Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Intermolecular interactions
and scattering
M.H.J. Koch
2
Intermolecular interactions
-Phenomena like protein folding or association depend on thebalance of
1) protein-protein interactions (intramolecular or intersubunit)
2) protein-solvent interactions3) solvent-solvent interactions
the underlying phenomena (hydrogen bonds, Van der Waals orionic interactions etc) are the same.
-The intermolecular interactions can be neglected in ideal
solutions, but these tend to be far remote from any real
physiological or practical situation.
-Many systems of interest consist of fibers, or lipid systems which may align and/or form gels (physical or chemical gels),
colloidal suspensions, or even anisotropic systems rather
than solutions.
3
ProteinsHydration shell
Crowding max. conc. 300-500mg/ml
IONS:Kosmotropes e.g. Na+
Chaotropes e.g. K+
OSMOLYTESe.g. free amino acidspolyhydroxy alcoholsmethylated ammoniumand sulfonium compoundsurea.
solvent
Interactions/ stability/activitymodulated by
FOLDING
Coupled equilibriaNon-contact interactions
4
Macromolecular crowding
Intermediate filament
actin
Interior of a yeast cell by D. Goodsell(from Hochachka & Somero,Biochemical Adaptation).
Crowding and excluded volume effectsstabilize proteins, but may reducespecific activity.
Microtubule Ribosome
5
Intermolecular interactions are important
1) When proteins (or e.g. colloidal particles) should crystallizeThis is mainly a problem in protein crystallography. The
interactions must be strong enough to induce crystallization and
weak enough to avoid massive aggregation
Proteins rarely crystallize inside cells (see e.g. Doye &Poon,Curr. Opin.Colloid Interface Sci. 2006, 11,40).
2) When proteins (or colloidal particles) should NOT crystallize
The surface of proteins seem to have evolved to avoid
crystallization in the crowded environment of the cell.
Nanotechnology requires to produce particles with a finite size.
6
Intermolecular forces and crystal growth
Adjustable parameters e.g.:
pH, concentration of precipitant, ionic strength,
concentration of detergent, amphiphile,
surfactants……
Factors affecting crystallization: purity, T, P.
vibrations, viscosity and dielectric constant of
solvent, chemical modification, pI……
(see Chayen, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2004,
14:577)
The aim is to bring the macromolecules in a suitable state of supersaturation for nucleation and ifpossible back below thesupersolubility curve forgrowth.
SS
7
Intermolecular interactions
are usually difficult to quantify but it often suffices to recognizetheir signature in the scattering patterns to understand what
happens.
1. Solutions of globular proteins (temperature, concentration, salt, osmolytes, pressure)
2. Interactions of fibers
3. Interactions of lipids and proteins
4. In vivo these forces are associated with important PHASE TRANSITIONS (e.g. chromatin condensation)
8
I(s)
0
1 104
2 104
3 104
4 104
5 104
0 0.01 0.02
30�C
25�C
20�C
15�C
10�C
s = 2(sinθ)/λ θ)/λ θ)/λ θ)/λ A-1
A. Tardieu et al., LMCP (Paris)
Attractive Interactions
always INCREASE the intensity at small angles
Example: Temperature induced aggregation in a solution of
γ-crystallins c=160 mg/ml in 50mM Phosphate pH 7.0
T
9
Repulsive interactions
Repulsive interactions in a solution of BSA 5-50mg/ml
Always DECREASE the intensity at small angles
50mg/ml
5mg/ml
10
A simple case: monomer-dimer equilibrium
d d = 5nm+
Note: The scattering of the dimer is 4 timesthat of the monomerbut the number of dimers is half that of the monomers.
11
Oligomer content in protein solutions
Example: monomer and dimer of Drosophila kinesin
Kozielski, F.,et al. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 1267-1275.
