The critical aggregation concentration of peptide surfactants is predictable from dynamic hydrophobic property

Peptide surfactants are a kind of newly emerged functional materials, which have a variety of applications such as building nanoarchitecture, stabilizing membrane proteins and controlling drug release. In the present study, we report the modelling and prediction of critical aggregation concentration (CAC), an important parameter that characterizes the self-assembling behaviour of peptide surfactants through the use of statistical modelling and quantitative structure–property relationship (QSPR) approaches. In order to accurately describe the structural and physicochemical properties of the highly flexible peptide molecules, a new method called molecular dynamics-based hydrophobic cross-field (MD-HCF) is proposed to capture both the hydrophobic profile and dynamic feature of 32 surface-activity, structure-known peptides. A number of statistical models are then developed using partial least squares (PLS) regression with or without improvement by genetic algorithm (GA). We demonstrate that MD-HCF performs much better than the widely used CODESSA method in both its predictability and interpretability. We also highlight the importance of dynamic hydrophobic property in accurate prediction and reasonable explanation of peptide self-assembling behaviour in solution, albeit which is exhaustive to compute compared with those derived directly from peptide static structure. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to computationally model and predict the self-assembling behaviour of peptide surfactants.

[1]  F. Tian,et al.  Structure-based prediction of protein–protein binding affinity with consideration of allosteric effect , 2012, Amino Acids.

[2]  Jianping Liu,et al.  Exploring the substructural space of indole-3-carboxamide derivatives binding to renin: a novel active-site spatial partitioning approach , 2012, Journal of Molecular Modeling.

[3]  Anupama Lakshmanan,et al.  Short self-assembling peptides as building blocks for modern nanodevices. , 2012, Trends in biotechnology.

[4]  Fang Huang,et al.  Determination of critical concentrations by synchronous fluorescence spectrometry , 2012 .

[5]  P. Zhou,et al.  Integrating statistical and experimental protocols to model and design novel Gemini surfactants with promising critical micelle concentration and low environmental risk. , 2011, Chemosphere.

[6]  D. Braun,et al.  Peptide surfactants for cell-free production of functional G protein-coupled receptors , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  F. Tian,et al.  Why OppA protein can bind sequence-independent peptides? A combination of QM/MM, PB/SA, and structure-based QSAR analyses , 2011, Amino Acids.

[8]  J. Lu,et al.  Interfacial dynamic adsorption and structure of molecular layers of peptide surfactants. , 2010, Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids.

[9]  Ping He,et al.  Toward quantitative characterization of the binding profile between the human amphiphysin-1 SH3 domain and its peptide ligands , 2010, Amino Acids.

[10]  Pierre Tufféry,et al.  PEP-FOLD: an online resource for de novo peptide structure prediction , 2009, Nucleic Acids Res..

[11]  F. Tian,et al.  Comprehensive comparison of eight statistical modelling methods used in quantitative structure-retention relationship studies for liquid chromatographic retention times of peptides generated by protease digestion of the Escherichia coli proteome. , 2009, Journal of chromatography. A.

[12]  J. Lu,et al.  Interfacial assembly of cationic peptide surfactants , 2009 .

[13]  Shuguang Zhang,et al.  Self-assembly of nanodonut structure from a cone-shaped designer lipid-like peptide surfactant. , 2009, Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids.

[14]  Xiang Chen,et al.  Side-chain conformational space analysis (SCSA): A multi conformation-based QSAR approach for modeling and prediction of protein–peptide binding affinities , 2009, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[15]  F. Tian,et al.  In silico quantitative prediction of peptides binding affinity to human MHC molecule: an intuitive quantitative structure–activity relationship approach , 2009, Amino Acids.

[16]  A. Nunn,et al.  Designer peptides: learning from nature. , 2009, Current pharmaceutical design.

[17]  Svetoslav H. Slavov,et al.  QSPR study of the first and second critical micelle concentrations of cationic surfactants , 2009, Comput. Chem. Eng..

[18]  Shuguang Zhang,et al.  Designer peptide surfactants stabilize functional photosystem-I membrane complex in aqueous solution for extended time . , 2009, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[19]  Shuguang Zhang,et al.  Synergistic effect and hierarchical nanostructure formation in mixing two designer lipid-like peptide surfactants Ac-A6D-OH and Ac-A6K-NH2. , 2008, Macromolecular bioscience.

