Soumit S Mandal1. 1. Department of Chemistry, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Tirupati 517507, India.
Abstract
Biomolecules such as nucleic acids and proteins constitute the cells and its organelles that form the crucial components in all living organisms. They are associated with a variety of cellular processes during which they undergo conformational orientations. The structural rearrangements resulting from protein-protein, protein-DNA, and protein-drug interactions vary in spatial and temporal length scales. Force is one of the important key factors which regulate these interactions. The magnitude of the force can vary from sub-piconewtons to several thousands of piconewtons. Single-molecule force spectroscopy acts as a powerful tool which is capable of investigating mechanical stability and conformational rearrangements arising in biomolecules due to the above interactions. Real-time observation of conformational dynamics including access to rare or transient states and the estimation of mean dwell times using these tools aids in the kinetic analysis of these interactions. In this review, we highlight the capabilities of common force spectroscopy techniques such as optical tweezers, magnetic tweezers, and atomic force microscopy with case studies on emerging applications.
Biomolecules such as nucleic acids and proteins constitute the cells and its organelles that form the crucial components in all living organisms. They are associated with a variety of cellular processes during which they undergo conformational orientations. The structural rearrangements resulting from protein-protein, protein-DNA, and protein-drug interactions vary in spatial and temporal length scales. Force is one of the important key factors which regulate these interactions. The magnitude of the force can vary from sub-piconewtons to several thousands of piconewtons. Single-molecule force spectroscopy acts as a powerful tool which is capable of investigating mechanical stability and conformational rearrangements arising in biomolecules due to the above interactions. Real-time observation of conformational dynamics including access to rare or transient states and the estimation of mean dwell times using these tools aids in the kinetic analysis of these interactions. In this review, we highlight the capabilities of common force spectroscopy techniques such as optical tweezers, magnetic tweezers, and atomic force microscopy with case studies on emerging applications.
Single-molecule techniques
have emerged as a powerful tool to study
biological processes in isolation. The behavior of one protein molecule
can be monitored at a time when it is present in a solution, crystal,
or cell. These measurements allow us to identify distinct structural
states, including transient or rare states which arise during the
unfolding/refolding of proteins, allosteric regulation, and protein–protein,
protein–DNA, or protein–drug interactions. These transient
or rare states gets averaged out in ensemble measurements and hence
are difficult to isolate. But single-molecule techniques unravel these
hidden states and provide a better understanding of the above interactions.
These transient or rare states may undergo a transition among themselves
as well as to the folded, intermediate or unfolded states previously
reported using X-ray crystallography, NMR, and other bulk spectroscopic
techniques. Also, single-molecule experiments bridge the findings
of classical biochemistry experiments and structural studies. In the
case of clinically relevant proteins, some of these states might be
of significant importance and can contribute to drug discovery. However,
this largely depends on the temporal and spatial resolution of the
technique. It is equally important that the detected signal is not
an artifact.Single-molecule studies could specifically elucidate
the impact
of crowding agents on the functions of biomolecules. Single-molecule
experiments with RNA in the presence of the crowding agents (e.g.,
high-molecular-weight poly(ethylene glycol)) indicated that they stabilize
the folded state of RNA, favoring their catalytic properties. With
single DNA hairpins, it was observed that the hairpins followed two-state
folding dynamics with a closing rate enhanced by 4-fold and the opening
rate decreasing 2-fold for only modest concentrations of PEG. Molecular
crowding agents induced a spontaneous denaturing of single protein
molecules, which has been elusive for analysis in ensemble-averaged
measurements.Single-molecule force spectroscopy has an added
advantage because
it allows the selective manipulation at the site of interest. Force
is involved in several biological processes varying from DNA segregation
to cellular motility. Its magnitude can vary from the sub-piconewton
to nanonewton force range. With the technical improvement in detectors,
it is now possible to measure low force (∼sub-piconewton) and
displacement (sub-nanometer) generated in single protein molecules
or cells. Single-molecule force spectroscopy includes mainly optical
tweezers, magnetic tweezers, and atomic force microscopy (AFM) and
microneedle manipulation. They differ not only in instrumentation
but also in force range (pN) and spatial and temporal resolution as
described in ref (1). The choice of technique is dependent on the type of measurement
and the information desired. The magnitude of force generated from
optical tweezers, magnetic tweezers, and AFM is sufficient to unfold
single proteins and nucleic acid structures. In addition to instrumental
resolution, the data quality largely depends on the sample preparation
conditions. Temperature variations, air circulation from coolers,
air conditioners, or fans, vibrations, and electrical noise can contribute
to background noise. High-precision measurement requires the instruments
to be housed in an acoustically isolated, temperature-controlled environment.
The applications can range from single-cell manipulation to the translocation
of RNA polymerase, the rupture of covalent bonds, nucleic acid folding
kinetics, and the unfolding or separation of two amino acids in a
protein to measure domain movements of up to 1 Å.In the
beginning, single-molecule force spectroscopy gained popularity
with its application in the analysis of kinesin and myosin movements
on a microtubule and actin filaments, respectively. Later, studies
with nucleic acids opened the opportunity to investigate the action
of nucleic acid motors that translocate DNA or RNA. In protein folding/unfolding
measurements, unfolding forces allows the estimation of bond energies
and the isolation of intermediate structure formed during folding
of proteins and hence constructing the energy landscape. Force spectroscopy
has also been extensively used to characterize the kinetics associated
with protein–ligand and antigen–antibody interactions.
