Thermodynamic β -sheet propensities measured using a zinc-finger host peptide

THE three-dimensional structures of proteins reveal that the distribution of amino acids within the major classes of secondary structure is not random but that each amino acid has its own preferred secondary structural arrangements1–5. Propensity scales for residues in α-helices have been generated through the use of various host-guest systems6–9. Here we measure the thermo-dynamic β -sheet propensities of each of the twenty commonly occurring amino acids. A previously studied zinc-finger peptide10 was used as the host system in which amino acids were substituted into a guest site, a solvent-exposed position in an antiparallel β -sheet. As these peptides are unfolded in the absence of bound metal but are folded in their presence, it is assumed that the thermodynamics of metal binding fully reflect peptide-folding energy. A competitive cobalt(II)-binding assay was used to determine these energies with high precision. The relative free energies correlate well with previously derived potential values based on statistical analysis of protein structures. We are therefore able to present a thermodynamic β -sheet propensity scale for all the commonly occurring amino acids in aqueous solution.

[1]  W. DeGrado,et al.  A thermodynamic scale for the helix-forming tendencies of the commonly occurring amino acids. , 1990, Science.

[2]  J. Berg,et al.  A racemic protein , 1992 .

[3]  N R Kallenbach,et al.  Side chain contributions to the stability of alpha-helical structure in peptides. , 1990, Science.

[4]  M. Levitt Conformational preferences of amino acids in globular proteins. , 1978, Biochemistry.

[5]  G. Fasman Prediction of Protein Structure and the Principles of Protein Conformation , 2012, Springer US.

[6]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Analysis of the relationship between side-chain conformation and secondary structure in globular proteins. , 1987, Journal of molecular biology.

[7]  J. Garnier,et al.  Analysis of the accuracy and implications of simple methods for predicting the secondary structure of globular proteins. , 1978, Journal of molecular biology.

[8]  N. Pavletich,et al.  Zinc finger-DNA recognition: crystal structure of a Zif268-DNA complex at 2.1 A , 1991, Science.

[9]  Robert L. Baldwin,et al.  Relative helix-forming tendencies of nonpolar amino acids , 1990, Nature.

[10]  Shneior Lifson,et al.  Antiparallel and parallel β-strands differ in amino acid residue preferences , 1979, Nature.

[11]  J. Berg,et al.  Metal-dependent folding of a single zinc finger from transcription factor IIIA. , 1987, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  Jeremy M. Berg,et al.  A consensus zinc finger peptide: design, high-affinity metal binding, a pH-dependent structure, and a His to Cys sequence variant , 1991 .

[13]  P. Y. Chou,et al.  Conformational parameters for amino acids in helical, beta-sheet, and random coil regions calculated from proteins. , 1974, Biochemistry.

[14]  J. Richardson,et al.  β-Sheet topology and the relatedness of proteins , 1977, Nature.

[15]  H. Scheraga,et al.  Helix‐coil stability constants for the naturally occurring amino acids in water. XXIV. Half‐cystine parameters from random poly(hydroxybutylglutamine‐CO‐S‐methylthio‐L‐cysteine) , 1990 .

[16]  L. Hood,et al.  Zinc-dependent structure of a single-finger domain of yeast ADR1. , 1988, Science.

[17]  G. Rose,et al.  Side-chain entropy opposes alpha-helix formation but rationalizes experimentally determined helix-forming propensities. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.