Search for: All records

Abstract The type II polyproline helix (PPII) is a fundamental secondary structure of proteins, important in globular proteins, in intrinsically disordered proteins, and at protein‐protein interfaces. PPII is stabilized in part byn→π* interactions between consecutive carbonyls, via electron delocalization between an electron‐donor carbonyl lone pair (n) and an electron‐acceptor carbonyl (π*) on the subsequent residue. We previously demonstrated that changes to the electronic properties of the acyl donor can predictably modulate the strength ofn→π* interactions, with data from model compounds, in solution in chloroform, in the solid state, and computationally. Herein, we examined whether the electronic properties of acyl capping groups could modulate the stability of PPII in peptides in water. InX−PPGY‐NH₂peptides (X=10 acyl capping groups), the effect of acyl group identity on PPII was quantified by circular dichroism and NMR spectroscopy. Electron‐rich acyl groups promoted PPII relative to the standard acetyl (Ac−) group, with the pivaloyl andiso‐butyryl groups most significantly increasing PPII. In contrast, acyl derivatives with electron‐withdrawing substituents and the formyl group relatively disfavored PPII. Similar results, though lesser in magnitude, were also observed inX−APPGY‐NH₂peptides, indicating that the capping group can impact PPII conformation at both proline and non‐proline residues. The pivaloyl group was particularly favorable in promoting PPII. The effects of acyl capping groups were further analyzed inX–DfpPGY‐NH₂andX−ADfpPGY‐NH₂peptides, Dfp=4,4‐difluoroproline. Data on these peptides indicated that acyl groups induced order Piv‐ > Ac‐ > For‐. These results suggest that greater consideration should be given to the identity of acyl capping groups in inducing structure in peptides. 

Abstract Structures at serine‐proline sites in proteins were analyzed using a combination of peptide synthesis with structural methods and bioinformatics analysis of the PDB. Dipeptides were synthesized with the proline derivative (2S,4S)‐(4‐iodophenyl)hydroxyproline [hyp(4‐I‐Ph)]. The crystal structure of Boc‐Ser‐hyp(4‐I‐Ph)‐OMe had two molecules in the unit cell. One molecule exhibitedcis‐proline and a type VIa2 β‐turn (BcisD). Thecis‐proline conformation was stabilized by a C–H/O interaction between Pro C–H_αand the Ser side‐chain oxygen. NMR data were consistent with stabilization ofcis‐proline by a C–H/O interaction in solution. The other crystallographically observed molecule hadtrans‐Pro and both residues in the PPII conformation. Two conformations were observed in the crystal structure of Ac‐Ser‐hyp(4‐I‐Ph)‐OMe, with Ser adopting PPII in one and the β conformation in the other, each with Pro in the δ conformation andtrans‐Pro. Structures at Ser‐Pro sequences were further examined via bioinformatics analysis of the PDB and via DFT calculations. Ser‐Pro versus Ala–Pro sequences were compared to identify bases for Ser stabilization of local structures. C–H/O interactions between the Ser side‐chain O_γand Pro C–H_αwere observed in 45% of structures with Ser‐cis‐Pro in the PDB, with nearly all Ser‐cis‐Pro structures adopting a type VI β‐turn. 53% of Ser‐trans‐Pro sequences exhibited main‐chain CO_i•••HN_i+3or CO_i•••HN_i+4hydrogen bonds, with Ser as theiresidue and Pro as thei + 1 residue. These structures were overwhelmingly either type I β‐turns or N‐terminal capping motifs on α‐helices or 3₁₀‐helices. These results indicate that Ser‐Pro sequences are particularly potent in favoring these structures. In each, Ser is in either the PPII or β conformation, with the Ser O_γcapable of engaging in a hydrogen bond with the amide N–H of thei + 2 (type I β‐turn or 3₁₀‐helix; Serχ₁t) ori + 3 (α‐helix; Serχ₁g⁺) residue. Non‐prolinecisamide bonds can also be stabilized by C–H/O interactions. 

Abstract Proline residues within proteins lack a traditional hydrogen bond donor. However, the hydrogens of the proline ring are all sterically accessible, with polarized C−H bonds at Hα and Hδ that exhibit greater partial positive character and can be utilized as alternative sites for molecular recognition. C−H/O interactions, between proline C−H bonds and oxygen lone pairs, have been previously identified as modes of recognition within protein structures and for higher‐order assembly of protein structures. In order to better understand intermolecular recognition of proline residues, a series of proline derivatives was synthesized, including 4R‐hydroxyproline nitrobenzoate methyl ester, acylated on the proline nitrogen with bromoacetyl and glycolyl groups, and Boc‐4S‐(4‐iodophenyl)hydroxyproline methyl amide. All three derivatives exhibited multiple close intermolecular C−H/O interactions in the crystallographic state, with H⋅⋅⋅O distances as close as 2.3 Å. These observed distances are well below the 2.72 Å sum of the van der Waals radii of H and O, and suggest that these interactions are particularly favorable. In order to generalize these results, we further analyzed the role of C−H/O interactions in all previously crystallized derivatives of these amino acids, and found that all 26 structures exhibited close intermolecular C−H/O interactions. Finally, we analyzed all proline residues in the Cambridge Structural Database of small‐molecule crystal structures. We found that the majority of these structures exhibited intermolecular C−H/O interactions at proline C−H bonds, suggesting that C−H/O interactions are an inherent and important mode for recognition of and higher‐order assembly at proline residues. Due to steric accessibility and multiple polarized C−H bonds, proline residues are uniquely positioned as sites for binding and recognition via C−H/O interactions.