We report the thermodynamically controlled growth of solution-processable and free-standing nanosheets via peptide assembly in two dimensions. By taking advantage of self-sorting between peptide β-strands and hydrocarbon chains, we have demonstrated the formation of Janus 2D structures with single-layer thickness, which enable a predetermined surface heterofunctionalization. A controlled 2D-to-1D morphological transition was achieved by subtly adjusting the intermolecular forces. These nanosheets provide an ideal substrate for the engineering of guest components (e.g., proteins and nanoparticles), where enhanced enzyme activity was observed. We anticipate that sequence-specific programmed peptides will offer promise as design elements for 2D assemblies with face-selective functionalization.
We report the thermodynamically controlled growth of solution-processable and free-standing nanosheets via peptide assembly in two dimensions. By taking advantage of self-sorting between peptide β-strands and hydrocarbon chains, we have demonstrated the formation of Janus 2D structures with single-layer thickness, which enable a predetermined surface heterofunctionalization. A controlled 2D-to-1D morphological transition was achieved by subtly adjusting the intermolecular forces. These nanosheets provide an ideal substrate for the engineering of guest components (e.g., proteins and nanoparticles), where enhanced enzyme activity was observed. We anticipate that sequence-specific programmed peptides will offer promise as design elements for 2D assemblies with face-selective functionalization.
Two-dimensional (2D) nanostructures
are an important material class with diverse potential applications.[1−4] It remains a challenge to produce free-standing 2D materials without
a templating surface or confined space. Recently, covalent (e.g.,
click chemistry)[5−7] and noncovalent[8−12] strategies have been developed to construct 2D structures. Of particular
interest are the biological units (e.g., protein, DNA, peptide, and
peptoid) that can be engineered in a well-defined manner to favor
self-assembly in 2D.[13−20] For example, homoligomeric 2D protein assemblies with spatial arrangements
and patterns have previously been achieved by exploiting the directionality
of metal coordination interactions.[13] However,
although amphiphilic peptides represent an important class of supramolecular
units with a proclivity toward aggregating into 1D nanomaterials (e.g.,
nanotubes and fibrils),[21−28] the design of 2D peptide structures is infrequently reported. This
is because the H-bonding arising from amide groups dominates 1D peptide
self-assembly preferentially along the direction parallel to H-bonding.Herein, we construct 2D materials via the manipulation of peptide
self-assembly in two dimensions (Figures a and S1). A peptide
amphiphile F6C11 containing hexa-phenylalanine, a hydrophobic
tail, and glutamic acids was designed. The hexa-phenylalanine segment
was incorporated to provide H-bonding to form β-sheets in the x-axial direction, with concomitant β-sheet stacking
in the y-axial direction via aromatic interactions
(Figure b).[24−26,29,30] The resulting self-assembly in 2D is consistent with previous studies
where tyrosine and phenylalanine-rich peptides have been reported
to form 2D nanobelts and nanosheets.[20,29] An alkyl tail
was incorporated to strengthen the hydrophobic effect in both directions
(x and y), where enthalpy (H)-governed
self-sorting between hexa-phenylalanine and the alkyl tail enables
us to create asymmetric peptide layers with the capability of heterofunctionalization
on the opposing faces (Figure b).[31]
Figure 1
(a, b) Schematic of F6C11 self-assembly into Janus
nanosheets following self-sorting between phenylalanine (blue) and
hydrocarbon tails (red). (c) Fluorescence spectra of Nile Red in the
presence or absence of F6C11. (d) SIM, (e) TEM, (f) AFM
images of nanosheets. The inset in (f) shows the height profile across
the marked section indicated by A and B in (f). (g) SAXS profile plot
for solution structures of nanosheets (black circles) and fit to lamellar
sheets of thickness 4.8 nm (red trace). (h) CD spectrum of nanosheets.
