|
Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M204257200 on July 22, 2002
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 40, 37272-37279, October 4, 2002
Designing Heterodimeric Two-stranded -Helical Coiled-coils
EFFECTS OF HYDROPHOBICITY AND -HELICAL PROPENSITY ON PROTEIN
FOLDING, STABILITY, AND SPECIFICITY*
Jennifer R.
Litowski §¶ and
Robert S.
Hodges ¶
From the Department of Biochemistry, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2H7 Canada and the ¶ Department of
Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Colorado Health
Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado 80262
Received for publication, May 1, 2002, and in revised form, July 15, 2002
 |
ABSTRACT |
The E/K coil, a heterodimeric coiled-coil,
has been designed as a universal peptide capture and delivery system
for use in applications such as biosensors and as an expression and
affinity purification tag. In this design, heterodimer formation is
specified through the placement of charged residues at the e and g
positions of the heptad repeat such that the E coil contains all
glutamic acid residues at these positions, and the K coil contains all lysine residues at these positions. The affinity and stability of the
E/K coil have been modified to allow a greater range of conditions for
association and dissociation. Increasing the hydrophobicity of the
coiled-coil core, by substituting isoleucine for valine, gave increases
in stability of 2.81 and 3.73 kcal/mol (0.47 kcal/mol/substitution). Increasing the -helical propensity of residues outside the core, by
substituting alanine for serine, yielded increases in stability of 2.68 and 3.28 kcal/mol (0.41 and 0.45 kcal/mol/substitution). These sequence
changes yielded a series of heterodimeric coiled-coils whose
stabilities varied from 6.8 to 11.2 kcal/mol, greatly expanding their
scope for use in protein engineering and biomedical applications.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The coiled-coil is an oligomerization domain found in a wide
variety of proteins, including transcription factors, motor proteins, chaperone proteins, and viral fusion proteins (1-4). Recent surveys of
genomic data bases suggest that up to 10% of eukaryotic proteins contain sequences predicted to be coiled-coils (5). This structural motif has been of considerable interest, both because of its diversity in structure and oligomerization state and because of its many advantages as a model system for protein design (6, 7). Coiled-coils
contain a single type of secondary structure, the -helix, which is
easy to monitor experimentally by circular dichroism (CD) spectroscopy.
Their quaternary interactions yield a structure that is folded stably
in aqueous solution at neutral pH, unlike most single-stranded
-helices.
The structural features of coiled-coils have been reviewed extensively
(3, 7, 8). Their sequences are characterized by a heptad repeat,
denoted abcdefg, in which positions a and
d are occupied by hydrophobic residues. The side chains from
the a and d residues pack against each other in a
"knobs-into-holes" manner (9), forming a continuous hydrophobic
core. Maintaining this packing along the length of the -helices
results in their wrapping around each other in a left-handed supercoil.
The side chains of the residues in positions e and
g lie alongside the hydrophobic core. These positions are
typically occupied by charged residues that can participate in
i to i'+5 electrostatic interactions, which have been found to play an important role in specifying homo- and
heteroassociation in native coiled-coils (1, 10-13). The preference
for electrostatic attractions over repulsions has been key to the
de novo design of heterodimeric coiled-coils (14-22).
Despite the apparent simplicity of coiled-coils, their structures
display a surprising diversity. They can be composed of two to five
-helices, which may be identical or different and may be arranged in
a parallel or antiparallel manner. In addition, coiled-coils have been
observed to assemble into larger structures, such as the -sheets and
-cylinders described by Walshaw and Woolfson (23). The sequence
determinants that control these structural features are superimposed
upon the heptad repeat and are only partially understood.
Coiled-coils have been used in numerous applications including affinity
purification (24-26), the directed assembly of extracellular receptor
domains (27-29), the creation of miniaturized antibodies (30-32), a
library presentation scaffold (33, 34), and the design of hydrogels
with defined properties (35-37). We have designed the E/K coil, a
heterodimeric coiled-coil for use in biotechnological applications
including as an expression and purification tag and as a universal
dimerization domain for biosensors (14, 25, 38). Heterodimerization is
based on the placement of charged residues at the e and
g positions. This system has several advantages, including
its high stability and specificity. However, the affinity
chromatography procedure required an elution buffer that was both
acidic and contained a high percentage of acetonitrile. This procedure
worked very well, but more benign elution conditions may be desired for
some applications. Therefore, we have modified this design to obtain a
set of heterodimerization domains with a range of stabilities and
affinities. This will increase the flexibility of this design and allow
users to tailor the E/K system for a particular application. Our first
approach was to change the length of the coiled-coil peptides (39). We found a direct but nonlinear relationship between chain length and
stability. The reduction from 5 to 4 heptads length yielded a useful
E/K analog with a free energy of unfolding
( GH2O) of 8.2 kcal/mol. The 3-heptad analog, however, was too labile and was only
able to fold when stabilized by an interhelical disulfide bond.