12
Monomer-dimer equilibrium
as a function of
concentration
s, nm-1
0 1 2
lg I, relative
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1 (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
c, mg/ml
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Volume fraction
0.0
0.5
1.0
Monomer
Dimer
13
A Lennard-Jones type potential
Minimum is at 21/6σ ≈ 1.122σ
−
=
612
4dd
Vσσ
ε
is often used to explainequilibrium distances in
e.g. virus capsids (see
Zandi et al., PNAS 101,15556-15560) , although
there is nothing thatprevents the formation
of infinite structures(crystals).
repulsive attractive
σ d
14
The limitations of Lennard-Jones potentials
Arise from the fact that it is isotropic. Its lowest energy minimum with a large number of atoms corresponds to
hexagonal close packing and at higher temperatures cubic close
packing and then liquid.
Proteins are anisotropic and are much larger than atoms for
which the Lennard-Jones is valid. The potential between suchparticles is size-dependent and the situation closer to that in
colloidal systems.
(see J. Israelachvili, Intermolecular and surface forces).
15
Intermolecular interactions� partial order
Asymmetry creates symmetry(Curie’s principle)
Finite objects
1D: fibers2D crystals
3D crystals
Objects made by repetition of a motif can be described as
the convolution of the motif with an array of δ-functions.
Infinite objects:
16
Regular non-periodic structures
can be described as convolution (Flip-shift-multiply-integrate)of a motif with an array of δ-functions e.g.
concentrated solutions:
semi-crystalline materials:
* =
* =
∗ =
x x
chain molecules:
The Fourier transform of a convolution is the product of thetransforms: FT(f*g)= FT(f)·FT(g)
17
Chemical potential of the solvent in ideal solutions
...)( 323
222
2
201
011 +++−=− CACA
M
CRTVµµ
A2
A2
A2
Solute concentration
See: van Holde, Johnson & Cho, Principles of physical biochemistry
01V : molar volume of
the solvent
X= mole fraction
Solute-soluteInteractions
Attractive
Repulsive
A2 = A3 = 0
C2: solute concentration
18
Intermolecular interactions: Non-ideal solutions
1
22 )0,(
−
∂
Π∂
=
CM
RTCSF
Osmotic pressure
1/SF(C2,0) =1+2MA2C2
Pseudo-lattice * solute = solution
L(C2,s) X F(0,s) = F(C2,s)solution
SF(C2,s) X I(0,s) = I(C2,s)solution
Convolution:
*
FT
223222 CA CA 1/M RT)/(C ++=Π
19
Using the Gibbs-Duhem equation with ni the number of moles of component i one can show that
where A2 is the second virial coefficient which represents pair interactions and I(0)ideal is ∝ to C2.A2 is evaluated by performing experiments at various concentrations c. A2 is ∝ to the slope of C2/I(0,C2) vs C2. (e.g. in light scattering).
Virial coefficient
...21)0(
),0(22
2++
=MCA
ICI ideal
0=∑ iidn µ
2222022 2ln CMRTACRT +=− µµ
in the case of moderate interactions, the intensity at the origin varieswith concentration of the solute according to :
20
The DLVO (Derjaguin, Landau, Verwey, Overbeek) potential
σ
Long range
repulsive (electrostatic)
Hard
sphere
Short range
attractive
21
/rs)dr1)(sin(rs)(g(r)4πρ1s),S(C0
22 −+= ∫
∞
g(r) = exp [-u(r)/kBT + h(r) - c(r)]Pair distribution function:
The total (h(r) = g(r)-1) and direct c(r) correlation functions are related to g(r) by the hypernetted approximation
>−−+−−
≤=
∞σσσσσ
σ
rdrrJdrrJ
rru
rraa if]/)(exp[)/(]/)(exp[)/(
if)(r
attractive and repulsive Yukawa potentials
Model based on the DLVO theory (Tardieu et al. (1999) J. Crystal growth 196, 193-203 and Malfois et al. (1996) J. Chem. Phys. 105, 3290-3300 and
Hard sphere (Ø=σ) potential The pair potential is:
d =range
22
2DB
2p )σ/λ0.5/(1 Lσ)/(ZJr +=
Coulomb repulsion
Protein chargehard sphere radius
Bjerrum length(0.72 nm @300K)
∑=i
2iiBD ZρL4π1/λ = 3.4/I-½
Ionic chargenumber density