(a, b) Schematic of F6C11 self-assembly into Janus
nanosheets following self-sorting between phenylalanine (blue) and
hydrocarbon tails (red). (c) Fluorescence spectra of Nile Red in the
presence or absence of F6C11. (d) SIM, (e) TEM, (f) AFM
images of nanosheets. The inset in (f) shows the height profile across
the marked section indicated by A and B in (f). (g) SAXS profile plot
for solution structures of nanosheets (black circles) and fit to lamellar
sheets of thickness 4.8 nm (red trace). (h) CD spectrum of nanosheets.The aggregation of F6C11 was confirmed by Nile Red
fluorescence, where an increase of emission intensity and a spectral
blue shift was observed, indicating the solubilization of Nile Red
in a hydrophobic domain (Figure c). The solution of F6C11 was found to
be cloudy with low viscosity, suggesting the formation of large but
multidimensional aggregates that scattered incident light strongly.
Structured illumination microscopy (SIM), transmission electron microscopy
(TEM), and tapping mode atomic force microscopy (AFM) revealed homogeneous
nanosheets hundreds of nanometers wide and several microns long (Figures d–1f, S2). The observation
of a fraction of overlapping plates suggested that they were free-standing
in solution and stacked during sample preparation. In two overlapped
sheets, the shape of the second layer can still be identified, indicating
that the nanosheets were ultrathin. Indeed, AFM showed a homogeneous
thickness of ∼5 nm, in agreement with the theoretical monolayer
thickness. Overlapped nanosheets were also visualized by AFM, giving
a surface height of ∼10 nm. The single-layer nanosheets could
be easily isolated from solution by centrifugation and recovered by
redispersion without affecting the nanosheet morphology and structural
integrity (Figure S3). The recovery yield
of nanosheets after a centrifugation/redispersion process was determined
to be as high as 92%. Such a property is important for nanosheet separation,
purification, and functionalization.Synchrotron radiation small-angle
X-ray scattering (SAXS) confirmed
the plate-like configuration with a Q–2 decay in the Guinier region (Figure g, Table S1). A quantitative
assessment of the thickness of the structures was accomplished by
fitting the data as lamellar sheets and indicated a thickness of 4.8
nm. The mechanism of 2D self-assembly was characterized by circular
dichroism (CD), Thioflavin T (ThT) assay, and Fourier transform infrared
spectroscopy (FTIR). Strong CD signals were observed for F6C11 nanosheets
(Figure h), where
a minimum at 225 nm and a maximum at 202 nm are representative of
β-sheets. The minimum at 225 nm was red-shifted compared to
∼216 nm of a typical β-sheet, due to the aromatic interactions
between phenylalanine.[29,32,33] The FTIR spectrum of F6C11 nanosheets exhibited the
vibration peaks of amide I (1625 cm–1) and amide
II (1543 cm–1), suggesting the parallel β-sheets
(Figure S4). The ThT assay confirmed the
existence of rigid β-sheets with an increase of fluorescence
emission in nanosheets (Figure S5).The surface of the nanosheets can selectively display specific
reactive groups via coassembly of F6C11 and functionalized
peptides that share the same backbone (Figure S1). Since the main driving forces for 2D self-assembly originate
from the configuration of the hexa-phenylalanine and hydrocarbon chains,
the incorporation of nonionic groups is not supposed to alter the
hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity balance or the self-assembly pathway.
Indeed, the insertion of a biotinylated peptide (Bio-F6C11) did not cause notable morphological changes to the nanosheets (Figure a, b). The biotin-displaying
nanosheets can be quantitatively decorated with streptavidin, a 52.8
kDa protein, via biotin–streptavidin affinity due to the high
affinity (Figure S6). AFM imaging demonstrated
small features that included a height ∼5 nm, close to the size
of a protein (Figure c, d); the thickness of nanosheets remained unchanged (∼5
nm, Figure e).
Figure 2
(a) Adsorption
of streptavidin on a nanosheet. (b) TEM image of
biotin-displaying nanosheets. (c) AFM image of streptavidin-anchored
nanosheets. (d, e) AFM height profiles across nanosheet indicated
as A and B in (c), respectively, suggesting the size of protein to
be ∼5 nm and the single-layer thickness of nanosheet. (f) Surface
assembly of HRP on the nanosheet via biotin–avidin affinity,
and HRP-catalyzed TMB oxidization. (g) Kinetics of HRP-catalyzed TMB
oxidation by H2O2..
