| Literature DB >> 29644215 |
Alexey B Mantsyzov1, Oleg Y Savelyev1, Polina M Ivantcova2, Stefan Bräse3,4, Konstantin V Kudryavtsev2,5, Vladimir I Polshakov1.
Abstract
Synthetic β-peptides are potential functional mimetics of native α-proteins. A recently developed, novel, synthetic approach provides an effective route to the broad group of β-Entities:
Keywords: NMR spectroscopy; density functional theory (DFT) calculations; folding; restrained molecular dynamics; solution structure; β-peptides
Year: 2018 PMID: 29644215 PMCID: PMC5883087 DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2018.00091
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Chem ISSN: 2296-2646 Impact factor: 5.221
Figure 1Four main conformations detected in solution for the racemic alternating β-proline tetrapeptide 1. Shown are residues numbering, atom notations and relative configurations of stereogenic centers.
Figure 2Two main conformations detected in solution for the enantiomerically pure alternating β-proline pentapeptide 2. Shown are residues numbering, atom notations and absolute configurations of stereogenic centers.
Figure 3Structures of the alternating β-proline dimeric fragment with Z (A) and E (B) configuration of the β-peptide bond, calculated using DFT. NOEs between Hβi and Hαi+1 in Z isomer, and Hβi and Hδi+1 in E isomer, are shown by arrows. Dihedral angles ψ are labeled.
Figure 4Overlay of the fragments of 2D NOESY (350 ms mixing time, red) and TOCSY (70 ms mixing time, cyan) spectra of β-proline pentapeptide 2 in DMSO solution. Shown are assignments of the resonances of two major conformers (A, ZZEZ; B, ZEZZ). Labeled are key NOEs characteristic for Z and E peptide bond configurations.
Populations of conformations observed for β-proline tetrapeptide (1) and pentapeptide (2).
| 42 | 0 | |
| 23 | 0.36 | |
| 16 | 0.56 | |
| 4 | 1.30 | |
| 55 | 0 | |
| 21 | 0.57 | |
Figure 5Energy profile for the transition between Z (ψ = 8°) and E (ψ = 191°) isomers in the alternating β-proline dimer obtained by DFT calculations using B3LYP at 6-311+G(d,p) in dimethyl sulfoxide environment with geometry optimization of intermediate states. Representative conformations are shown.
Figure 6Conformation of β-proline ring: Cγ-endo (A) and Cγ-exo (B) puckers. Cγ-endo is more stable than Cγ-exo conformer with energy difference of 2.8 kcal·mol−1 in the gas phase and 1.2 kcal·mol−1 in dimethyl sulfoxide solution. (C) Overlay of Cγ-endo (gray) and Cγ-exo (green) puckers. Shown are distances between substituents in β-proline ring in two puckers.
Calculated vicinal coupling constants (Hz) for Cγ-endo and Cγ-exo states of 5-phenylpyrrolidine-2-carboxylate unit.
| 3J(Hα,Hβ) | 8.7 | 9.6 |
| 3J(Hβ,Hγ2) | 11.6 | 0.5 |
| 3J(Hβ,Hγ3) | 6.1 | 9.0 |
| 3J(Hδ,Hγ2) | 9.7 | 0.7 |
| 3J(Hδ,Hγ3) | 6.9 | 10.0 |
Figure 7Energy profile for the rotation around dihedral angle ψ (N-C(O)-Cβ-Cα) for Z and E isomers of alternating β-proline dimer obtained by DFT calculations with B3LYP at 6-311+G(d,p) in dimethyl sulfoxide environment with geometry optimization of intermediate states. (a) Calculations, performed for Z isomer of Cγ-endo, Cγ-endo dipeptide (black line, filed circlers). (b) Calculations, performed for E isomer of Cγ-endo, Cγ-endo dipeptide (red line, open circles). (c) Calculations, performed for Z isomer of Cγ-exo, Cγ-exo dipeptide (green line, triangles). Representative conformations are shown. Cγ-endo conformation of β-proline ring is stable (points 1–6), whereas Cγ-exo conformation (points 7 and 9) is switched to Cγ-endo conformation (point 8) in attempt to minimize steric clashes.
Figure 8A fragment of the ROESY spectrum (300 ms mixing time) of tetrapeptide (1) recorded at 298K in DMSO-d6. Conformers assignments are: A, ZZZ; B, ZZE; C, ZEZ; D, EZZ. Several representative intra-residual and sequential NOEs are marked.
Statistics for the ensembles of the calculated NMR structures of four conformations of β-proline tetrapeptide (1) and two conformations of β-proline pentapeptide (2).
| Structures in NMR family | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Total number of NOEs | 75 | 52 | 54 | 34 | 65 | 46 |
| Intraresidue | 34 | 36 | 34 | 24 | 35 | 27 |
| Sequential | 32 | 12 | 15 | 9 | 29 | 19 |
| Medium-range | 9 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Number of NOE violations (>0.3 Å) per structure | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| RMSD | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.35 | 0.17 |
NOEs between residues i and j, where 1 < |i–j| ≤ 4.
RMSD of coordinates of atoms C', Cα, Cβ, and N for superposition of the family of structures over the representative structure in the family.
Figure 9Representative NMR structures of the alternating β-proline tetramer 1 (A–D) and the alternating β-proline pentamer 2 (E,F). β-Peptide frameworks are shown by thicker sticks, side chains shown by thin gold sticks. Labeled are N and C-terminal residues. Configuration of each β-peptide bond is marked (Z or E). Residues with E-configuration of β-peptide bond are highlighted by purple color.
Figure 10Correlation between the calculated and experimental 1H (A) and 13C (B) chemical shifts (ppm) in four conformers of tetrapeptide 1. Labeled are the atoms with the largest differences between the calculated and experimental 1H chemical shifts.