In the present study, we examine sequence modifications designed to
stabilize the coiled-coils, making the shorter E/K analogs more useful.
The first approach was to increase the hydrophobicity of residues in
the coiled-coil hydrophobic core, which has been shown to be closely
related to coiled-coil stability (40-43). The second approach was to
increase the -helical propensity of residues outside the coiled-coil
interface. Helical propensity differences have been shown to affect
coiled-coil stability up to 0.77 kcal/mol/substitution (44) and up to
0.96 kcal/mol/substitution in a single-stranded amphipathic -helix
(45).
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Peptide Synthesis and Purification--
The peptides were
synthesized by standard t-butyloxycarbonyl solid phase
techniques developed by Erickson and Merrifield (46) on an
Applied Biosystems peptide synthesizer model 430A (Foster City, CA),
using 4-methylbenzhydrylamine resin (0.74 mmol of NH2/g of
resin) (Bachem, Torrance, CA) on a 0.5-mmol scale. The synthesis methodology is similar to that described by Sereda et al.
(47), except that activation and coupling were performed in
situ and described as follows. A 4-fold molar excess of amino acid
(2 mmol) was dissolved in N,N-dimethylformamide
and activated with slightly less than equimolar amounts of HBTU
(2-(1H-benzotriazole-1-yl)-1,1,3,3-tetramethyluronium hexafluorophosphate) and HOBt (N-hydroxybenzotriazole), and
a 5-fold molar excess of DIEA
(N,N-diisopropylethylamine). The side chain
protecting groups were 2-chlorobenzyloxycarbonyl for lysine, O-benzyl for glutamic acid, benzyl for serine, and
4-methylbenzyl for cysteine. A scale of 0.1 mmol was used for the
synthesis of each peptide. The peptides were cleaved from the resin by
reaction with hydrogen fluoride (20 ml/g of resin) containing 10%
anisole and 2% 1,2-ethanedithiol for 1.5 h at 5 °C. The
resin was washed with diethyl ether to remove the organic scavengers.
The peptides were extracted from the resin with glacial acetic acid,
and the extract was lyophilized.
Crude peptides were purified by
RP-HPLC,1 using a
semipreparative Zorbax 300SB-C8 column (250 × 9.4 mm, inner
diameter, 5-µm particle size, 300-Å pore size) from Agilent
Technologies (Englewood, CO). The following conditions were used: a
linear AB gradient of 1% CH3CN/min from 0 to 10%
CH3CN, followed by a gradient of 0.2%
CH3CN/min, where eluent A was 0.05% aqueous
trifluoroacetic acid (v/v) and eluent B was 0.05% trifluoroacetic acid
in CH3CN (v/v). The flow rate was 2 ml/min. Peptides IAAL
E4, IAAL E3, ISAL E4, VAAL E4, and VSAL E4 were purified at 70 °C to
prevent aggregation and improve resolution and peak shape. The
remaining peptides were purified at room temperature. The homogeneity
of the purified peptides was verified by analytical RP-HPLC, amino acid
analysis, and mass spectrometry.
Peptide ISAL K3 required an additional mixed mode hydrophilic
interaction/cation exchange chromatography step (48) because it
contained serine acetylated impurities that were not removed by our
RP-HPLC procedure. The hydrophilic interaction/cation exchange chromatography was performed on a PolySulfoethyl A strong cation exchange column (200 × 4.6 mm, inner diameter, 5-µm particle
size, 300-Å pore size) from PolyLC (Columbia, MD). A linear AB
gradient, where A = 10 mM triethylammonium phosphate,
65% CH3CN, pH 6.5, and B = 10 mM
triethylammonium phosphate, 65% CH3CN, 350 mM
NaClO4, pH 6.5, was performed, starting at 20% B (70 mM NaClO4) with an increasing salt gradient of
0.7% B/min (2.5 mM NaClO4/min). The flow rate
was 1 ml/min, and the temperature was ambient. The buffer was made by
starting with a 10 mM solution of phosphoric acid (Anachemia, Toronto, ON) and raising the pH to 6.5 with triethylamine (redistilled before use) (Anachemia). A stock solution of 2 M NaClO4 (HPLC grade, Fisher Scientific) was
filtered through a 0.22-µm filter (Millipore Corporation) before
dilution to the desired concentration.