These experiments estimate several kinetic parameters such as Kon/Koff as well
as KD for binding events associated with
single proteins. In some circumstances, such values when compared
to values from bulk measurements provide valuable insights into protein–ligand
and protein–protein interactions. Very recently, force spectroscopy
has been used to study protein phase separation occurring in the cells
during neurodegenerative diseases. It has been used to estimate frequency-dependent
rheology and surface tension and thereby study the viscoelastic properties
of protein droplets composed of the fused in sarcoma (FUS) or heterogeneous
nuclear ribonucleoprotein (hnRNP) proteins. These discussions will
be taken up in detail in the later sections of this mini-review. We
will briefly discuss the scope of each single-molecule technique along
with some recent experiments and the conclusions achieved from them.
Biochemistry Associated with Assays
Single-molecule
force spectroscopy and the information obtained
are largely dependent on the biochemistry of sample preparation involved
in the assay. The sample preparation for each of these techniques
is closely related. In this section, we will provide an overview of
assays. The measurement is carried out after the biomolecule is attached
to the probe. In AFM-based force spectroscopy, the probe is a cantilever
tip, while in optical and magnetic tweezers, it is silica beads and
paramagnetic beads, respectively. A range of attachment approaches
varying from nonspecific adsorption to covalent attachment are reported.
In the case of AFM, nonspecific adsorption is the most commonly used
attachment method. But due to the low success rates in experiments
involving nonspecific adsorption, it is getting gradually replaced
by covalent attachment methods.In covalent modification protocols,
the probes are modified with
streptavidin or antidigoxigenin. The protein or cells surface of interest
is modified with the biotin or digoxigenin. This antibody–antigen
interaction assists in the attachment of the cells or proteins to
the probe.[1] In one of the approaches, oligonucleotides
of varying base pair length are covalently modified on one end with
biotin or digoxigenin and on other end with a chemical functional
group such as maleimide or sulfide. These oligonucleotides are attached
to the protein through the cysteine which is suitably mutated at specific
sites. An alternative to thiol or maleimide oligos is the azide oligos.
The azideoligoes react with the dibenzocyclooctyne-maleimide, which
in turn is bound to the protein through the cysteine.[2] The success of the measurement is dependent on the efficiency
with which the probe is modified, and the sample is attached to it.
The probe is either attached directly or via an oligonucleotide to
the proteins. In some proteins, it is difficult to attach the oligoes
with mutated cysteine at specific sites due to the interference from
the native cysteines. Also, if the native cysteines are required for
fluorescent labeling with dyes, then other oligo attachment approaches
are needed. HaloTag, bacterial sortase, and unnatural amino acid-based
approaches have gained popularity in overcoming this issue. The Halotag
is genetically fused to N- and C-termini of the protein of interest.
The oligonucleotide with biotin or digoxygenin modification then specifically
binds to the binding pocket of HaloTag.[3] Another approach where the native cysteine can be retained involves
the use of sortase enzymes. These enzymes anchor cell surface proteins
to the cell wall. In this approach, a C-terminal motif (LPXTG) on
the protein is cleaved. This is followed by the formation of an amide
bond with the (GGGGG) motif cross-bridge in the cell wall.[4] This mechanism can be implemented for N- and
C-terminal labeling of a desired protein by using different sortases.
Artificial amino acids can also be used for attaching oligonucleotides
to proteins. They can be genetically engineered into the protein.[5] The click chemistry approach involving artificial
amino acids can be used to attach the azideoligoes to the protein
of interest. As discussed above, the last three approaches retain
the native cysteines, which might also be essential to the protein’s
activity.
Single-Molecule Methods
Mechanical
Manipulation with Laser-Trapped
Beads: Optical Tweezers (OT)
Instrumentation, Assay,
and Scope of Application
Optical tweezers are a versatile
single-molecule force spectroscopy
technique. The optical trap is created when a laser beam is focused
to a spot with a high numerical aperture microscope objective.[6] As a Gaussian laser beam profile is used, the
intensity distribution at the trapping spot yields a harmonic (i.e.,
quadratic) trapping potential at small deflections. The incident beam
exerts a scattering force and gradient force on the trapped particle.
The former pushes the bead out of focus along the direction of beam
propagation while the later pulls the bead into the region of high
laser intensity. When the gradient force balances the scattering force,
the bead gets trapped and is slightly behind the laser focus along
the direction of beam propagation. The force acting on the bead arises
due to the transfer of momentum from either reflected or refracted
light. The force is linearly proportional to the displacement of the
trapped object from its equilibrium position. Thus, the optical trap
acts like a spring. The stiffness of the trap is dependent on how
tightly a laser is focused. This is controlled by the power of the
laser, the trapped object polarizability, and the numerical aperture
of the objective. The trapped particle can vary from the nanometer
to micrometer size range. Once trapped, the object can be manipulated
to investigate its mechanical properties such as rigidity and response
to stimuli. In the following section, we will briefly discuss some
applications of OT to study the mechanical properties of proteins.Studying a biomolecule using an OT will largely depend on its stability
to laser exposure. Optical traps are suitable in the low to intermediate
force regimes (0.5–65 pN). Dual trap optical tweezers (Figure B,C) with differential
position detection provide low drift and sub-nanometer resolution.