In the DLVO theory the repulsive potential is:
Ionic strength
Debye length (range):
kTeL sεπε02
B 4/=
Debye length
ε0 permittivity of free space, εS=80
Note: If the ionic strength increases, λD decreases (increasedscreening)
23
Intermolecular interactions: Lysozyme-KCl
KCl series in water
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
SF
(s)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 mM
5 mM
10mM
20mM
50mM
100mM
250mM
simulated SFs
scattering intensities KCl salt series
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
1
10
100
0 mM
5 mM
10 mM
20 mM
50 mM
100 mM
250 mM
normalisationrange
q (Å-1) q (Å-1)
Niebuhr& Koch, Biophys. J. (2005)
SFI(q)
σ = 28.5Ǻ (not very sensitive 28.5-32Ǻ)da= 3Ǻdr=λD
Zp=6.5e-
24
Yukawa potential and Debye length vs [salt]
>−−+−−
≤=
∞σσσσσ
σ
rdrrJdrrJ
rru
rraa if]/)(exp[)/(]/)(exp[)/(
if)(r
2DB
2p )σ/λ0.5/(1L σ)/(ZJr +=
25
Change of the potential with [KCl]
r/σ r/σ
26
Interactions of proteins, TMAO and urea
CH3
CH3
CH3
NOCO =NH2
NH2
UREA
denatures proteins
TMAO
stabilizes proteins
-does NOT interact with proteins
-counteracts the effects of urea if [urea]/[TMAO] = 2
-protects against heat and pressure denaturation
- induces folding
-increases attractive interactions between proteins
-decreases Km (i.e. increases affinity for the substrate)
Note that TMAO is isosteric with tert-butanol (TBA)
CH3
CH3
CH3
CHO
These phenomena underlie the physiological mechanism of the TMAO/urea
balance e.g. in fishes like sharks and rays
interacts with proteins
27
Lysozyme-KCl with TMAO or urea
s(Å-1)
KCL+TMAO
KCl only
KCl+urea
The effect of TMAO on protein stability, folding, crystallization, counteraction of ureaand intermolecular interactions is a propertyof the solvent system. TMAO/water is a poorer solvent for the polypeptide backbone than water, whereas urea/water is a bettersolvent. There is no need for directprotein-TMAO interactions.
28
Depth of the attractive potential
The repulsive potential is the same in the three casesand depends only on [KCl].
29
Effects of pressure on lysozyme solutions
1500bars
1bar
Kratky plot
Ortore et al. J.R. Soc. Interface (2009),
6, 8619-8634
SAXS
!
30
Effect of pressure on lysozyme solutions
Ortore et al. J.R. Soc. Interface (2009),
6, 8619-8634
0 1000
Pressure (bar)
1bar
1500bars
31
The potential changes with pressure
Ortore et al. J.R. Soc. Interface (2009),
6, 8619-8634
ρ/ρ0
Ζ(ε)
Pressure (bars)
Ja(KBT)
da(Ǻ)
hydr. shell/bulk
32
Note that:
Temperature, pressure, pH, osmolytes, mainly change the properties of the solvent, not of the macromolecules.
The DLVO and similar potentials can explain a few general effectsbut not yet phenomena like the Hofmeister series, which
describes the effect of different salts on protein stability andsolubility.
Anions have large effects than cations
The mechanism of the Hofmeister series remains unclear.
but does not seem to result from changes in general water structure, instead more (specific interactions between ions and
proteins and ions and the hydration shell?)
mguanidiniuCaMgLiNaKNH:Cations
SCNCLOIClOBrNOClAcHPOSOF :Anions22
4
43324
24
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>≈++++++
−−−−−−−−−−
33
The human eye
The cornea is transparent
The sclera is opaque
LENS
34
The lens
Is the most concentrated protein (cristallins) solution in the body (300 mg/ml), yet it does not scatter light!
This property results from the short range order arrangement of thecristallins.
The central part of the lens is older than we are!
With age, under the influence of radiation or in certain diseases likediabetes the lens becomes opaque as a result of cross-linking dueto the Maillard reaction and the formation of larger aggregates.
