Sabina Božič Abram1, Helena Gradišar1,2, Jana Aupič1, Adam R Round3,4, Roman Jerala1,2. 1. Department of Synthetic Biology and Immunology, National Institute of Chemistry, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. 2. EN-FIST Centre of Excellence, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. 3. EMBL Grenoble outstation, 38042 Grenoble, France. 4. School of Chemical and Physical Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Coiled-coil protein origami (CCPO) polyhedra are designed self-assembling nanostructures constructed from coiled coil (CC)-forming modules connected into a single chain. For testing new CCPO building modules, simpler polyhedra could be used that should maintain most features relevant to larger scaffolds. We show the design and characterization of nanoscale single-chain triangles, composed of six concatenated parallel CC dimer-forming segments connected by flexible linker peptides. The polypeptides self-assembled in bacteria in agreement with the design, and the shape of the polypeptides was confirmed with small-angle X-ray scattering. Fusion with split-fluorescent protein domains was used as a functional assay in bacteria, based on the discrimination between the correctly folded and misfolded nanoscale triangles comprising correct, mismatched, or truncated modules. This strategy was used to evaluate the optimal size of linkers between CC segments which comprised eight amino acid residues.
Coiled-coil protein origami (CCPO) polyhedra are designed self-assembling nanostructures constructed from coiled coil (CC)-forming modules connected into a single chain. For testing new CCPO building modules, simpler polyhedra could be used that should maintain most features relevant to larger scaffolds. We show the design and characterization of nanoscale single-chain triangles, composed of six concatenated parallel CC dimer-forming segments connected by flexible linker peptides. The polypeptides self-assembled in bacteria in agreement with the design, and the shape of the polypeptides was confirmed with small-angle X-ray scattering. Fusion with split-fluorescent protein domains was used as a functional assay in bacteria, based on the discrimination between the correctly folded and misfolded nanoscale triangles comprising correct, mismatched, or truncated modules. This strategy was used to evaluate the optimal size of linkers between CC segments which comprised eight amino acid residues.
For the large
majority of structural
and functional tasks in cells, proteins are nature’s material
of choice. Nevertheless, nucleic acids have been repurposed for the
assembly of designed bionanostructures that exploit the pairwise complementarity
between strands of nucleic acids.[1−3] The relationship between
sequence and structure is straightforward for the DNA duplex, whereas
predicting polypeptide interactions remains more challenging. However,
compared to DNA, polypeptides as the nanostructure building material
offer greater structural and functional diversity, because they are
composed of 20 amino acids with different chemical properties. In
addition, proteins can be produced cost-effectively on a large scale
using biotechnological methods, which make proteins attractive for
designed bionanomaterials.[4] Several strategies
have been developed for the design of new protein structures based
on techniques such as directed evolution,[5,6] introduction
of interaction surfaces on natural oligomerization domains,[7−9] fusion of oligomerization domains with matching symmetries,[10−13] and assembly of secondary structure modules.[14−18] A coiled-coil (CC) dimer is an appealing building
module for de novo polypeptide nanostructures. Arguably,
α-helical coiled coil is the best-understood supersecondary
structure module.[19] It is defined by its
oligomerization state, orientation, stability, and partner specificity.[20] Several nanoassemblies have been constructed
from concatenated CC-forming peptides[14,21,22] from multiple copies of two or more different polypeptide
chains. Recently, an approach was introduced for the self-assembly
of modular designed protein nanostructures, which does not rely on
the symmetric assembly of natural protein domains but on the precisely
defined topological path of the polypeptide chain that interlocks
the interacting CC segments into a defined shape.[23] A single polypeptide chain, comprising concatenated CC-forming
segments connected by flexible peptide linkers, threads the chain
into the designed shape, such as a nanoscale tetrahedron, in which
the polypeptide chain traverses each edge twice; therefore CC dimeric
segments form its edges while linkers are positioned in the vertices
of the polyhedra. The sequential order of CC building modules uniquely
defines the path where scrambling of their order results in misfolded
structures. We proposed the term topofolds or coiled-coil protein
origami (CCPO) for structures designed according to this strategy.[24] The number of possible topological solutions
for each polyhedral fold increases with the increasing number of edges
and typically requires the use of parallel and antiparallel CC dimers.