Analytical reversed phase runs were performed on a Zorbax 300SB-C8
column (150 × 4.6 mm, inner diameter, 5-µm particle size, 300-Å pore size) or a narrow bore Zorbax 300SB-C8 column (150 × 2.1 mm, inner diameter, 5-µm particle size, 300-Å pore size).
Electrospray mass spectrometry was carried out on a VG Quattro
electrospray triple quadrupole mass spectrometer from VG BioTech (Altrincham, UK). Direct injections were performed by injecting 10 µl
of the sample, using 0.1% formic acid in 50% aqueous
CH3CN as the solvent, and a flow rate of 50 µl/min. The
resulting spectra were scanned from 500 to 1,500 Da.
Concentrations were determined by amino acid analysis. Peptides were
hydrolyzed in 6 N HCl containing 0.1% (v/v) phenol at 155 °C for 1 h in sealed, evacuated tubes. Amino acid analyses were performed on a Beckman model 6300 amino acid analyzer.
CD Spectroscopy--
CD spectra were recorded on Jasco J-500C
and Jasco J-720 spectropolarimeters (Jasco, Easton, MD). The
temperature was maintained at 20 °C by a Lauda model RMS water bath
(Brinkmann Instruments). The spectropolarimeters were routinely
calibrated with an aqueous solution of recrystallized
D-10-(+)-camphorsulfonic acid at 290.5 nm. CD spectra were
the average of four scans obtained by collecting data at 0.1-nm
intervals from 250 to 190 nm, or as low as possible. The results are
expressed as the mean residue molar ellipticity [ ] with units of
degrees·cm2·dmol 1 and calculated from
Equation 1,
|
(Eq. 1)
|
where obs is the ellipticity measured in
millidegrees, MRW is the mean residue molecular weight (molecular
weight of the peptide divided by the number of amino acid residues),
c is the peptide concentration in mg/ml, and l is
the optical path length of the cell in cm. Cell path lengths were 0.02 cm for the CD spectra scans and 0.05 cm for the data points in the
denaturation studies. GdnHCl denaturation studies were carried out by
monitoring the ellipticity at 222 nm (an average of five 1.0-s
readings) as a function of GdnHCl concentration. Mixtures were prepared
from stock peptide solutions in water (~10 mg/ml), buffer (50 mM PO4, 100 mM KCl, pH 7.0), and a
solution of 8 M GdnHCl in buffer.
GdnHCl Data Analysis--
The GdnHCl denaturation curves were
analyzed using a two-state unfolding model to determine the fraction
folded, using Equation 2,
|
(Eq. 2)
|
where [ ] is the observed molar ellipticity and
[ ]F and [ ]D are the ellipticities of
the folded and denatured states, respectively (49). The free energy of
unfolding was calculated by Equation 3
|
(Eq. 3)
|
where R is the molar gas constant, T is
the temperature in Kelvin, Pt is the total
peptide concentration, and Fu is the fraction unfolded (Equation 4)
|
(Eq. 4)
|
(50). We then used the linear extrapolation method to calculate
the free energy of unfolding in the absence of denaturant ( GH2O), using
Equation 5,
|
(Eq. 5)
|
(49). This assumes a linear relationship between
GD and [GdnHCl]. The difference in
the free energies of unfolding of two peptides ( G) was
calculated by subtracting the G values of a pair of
peptides at the [GdnHCl]1/2 of the peptide chosen as a
reference, as described by Kohn et al. (16).
Sedimentation Equilibrium--
Sedimentation equilibrium
experiments were performed on a Beckman model Optima XL-I
ultracentrifuge, using a six-sector charcoal-filled Epon centerpiece
and Rayleigh interference optics. Samples were dissolved in a 50 mM phosphate, 100 mM KCl, pH 7.0, buffer at ~1.5 mg/ml and then dialyzed overnight at 4 °C against the same buffer. The samples were analyzed at three concentrations and three
speeds (between 34,000 and 50,000 rpm) at 20 °C. We determined that
the samples had reached equilibrium by subtracting successive scans.
