together, these results indicate that the amide I frequency is very sensitive to amyloid β-sheet structure, the β-sheets of these 4 proteins are not identical, and the assumption that frequency of amyloids scales with β-sheet size cannot be adopted without an accompanying measurement of transition dipole strengths.
Authors: Jun-Xia Lu; Wei Qiang; Wai-Ming Yau; Charles D Schwieters; Stephen C Meredith; Robert Tycko Journal: Cell Date: 2013-09-12 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Chris T Middleton; Peter Marek; Ping Cao; Chi-cheng Chiu; Sadanand Singh; Ann Marie Woys; Juan J de Pablo; Daniel P Raleigh; Martin T Zanni Journal: Nat Chem Date: 2012-03-11 Impact factor: 24.427
Authors: Ariel M Alperstein; Joshua S Ostrander; Tianqi O Zhang; Martin T Zanni Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-03-20 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Caitlyn R Fields; Sidney S Dicke; Megan K Petti; Martin T Zanni; Justin P Lomont Journal: J Phys Chem Lett Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 6.475
Authors: Justin P Lomont; Kacie L Rich; Michał Maj; Jia-Jung Ho; Joshua S Ostrander; Martin T Zanni Journal: J Phys Chem B Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 2.991
Authors: Steven J Roeters; Mathias Sawall; Carl E Eskildsen; Matthijs R Panman; Gergely Tordai; Mike Koeman; Klaus Neymeyr; Jeroen Jansen; Age K Smilde; Sander Woutersen Journal: Biophys J Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Joshua S Ostrander; Justin P Lomont; Kacie L Rich; Vivek Saraswat; Benjamin R Feingold; Megan K Petti; Erin R Birdsall; Michael S Arnold; Martin T Zanni Journal: J Phys Chem Lett Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 6.475
Authors: Sidney S Dicke; Ariel M Alperstein; Kathryn L Schueler; Donald S Stapleton; Shane P Simonett; Caitlyn R Fields; Farzaneh Chalyavi; Mark P Keller; Alan D Attie; Martin T Zanni Journal: J Phys Chem B Date: 2021-08-15 Impact factor: 2.991
Authors: Gabriel A Braun; Brett H Pogostin; Milda Pucetaite; Casey H Londergan; Karin S Åkerfeldt Journal: Biophys J Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Lauren E Buchanan; Michał Maj; Emily B Dunkelberger; Pin-Nan Cheng; James S Nowick; Martin T Zanni Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2018-11-06 Impact factor: 3.162