A strategy for the rapid prototyping of the building blocks suitable
for the construction of designed modular protein polyhedra would enable
faster and more reliable design. Although characterization of each
isolated CC-forming peptide pair regarding its specificity and stability
provides some information about the pair’s suitability as a
building module, analysis within the context of a polyhedron would
provide much more valuable information. A single-chain design introduces
high local concentration of CC-forming segments, which might enable
formation of CC dimers even for weakly interacting modules. Additionally,
preorganization of the partially folded structure positions the interaction
segments into close proximity, introducing some degree of cooperativity.
Additionally testing different linker peptides requires the appropriate
context. Therefore, there is no better substitute for evaluating different
linker or edge-forming modules than within the prototyping polyhedra.
We decided to investigate the design of nanotriangles as the prototyping
single-chain polyhedron and their potential for screening CCPO building
modules. We show that polypeptide triangles fold into a desired shape
and enable the analysis of the effect of different building modules
using split-fluorescent protein strategy.
Results and Discussion
Design
of Single-Chain Triangular Polypeptides
Aiming
to design a single-chain polypeptide triangle as a prototyping fold,
we realized that the polypeptide chain for the triangular fold could
be composed of three orthogonal coiled coil (CC)-forming segments
followed by three counterpart pairing segments. Three orthogonal parallel
heterodimeric CC pairs PmS:PnS (P3S:P4S, P5S:P6S, and P7S:P8S, sequences
in Supporting Information Table 1) were
selected from a set of four-heptad coiled coils, previously designed de novo(25) and modified at positions b, c, and f in heptad
repeats to increase their solubility.[20,26] In the triangle-forming
design TRI6, the CC-forming modules are connected in the following
order: P3S–P7S–P5S–P4S–P8S–P6S
(Figure a).
Figure 1
Schematic representation
of designed polypeptides to fold into
triangular structures with controls. (a) The polypeptide TRI6 self-assembles
into a regular triangle. Two negative controls, TRI6-P5 with a mismatched
last segment (b) and TRI5 lacking a C-terminal coiled coil-forming
segment (c), form irregular triangles. Circles in polypeptide chains
represent the (SG)4 peptide linker. Arrows denote the orientation
of the interacting peptide segments in the assembly. The amino acid
sequences are presented in Supporting Information Table 2.
Schematic representation
of designed polypeptides to fold into
triangular structures with controls. (a) The polypeptide TRI6 self-assembles
into a regular triangle. Two negative controls, TRI6-P5 with a mismatched
last segment (b) and TRI5 lacking a C-terminal coiled coil-forming
segment (c), form irregular triangles. Circles in polypeptide chains
represent the (SG)4 peptide linker. Arrows denote the orientation
of the interacting peptide segments in the assembly. The amino acid
sequences are presented in Supporting Information Table 2.The flexible linkers between the
coiled-coil-forming segments disrupt
the continuity of the helices and permit an acute angle between the
edges. It has been shown previously on a multiple chain design that
the length of a polypeptide linker can determine whether a discrete
closed architecture or linear oligomers are formed.[21,27] For our initial design, four repeats of the dipeptideSer-Gly ((SG)4) were used to ensure flexibility and helix termination between
the CC segments of TRI6. Two negative controls were designed, which
should not be able to form a triangular fold with the coinciding polypeptide
N- and C-chain termini. In the first control design TRI6-P5, the C-terminal
segment P6S which closes the triangle TRI6 was replaced by a second
repeat of the segment P5S (Figure b). This control with a mismatched C-terminal segment
should not form a stable triangular fold because a homodimeric pair
P5S–P5S is disfavored by two Asn–Ile mismatches and
charge repulsion. In such a design, we can expect the formation of
two of the three coiled-coil segments and correspondingly different
helical content of the formed structure. An additional design, with
a similar anticipated effect, however, without the possibility of
a coiled-coil segment mismatch is the polypeptide TRI5 that lacks
the C-terminal segment P6S (Figure c). In this design, the segment P5S is expected to
remain unpaired and unstructured.