The data were then analyzed by nonlinear least squares analysis, using
the program Nonlin.
 |
RESULTS |
Peptide Design--
Considerable experience has been gained in
understanding the interactions and features important for the design
and folding of coiled-coils (15, 21, 22, 38). The major stabilizing features are the hydrophobic interactions in the core (41, 42, 51-53),
electrostatic attractions across the coiled-coil interface (7, 11, 13,
22), and helical propensity effects (44, 45, 54-56). This knowledge
and experience were used in the design of the E/K heterodimeric
coiled-coils, as illustrated in Fig. 1
and Table I (14, 38). The hydrophobic
core, composed of positions a and d, was occupied
by valine and leucine. Because of packing effects, -branched
hydrophobic residues are the most stabilizing at position a
(42, 43), and leucine is the most stabilizing residue at position
d (41, 57). Serine was placed at position b
because it is a small polar residue that will increase peptide
solubility. Alanine was placed at position c to increase the
overall helical propensity (44, 45, 54-56). Heterodimerization was
specified for by the placement of charged residues at the e
and g positions (15, 21, 22, 38). The e and
g positions are occupied by glutamic acid in the E coils and
by lysine in the K coils. Thus, potential homodimer formation will be
destabilized, whereas the E/K heterodimer will be stabilized through
electrostatic attractions (14, 38). The charged residues at position
f were opposite in charge to those at positions e
and g and were incorporated to increase solubility and
reduce the overall net charge. The NH2 terminus was
acetylated, and the COOH terminus was amidated to prevent repulsions
between charged termini.

View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Helical wheel representation of the E4/K4
heterodimer, in which the coiled-coil is viewed in cross-section, and
the peptide chain propagates into the page from the NH2 to
the COOH terminus. The interhelical hydrophobic interactions are
denoted with wide arrows. The thin arrows denote
the four pairs of i to i'+5 interchain
electrostatic attractions on each side of the hydrophobic core
(e.g. Glu22-Lys27,
Glu15-Lys20, etc.). Peptide nomenclature is
described in Table I and under "Results."
|
|
There are two principal targets for increasing the stability of this
sequence: the hydrophobic core of the coiled-coil (positions a and d) and the -helical propensity of
surface exposed positions b, c, e,
f, and g. We chose to stabilize the hydrophobic
core by increasing its hydrophobicity. Isoleucine has been shown to be
significantly more stable in the a position than valine
because of its higher hydrophobicity (43). Accordingly, a series of
peptides was made in which all of the a positions have
either valine or isoleucine. The -helical structures were stabilized
by increasing the overall -helical propensity. To do this, a series
of peptides was made in which the low helical propensity residue serine
was replaced by the high helical propensity residue alanine at all b positions. We made a series of E and K coils that
contained one or both of these modifications and were 3 or 4 heptads
long (21 or 28 residues). The nomenclature reflects the sequences
(Table I) at positions a-d (i.e. VSAL), and the
number reflects the length of the peptide in heptads. E/K denotes a
heterodimer formed by a 1:1 association of the E and K coils.
CD Spectroscopy--
The secondary structure of the peptides was
evaluated by CD spectroscopy. VSAL E4/K4 exhibits a typical -helical
spectrum (Fig. 2B), with the
characteristic minima at 208 and 222 nm (58). Because the molar
ellipticity at 222 nm is directly proportional to the amount of helical
structure (59, 60), VSAL E4/K4 is folded (Table
II). In contrast, the VSAL E4 and VSAL K4
peptides exhibited random coil spectra, with a broad minimum at 200 nm (Fig. 2B). This clearly shows that VSAL E4 and VSAL K4
specifically interact to form a heterodimeric -helical coiled-coil.
In contrast, the smaller VSAL E3/K3 analog is still a random coil (Fig.
2A). This shows that this sequence is not stable enough at a
length of 3 heptads to form a heterodimeric coiled-coil.

View larger version (35K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
CD spectra of the E coils ( ), K coils
( ), and 1:1 mixtures of the E and K coil ( ) peptides.
The following peptides were examined: VSAL 3 heptads (A)
VSAL 4 heptads (B), VAAL 3 heptads (C), VAAL 4 heptads (D), ISAL 3 heptads (E), ISAL 4 heptads
(F), IAAL 3 heptads (G), and IAAL 4 heptads
(H). Peptide nomenclature is described in Table I and under
"Results." The spectra were recorded at 20 °C in a 50 mM PO4, 100 mM KCl, pH 7, buffer.
