Giulio Tesei1,2, Erik Hellstrand1,2, Kalyani Sanagavarapu1,2, Sara Linse1,2, Emma Sparr1,2, Robert Vácha1,2, Mikael Lund1,2. 1. Theoretical Chemistry, ‡Biophysical Chemistry, §Biochemistry & Structural Biology, and ∥Physical Chemistry, Lund University , 221 00 Lund, Sweden. 2. Central European Institute of Technology and #Faculty of Science, Masaryk University , 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic.
Abstract
Amyloid aggregates are associated with a range of human neurodegenerative disorders, and it has been shown that neurotoxicity is dependent on aggregate size. Combining molecular simulation with analytical theory, a predictive model is proposed for the adsorption of amyloid aggregates onto oppositely charged surfaces, where the interaction is governed by an interplay between electrostatic attraction and entropic repulsion. Predictions are experimentally validated against quartz crystal microbalance-dissipation experiments of amyloid beta peptides and fragmented fibrils in the presence of a supported lipid bilayer. Assuming amyloids as rigid, elongated particles, we observe nonmonotonic trends for the extent of adsorption with respect to aggregate size and preferential adsorption of smaller aggregates over larger ones. Our findings describe a general phenomenon with implications for stiff polyions and rodlike particles that are electrostatically attracted to a surface.
Amyloid aggregates are associated with a range of human neurodegenerative disorders, and it has been shown that neurotoxicity is dependent on aggregate size. Combining molecular simulation with analytical theory, a predictive model is proposed for the adsorption of amyloid aggregates onto oppositely charged surfaces, where the interaction is governed by an interplay between electrostatic attraction and entropic repulsion. Predictions are experimentally validated against quartz crystal microbalance-dissipation experiments of amyloid beta peptides and fragmented fibrils in the presence of a supported lipid bilayer. Assuming amyloids as rigid, elongated particles, we observe nonmonotonic trends for the extent of adsorption with respect to aggregate size and preferential adsorption of smaller aggregates over larger ones. Our findings describe a general phenomenon with implications for stiff polyions and rodlike particles that are electrostatically attracted to a surface.
A large number of peptides
and proteins self-assemble into elongated
and highly ordered structures, rich in β-sheets, which are generally
termed amyloid fibrils.[1−3] The formation process is controlled by amino acid
sequence, solution conditions such as pH, and concentration of salts
or cosolutes as well as by the presence of surfaces in contact with
the solution.In biology, protein aggregation occurs in environments
containing
proteins and protein complexes, glycoproteins, nucleic acids, ribosome
particles, and lipid membranes. The protein self-assembly process
and the final composition of the amyloid aggregates are affected by
this environment.[4−7] Likewise, protein aggregation influences properties of existing
self-assembled entities, for example, the structure and integrity
of biological membranes.[4,8,9]Amyloid formation is associated with many human diseases.[2] To understand cellular toxicity, it is important
to resolve the role played by the interactions between proteins, in
different aggregation states, and other components of the complex
environment. Several amyloid proteins, e.g., Aβ, α-synuclein,
and IAPP, are surface active and adsorb to solid surfaces, to air–liquid
interfaces, and to lipid bilayers.[10−14] Adsorption of protein aggregates to a membrane interface
is the first step toward cell permeabilization, and in this work we
investigate the interaction between elongated aggregates of charged
peptides and an oppositely charged surface.Aggregate size is
one possible determinant of the observed cytotoxicity.
Several studies have shown that oligomers and short, fragmented fibrillar
aggregates are more potent in permeabilizing cell membranes, and in
reducing cell viability, compared to longer fibrils.[15−18] Fragmentation of β2-microglobulin, α-synuclein,
and lysozyme fibrils into shorter aggregates has been shown to cause
increased cellular damage,[19] and the enhanced
cytotoxicity has been related to the enrichment in fibril extremities
upon fragmentation.[19,20] Indeed, interactions between
the extremities of short β2-microglobulin fibrils
and negatively charged liposomes have been reported to induce membrane
distortions via lipid extraction from the bilayer.[20] Analogously, short α-synuclein fibrils have been
shown to associate with negatively charged lipid bilayers and form
protein–lipid coaggregates.[4] Moreover,
it has been reported that long (100–400 nm) and short (10–100
nm) α-synuclein aggregates have comparable affinity to the plasma
membrane of mammalian cells, and they bind with predominantly parallel
orientation to liposomes composed of brain lipids.[21] Lateral binding has also been observed for huntingtin exon
1 fibrils of length 40–120 nm, while shorter fragments displayed
low affinity to both liposomes and cells.[21]We use the quartz crystal microbalance–dissipation
(QCM-D)[22] technique to measure the interaction
of Aβ1–40 in either monomeric or fibrillar
form with fluid
lipid bilayers. Our model system consists of a combination of Aβ1–40 and a positively charged POPC:DOTAP 3:1 lipid bilayer.