Production and Characterization
of Triangular Polypeptides
Polypeptides TRI6, TRI6-P5, and
TRI5 were expressed in Escherichia coli based on
the introduction of synthetic
genes and isolated under the native conditions from the soluble fractions
of lysed cells (Supporting Information Figure 1a). Purified proteins were analyzed by circular dichroism
to determine the secondary structure content. The helical content
was the highest at 73% for the designed nanotriangle TRI6 and lower
for both negative controls (Figure a); the helical content of TRI6-P5 was slightly higher
(49%) than that of TRI5 (43%). Thermal stability measurement (Figure b) demonstrated that
TRI6 and TRI5 exhibit a two-state unfolding profile, with the presence
of additional states apparent at a lower temperature for TRI6-P5.
Most likely, the additional transition at a lower temperature may
be due to the weak interactions between the two P5S segments in TRI6-P5.
Although the P5S peptide does not form homodimers at the 20 μM
concentration,[20] the peptide may weakly
homodimerize in the triangular structure due to the high local concentration
imposed by the preorganized structure and, therefore, slightly increase
the helical content of TRI6-P5. According to the design of TRI6, the
coiled-coil-forming segments must dimerize intramolecularly to fold
into a proper triangular structure. To confirm the formation of the
coiled-coil dimers within a single chain and not through the association
of two or multiple polypeptide chains, the oligomeric state of all
polypeptide triangles was determined by size-exclusion chromatography
coupled with multiangle light scattering (SEC-MALS) measurement (Figure c, Supporting Information Figure 2a). The isolated polypeptide
TRI6 was monodispersed with 98% homogeneity, while chromatograms of
negative controls TRI6-P5 and TRI5 revealed a small fraction of oligomers
(Supporting Information Figure 2b,c).
Figure 2
Biophysical
and structural characterization of isolated polypeptide
particles. (a) Analysis of the secondary structure for the polypeptides
TRI6, TRI6-P5, and TRI5, performed by circular dichroism measurements.
Each curve represents the average of three scans. (b) Thermal denaturation
curves of the polypeptides TRI6, TRI6-P5, and TRI5 obtained by measuring
circular ellipticity at 222 nm in the temperature range from 10 to
90 °C. (c) SEC-MALS confirmed the monomeric state and highly
uniform TRI6 particles. (d) Comparison of the experimental SAXS profile
of TRI6 (black dots) with the theoretical scattering profile of the
best-fitting molecular model (red line). Experimental error is shown
in gray. (Inset) The TRI6 model structure that best describes the
observed SAXS data.
Biophysical
and structural characterization of isolated polypeptide
particles. (a) Analysis of the secondary structure for the polypeptides
TRI6, TRI6-P5, and TRI5, performed by circular dichroism measurements.