Peptide concentrations were ~1 mg/ml (318-429
µM).
|
|
On the other hand, our more stable sequences were able to form
coiled-coils at 3 heptads in length (Fig. 2, C,
E, and G, and Table II). The result with ISAL
E3/K3 (Fig. 2E) demonstrates that increasing the
hydrophobicity in the core, by substituting three isoleucines for three
valines, provided sufficient stabilization for the coiled-coil to fold.
VAAL E3/K3 also formed a coiled-coil, as seen in Fig. 2C,
showing that increasing the -helical propensity by substituting
three alanine residues for three serines could also provide sufficient
stabilization for the coiled-coil to fold. Additionally, both sequences
have high specificity, demonstrated by the random coil character of the
individual E and K peptides of these sequences. The peptide IAAL E3/K3
contains both substitutions and is, as expected, a fully folded
-helical coiled-coil.
All of the 4-heptad sequences formed heterodimeric coiled-coils (Fig.
2, B, D, F, and H, and
Table II). Some, however, show a loss of specificity (Fig. 2,
D, F, and H). These sequences were able to form homodimeric coiled-coils even in the presence of 8 Glu-Glu
or 8 Lys-Lys electrostatic repulsions. This is most pronounced for the
most stable sequence, IAAL, in which the E4 and K4 homodimers are
nearly fully folded coiled-coils (Fig. 2H). The
negative-negative charge repulsions are more destabilizing to
coiled-coil formation than positive-positive repulsions (Fig. 2,
D and F). In all cases, the 1:1 mixture of E and
K coils had the greatest ellipticity at 222 nm, indicating that the
maximum helical structure is still observed in the heterodimeric
coiled-coil. This demonstrates that achieving a balance between
stability and specificity is an important principle in protein design.
Trifluoroethanol is a helix-inducing solvent that is used to determine
the ability of a sequence to adopt an -helical structure (61, 62).
All peptides in this study are -helical in the presence of 50%
trifluoroethanol (Table II). Trifluoroethanol is also known to disrupt
quaternary interactions. This is reflected in the
[ ]222/[ ]208 ratio, typically >1.0
for interacting helices in a coiled-coil conformation and 0.85-0.95
for single -helices (52, 63). The coiled-coil peptides that show
shifts of this type in the
[ ]222/[ ]208 ratios are denoted by a + sign in Table II. Some of the shorter coiled-coils have
[ ]222/[ ]208 ratios less than 1.0 in
benign buffer. This can be attributed to end fraying, which is more
significant in short helices.
Sedimentation Equilibrium--
Weight-averaged molecular weights
typical of a dimeric species were observed for IAAL E3/K3, ISAL E3/K3,
VAAL E3/K3, IAAL E4/K4, and VAAL E4/K4 (Table
III). ISAL E4/K4 had a molecular
weight typical of a tetrameric species, and VSAL E4/K4 showed evidence of a dimer to tetramer association. Previous studies have shown that
the VSAL E4 and VSAL K4 peptides interact in a 1:1 manner, ruling out a
trimeric structure (39). VSAL E3/K3 showed signs of a weak monomer to
dimer association in the high concentration gradient experienced in the
analytical ultracentrifuge. However, it did not fold under the
conditions used for our CD analysis, indicating that it is unsuitable
for most applications.
The difference in the oligomerization states of ISAL E4/K4 and IAAL
E4/K4 is interesting, given that they differ only in the presence of
serine or alanine at position b. We cannot explain why this
should happen, for this position is highly solvent-exposed and distant
from the coiled-coil interface. To our knowledge, this is the first
example of a b position substitution causing a change in
coiled-coil oligomerization state, although interstrand electrostatic
interactions between b and c position residues
have been shown to affect the stability of tetrameric coiled-coils
(64). This demonstrates that the sequence features that control
coiled-coil oligomerization state are complex and still not fully
understood. We are proceeding with crystallization studies of these
peptides in the hope of answering this question with three-dimensional
structure information. Although ISAL E4/K4 and VSAL E4/K4 form
tetrameric species, this should not rule out their application as a tag
system in which one strand is immobilized on a solid surface, because
only the dimeric species can form under these conditions.