Experimental results are interpreted using molecular simulations and
an analytical theory, based on the representation of aggregates as
charged line segments. Molecular simulations show how the adsorption
is influenced by aggregate size, and decay length of the electrostatic
attraction to the surface, which is controlled by the bulk ionic strength.
The analytical line segment theory captures the dependence of surface–aggregate
interaction on bulk ionic strength and aggregate size. Using generalized
van der Waals theory, we calculate the surface excess of line segments,
a quantity which can be directly related to the QCM-D data.
Materials and Methods
1-Palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine
(POPC) and 1,2-dioleoyl-3-trimethylammonium–propane (DOTAP)
were purchased lyophilized from Avanti Polar Lipids Inc. (Alabaster,
AL). All chemicals were of analytical grade.
Amyloyd-β Peptides
and Fibrils
The amyloid-β
peptide Aβ1–40 was expressed in Escherichia
coli and purified according to Walsh et al.[23] Aβ1–40 monomers were isolated by
size exclusion chromatography in 20 mM sodium phosphate buffer, 0.02%
NaN3, 0.2 mM EDTA, pH 7.4. For samples with salt concentration
150 mM, NaCl was added to the monomer solution on ice from a 30×
concentrated stock. Fibrils were prepared by keeping the monomer solution
at 37 °C with moderate shaking (IKA-VIBAX-VXR motor operating
at 200 rpm) in low-binding tubes (Axygen). Fibrils were sonicated
for 30 min with a tip sonicator using cycles of 1 s pulses and 1 s
waiting time. The length of sonicated fibrils was characterized using
atomic force microscopy (AFM) (Supporting Information, Figure S4). The peptide concentration of the samples
used for QCM-D experiments was 4 μM and for AFM 10 μM.
The contribution of the sodium phosphate buffer to the ionic strength
of the solutions is 50 mM.
Bilayer Formation
For the positively
charged lipid
bilayer, a POPC:DOTAP 3:1 mixture was prepared in chloroform:methanol
2:1 v:v and deposited as a thin film on glass under flow of N2 gas and dried under vacuum overnight. The lipid film was
dispersed in 200 mM NaCl aqueous solution to obtain a lipid concentration
of 0.5 mg/mL. For the neutral lipid bilayer, POPC was dispersed in
water to obtain a lipid concentration of 0.5 mg/mL. Lipid dispersions
were probe-sonicated in an ice bath for 10 min alternating 5 s pulses
with 5 s of cooling. The clear vesicle dispersions were centrifuged
for 20 min at 2000 rcf to remove debris from the probe tip. The supernatant
which contains small unilamellar vesicles was used for the deposition
of the lipid bilayer.
QCM-D Experiments
The Q-sense E4
from Qsense (Göteborg,
Sweden) is the QCM-D instrument used for the experiments. Measurements
were performed in parallel in four cells thermostated at 25 °C
with quartz crystals covered by a thin gold surface coated with 50
nm SiO2 (QSX 303, Q-sense). The crystals were stored in
2% w/v SDS solution for at least 1 h, rinsed in Milli-Q water followed
by ethanol, and dried with N2 gas. Finally the crystals
were treated in the low pressure (0.02 mbar) chamber of a plasma cleaner
(Harrik Scientific Corp., Pleasentville, NY, model PDC-3XG) for 10
min. The crystals were mounted in the cells and equilibrated with
water until steady frequency and dissipation responses were observed.