Each curve represents the average of three scans. (b) Thermal denaturation
curves of the polypeptides TRI6, TRI6-P5, and TRI5 obtained by measuring
circular ellipticity at 222 nm in the temperature range from 10 to
90 °C. (c) SEC-MALS confirmed the monomeric state and highly
uniform TRI6 particles. (d) Comparison of the experimental SAXS profile
of TRI6 (black dots) with the theoretical scattering profile of the
best-fitting molecular model (red line). Experimental error is shown
in gray. (Inset) The TRI6 model structure that best describes the
observed SAXS data.The molecular mass of
TRI6 calculated from the experimental data
is 28.8 ± 0.1 kDa, which is in agreement with the calculated
molecular mass of 28.8 kDa, suggesting that TRI6 is monomeric. The
TRI6 particles were further structurally characterized by SAXS measurements
(Figure d, Supporting Information Figure 3). Guinier analysis
of the scattering intensities at low values of the scattering vector
led to an Rg of 2.9 nm ±0.1 nm and to a molecular mass estimated
from I(0) of 30.2 kDa ± 0.2 kDa. Additionally, the experimental
scattering profile was compared to the atomistic models of TRI6 created
with the CoCoPOD platform.[24] To account
for conformational heterogeneity, we built 30 model structures, however
all were fairly similar most likely due to the small size of the designed
assembly (Supporting Information Figure 4). We obtained good agreement with several models; the best model
had a χ value of 1.1, corroborating that TRI6 assumes the designed
triangular shape in solution.
Triangular Polypeptides
with Split-Fluorescent Protein Domains
The proximity of the
N- and C-termini of the polypeptide chain
in CCPO polyhedra could be detected by a bimolecular fluorescence
complementation.[23] The fluorescence of
a split fluorescent protein is reconstituted only when the polypeptide
folds according to the design and the termini of a chain come in the
proximity at the same vertex (TRI6). In the case of a negative control
TRI5, the distance between the subdomains should prevent reconstitution
of the fluorescent protein. Additionally, the design of the variant
TRI6-P5 provided the control to investigate whether a nonstructured
segment between the split fluorescent protein domains at the termini
might nevertheless allow reconstitution of the fluorescent protein
domain. Therefore, subdomains of split mVenus (sequence in Supporting Information Table 3) were fused to
the N- and C-termini of the polypeptide TRI6 and negative controls
TRI6-P5 and TRI5, to test the system’s ability to discriminate
between the polypeptide folds with and without coinciding termini.
The corresponding fusion proteins were named TRI6split-mVenus, TRI6-P5split-mVenus, and TRI5split-mVenus (Supporting Information Figure 5; amino
acid sequences in Supporting Information Table 2).
In Vivo and in Vitro Fluorescence
Reconstitution
All proteins were expressed in E.
coli, and the fluorescence of the bacterial cell suspension
was measured 4 h after the induction at 30 °C. Results show that
the in vivo fluorescence levels for both negative
controls TRI6-P5split-mVenus and TRI5split-mVenus were significantly lower than that of TRI6split-mVenus (Figure a).
Figure 3
Detection of
the correctly folded polypeptide polyhedra based on in vivo and in vitro fluorescence reconstitution.
(a) Relative fluorescence intensity of bacterial cell suspensions
expressing TRI6split-mVenus, TRI6-P5split-mVenus, and TRI5split-mVenus was measured. Data are the
means of three independent samples. (b) The isolated polypeptides
fused with the split fluorescent protein were characterized by SEC-MALS
(left, TRI6split-mVenus; middle, TRI6-P5split-mVenus; right, TRI5split-mVenus). (c) Relative fluorescence
intensity of isolated polypeptides was determined at 525 nm using
excitation at 495 nm. (d) CD measurement for TRI6split-mVenus. The experimental curve that represents the average of three scans
is compared to the predicted signal.
Detection of
the correctly folded polypeptide polyhedra based on in vivo and in vitro fluorescence reconstitution.
(a) Relative fluorescence intensity of bacterial cell suspensions
expressing TRI6split-mVenus, TRI6-P5split-mVenus, and TRI5split-mVenus was measured. Data are the
means of three independent samples. (b) The isolated polypeptides
fused with the split fluorescent protein were characterized by SEC-MALS
(left, TRI6split-mVenus; middle, TRI6-P5split-mVenus; right, TRI5split-mVenus). (c) Relative fluorescence
intensity of isolated polypeptides was determined at 525 nm using
excitation at 495 nm. (d) CD measurement for TRI6split-mVenus. The experimental curve that represents the average of three scans
is compared to the predicted signal.The platform for the design of split reporter nanotriangles should
be able to detect the fluorescence reconstitution that occurs as a
result of the proximity between the N- and C-termini within the folded
single polypeptide chain. However, fluorescence might, in principle,
also be reconstituted by the assembly from multiple polypeptide chains.