We have previously found many examples of coiled-coils that convert
from trimers or tetramers to dimers at low levels of denaturant, in a
transition that is silent to the CD signal (65). The major unfolding
transition observed by CD spectroscopy was then a dimer to monomer
transition. To determine whether ISAL E4/K4 behaved in a similar
fashion, we performed sedimentation equilibrium experiments in a buffer
containing 2 M GdnHCl, a concentration that does not induce
unfolding in ISAL E4/K4 (Fig. 3).
Molecular weights characteristic of the dimeric species were observed,
confirming that these coiled-coils do undergo a silent tetramer to
dimer transition before the major unfolding transition (data not
shown). This allows us to compare the unfolding data ( G,
 G) directly.

View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
GdnHCl denaturation curves at 20 °C in a
50 mM PO4, 100 mM KCl, pH 7, buffer. A, the 3-heptad heterodimeric coiled-coils IAAL
E3/K3 ( , 431 µM), ISAL E3/K3 ( , 270 µM), and VAAL E3/K3 ( , 439 µM).
B, the 4-heptad heterodimeric coiled-coils IAAL E4/K4 ( ,
325 µM), ISAL E4/K4 ( , 137 µM. Repeating
the denaturation at 380 µM had little effect; the
denaturation midpoint increased by only 0.2 M), VAAL E4/K4
( , 331 µM), and VSAL E4/K4 ( , 324 µM). The calculation of fraction folded is described
under "Experimental Procedures."
|
|
Conformational Stability--
The conformational stabilities of
the coiled-coils were determined by GdnHCl denaturations (Fig. 3 and
Table III). The denaturation curves for the 3 heptad coiled-coils are
shown in the upper panel. VSAL E3/K3 did not have sufficient
stability to fold, and so it is not shown. The ISAL E3/K3 and VAAL
E3/K3 peptides have similar denaturation midpoints (1.7 and 1.8 M GdnHCl) and free energies of unfolding
( GH2O values of 6.8 and 7.2 kcal/mol). Our two approaches to stabilizing this sequence,
increasing the hydrophobicity of the core and increasing the
-helical propensity, yielded similar gains in stability. The double
mutant, IAAL E3/K3, is remarkably stable for a coiled-coil that is only
21 residues long ([GdnHCl]1/2 = 4.3 M and
GH2O = 9.6 kcal/mol), making it an excellent choice for a heterodimerization domain.
The denaturation curves of the analogous 4-heptad coiled-coils are
shown in the lower panel of Fig. 3. The original VSAL
sequence is the least stable, with a denaturation midpoint of 2.1 M and a
GH2O of 8.1 kcal/mol
(14, 38). Increasing the hydrophobicity of the core residues (ISAL
E4/K4) or the -helical propensity (VAAL E4/K4) resulted in similar
increases in stability, with denaturation midpoints of 4.6 and 4.4 M and
GH2O values of
11.0 and 11.2 kcal/mol, respectively. The double mutant, IAAL E4/K4, is
an extremely stable molecule and was still ~70% folded at 7 M GdnHCl.
This series of coiled-coil sequences allows us to make a number of
comparisons and to evaluate the contribution of different structural
features to the stability of heterodimeric coiled-coils (Table
IV). The  G
values were acquired by subtracting the G values at the
transition midpoints, as described under "Experimental Procedures."
In addition, the  G value was divided by the number of
substitutions (six or eight) to obtain the free energy change per
substitution. Each valine to isoleucine substitution increased stability by 0.47 kcal/mol when comparing the VSAL E4/K4 and ISAL E4/K4
pair and the VAAL E3/K3 and IAAL E3/K3 pair. This is in excellent
agreement with the values obtained by Zhu et al. (43) for a
triple valine to isoleucine substitution at the a position,
which yielded increases of 0.45 and 0.88 kcal/mol, in coiled-coils with
and without disulfide bridges, respectively.
The effect of -helical propensity was determined by comparing
different sets of coiled-coils. Each serine to alanine substitution gave an increase in stability of 0.45 kcal/mol for ISAL E3/K3 and IAAL
E3/K3 and of 0.41 kcal/mol for VSAL E4/K4 and VAAL E4/K4. These numbers
are well within the range of values observed before, 0.42-0.78
kcal/mol (44, 45, 54-56).
