Two Helical Conformations from a Single Foldamer Backbone: "Split Personality" in Short α/β-Peptides

Angewandte Chemie - International Edition

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 505-510

  Hayen, Ahlke ^a   Schmitt, Margaret A ^a   Ngassa, Felix N ^b   Thomasson, Kathryn A ^b   Gellman, Samuel H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

amino acids; amino acids; Foldamers; Helical structures; NMR spectroscopy

Indexed keywords

CONFORMATIONS; MONOMERS; OLIGOMERS; STRUCTURE (COMPOSITION);

FOLDAMER BACKBONE; HELICAL SECONDARY STRUCTURE;

AMINO ACIDS;

AMINO ACID DERIVATIVE; BETA AMINO ACID; MONOMERIC IONIC CONTRAST MEDIUM; OLIGOMER; OLIGOPEPTIDE;

ALPHA HELIX; ARTICLE; BETA CHAIN; HYDROGEN BOND; NUCLEAR OVERHAUSER EFFECT; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN SECONDARY STRUCTURE; PROTEIN STABILITY;

AMINO ACIDS; AMINO ACIDS, CYCLIC; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CYCLOLEUCINE; HYDROGEN BONDING; LYSINE; MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; METHANOL; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; OLIGOPEPTIDES; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, SECONDARY; PYRROLIDINES; SOLVENTS; STEREOISOMERISM; TYROSINE;