In the experiments with the positively charged lipid bilayer, an injection
of a 200 mM NaCl aqueous solution, with flow rate of 300 μL/min,
preceded the injection of the vesicle dispersion, with flow rate of
100 μL/min. The high ionic strength of the dispersion facilitates
vesicle formation and the deposition of the lipid bilayer by screening
the electrostatic repulsions between the positively charged DOTAP
head groups. The supported lipid bilayer was equilibrated in the buffer
solution, and finally the freshly isolated Aβ1–40 monomers or the sonicated Aβ1–40 fibrils
were injected. Both buffer and protein solution flowed through the
cells at a rate of 50 μL/min.[24−26]
MC Simulations
We performed Metropolis Monte Carlo
(MC) simulations using the Faunus framework.[27] A single aggregate (Figure ) is placed in a rectangular box of volume 200 × 200
× 100 nm3, and a wall of uniform charge density is
located at z = 0 nm. The potential energy contribution
of the ith bead of radius R at a distance r from the surface is given by the linearized Gouy–Chapman
potential[28]where z is the partial charge number of the amino acid, e is the elementary charge, and λD = 3.04/√cs Å is the Debye screening length, at T = 298 K, for the surrounding monovalent (1:1) salt of
molar concentration, cs. The surface potential
is βϕe = 2 asinh(2πσλBλD/e), where λB = 7.1 Å is the Bjerrum length of water and β =
1/kBT is the inverse
thermal energy, while σ = 1/266 e Å–2 is the surface charge density of a 3:1 POPC:DOTAP lipid bilayer.[29] The internal degrees of freedom of the aggregates
are frozen, and the configurational space is sampled by attempting
roto-translational moves of the rigid body. Sampling is enhanced using
the Wang–Landau method,[30] where
the reaction coordinate is the separation of the center-of-mass of
the aggregate from the surface, r.
Figure 1
Cross sections and side
views of coarse-grained aggregates of N Aβ1–42, Aβ17–42, and Aβ1–40 peptides. Each bead corresponds
to an amino acid that can be neutral (white), cationic (blue), or
anionic (red). Fibrils of the Aβ17–42 fragment
present a smooth rodlike structure. The additional 16 N-terminal residues
of the Aβ1–42 peptide are mostly charged or
titratable, and they decorate the core of Aβ1–42 fibrils with flexible chains which extend in the surrounding solution,[32,33] resembling a polyelectrolyte brush. Aβ17–42 and Aβ1–42 structures have 2-fold symmetry,
whereas the fibril made of Aβ1–40 peptides
has three peptides per cross section and 3-fold symmetry.
Cross sections and side
views of coarse-grained aggregates of N Aβ1–42, Aβ17–42, and Aβ1–40 peptides. Each bead corresponds
to an amino acid that can be neutral (white), cationic (blue), or
anionic (red). Fibrils of the Aβ17–42 fragment
present a smooth rodlike structure. The additional 16 N-terminal residues
of the Aβ1–42 peptide are mostly charged or
titratable, and they decorate the core of Aβ1–42 fibrils with flexible chains which extend in the surrounding solution,[32,33] resembling a polyelectrolyte brush. Aβ17–42 and Aβ1–42 structures have 2-fold symmetry,
whereas the fibril made of Aβ1–40 peptides
has three peptides per cross section and 3-fold symmetry.To study the effect of counterion condensation,
a single coarse-grained
aggregate is placed in a cylindrical box with the fibril principal
axis aligned to the cylinder axis. We performed MC simulations of
the static aggregate surrounded by explicit mobile monovalent (cs = 0.25, 0.5, and 5 mM) or divalent (cs = 2 mM) counterions of radius 1.9 Å.[31] We calculated the average total charge within
coaxial cylinders of increasing radii enclosing the aggregate and
the ions. The effective charge of the aggregate is determined as the
total charge at the radial distance corresponding to the peak in the
counterion density profile.
Results and Discussion
QCM-D
Experiments
QCM-D provides measurements of the
temporal variation in frequency (ΔF) and energy
dissipation (ΔD) of a quartz crystal resonator
when the lipid or protein and associated solvent molecules adsorb
on the sensor surface. Figure shows the measured |ΔF|/n and ΔD for solutions of Aβ1–40 monomers and fragmented fibrils in the presence of a supported POPC
or POPC:DOTAP 3:1 lipid bilayer. Signals are recorded for various
overtone numbers, n, of the fundamental frequency
of the quartz crystal. The zero value in Figure corresponds to the stationary response after
deposition of the lipid bilayer and equilibration with the buffer
solution. Figure A,B
shows that negatively charged Aβ1–40 monomers
and fragmented fibrils in solutions of pH 7.4 and 50 mM ionic strength, cs, do not adsorb to neutral POPC lipid bilayers.
Therefore, despite being surface active, the association of Aβ
to fluid lipid bilayers is not controlled by hydrophobic interactions.[34] Panels d, e, and f of Figure show that in the presence of the positively
charged POPC:DOTAP 3:1 lipid bilayer no significant changes in |ΔF|/n and ΔD are
detected upon addition of Aβ40 monomers, neither at high nor
at low ionic strength. Similarly, when sonicated fibrils are added
at high salt condition, no adsorption on the deposited bilayer is
detected. However, adsorption clearly occurs after the injection of
sonicated Aβ1–40 fibrils in the buffer with
no added NaCl, as directly inferred from the decrease in ΔF/n by around 5–10 Hz and from the
simultaneous increase in ΔD in Figure C. The dissipation shift and
the n-dependent response observed upon injection
of Aβ1–40 fibrils at low ionic strength conditions
indicate that the adsorbed fibril layer on the positively charged
lipid bilayer is viscoelastic and acoustically coupled to the aqueous
solution. Hence, the experimental data were analyzed with a one-layer
extended viscoelastic Voigt-based model[35,36] (Supporting Information, QCM-D Data Analysis).