In addition, we could measure the effect of an increase in chain length
from 3 to 4 heptads. There is a difference of 4.06 kcal/mol between
ISAL E3/K3 and ISAL E4/K4 and a difference of 3.86 kcal/mol between
VAAL E3/K3 and VAAL E4/K4. This agrees well with the previously
observed difference of 4.34 kcal/mol between VSAL E4/K4 and VSAL E5/K5
(39).
 |
DISCUSSION |
We have designed a set of heterodimeric coiled-coils with a wide
variety of stabilities by modifying three parameters: hydrophobicity, -helical propensity, and chain length. Residues in the hydrophobic core of coiled-coils (positions a and d) have
been shown to play key roles in determining such characteristics as stability, oligomerization state, and hetero- versus
homoassociation (41, 42, 51, 66-70). Single substitutions in the
a and d positions of coiled-coils have yielded a
series of coiled-coils whose stabilities covered a range of 7 kcal/mol
(41, 42, 67). We compared the effects of valine and isoleucine in
position a while position d was constantly
occupied by leucine. The side chains of these residues differ in terms of side chain length (one methylene group) and therefore
hydrophobicity. Numerous hydrophobicity scales of the amino acid side
chains have been developed, based on partitioning between water and
organic solvents, RP-HPLC retention behavior, and calculations of
solvent-accessible surface area (for reviews, see Refs. 71 and 72). The
relative rankings of the amino acids vary between scales, but
isoleucine and valine are always classified as strong hydrophobes, and
isoleucine is always the more hydrophobic of the two. The difference
between these residues has been measured to be 0.40-0.80 kcal/mol
(72-74) and to cause an increase in the RP-HPLC retention time of 1.8 min (56). In our E/K coil heterodimers, each substitution of isoleucine
for valine yielded an increase in stability of 0.47 kcal/mol (Table
IV). This is well within the range given by the different
hydrophobicity tables.
What effect have similar substitutions had in other coiled-coils? Zhu
et al. (43) compared coiled-coils in which the central 3 heptads (of 5) had leucine, isoleucine, or valine in the a position. They found that isoleucine was more stabilizing than valine
by 0.45 kcal/mol when the coiled-coil was stabilized by a disulfide
bridge, and by 0.88 kcal/mol in the reduced peptides. This is a larger
effect per substitution than we observed, but still within a comparable
range. When a single mutation is made in the hydrophobic core of a well
packed protein, the environment surrounding the substitution site can
have a significant effect on the degree of stabilization or
destabilization observed. These effects are often referred to as
context effects and are complicated by the ability of the side chains
and the protein backbone to accommodate the substitution through
conformational adjustments. Because of this, the contribution of a
single methylene group to stability has been observed to vary from 0.1 to 1.5 kcal/mol (67, 75). In contrast, we have examined the
contribution of an extra side chain methylene group from multiple
substitutions along the entire hydrophobic core. This eliminates most
context effects, so the differences in stability which we have measured are primarily the result of the hydrophobicity differences between isoleucine and valine.
The second modification to our design was to substitute alanine for
serine in position b, significantly increasing the
-helical propensity of the sequence. Serine and threonine are
thought to have low -helical propensities because their side chain
hydroxyl groups compete with the peptide backbone for hydrogen bonds
(76). The helical propensity of a series of basic side chains increased
as their side chain length increased, suggesting that the presence of
polar or charged groups near the peptide backbone is destabilizing
(77). A survey of helical propensity scales showed a surprisingly poor
correlation between different scales (78); however, alanine always
ranks near the top of the scales and always has a greater helical
propensity than serine does. We found that a serine to alanine
substitution gave increases in stability of 0.41-0.45 kcal/mol (Table
IV). This is in very good agreement with the results of O'Neil and
DeGrado (44), who found a difference of 0.42 kcal/mol between serine
and alanine in a coiled-coil model system. Studies in single-stranded
-helices have given helical propensity differences of 0.5-0.8
kcal/mol for a serine to alanine substitution (45, 54, 55, 79). Helical
propensity effects appear to be greater in single amphipathic -helices than in coiled-coils presumably because of the additional stabilizing interactions available to coiled-coils (80).
The third aspect of our design was to reduce the chain length to 3 and
4 heptads (21 and 28 residues). Increases in chain length have been
observed to cause increases in coiled-coil stability, but the
relationship has been found to be nonlinear (39, 81). The greatest
stability gains were observed at chain lengths of 3 heptads; further
increases in length were stabilizing but to lesser degrees. This is
primarily because of end fraying, a partial and temporary unfolding of
the helix termini (52, 82, 83). We found that an increase from 3 to 4 heptads caused an increase in stability of 4.06 kcal/mol for the ISAL
sequence and an increase of 3.86 kcal/mol for the VAAL sequence. This
is in good agreement with our previous results, in which an increase
from 4 to 5 heptads in length for the VSAL sequence gave an increase in
stability of 4.34 kcal/mol (39).