The early assays estimated the force and the displacement of optically
trapped kinesin-coated beads which move along the microtubules as
represented in Figure A.[7] Similarly, virus-coated beads were
used to study their interaction with the erythrocytes in the presence
and absence of sialic acid-bearing inhibitor. The best inhibitor which
could prevent the attachment of influenza virus to erythrocytes was
identified. In another experiment, force was applied to a bead using
one trap while the other trap was used to scan along the microtubule.
This study explained how small tubulin oligomers directly add to growing
microtubules and contribute to microtubule assembly dynamics. It further
highlighted the role of microtubule end-binding proteins in regulating
the microtubule dynamics in living cells. Similarly, OT assay were
suitably designed to provide a mechanistic explanation of how RNA
polymerase transcribed DNA. RNA polymerase was immobilized on a bead,
and its movement was monitored using the optical trap as it reeled
the transcribed DNA. This experiment estimated the stall force and
transcriptional pausing as RNA polymerase molecules transcribe DNA.
In another related assay, a bead functionalized with RNA polymerase
was held in one trap and the free end of a DNA was linked to another
bead in the other trap.[8] Similarly, two
DNA molecules were attached between two pairs of trapped silica beads,
followed by bridging with a bacterial DNA histone-like nucleoid structuring
protein H-NS. The DNA bridging mechanism was analyzed by pulling the
DNA molecules apart with an unzipping or shearing force. Thus, the
OT assays could not only be used to manipulate a single DNA molecule
but also could provide information on recombination and strand-exchange
phenomena.[9]
Figure 1
Schematics representing
optical tweezers (OT)-based assays. (A)
The assay involves bringing a trapped silica bead coated with kinesin
motor molecules (green) to the microtubule attached to the surface
of a trapping chamber. The force and displacement generated by kinesin
as it traverses along the microtubule are determined from the displacement
of the bead in the optical trap. (B) One end of a nucleic acid tether
is attached to a silica bead trapped at the focus of an infrared laser,
while the other end is attached to another similarly optically trapped
bead to generate a so-called dumbbell assay. The other bead can also
be held in a micropipette tip. (C) OT assay to study the unfolding/refolding
of a protein. The intertrap distance d and X1, X2 represent
the deflection of each bead out of their respective trap center. With R being the bead’s radius, the extension of a stretched
tether comprising DNA handles and protein is Xtether = d – 2R – X1 – X2. With
calibrated trap stiffnesses k1 and k2, the force acting on the system is F = k1X1 = k2X2 = keff (X1 + X2), where keff = (1/k1 + 1/k2)−1 is the effective spring constant.
(D) Experimental scheme of investigating protein droplet fusion. One
laser beam is used to hold one protein droplet at a fixed position,
while another protein droplet, trapped by a second laser, is moved
toward the first droplet at a constant velocity. As these droplets
are brought into close proximity, protein droplets coalesced rapidly
(adapted and modified from ref (19)). (E) Representative constant-velocity trajectory showing
a two-state unfolding/refolding event. (F) Extension–time trajectories
at three constant mean forces showing a molecule fluctuating between
two states.
Schematics representing
optical tweezers (OT)-based assays. (A)
The assay involves bringing a trapped silica bead coated with kinesin
motor molecules (green) to the microtubule attached to the surface
of a trapping chamber. The force and displacement generated by kinesin
as it traverses along the microtubule are determined from the displacement
of the bead in the optical trap. (B) One end of a nucleic acid tether
is attached to a silica bead trapped at the focus of an infrared laser,
while the other end is attached to another similarly optically trapped
bead to generate a so-called dumbbell assay. The other bead can also
be held in a micropipette tip. (C) OT assay to study the unfolding/refolding
of a protein. The intertrap distance d and X1, X2 represent
the deflection of each bead out of their respective trap center. With R being the bead’s radius, the extension of a stretched
tether comprising DNA handles and protein is Xtether = d – 2R – X1 – X2. With
calibrated trap stiffnesses k1 and k2, the force acting on the system is F = k1X1 = k2X2 = keff (X1 + X2), where keff = (1/k1 + 1/k2)−1 is the effective spring constant.