[20]  Svetoslav H. Slavov,et al.  QSPR Study of Critical Micelle Concentrations of Nonionic Surfactants , 2008 .

[21]  A. Aggeli,et al.  Self-assembling peptide nanotubes , 2008 .

[22]  Irina G. Tsygankova,et al.  Variable Selection in QSAR Models for Drug Design , 2008 .

[23]  Ehud Gazit,et al.  Self-assembled peptide nanostructures: the design of molecular building blocks and their technological utilization. , 2007, Chemical Society reviews.

[24]  Hongjing Qu,et al.  Dynamic behaviors of lipid-like self-assembling peptide A6D and A6K nanotubes. , 2007, Journal of nanoscience and nanotechnology.

[25]  Shuguang Zhang,et al.  Tuning Curvature and Stability of Monoolein Bilayers by Designer Lipid-Like Peptide Surfactants , 2007, PloS one.

[26]  F. Tian,et al.  A Structure‐based, Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationship Approach for Predicting HLA‐A*0201‐restricted Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte Epitopes , 2007, Chemical biology & drug design.

[27]  H. Khorana,et al.  Designer short peptide surfactants stabilize G protein-coupled receptor bovine rhodopsin , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  Shuguang Zhang,et al.  Self-assembling Behavior of Designer Lipid-like Peptides , 2006 .

[29]  Gerrit Groenhof,et al.  GROMACS: Fast, flexible, and free , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[30]  Shuguang Zhang,et al.  Designer self-assembling peptide nanofiber scaffolds for 3D tissue cell cultures. , 2005, Seminars in cancer biology.

[31]  Pu Chen.  Self-assembly of ionic-complementary peptides : a physicochemical viewpoint , 2005 .

[32]  M. Baldo,et al.  Self-Assembling Peptide Detergents Stabilize Isolated Photosystem Ion a Dry Surface for an Extended Time , 2005, PLoS biology.

[33]  Shuguang Zhang.  Fabrication of novel biomaterials through molecular self-assembly , 2003, Nature Biotechnology.

[34]  J. Duhamel,et al.  Concentration effect on the aggregation of a self-assembling oligopeptide. , 2003, Biophysical journal.

[35]  K. Waldron,et al.  A comparison between electrokinetic capillary chromatography and absorption spectroscopy for the analysis of peptide‐micelle association by weak hydrophobic interactions , 2003, Electrophoresis.

[36]  David A. Case,et al.  Effective Born radii in the generalized Born approximation: The importance of being perfect , 2002, J. Comput. Chem..

[37]  Shuguang Zhang,et al.  Molecular self-assembly of surfactant-like peptides to form nanotubes and nanovesicles , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[38]  S. Wold,et al.  PLS-regression: a basic tool of chemometrics , 2001 .

[39]  Wilfred F. van Gunsteren,et al.  Parametrization of aliphatic CHn united atoms of GROMOS96 force field , 1998, J. Comput. Chem..

[40]  Berk Hess,et al.  LINCS: A linear constraint solver for molecular simulations , 1997, J. Comput. Chem..

[41]  P. Kollman,et al.  A Second Generation Force Field for the Simulation of Proteins, Nucleic Acids, and Organic Molecules J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 5179−5197 , 1996 .

[42]  P. Kollman,et al.  A Second Generation Force Field for the Simulation of Proteins, Nucleic Acids, and Organic Molecules , 1995 .

[43]  P. Kollman,et al.  Settle: An analytical version of the SHAKE and RATTLE algorithm for rigid water models , 1992 .

[44]  A. Rich,et al.  Zuotin, a putative Z‐DNA binding protein in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. , 1992, The EMBO journal.

[45]  J. Ponder,et al.  An efficient newton‐like method for molecular mechanics energy minimization of large molecules , 1987 .

[46]  A. D. McLachlan,et al.  Solvation energy in protein folding and binding , 1986, Nature.

[47]  Chew,et al.  Estimates of the electron g factor: Application of convergence acceleration methods to the QED series. , 1985, Physical review. D, Particles and fields.

[48]  Rahman,et al.  Molecular-dynamics study of atomic motions in water. , 1985, Physical review. B, Condensed matter.

[49]  H. Berendsen,et al.  Molecular dynamics with coupling to an external bath , 1984 .

[50]  A. Tropsha,et al.  Beware of q2! , 2002, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[51]  M. Karelson,et al.  QSPR: the correlation and quantitative prediction of chemical and physical properties from structure , 1995 .