(a) Adsorption
of streptavidin on a nanosheet. (b) TEM image of
biotin-displaying nanosheets. (c) AFM image of streptavidin-anchored
nanosheets. (d, e) AFM height profiles across nanosheet indicated
as A and B in (c), respectively, suggesting the size of protein to
be ∼5 nm and the single-layer thickness of nanosheet. (f) Surface
assembly of HRP on the nanosheet via biotin–avidin affinity,
and HRP-catalyzed TMB oxidization. (g) Kinetics of HRP-catalyzed TMB
oxidation by H2O2..The biotin-displaying nanosheets can be used as a substrate
to
immobilize enymes, e.g., avidin D-horseradish peroxidase (AvD-HRP)
(Figure f) while retaining
the enzyme activity. In the presence of H2O2, HRP catalyzed the oxidation of 3,3′,5,5′-tetramethylbenzidine
(TMB) to produce a reaction product with an absorption at 650 nm.
Interestingly, the immobilization of HRP on the nanosheets was found
to increase the rate of catalytic reaction, which is not due to the
intrinsic enzymatic activity of peptides (Figure g). A similar phenomenon was found when using
negatively charged ABTS as a substrate (Figure S7). The enhanced enzymatic activity likely results from the
highly negatively charged nanosheets acting to lower the local pH,
which has previously been shown to increase the activity of HRP.[34]Beyond biotin–avidin interactions,
the peptide nanosheets
can serve as a substrate to host inorganic nanomaterials (e.g., Au
nanoparticles, quantum dots, Au nanorods) and fluorophores via thiol–Au
bonding, electrostatic force, and copper-free click chemistry (Figures S8, S9).Due to the self-sorting
between hexa-phenylalanine and the alkyl
chain, the single-layered nanosheets possess two different surfaces,
with N-termini on Face A and C-termini on Face B (Figure b). To confirm the Janus nature
of the nanosheets and their surface heterofunctionalization, we incoporated
biotin and cysteine on opposing faces, via co-assembly of F6C11, Bio-F6C11, and F6C11-Cys, and immobilized
the nanosheets on a silicon wafer via the thiol–maleimide reaction.
The biotin-displaying face was therefore exposed to bulk solution
and could be modified with streptavidin-coated AuNPs (Figure a, b). In contrast, the nanosheets
displaying biotin and cysteine on the same surface (Surface A) could
not be used to assemble streptavidin-AuNPs once they were anchored
to the silicon wafer (Figure c, d) since the biotin moieties were embedded toward silicon
and not exposed to solution. All together, we believe the peptide
nanosheets are highly ordered with C-termini on one face and N-termini
on the other, enabling the presentation of two different groups on
opposing surfaces.
Figure 3
(a) Schematic and (b) scanning electron microscopy image
showing
nanosheets functionalized with cysteine and biotin (denoted as “B”)
on opposing faces can be immobilized on silicon surfaces and modified
with streptavidin-AuNPs. (c) Schematic and (d) SEM image showing nanosheets
with cysteine and biotin on the same surface did not undergo specific
AuNP binding. Scale bar: (b) 200 nm; (d) 1 μm.
(a) Schematic and (b) scanning electron microscopy image
showing
nanosheets functionalized with cysteine and biotin (denoted as “B”)
on opposing faces can be immobilized on silicon surfaces and modified
with streptavidin-AuNPs. (c) Schematic and (d) SEM image showing nanosheets
with cysteine and biotin on the same surface did not undergo specific
AuNP binding. Scale bar: (b) 200 nm; (d) 1 μm.Peptide nanostructures of varied morphology could
be formed by
varying the peptide sequences. For example, twisted fibrils were formed
by F5C11 and F4C11 (Figure a, b), when the number of phenylalanines
was reduced to 5 and 4, respectively. This is because a reduction
in the number of phenylalanines weakens the β-sheet stacking
in the y-axial direction, resulting in the formation
of 1D structures along the x-axial direction. Meanwhile,
the electrostatic repulsions between terminal charges in F4C11 and F5C11 became overwhelming, which can favor the
intrinsic twist of β-sheet.[29,35] Similarly
β-sheet fibrils were formed when valine was substituted for
phenylalanine (V6C11) (Figures c, S10). More
subtly, the size of nanosheets in both dimensions could be reduced
by shortening the alkyl chain from C11 to C6, resulting in 2D plates with a width of ∼178 nm and a length
of ∼1.05 μm (Figures d, S11). This can be rationalized
since a shortening of the alkyl chain would reduce the hydrophobic
interactions and therefore weaken the peptide association in both
the x and y directions.