(D) Experimental scheme of investigating protein droplet fusion. One
laser beam is used to hold one protein droplet at a fixed position,
while another protein droplet, trapped by a second laser, is moved
toward the first droplet at a constant velocity. As these droplets
are brought into close proximity, protein droplets coalesced rapidly
(adapted and modified from ref (19)). (E) Representative constant-velocity trajectory showing
a two-state unfolding/refolding event. (F) Extension–time trajectories
at three constant mean forces showing a molecule fluctuating between
two states.OTs have also been used extensively
to study the protein folding/unfolding
(Figure C) and provide
valuable insights into the protein energy landscape. High temporal
resolution allows the identification of the short-lived previously
undetected intermediate states involved during the unfolding and refolding
of proteins.[10] Force-induced experiments
supported the existence of a mechanically stable folded core in the
proteins that unfolds last and refolds first. The refolding measurements
suggested the formation of distinct misfolded states after stable
core formation. Thus, the OT studies concluded that the partially
folded intermediates are a crucial factor governing native and non-native
folding.[11] The results also explained the
propensity of different proteins for prion-like misfolding.[11] Woodside and co-workers used an OT assay to
collect the time statistics taken while crossing the transition path
during the folding of a single nucleic acid and protein. The shape
of the distribution was in good agreement with the theoretical one-dimensional
diffusion over the landscape. Often the folding of proteins is assisted
by the chaperones. The OT assay explained the chaperone action by
identifying the intermediates generated during chaperone action and
how chaperones block the formation of a stable misfolded states by
interfering with intermolecular interactions.[12] Knotted proteins form an interesting protein entity where the folding
of protein involves the threading of the polypeptide chains through
the peptide backbone.[13] Constant velocity
unfolding/refolding experiments using a dual-trap OT indicated that
knotting is a fairly complicated phenomenon and generates several
misfolded states. The study estimated the rate constant and folding
time required to generate a knot. The high spatial resolution in the
dual trap configuration allowed the detection of sub-nanometer displacements
associated with the conformational dynamics of the proteins.[14] Bustamante and co-workers studied hairpin loops
from the Tetrahymena thermophila group I ribozyme.
They unveiled unfolding and refolding kinetics and hence proposed
the folding energy landscape of multiple hairpin structures.[15] The enhanced resolution obtained with the above
assay encouraged its application to measure and hence understand the
mechanism by which hepatitis C virus RNA helicase NS3 acts on the
RNA hairpin structure.[15]The disordered
proteins, viz., P granule proteins LAF-1, PGL-3,
and MEG, nucleolar protein Fib1, and stress granule proteins FUS,
TDP-43, and hnRNPA1 form membraneless organelles. The stress granule
proteins are involved in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal
dementia (FTD) where they exist in fibrous form, while the RNA binding
proteins have been linked to neurodegenerative disease. Probing the
material properties of these phase-separated protein droplets is crucial
in relating the importance of phase separation in pathology and its
prospective application in therapeutics. Recently, optical tweezers
assays have been used to manipulate and study protein-droplet dynamics
(Figure D). This has
allowed researchers to unravel the fundamental processes involved
in phase separation. Two trapped polystyrene beads were brought into
close adhesive contact with a fluorescently labeled protein droplet.
After the beads were in contact, one of the beads was manipulated
to move along an axis in order to probe the microrheological properties
of the droplet.[16] Jawerth et al. found
that the viscosity and surface tension of the protein droplet can
be modulated by varying the salt concentrations.[16] Thus, the electrostatic interactions vary in a concentration-dependent
manner to influence the material properties of protein droplets. Using
OT and other biochemical assays, Alshareedah et al. reported that
K/G-rich peptides complexing with poly(U) fused twice as fast as R/G-rich
peptides complexing with poly(A) RNA. The results indicated a higher
fluidity and lower viscosity in the former, suggesting that short-range
attractions and long-range forces regulate the dynamics of RNA–peptide
condensate formation, including coalescence and rigidity.[17]
Limitations
The stability of the
laser used in the OT setup is critical for trapping, and any fluctuations
in laser intensity can lead to drift problems. Thus, the trap stiffness
and hence the force acting on the biomolecule are no longer the same.
The constant force measurements are erroneous under this condition.
Sample purity is also critical because any free-floating dielectric
particle near the focus can get trapped and interfere with the trapping
of the silica beads. This makes experiments involving cell extracts
extremely challenging. The high-intensity laser used for optical trapping
results in local heating, causing enzyme degradation and an alteration
of the viscosity of the solution. Heating effects can also result
in temperature gradients and convection currents in solution which
adversely affect the measurements. There have been efforts to estimate
the temperature in the vicinity of the trap.[18] Reactive oxygen species are generated by the lasers used for optical
trapping, which adversely affects the mechanical stability of the
protein tethers. However, this damage is minimized by introducing
an enzymatic scavenging system consisting of glucose oxidase, catalase,
and glucose. Data treatment involves careful analysis of the instrument
signal and treatment of the bead calibration signal.[18] The one-dimensional approach in OT fails to provide a three-dimensional
picture of cells. The trapping laser can also damage biological samples,
which restricts their feasibility for in vivo applications. Noninvasive
manipulation of a cell and its organelles remains a challenge with
conventional OT. The setup requires technical modification to overcome
this difficulty, and some of the approaches are briefly discussed
in the following section.Conventional OT has a small working
distance which makes experiments with turbid samples (viz., cell lysates)
difficult. Fiber-based optical trapping (OFT) serves as an excellent
alternative where two counter-propagating beams from two pigtailed
optical sources generate the tweezing effect. Their trapping and manipulating
capabilities depend on the optical and geometrical features of the
fiber tip and the fabrication technique used to design it. Specially
fabricated OFTs exhibited 2D trapping of yeast cells and also manipulated
the internal organelles of Medicago Sativa cells
without damaging them.Plasmonic optical tweezers (POT) and
photonic crystal optical tweezers
(PhCOT) utilize localized surface plasmons to generate optical traps
with large stiffness. This reduced the Brownian motion of the trapped
object and improved the particle positioning. Large trapping forces
were achieved with low laser powers which allowed the nanomanipulation
of biological samples, viz., elongated cells of E. coli bacteria. Trapped NIH/3T3 mammalian fibroblasts and E. coli were sustained for more than 30 min. A local temperature rise of
<0.3 K minimized photodamage. These POTs also trapped a single
bovine serum albumin (BSA). Thus, plasmon-based traps have great potential
for various biomedical applications.[19]Femtosecond optical tweezers (fsOTs) based on a femtosecond laser
source with high peak power but short pulse duration prevent the mode-locked
laser oscillators from generating a population inversion at high energies.