Therefore, we isolated all polypeptides (TRI6split-mVenus, TRI6-P5split-mVenus, and TRI5split-mVenus) under the native conditions. The purity of the isolated polypeptides
was confirmed by SDS-PAGE (Supporting Information Figure 1b), and monodispersity was checked by SEC-MALS (Figure b). From the comparison
of the chromatograms, it is evident that all proteins, TRI6split-mVenus and both negative controls, are isolated as monomeric. For TRI6split-mVenus, 97% of the protein corresponded to the
molecular mass of 60.9 kDa ± 0.6, which matches well to the theoretically
calculated molecular mass of 55.1 kDa, respectively. In addition,
the ratio between the fluorescence intensity of TRI6split-mVenus is at least 4-times higher in comparison to controls TRI6-P5split-mVenus and TRI5split-mVenus (Figure c). Circular dichroism
measurement showed that TRI6split-mVenus is comprised
of 40% α-helix and 18% β-sheet, which is consistent with
the predicted secondary structure content from the molecular model
(Figure d).
The Effect
of Length of Linker between Concatenated Segments
After confirming
the suitability of the proposed method for detecting
correctly matched CC segments, we further tested whether this platform
is suitable for discerning more subtle differences in the design,
such as the linker length between concatenated peptide segments, which
could not be inferred from experiments on CC peptides. Four additional
variants of the polypeptide TRI6 were prepared with varied linker
lengths, fused to the split mVenus domains at the N- and C-termini.
The fluorescence of bacteria expressing a polypeptide without linker
(TRI6-(SG)0split-mVenus) was compared
to the fluorescence of cells expressing polypeptides with a four (TRI6-(SG)2split-mVenus), six (TRI6-(SG)3split-mVenus), or eight (TRI6-(SG)4split-mVenus) amino acid linker. Results show the highest
relative fluorescence for polypeptides with six or eight residue linkers
(Figure a), which
seem to be required for the formation of an acute angle in a triangular
structure similar to the requirement of the length of loop regions
in DNA-based polyhedra.[28] A strong decrease
in the fluorescent signal was observed in cells expressing a designed
variant without a linker. Similar results were also obtained upon
measuring the in vitro fluorescence of isolated polypeptides
(Figure b, Supporting Information Figure 1c), confirming
the suitability of the system to evaluate the effect of different
building blocks directly in bacterial cells.
Figure 4
Effect of the linker
length ((SG); n = 0,
2, 3, 4) on the reconstitution of the split fluorescent
protein in a polypeptide triangle. (a) Relative fluorescence intensity
of bacterial cell suspensions expressing TRI6-(SG)0split-mVenus, TRI6-(SG)2split-mVenus, TRI6-(SG)3split-mVenus, and TRI6-(SG)4split-mVenus. Data are the means of three
independent samples. (b) Relative fluorescence intensity of the purified
polypeptides TRI6-(SG)0split-mVenus,
TRI6-(SG)2split-mVenus, TRI6-(SG)3split-mVenus, and TRI6-(SG)4split-mVenus.