35
Cataract
Age (years)
1/s nm-1
Cataract can be easily detected by light scattering or fluorescence
Suarez, G. et al. (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268 (24) 17716-21.
36
Mixed solventsStrong temperature-dependent X-ray scattering
is observed with e.g. Trifluoro-ethanol (TFE)
and -propanol (TFP) or hexafluoro-2-propanol
(HFP) in conditions commonly used in NMR
work on peptides.
This is due to:
-Formation of clathrate hydrate-like aggregates of
alcohol with water
-Further heterogeneity of the solution due to
immiscibility of the two components.
Kuprin, S. et al. (1995) BBRC 217 1151-6
Iwasaki, K. & Fujiyama, T.(1976)
J. Phys. Chem. 81, 1908-1912.
HFP
37
DNA: scattering intensity I(s)= F2(s)·SF(s)
DNA is a fibre!
Slope � Rx=1.0 nm � ø 2.8 nm
38
Divide by I(s)150 mM NaCl = F2(s)� SF(s)
Calf thymus DNA, long andPolydisperse (5mg DNA/ml)
150 bp monodisperse DNA
d
The results depend only on the
centre-to-centre distance between fibersand are a measure of the repulsive force.
39
Pair distribution function (Zernike-Prins eq.)
Log([DNA])
Position of max ~ C1/2
g(r) gives a measure of the probability of finding the centre of a
DNA rod at a distance r from any given rod.The position of the maximum does not depend much on [salt] but
on [DNA]1/2 as foreseen for the semidilute (C> 1rod/Length3)regime by polyelectrolyte theory.
dssrsrsSCsrg )]2/()2sin()[1)(()/4(1)(0
2 πππ ∫∞
−+=g(r)
r(nm)
40
ISIS: a spallation neutron source
moderator
Neutron beam
T: Target: Tantalum-cladded Tungsten platesRFQ: radiofrequency quadrupole
DLT: drift tube linac (linear accelerator)
41
Spallation sources:moderator
On short pulse sources, the moderator must be thin in order not to degrade the pulse
width too much � large epithermal component.
The example is for a methane moderator at ISIS TS1 with 12m flight path
Cutoff due to the
frequency of the
source (50 Hz)
λmax ≈ 6Ǻ20 ms!
Spectrum of a reactor source drops off like this
TOF: Time of flight
42
SANDALS: Small Angle Neutron Diffractometer
for Liquids and Amorphous Samples – ISIS (UK)
633 scintillators ZnS+PMDetectors
0.75 – 4 mFinal trajectory
11 mIncidenttrajectory
Liquid methane @ 110KModerator
0.1 – 50 Ǻ-1Q-range
0.05 - 4.95 ǺIncidentwavelength
Incident neutrons
scintillator andphotomultiplier
43
Studying interactions in solution
CH3
CH3
CH3
NOCO =NH2
NH2
OH
H
Use isotopic substitution H�D
and make first and second order differences
44
The ideal case requires 7 samples
HH7
HDHD6
DD1Solute-solvent
(2nd order differences)
DH5
DHD4
DD1Solute-solute
(first order differences)
HD3
HDD2
DD1Solvent-
solvent
(first order differences)
Solvent and
exchangeable H
Solute
non-exchangeable H
45
WANS
drQr
QrrgrQS ∫
∞
−=−0
2 sin)1)((41)( αβαβ πρ
∫=2
1
2)(4r
r
drrrgcn αββαβ ρπ
∑∑ ∑∑ ==
−+=
≠ α
αNNNNcQSbbccbcNQI and / where]1)([2)( 2
ααα α αβ
αββαβααα
∫ −+= dQQRQQSrN
Vg sin)1)((
21 αβαβ
π
Rewrite Debye equation in terms of atomic fractions:
Partial structure factor
Partial pair distributionfunction (PPDF)
gαβ(r) is related to the probability of finding a site of type β at a distance r from a site of type α located at the origin. For a concentration cβ, the average number of atoms of type β in a shell extending from r1 to r2 surrounding the central α-atom is:
For the first shell this is theCOORDINATION NUMBER
46
EXAMPLE: The TMAO-TMAO correlations can be obtained viathe g(r) of the methyl hydrogen/deuterium sites.