It limits the pulse energy to a few nanojoules (nJ). This feature
makes them a noninvasive tool for the manipulation of cells, viz.,
trapping human red blood cells and rotating them inside the trap by
modulating the laser light intensity.[19]With the above technical advancements, although some of the
major
limitations of OTs are resolved, there are still scopes for improvement
depending on the biological question we wish to address.
Mechanical Manipulation with Magnetically
Trapped Beads: Magnetic Tweezers (MTs)
Instrumentation,
Assay, and Scope of Application
Magnetic tweezers are another
commonly used single-molecule force
spectroscopy technique. It is based on a pair of magnets or electromagnets
capable of rotating a magnetic particle having a size of ≤5
μm. These magnets generate the required torque on the magnetic
particle. The force experienced by the biomolecule is dependent on
the magnetic field gradient.[20] The magnetic
field generates a magnetic moment in the superparamagnetic bead which
experiences a force in the direction of the field gradient.[20] Higher forces (∼200 pN) are achieved
with steep field gradients using micrometer-sized beads. A particle
experiences a higher force when it is close to the magnet, and it
decreases as we move away from the magnet. With MT, it is possible
to monitor small length scale movements. Larger magnets generate stronger
magnetic fields and a shallow field gradient.Superparamagnetic
beads used in the MT assays are commercially available from several
manufacturers such as Dynal/Invitrogen and Bangs Laboratories with
a variety of chemical modifications. The chemical modifications and
storage conditions prevent the beads from aggregating. These beads
have an embedded magnetic particle (∼10–20 nm) in a
porous matrix sphere, with the polymer shell finally covering it.
The magnetic field orients the domains in the particle and results
in a magnetic moment directed along the magnetic field. Therefore,
under the influence of a magnetic field, a torque acts on the bead
which orients its axis in the field direction. The bead undergoes
rotation when the field acting on it is rotated. The magnitude of
stiffness achieved using the proposed arrangements is ∼10–6 pN nm–1, which allows passive force
clamp experiments.Constant force experiments with optical tweezers
require sophisticated
active feedback. Such measurements with magnetic tweezers are free
from drift and noise. However, the permanent magnet in the tweezers
cannot be used to directly manipulate magnetic particles. The beads
are attached to the sample chamber using DNA molecule. The magnets
are aligned above the sample chamber placed on an inverted microscope,
which generates a force on the beads directed vertically upward as
described in Figure A. Reference (20) provides
a detailed overview of the magnetic tweezers instrumentation and critical
factors influencing its performance. The drift problem is corrected
by comparison with a reference bead immobilized on the sample chamber.
Force is calibrated using a variance-based equipartition method.[20] Forces in excess of 20 pN can be achieved using
sample chambers having an approximate thickness of 100 μm and
beads of 1 μm diameter. In electromagnets, the magnitude of
current governs the force and extent of bead rotation. In some electromagnetic
setups, high current generates considerable heat, which requires the
use of cooling systems. Electromagnetic tweezers can apply pulling
forces of up to a few tens of nanonewton (nN) on a magnetic bead of
size ≤5 μm and located ∼10 μm from the magnets.[20] This setup has reduced vibration and grants
faster control over the magnetic field, which finally generates an
efficient feedback loop to provide a stable force clamp.
Figure 2
(A) In magnetic
tweezers (MTs), a magnetic field acts in a direction
perpendicular to the DNA axis, which limits the angular rotations
of the bead while exerting an upward pulling force. Rotating the magnets
will introduce a torque. When torque buildup is greater than the bucking
torque, coiled structures form that lead to the bead being pulled
toward the substrate. Topoisomerase action relaxes the supercoil in
the DNA, leading to changes in the bead height, with ΔZ being proportional to the number of supercoils removed.
(B) Representative hat curves for a bead with an attached DNA. At
low force, the hat curves are symmetric. At higher forces, untwisting
causes DNA melting or the formation of Z-DNA, whereas
overtwisting induces the formation of P-DNA, which suppresses the
formation of supercoils and the resulting DNA contraction.
(A) In magnetic
tweezers (MTs), a magnetic field acts in a direction
perpendicular to the DNA axis, which limits the angular rotations
of the bead while exerting an upward pulling force. Rotating the magnets
will introduce a torque. When torque buildup is greater than the bucking
torque, coiled structures form that lead to the bead being pulled
toward the substrate. Topoisomerase action relaxes the supercoil in
the DNA, leading to changes in the bead height, with ΔZ being proportional to the number of supercoils removed.