Effect of the linker
length ((SG); n = 0,
2, 3, 4) on the reconstitution of the split fluorescent
protein in a polypeptide triangle. (a) Relative fluorescence intensity
of bacterial cell suspensions expressing TRI6-(SG)0split-mVenus, TRI6-(SG)2split-mVenus, TRI6-(SG)3split-mVenus, and TRI6-(SG)4split-mVenus. Data are the means of three
independent samples. (b) Relative fluorescence intensity of the purified
polypeptides TRI6-(SG)0split-mVenus,
TRI6-(SG)2split-mVenus, TRI6-(SG)3split-mVenus, and TRI6-(SG)4split-mVenus.Assemblies of triangles and rectangles have been previously demonstrated
using multiple coiled-coil-forming peptides.[21,27] In those cases, the assemblies were composed of multiple chains
and the equilibrium assembly depended on the concentration. The advantage
of the single-polypeptide chain platform is that it leads to a highly
monodisperse assembly that is independent of the concentration with
low conformational heterogeneity. Closed two-dimensional architectures
from peptides composed of two complementary coiled-coil-forming segments
were previously used to elucidate the influence of steric constraints
imposed on the geometry of the assemblies by linker regions.[21] Compared to those, the proposed method allows
assessment of the contribution of building modules in bacterial cells.
The dynamic range may be further improved by the use of an alternative
bimolecular reconstitution molecule with decreased intrinsic affinity
and a lower background in bacteria.[29]Additionally, the degree of change observed in in vivo fluorescence between different designs most likely depends not only
on the building block under investigation but on the type and position
of other CC building blocks constituting the assembly (in the case
of TRI6, pairs P3S:P4S and P7S:P8S). To account for this, the same
scaffold could be used for evaluation of the applicability of novel
CC building blocks for the design of CCPO cages.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we have designed a polypeptide that self-assembles
into a nanoscale triangle in vivo. A triangle represents
the smallest framework for prototyping building modules to screen
natural or designed building modules. The SAXS scattering curve of
the polypeptide triangle TRI6 and the helical content match the predicted
molecular model.The resulting polypeptide design was implemented
as a platform
for detecting folding directly in bacterial cells. This demonstrates
the ability of the method to detect polypeptides with coinciding N-
and C-termini. We expect that the proposed method will be useful for
high throughput screening of designs for single-chain polypeptide
polyhedra and possibly other folds from concatenated coiled-coil polypeptides.
In addition to being a simple prototyping unit, triangles also represent
the convenient fundamental building unit since their geometry is uniquely
defined just by the length of the three edges without having to define
the angles. Triangles could be used as building blocks for larger
assemblies by the introduction of interaction domains into their vertices.
Since the number of available orthogonal CC modules is much smaller
than the number of nucleic acid building blocks, the strategy of using
triangles could be an advantage as the same CC-dimer building blocks
could be used in different building modules. Alternatively, assemblies
using triangles could be formed through their edges, where four helical
bundles would result from assembling CC dimers.[30]
Materials and Methods
Detailed
experimental methods are available in the Supporting Information.
Authors: Zibo Chen; Scott E Boyken; Mengxuan Jia; Florian Busch; David Flores-Solis; Matthew J Bick; Peilong Lu; Zachary L VanAernum; Aniruddha Sahasrabuddhe; Robert A Langan; Sherry Bermeo; T J Brunette; Vikram Khipple Mulligan; Lauren P Carter; Frank DiMaio; Nikolaos G Sgourakis; Vicki H Wysocki; David Baker Journal: Nature Date: 2018-12-19 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Neil P King; William Sheffler; Michael R Sawaya; Breanna S Vollmar; John P Sumida; Ingemar André; Tamir Gonen; Todd O Yeates; David Baker Journal: Science Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Nathan R Zaccai; Bertie Chi; Andrew R Thomson; Aimee L Boyle; Gail J Bartlett; Marc Bruning; Noah Linden; Richard B Sessions; Paula J Booth; R Leo Brady; Derek N Woolfson Journal: Nat Chem Biol Date: 2011-10-30 Impact factor: 15.040
Authors: Vid Kočar; John S Schreck; Slavko Čeru; Helena Gradišar; Nino Bašić; Tomaž Pisanski; Jonathan P K Doye; Roman Jerala Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 14.919