Figure 4
TEM images
of nanostructures: (a) F4C11, (b) F5C11,
(c) V6C11, and (d) F6C6.
Scale bar: (a–c) 100 nm, (d) 500 nm. The arrows in (a) and
(b) denote helical features of F4C11 and F5C11 fibrils, respectively.
TEM images
of nanostructures: (a) F4C11, (b) F5C11,
(c) V6C11, and (d) F6C6.
Scale bar: (a–c) 100 nm, (d) 500 nm. The arrows in (a) and
(b) denote helical features of F4C11 and F5C11 fibrils, respectively.These morphological transitions were accompanied by changes
in
internal ordering (e.g., β-sheet strength, micropolarity, and
fluidity) of the peptide structures. As shown by ThT and Nile Red
assays (Figure S12), the β-sheets
were weakened and the micropolarity of the peptide structures was
increased as the number of phenylalanines was reduced or substituted
by valine (F6C11 > V6C11 > F5C11 > F4C11). Similarly, shortening of the alkyl chain
from C11 to C6 was also found to weaken β-sheet strength and
increase micropolarity. The fluidity of the peptide layers was probed
by fluorescence polarization (FP) using 1,6-diphenyl-1,3,5-hexatriene
(DPH). The FP value of DPH was found to increase (F6C11 ≈
F6C6 ≈ V6C11 > F5C11 > F4C11) when more amide
H-bonds
were present, indicating the decisive role of amide bonds in determining
the fluidity (Figure S13). We therefore
propose that F6C11 nanosheets display a high structural
ordering cooperatively stabilized by H-bonding, aromatic stacking,
and the hydrophobic effect as defined by the alkyl tail length, which
compete with the electrostatic repulsion between glutamic acids.In conclusion, we have designed Janus nanosheets with single-layer
thickness via peptide self-assembly, which offers the possibility
of dual functionalization on opposing surfaces. Benefiting from the
versatility of surfaces displaying different reactive groups, the
nanosheets can serve as substrates for various guest components. In
particular, the surface-confined enzyme assembly on nanosheets was
observed to enhance the catalytic activity, which can mimic the enzymatic
reaction in living systems that take place at biological membranes.
The important role of amino acid side groups (especially aromatic
groups) was highlighted in promoting β-sheet stacking to favor
peptide self-assembly in 2D. We anticipate these 2D Janus nanomaterials
can be engineered with surface ligands (e.g., cell-targeting and analyte-binding
properties) to inspire broad applications such as drug delivery and
bioelectronic sensing.
Authors: Tao Jiang; Chunfu Xu; Yang Liu; Zheng Liu; Joseph S Wall; Xiaobing Zuo; Tianquan Lian; Khalid Salaita; Chaoying Ni; Darrin Pochan; Vincent P Conticello Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Zachary M Hudson; Charlotte E Boott; Matthew E Robinson; Paul A Rupar; Mitchell A Winnik; Ian Manners Journal: Nat Chem Date: 2014-09-07 Impact factor: 24.427
Authors: Kangkyun Baek; Gyeongwon Yun; Youngkook Kim; Dongwoo Kim; Raghunandan Hota; Ilha Hwang; Dan Xu; Young Ho Ko; Gil Ho Gu; Ju Hyung Suh; Chan Gyung Park; Bong June Sung; Kimoon Kim Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2013-04-17 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Gang Wei; Zhiqiang Su; Nicholas P Reynolds; Paolo Arosio; Ian W Hamley; Ehud Gazit; Raffaele Mezzenga Journal: Chem Soc Rev Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 54.564
Authors: N Ashwanikumar; Justin S Plaut; Barmak Mostofian; Siddharth Patel; Peter Kwak; Conroy Sun; Kerry McPhail; Daniel M Zuckerman; Sadik C Esener; Gaurav Sahay Journal: J Control Release Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 9.776
Authors: Yiyang Lin; Matthew Penna; Michael R Thomas; Jonathan P Wojciechowski; Vincent Leonardo; Ye Wang; E Thomas Pashuck; Irene Yarovsky; Molly M Stevens Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2019-01-23 Impact factor: 15.881