(B) Representative hat curves for a bead with an attached DNA. At
low force, the hat curves are symmetric. At higher forces, untwisting
causes DNA melting or the formation of Z-DNA, whereas
overtwisting induces the formation of P-DNA, which suppresses the
formation of supercoils and the resulting DNA contraction.Sample damage by heating and photodamage is considerably
eliminated
with magnetic tweezers. It is not highly sensitive to sample and sample
chamber preparation but depends on the magnetic bead quality. These
advantages allow measurement within the cells.Magnetic tweezers
have been used to study the topology of DNA and
the mechanism of topoisomerases action.[20] DNA is connected to the sample chamber and the beads through biochemical
approaches described previously. Rotation of the magnets leads to
the spinning of the beads, which created coils in the DNA structure
as represented in Figure . Using the MT assay, it was concluded that type IB topoisomerase
releases the supercoils in DNA through multiple steps via a mechanism
involving friction between rotating DNA and the enzyme cavity.[20] It is also dependent on the torque stored in
the DNA. In another similar study, Eeftens et al. employed MT to measure
the packing of DNA molecules by the budding yeastcondensin complex.[21] The condensin performs its action in two distinct
steps. Before ATP hydrolysis, in the beginning, condensin gets attached
to DNA through electrostatic interactions. This encircles the DNA
in a ring-like structure initiating DNA compaction. These binding
patterns are crucial to unraveling the phenomenon of DNA compaction
and hence the chromosome compaction. Similarly, topoisomerase IB bound
to camptothecin was used to study the effects of antitumor chemotherapy
agents on supercoil relaxation.[20]The MTs were also used to study unfolding/refolding in proteins.
In some recent reports, the MT assay was extended to sub-piconewton-level
forces, and it was also possible to carry out drift-free constant
force measurements. Unfolding and refolding experiments were carried
out on small, single-domain protein ddFLN4 and large, multidomain
dimeric protein von Willebrand factor (VWF). It was revealed that
the rates of these processes vary exponentially with force.[22] Using the MT and slightly modifying the biochemistry,
Achim et al. could resolve how the Ca2+ ions mediate to
stabilize the A2 domain of VWF. They noticed that the transitions
originating from the effect of force are primarily observed in the
low force regime.The large magnitude
of torque generated by the magnetic field is sometimes difficult to
measure on the magnetic tweezers setup. Also, the performance of the
MTs is best judged by its resolution which is dependent on signal
detection capabilities. The video-based detection limits the sensitivity
and makes very fast or very small structural reorientation difficult
to discover. However, the inclusion of CMOS cameras, graphics processor
unit (GPU) computation, and bright coherent laser source for illumination
have enabled the observation of biological events on sub-millisecond
time scales with sub-nanometer resolution. In electromagnetic tweezers,
magnetic field parameters such as strength and direction can be modulated
by the electric current. For constant force measurements, stable force
clamps are needed which requires efficient feedback loops and customized
pole pieces. However, the major drawback lies in integrating the electromagnet
into tweezers. Also, a cooling system should be incorporated to reduce
the heat generated from the large magnetic field and field gradient.
Additionally, it is difficult to handle samples that are sensitive
to magnetic fields. Thus, metalloproteins are difficult to study with
magnetic tweezers. The large magnetic poles placed near the sample
make it cumbersome to combine with other spectroscopic setups. Nevertheless,
these limitations mostly restrict the sample selection, but the potential
of applications is improving through continuous technical development.
Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM)
Instrumentation, Assay, and Scope of Application
AFM
is extensively used to study the surface topography of modified
surfaces such as silicon wafer surfaces and lipid bilayers at sub-nanometer
resolution. There are three modes of measurement, namely, contact
mode, noncontact mode, and tapping mode. Their use depends on the
desired information. The mechanical manipulation of single protein
molecules makes AFM an ideal tool for protein folding/unfolding applications.
It also has the advantage of allowing measurements to be made under
nearly physiological conditions. It can resolve forces of up to a
few piconewtons. In force spectroscopy experiments, the cantilever
moves vertically toward the specimen plane.[23] High-resolution force–extension curves in AFM are achieved
using piezoelectric actuators and a capacitor or a linear voltage
differential transformer. The actuator controls the vertical motion,
while the later monitors the displacement of the cantilever.Cantilever material and its shape are critical parameters that govern
its stiffness. Force is calculated using the spring constant of the
bending cantilever. The stiffness value ranges from 10 to 105 pN nm–1. The cantilever needs to calibrated accurately
prior to use. The extension arising from the stretching of protein
is calculated from the variation in distance of the handles attached
to the protein of interest. Incorporating a closed-loop position feedback
and use of piezoelectric stages helps in achieving drift-free data
with angstrom-level resolution. The data must be carefully analyzed
to account for the cantilever deflection.The success of the
force extension measurement depends on the efficiency
with which the protein is connected between the sample chamber and
the cantilever. The cantilever and the substrate surface are treated
chemically to form specific bonds with the protein. If the biomolecule
is nonspecifically adsorbed to the substrate surface, then the attachment
is unstable and can lead to erroneous characterization. The attachment
of biomolecules to the surfaces can also be accomplished by using
the biochemical methods described previously, but in the presence
of reducing agents, some of these approaches are difficult. It can
also lead to multiple molecules being attached between the cantilever
and the surface as the surface area of the cantilever is comparatively
larger than the protein under investigation. This problem is avoided
by using low concentrations of sample. Usually a DNA or an oligomer
of Titin I27 domains is conjugated to the protein molecule under study.
On stretching a bare DNA as shown in Figure A, it melts at 65 pN.[23] The presence of a transition at 65 pN in stretching curves
is an indication of a single molecule between the cantilever and surface.