In the continuum model, the adsorbed fibrils are represented by a
viscoelastic layer, while the supported lipid bilayer is considered
to be unaffected by fibril adsorption. The fibril layer is in contact
with a semi-infinite solution modeled as a Newtonian fluid. The extended
model accounts for a linear frequency dependence of the viscosity
and shear modulus of the fibril layer,[37] expressed in terms of frequency factors. The parameters evaluated
in the fitting procedure are the frequency factors and, more importantly,
the time evolutions of the shear modulus, viscosity, and mass per
area of the fibril layer (Supporting Information, Table S1 and Figure S3). The fitted quantities significantly increase
upon injection of Aβ1–40 fibrils, and the
equilibrium wet mass of adsorbed hydrated fibrils is estimated to
be of 660 ± 30 ng cm–2.
Figure 2
Frequency (blue lines)
and dissipation changes (red lines) for
overtone numbers 5, 7, and 9 after injection of (A, C, E) fibrils
solutions and (B, D, F) monomer solutions of peptide concentration
4 μM. The zero values of ΔF/n and ΔD correspond to the supported lipid
bilayer equilibrated with the buffer solution. No adsorption is observed
for monomers in both low (cs = 0.05 M)
and high salt conditions (cs = 0.2 M)
on POPC as well as on POPC:DOTAP 3:1 bilayers. For fibrils, significant
adsorption is detected only at cs = 0.05
M on the POPC:DOTAP 3:1 bilayer (C). The corresponding ΔF/n and ΔD are fitted
to the one-layer extended Voigt-based model (C, black lines). The
yellow symbols facilitate the comparison with the predictions of the
line segment model shown in Figure B.
Frequency (blue lines)
and dissipation changes (red lines) for
overtone numbers 5, 7, and 9 after injection of (A, C, E) fibrils
solutions and (B, D, F) monomer solutions of peptide concentration
4 μM. The zero values of ΔF/n and ΔD correspond to the supported lipid
bilayer equilibrated with the buffer solution. No adsorption is observed
for monomers in both low (cs = 0.05 M)
and high salt conditions (cs = 0.2 M)
on POPC as well as on POPC:DOTAP 3:1 bilayers. For fibrils, significant
adsorption is detected only at cs = 0.05
M on the POPC:DOTAP 3:1 bilayer (C). The corresponding ΔF/n and ΔD are fitted
to the one-layer extended Voigt-based model (C, black lines). The
yellow symbols facilitate the comparison with the predictions of the
line segment model shown in Figure B.
Figure 6
(A) Surface excess of aggregates, Γ, and
(B) adsorbed amount,
Δm, as a function of salt concentration, cs, and aggregate size, N. Values
are calculated using the line segment model for Aβ1–40 aggregates (zm* = −1.35, lm = 2.2 Å, s0 = 19.3 Å, s1 = 72.7 Å, and ν = 1556). The bulk
peptide number density is ρ = 2.4 × 10–6 nm–3. The yellow symbols in (B) highlight the
conditions of N and cs explored in the QCM-D experiments of Figure . Contour lines connect conditions of fibril
length and ionic strength yielding same values of Γ or Δm.