methyl hydrogens methyl deuteriums
remaining part of TMAO Heavy water:
1.25 M TMAO
1.25 M d-TMAO
D2O
2.5 M TMAO 2.5M d-TMAO
D2O
EXTRACTING THE PPDF
47
Structure factors
Poorer fit due to inelasticity correction
T + d-U in D2O
d-T + d-U (D2O)
½T+½d-T+d-U (H2O/D2O)
d-T+½ U+ ½d-U (H2O/D2O)
½(d-T+T+d-U+U) (H2O/D2O)
T+U (H2O)
d-T+U (H2O)
Experimental
( ) )(exp2
1
QRQ i NSiN
i
≡⋅∑=
TMAO-urea 1:2
XRD
Simulations N:N+X:
48
Empirical Potential Structure Refinement (EPSR)see A.K. Soper Phys. Rev. B. (2005) 72: 104204
jijijir
rrU
ijiref
βα
βα
βαβα
βα
βα
βαβα
πε
σσε
0, ,
6
,,, 4
421
12
+
−
= ∑ ∑≠
( )αβαβαβ
βα αβ
µβα
/ 2
22
2
intra dww
rCU
i
ii == ∑∑≠
−
+== ∑
σσπρσσσ
rr
nrprpCkTrU
n
nnn
i
i
EP
iexp
)!2(41
),( where),()(3
)()(,1
QSwQF j
Nj
iji ∑=
=
Total potential= reference potential + empirical potential (EP)
Estimated from the experimental data
Fit all separate data sets by Monte Carlo calculations involving intra- and intermolecular translations, rotations
Standard form used to start thesimulations
After the simulation with Uref has equilibrated the EP guides the atomic and molecular moves to obtain the best fit to the experimental data.
49
Are the results plausible ? TMAO vs TBA
TMAO:nO-Ow: 2.5
nO-Hw: 2.5
TBA:nO-Ow: 2.2
nO-Hw: 1.3R-O
H
H-OH
Me3N�O
H-OH
OH
H-OH
H-OH
H
50
Clustering of urea
urea-water
51
Clustering of urea
6.7M urea
urea-urea
At 2M urea the clusters contain at most 40molecules, at 4M urea around 70 but at
6.7M urea most urea is in large clusters
of 600-650 molecules
52
Weak TMAO-urea interaction
1M 0.1a][TMAO][ure
urea][TMAOK −≅
−= which is of the same order as the
protein site-urea interaction
53
- The structure of water is hardly changed by osmolytes,butTMAO seems to strengthen H-bonds and urea to weaken them.
- There is a weak direct TMAO-urea interaction which is of thesame order as the protein site-urea interaction (K =0.1 M-1)
-The results of all molecular dynamics calculations in the
literature are incompatible with the neutron and X-ray scattering curves.
- Urea and TMAO affect the mobility of the fast fraction of water in opposite ways (Rezus & Bakker, 2009). This can of
course not be detected in an elastic neutron scattering experiment.
54
What matters is the quality of the solvent
In a good solvent - Rg increases
- protein - solvent interactions increase
- protein - protein interactions decrease- solvent - solvent interactions decrease
Uwater
NwaterNurea
Uurea
Uwater
Nwater
UTMAO
NTMAONwater
Uwater
UTMAO
NTMAO
poor TMAO
neutral H2O
good urea
Structured proteins Unstructured proteins
See: D.W. Bolen & G.D. Rose (2008) Ann. Rev. Biochem. 77, 339-362
55
Bound or simply present?
PR
O
TE
IN
urea
water
TMAO
This zone is enriched in ureabut excluded volume for TMAO
For low K-values mass action is no longer valid!
56
Conclusions
Understanding of protein stability and interactions is stillvery rudimentary.
Scattering techniques offer a bridge between thermodynamics,molecular dynamics and spectroscopic methods but there are
no simple answers with just one technique.
The study of interactions is an active research area with many papers appearing in physics journals rather than biochemical
ones.
For routine measurements of A2 use light scattering.