Similarly, when a I27 oligomer is unfolded, a characteristic sawtooth
pattern such as that shown in Figure C is observed. The presence of this characteristic
pattern in the I27 oligomer attached protein indicates the stretching
of a single protein molecule.[23] Antibody-functionalized
AFM tips also provide similar specificity.
Figure 3
(A) Schematic representing
an atomic force microscope. A DNA molecule
is attached to the substrate on the piezoelectric stage and the cantilever
tip. As the piezoelectric stage is retracted along the axial direction,
the separation between the cantilever and the sample surface increases.
The cantilever deflection generates a force acting on the DNA. The
extension of DNA is calculated from the distance between the AFM tip
and the substrate. (B) AFM measurements of a polyprotein construct.
The movement of the piezoelectric positioner is represented by ΔZp. Initially the protein is in a relaxed state.
Stretching this protein to near its folded contour length, L1, requires a force that is measured as a deflection
of the cantilever. Stretching further increases the applied force,
which triggers the unfolding of a domain, increasing the contour length
of the protein and relaxing the cantilever back to its resting position.
Further stretching removes the slack and brings the protein to its
new contour length L2 (adapted and modified
from ref (23)). (C)
Characteristic force–extension sawtooth pattern curve resulting
from stretching a polyprotein. Each sawtooth peak corresponds to the
unfolding of one of the domains, while the last peak arises from the
detachment of the molecule from the substrate or AFM tip. The amplitude
of the sawtooth unfolding force peak measures the force at which the
protein domain unfolds. Dotted lines correspond to fits of the worm-like
chain model of polymer elasticity to the experimental data. The contour
length increment, ΔLc, measures
the length increment upon protein unfolding.
(A) Schematic representing
an atomic force microscope. A DNA molecule
is attached to the substrate on the piezoelectric stage and the cantilever
tip. As the piezoelectric stage is retracted along the axial direction,
the separation between the cantilever and the sample surface increases.
The cantilever deflection generates a force acting on the DNA. The
extension of DNA is calculated from the distance between the AFM tip
and the substrate. (B) AFM measurements of a polyprotein construct.
The movement of the piezoelectric positioner is represented by ΔZp. Initially the protein is in a relaxed state.
Stretching this protein to near its folded contour length, L1, requires a force that is measured as a deflection
of the cantilever. Stretching further increases the applied force,
which triggers the unfolding of a domain, increasing the contour length
of the protein and relaxing the cantilever back to its resting position.
Further stretching removes the slack and brings the protein to its
new contour length L2 (adapted and modified
from ref (23)). (C)
Characteristic force–extension sawtooth pattern curve resulting
from stretching a polyprotein. Each sawtooth peak corresponds to the
unfolding of one of the domains, while the last peak arises from the
detachment of the molecule from the substrate or AFM tip. The amplitude
of the sawtooth unfolding force peak measures the force at which the
protein domain unfolds. Dotted lines correspond to fits of the worm-like
chain model of polymer elasticity to the experimental data. The contour
length increment, ΔLc, measures
the length increment upon protein unfolding.The force–extension curves of proteins highlight the mechanical
stability and structural intermediates involved in the unfolding/folding
of protein. During the measurement, the cantilever tip is lowered
to the surface or the piezoelectric actuators raise the surface toward
the cantilever tip as represented in Figure B. This brings the sample on the surface
and the cantilever tip in close contact. Once a tether is formed,
the retraction of the tip from the surface causes its bending. Using
the stiffness of the cantilever and the extension obtained from AFM,
the force is finally calculated from Hooke’s law. The nonlinear
force extension curve is analyzed using a worm-like chain (WLC) model
as represented in Figure C. This analysis yields the persistence length and contour
length of the unfolded proteins.Force spectroscopy using AFM
has been used to study the rupture
of bonds and the mechanical stability of proteins and nucleic acids
via unfolding/refolding.[23] Mechanical unfolding
of filamin protein led to the discovery of unfolding intermediates.
When the pulling direction in proteins was changed, rupture forces
and unfolding pathways varied significantly.[23] This was carried out by mutating a pair of cysteines at the point
of application of force and attaching the protein to surfaces using
specific protocols. Force-clamp spectroscopy using AFM allows us to
investigate the result of force-induced conformational changes on
enzymatic functionality. For this study, a cysteine was engineered
in a polypeptide chain. Following this, AFM was used to measure the
variation in the rate of disulfide reduction as a function of force.
Similarly, kinase domains of titin are force-sensitive. On application
of force, it unfolded in a stepwise pattern. Membrane protein bacteriorhodopsin
was localized and extracted from the purple membrane patches in Halobacterium salinarum. The force required for extraction
varied between 100 and 200 pN. At these forces, protein helices begin
to unfold. The unfolding patterns in the force spectra led to the
classification of the unfolding pathway.[24] When single-molecule AFM imaging (lateral resolution 0.5–1
nm and vertical resolution 0.1–0.2 nm) was coupled with force
spectroscopy, it offered valuable insight into the interactions between
individual bacteriorhodopsin molecules and the purple membranes and
between secondary structure elements within bacteriorhodopsin. The
force sensitivity and time response of the AFM force measurement depend
on the design of the AFM microcantilever. Short cantilevers of ∼20–30
μm were fabricated using a focused ion beam, and the reflective
gold layer was removed.[24] This cantilever
was used to study the mechanical unfolding of bacteriorhodopsin. The
data revealed smaller unfolding intermediates which rapidly switched
between unfolding and refolding with lifetimes of <10 μs.