Molecular Simulations
Computer simulations are used
to calculate the interaction free energy between Aβ elongated
aggregates and a planar surface as a function of aggregate size and
salt concentration. The strategy is to first use all-atom molecular
dynamics (MD) simulations to relax the structure of fibrillar assemblies
(Supporting Information), which are then
coarse-grained to the amino acid level and used in Metropolis MC simulations
of surface–aggregate interactions.Previous studies provided
evidence of a difference in morphology between amyloid oligomers,
protofibrils, and fibrils.[38−40] To take polymorphism of amyloid
aggregates into account, our in silico investigation
extends over three fibril architectures (Figure ): two structures with 2-fold symmetry for
Aβ1–42 peptides[33] and Aβ17–42 fragments[41,42] as well as a structure with 3-fold symmetry for Aβ1–40 peptides, which is predominant in Alzheimer’s disease human
brain tissues.[43,44] Assemblies of around 200 peptides
are generated by stacking fibril segments obtained from the protein
data bank (PDB entries: 5KK3, 2M4J, and 2BEG,
after Zheng et al.[42]), and simulated annealing[45] is used to minimize the energy of the large
structures. At pH 7.4, Aβ1–42 and Aβ1–40 have the same net charge number, zm, of −3, while the Aβ17–42 fragment has zm = −1. All-atom
elongated aggregates are coarse-grained to rigid models where each
amino acid is represented by a bead that can be neutral, cationic,
or anionic. Approximating aggregates as rigid bodies is justified
by the stiffness of Aβ fibrils, which have persistence lengths
of micrometers.[43,46,47] While the distinction between oligomer and fibril may be operational,
structural, or size-based,[48] for our simulations
we generate aggregates of various numbers of monomers, N, by cross-sectional slicing of the long fibril. This approach is
analogous to the physical fibril fragmentation process that has previously
been used to show the enhanced cytotoxic potential of small-sized
amyloid fragments.[19]In MC simulations
of the rigid aggregates in the presence of a
charged, planar interface, we evaluate the surface–aggregate
interaction free energy usingwhere the angular brackets
denote a canonical
ensemble average over the orientational degrees of freedom of the
aggregate, Ω, u is the interaction of the ith amino acid with the
surface at a distance r, see eq , and r is the aggregate mass center to surface separation.The relative protein concentration in the interfacial volume, with
respect to the bulk, is quantified by the surface excess, Γ.[28] An aggregate surplus (Γ > 0) or depletion
(Γ < 0) is determined by surface–protein and protein–protein
interactions. For a weakly interacting system, Γ can be described
by Henry’s law: Γ ≈ KHAρ/N, where ρ is the bulk peptide number
density and KHA is Henry’s law
constant, related to w(r) through
the Mayer integralFigure A shows free
energy profiles obtained from eq for Aβ1–42 assemblies of various N at cs = 0.4 M. For smaller
aggregates, the interaction is short-ranged
and repulsive. Conversely, free energy profiles for larger aggregates
are characterized by a minimum for the fibril in proximity of the
surface and by a free energy barrier between surface and bulk solution.
These profiles result from the interplay between surface–aggregate
electrostatic attraction and the entropic repulsion due to the decrease
in rotational degrees of freedom as the aggregate approaches the surface.
Both attractive and repulsive forces are heightened with increasing
fibril length. The free energy barrier increases with N, suggesting that in real systems larger aggregates might be kinetically
trapped in solution. The subtle kinks occurring at r around 5, 9, and 18 nm for aggregates of 32, 64, and 128 peptides,
respectively, reflect the possibility for the aggregate to be oriented
perpendicularly to the surface. This orientation is favored by end-point
electrostatic attraction (Figure S7) as
well as by the absence of steric hindrance from the surface. At cs = 0.4 M, aggregates of N =
64 preferentially bind to the surface through their extremities, while
they bind laterally at cs = 0.35 M. Aggregates
of N = 128 bind laterally at all explored cs values. This illustrates that cs and N modulate the preferential orientation
of the adsorbed aggregate.
Figure 3
(A) Angularly averaged interaction free energy, w(r), as a function of surface–aggregate
separation
for Aβ1–42 assemblies of various size, N, and 0.4 M salt concentration, cs. (B) Henry’s law constants, KHA, calculated from MC simulations (circles) and from the line
segment model (lines) for aggregates of Aβ1–42 of increasing N and at different cs. Data points labeled n.s. are from calculations with a neutral surface.
(A) Angularly averaged interaction free energy, w(r), as a function of surface–aggregate
separation
for Aβ1–42 assemblies of various size, N, and 0.4 M salt concentration, cs. (B) Henry’s law constants, KHA, calculated from MC simulations (circles) and from the line
segment model (lines) for aggregates of Aβ1–42 of increasing N and at different cs. Data points labeled n.s. are from calculations with a neutral surface.Figure B
shows
Henry’s law constants, KHA, calculated
from MC simulations for various N and cs. At conditions where the electrostatic interactions
are negligible, i.e., at high cs and for
neutral surfaces (n.s.), the surface–aggregate
interaction is repulsive at all separations and more so for longer
fibrils. This is expected as the interaction is controlled solely
by the orientational entropy loss, when fibrils approach the interface.