EID: 0842329029     PISSN: 14337851     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/anie.200352125     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. a) S. H. Gellman, Acc. Chem. Res. 1998, 31, 173;
2. b) D. J. Hill, M. J. Mio, R. B. Prince, T. S. Hughes, J. S. Moore, Chem. Rev. 2001, 101, 3893.
3. Examples: a) M. Werder, H. Hauser, S. Abele, D. Seebach, Helv. Chim. Acta 1999, 82, 1774;
4. b) Y. Hamuro, J. P. Schneider, W. F. DeGrado, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 12 200;
5. c) E. A. Porter, X. Wang, H.-S. Lee, B. Weisblum, S. H. Gellman, Nature 2000, 404, 565;
6. d) D. Liu, W. F. DeGrado, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 7553;
7. e) E. A. Porter, B. Weisblum, S. H. Gellman, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 7324;
8. f) K. Gademann, T. Kimmerlin, D. Hoyer, D. Seebach, J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 2461;
9. g) U. Arnold, M. P. Hinderaker, B. L. Nilsson, B. R. Huck, S. H. Gellman, R. T. Raines, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 8522;
10. h) T. L. Raguse, E. A. Porter, B. Weisblum, S. H. Gellman, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 12774.
11. Selected examples: a) M. Hagihara, N. J. Anthony, T. J. Stout, J. Clardy, S. L. Schreiber, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1992, 114, 6568;
12. b) R. S. Lokey, B. L. Iverson, Nature 1995, 375, 303;
13. c) Y. Hamuro, S. J. Geib, A. D. Hamilton, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 7529;
14. d) B. R. Huck, J. D. Fisk, S. H. Gellman, Org. Lett. 2000, 2, 2607;
15. e) B. Gong, H. Q. Zeng, J. Zhu, L. H. Yua, Y. H. Han, S. Z. Cheng, M. Furukawa, R. D. Parra, A. Y. Kovalevsky, J. L. Mills, E. Skrzypczak-Jankun, S. Martinovic, R. D. Smith, C. Zheng, T. Szyperski, X. C. Zeng, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 11 583.
16. 1 receptor:N. Koglin, C. Zorn, R. Beumer, C. Cabrele, C. Bubert, N. Sewald, O. Reiser, A. G. Beck-Sickinger, Angew. Chem. 2003, 115, 212; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 202.
17. 1 receptor:N. Koglin, C. Zorn, R. Beumer, C. Cabrele, C. Bubert, N. Sewald, O. Reiser, A. G. Beck-Sickinger, Angew. Chem. 2003, 115, 212; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 202.
18. A. K. Bolin, G. L. Millhauser, Acc. Chem. Res. 1999, 32, 1027, and references therein.
19. COSY: W. P Aue, E. Bartholdi, R. R. Ernst, J. Chem. Phys. 1976, 64, 2229; TOCSY: A. Bax, D. G. Davis, J. Magn. Reson. 1985, 65, 355; ROESY: A. A. Bothner-By, R. L. Stephens, J. Lee, C. D. Warren, R. W. Jeanloz, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1984, 106, 811.
20. COSY: W. P Aue, E. Bartholdi, R. R. Ernst, J. Chem. Phys. 1976, 64, 2229; TOCSY: A. Bax, D. G. Davis, J. Magn. Reson. 1985, 65, 355; ROESY: A. A. Bothner-By, R. L. Stephens, J. Lee, C. D. Warren, R. W. Jeanloz, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1984, 106, 811.
21. COSY: W. P Aue, E. Bartholdi, R. R. Ernst, J. Chem. Phys. 1976, 64, 2229; TOCSY: A. Bax, D. G. Davis, J. Magn. Reson. 1985, 65, 355; ROESY: A. A. Bothner-By, R. L. Stephens, J. Lee, C. D. Warren, R. W. Jeanloz, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1984, 106, 811.
22. P. L. LePlae, N. Umezawa, H.-S. Lee, S. H. Gellman, J. Org. Chem. 2001, 66, 5629.
23. Ambiguous NOEs were assigned by using the program DYANA (P. Guntert, C. Mumenthaler, K. Wuthrich, J. Mol. Biol. 1997, 273, 283) in an iterative process. Each ambiguous NOE had one assignment that was consistent with all other nonsequential NOEs.
24. a) D. H. Appella, L. A. Christianson, D. A. Klein, D. R. Powell, X. Huang, J. J. Barchi, S. H. Gellman, Nature 1997, 387, 381;
25. b) D. H. Appella, L. A. Christianson, D. A. Klein, M. R. Richards, D. R. Powell, S. H. Gellman, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 7574.
26. Alternative helices were generated for an ACPC-Ala dodecamer using SYBYL (Tripos, St. Louis, MO) by imposing distance constraints for hydrogen bonds between appropriate C=O/H-N pairs. These structures were minimized using a continuum dielectric constant of 32.6, to simulate methanol, with the MMFF94s force field (T. A. Halgren, J. Comput. Chem. 1999, 20, 720.). Each of the resulting helical structures was taken to represent a possible local minimum in conformational energy for the dodecamer.
27. It seemed possible that this design might bias each oligomer into either an 11- or 14/15-helical conformation based upon charge-charge interactions between side chains, allowing us to use rational principles to design α/β-oligomers with specific conformational preferences. A potential salt bridge between APC3 and Glu6 in 2 may preferentially stabilize an 11-helical conformation (helical wheel diagrams are included in the Supporting Information). In contrast, an interaction between APC3 and Lys6 in 3 may destabilize the 11-helical conformation, possibly favoring the 14/15-helical conformation. Complete evaluation of this hypothesis was not possible because of the severe resonance overlap observed for 2 and 3 in aqueous solution. In methanol, we do not expect the Glu side chain to be significantly deprotonated, minimizing the chance that salt-bridge formation would influence conformational preferences. Oligomers 2 and 3 show slightly different NOE patterns, suggesting that one helical conformation may be slightly more populated in one oligomer than in the other. Further investigations are under way to explore these possibilities.
28. 10-helical domains in a synthetic α-peptide, see: V. Pavone, E. Benedetti, B. Di Blasio, C. Pedone, A. Santini, A. Bavoso, C. Toniolo, M. Crisma, L. Sartore, J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 1990, 7, 1321. It has been shown in one system that a three-center C=O⋯H⋯O=C interaction is higher in energy than an alternative two-center C= O⋯H hydrogen bond: J. Yang, S. H. Gellman, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 9090.
29. 10-helical domains in a synthetic α-peptide, see: V. Pavone, E. Benedetti, B. Di Blasio, C. Pedone, A. Santini, A. Bavoso, C. Toniolo, M. Crisma, L. Sartore, J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 1990, 7, 1321. It has been shown in one system that a three-center C=O⋯H⋯O=C interaction is higher in energy than an alternative two-center C= O⋯H hydrogen bond: J. Yang, S. H. Gellman, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 9090.
30. 10-helical domains in a synthetic α-peptide, see: V. Pavone, E. Benedetti, B. Di Blasio, C. Pedone, A. Santini, A. Bavoso, C. Toniolo, M. Crisma, L. Sartore, J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 1990, 7, 1321. It has been shown in one system that a three-center C=O⋯H⋯O=C interaction is higher in energy than an alternative two-center C= O⋯H hydrogen bond: J. Yang, S. H. Gellman, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 9090.
31. 10-helical domains in a synthetic α-peptide, see: V. Pavone, E. Benedetti, B. Di Blasio, C. Pedone, A. Santini, A. Bavoso, C. Toniolo, M. Crisma, L. Sartore, J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 1990, 7, 1321. It has been shown in one system that a three-center C=O⋯H⋯O=C interaction is higher in energy than an alternative two-center C= O⋯H hydrogen bond: J. Yang, S. H. Gellman, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 9090.
32. a) A. Berkessel, K. Glaubitz, J. Lex, Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2002, 17, 2948;
33. b) M. Schinnerl, J. K. Murray, J. M. Langenhan, S. H. Gellman, Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2003, 4, 721.
34. a) D. H. Appella, L. A. Christianson, I. L. Karle, D. R. Powell, S. H. Gellman, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 13071;
35. b) D. H. Appella, L. A. Christianson, I. L. Karle, D. R. Powell, S. H. Gellman, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 6206.
36. D. Seebach, M. Overhand, F. N. M. Kühnle, B. Martinoni, L. Oberer, U. Hommel, H. Widmer, Helv. Chim. Acta 1996, 79, 913.