Equilibrium measurements between such states deduced the folding free-energy
landscape. Also, a previously undetected retinal stabilized state
in the unfolding pathway of bacteriorhodopsin was identified. Thus,
the new cantilever design improved the response time to microsecond
time resolution and increased the force sensitivity by a factor of ∼10.
It could resolve the unfolding/refolding of two to three amino acids.
Similarly, an AFM was used to study a small RNA hairpin from HIV which
is involved in stimulating programmed ribosomal frameshifting. It
resulted in estimations of kinetic parameters such as rate constants
at zero force and distances to the transition state. This information
was further utilized to construct a folding free-energy landscape
for an RNA hairpin.[24]Additionally,
AFM measurement provides insight into the forces,
energetics, and kinetics of cell-adhesion processes. It has been used
to characterize how cells respond to mechanical stress upon ligand
binding. AFM was used to measure the adhesion force at which fibroblasts
start detaching from fibronectin and the rupture forces at which single
integrins unbind ligand.[25] During adhesion
initiation, fibroblasts respond to forces by strengthening integrin-mediated
adhesion to fibronectin. α5β1 integrins form catch bonds
with fibronectin and signal the fibronectin-binding integrins to reinforce
cell adhesion.Due to the high stiffness
of the AFM cantilever, it is suitable for applications in the high
force regime. Thus, AFM is incompatible for studying small domain
movements or conformational changes. Small unfolding in subdomains
of a multidomain protein cannot be resolved using AFM due to a poor
signal-to-noise ratio. It is expected that the cantilever design proposed
by Perkin and co-workers will succeed in solving this issue. Due to
poor specificity of the cantilever tip, it can be difficult to differentiate
interactions of the tip with the molecule of interest from nonspecific
interactions or inappropriate contacts with the molecule of interest.
Inappropriate contacts will decrease the strength of the bonding,
and thus the tethers tend to rupture at low forces. This reduces the
success rate of the measurements.
Prospects
and Outlook
Improvement in the instrumentation has extended
the scope of application.
Also, simplifying the instrumentation and its handling allows it to
be more appreciated by biologists in addition to biophysicists. The
key challenge lies in performing in vivo measurements
by taking the probe into the interior of cells without damaging the
cells. This will provide valuable information on how enzymes function
under cellular conditions and how cells create and respond to forces.
But recording the desired signal in the presence of high background
noise arising from the inhomogeneous environment needs to addressed.
FsOT and OFT have successfully accomplished the in vivo measurements. The implementation of microfluidics has contributed
significantly to understanding the function of macromolecular protein
machines and multienzyme complexes. Also, coupling different single-molecule
techniques will allow us to address complex biological questions.
A time-shared ultra-high-resolution dual optical trap interlaced with
a confocal fluorescence microscope could explain how individual single-fluorophore-labeled
DNA oligonucleotides bind and unbind complementary DNA.[19] The combined setup allowed single-fluorophore
detection and angstrom-scale extensions simultaneously. To enable
the parallel manipulation and visualization of biomolecular interactions
in real time, a high-resolution OT coupled with fluorescence, label-free
microscopy, and an advanced microfluidics system known as a C-trap
is commercially manufactured by LUMICKS. Additionally, increasing
the throughputs will encourage more biochemists to adopt force spectroscopy.
A novel near-field optical trapping device (nanophotonic standing
wave array trap, nSWAT) combines manipulation, microelectronics, and
microfluidics. High-precision position and velocity control is achieved
using a standing wave mechanism and thermooptic phase modulators.
This enables on-chip implementation of single-molecule experiments
on parallel arrays of molecules.[19] Similarly,
in acoustic force spectroscopy (AFS, LUMICKS), resonant acoustic waves
are used to stretch multiple biomolecules individually tethered between
a surface and micrometer-sized particles with a density different
from that of the surrounding medium. Thus, new technologies will greatly
contribute to improving the signal quality and detection capabilities
of novel single-molecule force spectroscopy techniques, which will
enhance the scope of applications.
Authors: Georgyi V Los; Lance P Encell; Mark G McDougall; Danette D Hartzell; Natasha Karassina; Chad Zimprich; Monika G Wood; Randy Learish; Rachel Friedman Ohana; Marjeta Urh; Dan Simpson; Jacqui Mendez; Kris Zimmerman; Paul Otto; Gediminas Vidugiris; Ji Zhu; Aldis Darzins; Dieter H Klaubert; Robert F Bulleit; Keith V Wood Journal: ACS Chem Biol Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 5.100
Authors: Louise M Jawerth; Mahdiye Ijavi; Martine Ruer; Shambaditya Saha; Marcus Jahnel; Anthony A Hyman; Frank Jülicher; Elisabeth Fischer-Friedrich Journal: Phys Rev Lett Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 9.161
Authors: Achim Löf; Philipp U Walker; Steffen M Sedlak; Sophia Gruber; Tobias Obser; Maria A Brehm; Martin Benoit; Jan Lipfert Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 11.205