At low cs, the trend reverses, and long
fibrils adsorb to the interface with interaction free energies of
several kBT. Here, the
electrostatic attraction dominates the interaction, greatly exceeding
the entropic cost of aligning the rodlike fibrils parallel to the
surface. For intermediate cs, the interplay
between entropic loss and electrostatic attraction results in a more
complex behavior: KHA varies nonmonotonically
with N (brown line in Figure B), indicating that fibrillar assemblies
of certain lengths may be repelled while others attracted. The same
conclusion is drawn by inspecting the free energy profiles in Figure A.We now compare KHA values for aggregates
of the Aβ1–42 fragment with the corresponding
data for rigid aggregates of Aβ17–42 and Aβ1–40 peptides. The three amyloids have architectures
differing in cross-sectional area and symmetry, line charge density,
and extent of exposure of charged residues to the surface. Nonetheless, Figures and 4 show that aggregates of Aβ1–42, Aβ1–40, and Aβ17–42 display similarities
in the dependence of surface interaction on cs and N. Notably, we observe fair agreement
between the dependence of KHA on N and cs for Aβ1–42 and Aβ1–40 aggregates which have different
symmetry but similar line charge densities (Figures B and 4A). Therefore,
it seems reasonable to approximate the elongated rigid aggregates
by line segments with a characteristic line charge density. We begin
by studying the adsorption of a negatively charged aggregate on a
positively charged surface, to conclude that the underlying interactions
are independent of the sign of the net charge of the interacting entities,
as long as they are oppositely charged. As a consequence, the line
segment model developed below is equally applicable to the case of
a positively charged fibril interacting with a cell membrane.
Figure 4
Henry’s
law constants, KHA,
calculated from MC simulations for (A) Aβ1–40 and (B) Aβ17–42 aggregates of increasing N and at different cs. Data
points labeled n.s. are from calculations
with a neutral surface. Lines are calculated using the line segment
model.
Henry’s
law constants, KHA,
calculated from MC simulations for (A) Aβ1–40 and (B) Aβ17–42 aggregates of increasing N and at different cs. Data
points labeled n.s. are from calculations
with a neutral surface. Lines are calculated using the line segment
model.
Line Segment Model
In the following, we describe how
the conceptual line segment model for surface–aggregate interactions
is constructed. Consider a freely rotating line segment of length L, with the center point located at a distance r away from a planar surface. The entropy change corresponding to
the reduced number of available rotational states is related to the
relative area of the spherical belt spanned by the ends of the line
segment with respect to a sphere of diameter L.Using the expression for the electrostatic
interaction between a line charge and the unperturbed double layer
of a charged surface,[49] the total surface–line
interaction free energy is approximated bywhere s is the distance of
closest approach between aggregate and surface, while z is the net charge number of the aggregate. Each monomer contributes
to the aggregate length and charge number by lm = L/N and zm = z/N, respectively.
The r–9 term introduces a soft
repulsion between rod and surface.[50] To
allow for the difference in dimensionality between oligomers and longer
fibrils, s is modeled by a smooth function varying
between s0 and s1, s = s0 + (s1 – s0) tanh(N/ν). s0, s1, and ν are determined from global least-squares
fits to the simulated KHA values for high cs (Table S2) while lm values of 2.8, 2.2, and 2.6 Å are obtained
from long Aβ1–42, Aβ1–40, and Aβ17–42 coarse-grained aggregates,
respectively. Figures B and 4 show KHA as a function of N as obtained from eqs and 5 for
the three different amyloids. The line segment model closely reproduces
the MC simulation results: adsorption is enhanced by increasing N and decreases with increasing cs. Further, the model captures the oscillating trends at cs values where entropic repulsion and electrostatic attraction
are of comparable magnitude. The agreement between molecular simulation
results and the analytical model indicates that the main features
of the adsorption behavior are independent of molecular-level structural
details, such as the discrete charge distribution on the fibril surface.
Hence, the line segment model is also valid for positively charged
elongated aggregates adsorbing onto a negatively charged surface.The calculation of Γ is based on the description of the adsorbed
particles as a two-dimensional fluid, using a generalized van der
Waals approach. The excluded area per monomer is set to 3σ–1, implying that the maximum coverage occurs when the
surface charge is neutralized by the adsorbed particles. Adsorbed
fibrils laterally repel each other as cylinders of line charge density z/L and diameter s(51)where K0 is the
zero-order modified Bessel function of the second kind. Γ is
given by the implicit equation[52]where KHA was
defined in eq , while â is the mean-field energy constant for the adsorbed
aggregates â = −1/2∫∞dr 2πrβw(r) surface.
The charge density of rodlike polyelectrolytes in solution is compensated
by counterion condensation,[53,54] and highly charged
rods are likely to release only a small fraction of condensed ions
upon adsorption onto a weakly charged surface of opposite sign.[55] Therefore, for the calculation of Γ, we
consider an effective charge number per monomer, zm*, estimated
from Monte Carlo simulations of a single fibril surrounded by its
counterions. Figure shows the cumulative sum of aggregate and counterion charges as
a function of the radial distance from the aggregate axis, Rc. Even with monovalent counterions, the effective
charge of Aβ1–42 and Aβ1–40 aggregates is significantly reduced by counterion condensation.
In contrast, for the less densely charged Aβ17–42 aggregate, counterion condensation occurs only with divalent ions.
Figure 5
Total
charge of aggregate plus counterions (red lines) within coaxial
cylinders as a function of the cylinder radius, Rc. Gray and blue lines are the total charge of the aggregate
and counterions, respectively. Counterions are monovalent at cs = 0.25 mM (solid lines) or divalent at cs = 2 mM (dashed lines). Aggregates consist
of (A) N = 120 Aβ1–42 peptides,
(B) N = 150 Aβ1–40 peptides,
and (C) N = 130 Aβ17–42 peptides.
The dashed vertical lines indicate the positions of the peaks in the
counterion radial density profiles which are used to determine the
effective charge of the aggregates.
Total
charge of aggregate plus counterions (red lines) within coaxial
cylinders as a function of the cylinder radius, Rc. Gray and blue lines are the total charge of the aggregate
and counterions, respectively. Counterions are monovalent at cs = 0.25 mM (solid lines) or divalent at cs = 2 mM (dashed lines). Aggregates consist
of (A) N = 120 Aβ1–42 peptides,
(B) N = 150 Aβ1–40 peptides,
and (C) N = 130 Aβ17–42 peptides.
The dashed vertical lines indicate the positions of the peaks in the
counterion radial density profiles which are used to determine the
effective charge of the aggregates.For a wide range of N and cs, Figure A displays Γ values predicted by the
line segment model using eq and the parameters derived for Aβ1–40 aggregates (Table S2). Solid contour lines
connect conditions of N and cs yielding constant Γ values. The line of Γ = −0.003
nm–2 indicates that for high cs the surface excess of aggregates varies nonmonotonically
with N. Points on the left-hand side of the line
of zero-Γ correspond to conditions where the aggregates are
attracted to the surface. The contour lines of Γ = 0.5, 1.0,
and 1.5 nm–2 highlight that our model predicts larger
Γ values for oligomers than for fibrils, at low-to-intermediate cs. This stems in part from the decrease, with
increasing N, of the number of aggregates required
to neutralize the surface.(A) Surface excess of aggregates, Γ, and
(B) adsorbed amount,
Δm, as a function of salt concentration, cs, and aggregate size, N. Values
are calculated using the line segment model for Aβ1–40 aggregates (zm* = −1.35, lm = 2.2 Å, s0 = 19.3 Å, s1 = 72.7 Å, and ν = 1556). The bulk
peptide number density is ρ = 2.4 × 10–6 nm–3. The yellow symbols in (B) highlight the
conditions of N and cs explored in the QCM-D experiments of Figure . Contour lines connect conditions of fibril
length and ionic strength yielding same values of Γ or Δm.Figure B displays
line segment model estimates of the adsorbed amount, Δm = NΓMW/NA, where MW is the molecular weight of the Aβ1–40 peptide. This conversion allows for direct comparison with QCM-D
experimental results. Contrary to what we observe for Γ, at
low cs, Δm is higher
for long fibrils than for oligomers. However, Figure shows that at physiological ionic strength
both Γ and Δm are the highest for a range
of relatively short aggregates with maximum values for lengths of
20 and 70 nm, respectively.
Figure 7
(A) Surface excess of aggregates, Γ, and
(B) adsorbed amount,
Δm, calculated as a function of aggregate length, L, from the line segment model for Aβ1–40 aggregates (zm* = −1.35, lm = 2.2 Å, s0 = 19.3 Å, s1 = 72.7 Å, and ν = 1556) and four
values of cs. The surface charge density
is σ = 1/266 e Å–2, while the bulk peptide
number density is ρ = 2.4 × 10–6 nm–3.
(A) Surface excess of aggregates, Γ, and
(B) adsorbed amount,
Δm, calculated as a function of aggregate length, L, from the line segment model for Aβ1–40 aggregates (zm* = −1.35, lm = 2.2 Å, s0 = 19.3 Å, s1 = 72.7 Å, and ν = 1556) and four
values of cs. The surface charge density
is σ = 1/266 e Å–2, while the bulk peptide
number density is ρ = 2.4 × 10–6 nm–3.For crystals with fundamental
frequency of 5 MHz, the Sauerbrey
equation (Supporting Information, eq S1)
gives an estimate of around 10 ng cm–2 for the smallest
adsorbed wet mass yielding a ΔF/n signal significantly lower than zero. Sonicated fibril samples at
low and high cs have length distributions
between 40 and 130 nm (Figure S4), corresponding
to N between 180 and 590. Figure B shows that Δm is
large in a range of cs values which extends
to cs = 0.17 for N =
250. Beyond the upper bound of this cs interval, the screened surface–aggregate electrostatic force
and the entropic repulsion counterbalance. As indicated by the yellow
symbols in Figures and 6B, the line segment model reproduces
the QCM-D results, predicting significant adsorption for aggregates
at low ionic strengths, while the binding affinity is considerably
lower for monomers and for sonicated fibrils at cs ≥ 0.2 M.At cs = 0.05 M, the predicted adsorbed
dry peptide mass is Δm ≈ 90 ng cm–2, i.e., 13.6% of the wet mass determined from QCM-D
experiments. Assuming this composition, the protein layer has density
of 1.05 g cm–3 and a thickness of 6.3 ± 0.3
nm, implying that, on average, the fibril principal axis forms angles
smaller than 10° with the surface. The QCM-D signals displayed
in Figure are characteristic
of a highly hydrated protein layer, and the quasi-parallel fibril
orientation is expected for a strong surface–aggregate attraction.
Summary and Conclusions
In summary, the proposed model offers
a description of the adsorption
of rigid-rod-like amyloid aggregates to oppositely charged surfaces
and predicts that small aggregates can lead to higher surface excess
and adsorbed amount than long fibrils at physiological pH and ionic
strength. This theoretical result offers a feasible explanation for
why longer fibrils might be less cytotoxic than shorter ones,[16,17] albeit oligomer flexibility and membrane structure may also play
significant roles.[56]The model predicts
that at low ionic strength, cs, the number
of adsorbed molecules at the surface is
larger for short than for long aggregates, while the dependence of
the extent of adsorption on N is less pronounced
at higher cs. Moreover, large N and low cs favor lateral surface
binding while end-point binding is favored by shorter length and higher cs.We show that small changes in solution
ionic strength as well as
fibril line charge density and length have a large impact on amyloid
adsorption. This marked sensitivity on system conditions contributes
to explain the seemingly contradictory experimental evidence regarding
the length dependence of the affinity and preferential orientation
of positively charged amyloid aggregates to plasma membranes.[19−21] In particular, amyloid adsorption is likely to be affected by the
low concentrations of divalent cations present in the extracellular
space in vivo as well as in cell culture media. Compared
to monovalent ions, divalent counterions reduce to a larger extent
the effective line charge density of the aggregate[54] (Figure ). However, they also mediate the interaction between adsorbed like-charged
aggregates and may lead to a net lateral attraction at the interface.[57]Additionally, the presented adsorption
mechanisms are of interest
for colloids and molecules that can be likened to rigid charged elongated
particles—DNA strands and polyelectrolytes,[58−61] rodlike particles,[62−64] and amyloid aggregates in adhesive biofilms, spider silk, aggregation
of milk proteins, and new functional materials.[65−67] For systems
where such particles interact with an oppositely charged surface,
the presented results provide insight into the complex dependence
of the adsorbed amount on particle size and solution ionic strength.
Authors: Michael T Colvin; Robert Silvers; Qing Zhe Ni; Thach V Can; Ivan Sergeyev; Melanie Rosay; Kevin J Donovan; Brian Michael; Joseph Wall; Sara Linse; Robert G Griffin Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Beate Winner; Roberto Jappelli; Samir K Maji; Paula A Desplats; Leah Boyer; Stefan Aigner; Claudia Hetzer; Thomas Loher; Marçal Vilar; Silvia Campioni; Christos Tzitzilonis; Alice Soragni; Sebastian Jessberger; Helena Mira; Antonella Consiglio; Emiley Pham; Eliezer Masliah; Fred H Gage; Roland Riek Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Dominic M Walsh; Eva Thulin; Aedín M Minogue; Niklas Gustavsson; Eric Pang; David B Teplow; Sara Linse Journal: FEBS J Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 5.542
Authors: Samuel I A Cohen; Sara Linse; Leila M Luheshi; Erik Hellstrand; Duncan A White; Luke Rajah; Daniel E Otzen; Michele Vendruscolo; Christopher M Dobson; Tuomas P J Knowles Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Yuechuan Xu; Kaitlin Knapp; Kyle N Le; Nicholas P Schafer; Mohammad S Safari; Aram Davtyan; Peter G Wolynes; Peter G Vekilov Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 11.205