Electrostatic interactions have been widely shown to control homo-
versus heterodimerization in natural coiled-coils (12, 84,
85). The placement of electrostatic attractions and repulsions has been
used extensively in the design of heterodimeric (13-15, 22, 38),
heterotrimeric (86), and heterotetrameric coiled-coils (87). Careful
double mutant cycle analysis has shown that i to
i'+5 electrostatic attractions between glutamic acid and
lysine are stabilizing by ~0.50 kcal/mol (10, 88). The destabilizing effect of electrostatic repulsions is well established. A single i to i'+5 electrostatic repulsion between
glutamic acid residues has been shown to be destabilizing by 0.4-0.8
kcal/mol (17, 88). Thus, electrostatic interactions have the potential
to play a critical role in structural specificity.
These results illustrate the need to balance stability and specificity,
an important principle in protein design. When we maximized the
stability of our design, with IAAL E4/K4, its specificity was lost, as
seen in the large amount of homodimer formed (Fig. 2H). In
this case, the E4/E4 and K4/K4 homodimers were stable enough to
tolerate the destabilizing effect of eight electrostatic repulsions. In
nature, many interactions that specify particular coiled-coil
oligomerization states are destabilizing. Examples include the presence
of asparagine in the hydrophobic core of the GCN4 coiled-coil (51) and
glutamic acid in the core of Max/c-Myc (12). Charged residues, though
typically destabilizing in the hydrophobic core of coiled-coils, can
specify a single oligomerization state (41, 42).
In summary, we have created a series of heterodimeric coiled-coils
whose conformational stabilities range from 6.8 to 11.2 kcal/mol (Table
III). This expands the potential for tailoring heterodimerization
domains to particular applications. For example, we can now develop an
expression tag/affinity purification system that has more gentle
elution conditions, extending the usefulness of this system to more
sensitive proteins. The most promising of these heterodimerization
domains is IAAL E3/K3. Despite its small size (3 heptads, or 21 residues), it is a fully folded coiled-coil with a high conformational
stability ([GdnHCl]1/2 = 4.3 M,
GH2O = 9.6 kcal/mol) and small dissociation constant (70 nM). It is highly specific because there is no sign of homodimer formation in
either the E or the K coil. We have significantly reduced the net
charge (+3 on K coil and 3 on E coil versus +5 on K
coil and 5 on E coil) and hydrophobicity (6 a and
d position hydrophobic residues versus 10)
compared with the original 5-heptad design. This reduced size is an
advantage for the expression of recombinant proteins for biophysical
studies, in which nonnative residues can complicate results. The
smaller the tag, the less likely it is to affect the conformation,
function, and biophysical properties of the recombinant protein.
Smaller tags are therefore advantageous for the many researchers who do
not remove expression tags before characterization of recombinant
proteins. We have also shown that the design of our heterodimeric
coiled-coil has considerable flexibility, and its stability can be
modulated. This is a considerable advantage compared with expression
tags based on native protein sequences, which are much less amenable to redesign.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
We thank Robert Luty for assistance with CD
spectroscopy, Les Hicks for assistance with sedimentation equilibrium
experiments, David Bain for many helpful discussions regarding
sedimentation equilibrium analysis and interpretation, and Marc Genest
and Jennifer Labrecque for assistance with peptide synthesis.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported in part by the Canadian Institutes
of Health Research group in protein structure and function, the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, and Sensium
Technologies, Inc.The costs of publication of this
article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article
must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
§
Supported by an Izaak Walton Killam doctoral scholarship and an
Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research incentive award.
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Box B121,
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, 4200 E. 9th Ave.,
Denver, CO 80262. Tel.: 303-315-8837; Fax: 303-315-1153; E-mail:
robert.hodges@uchsc.edu.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, July 22, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M204257200
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
RP-HPLC, reversed
phase high performance liquid chromatography;
GdnHCl, guanidine
hydrochloride.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Burkhard, P.,
Stetefeld, J.,
and Strelkov, S. V.
(2001)
Trends Cell Biol.
11,
82-88[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 2.
|
Kohn, W. D.,
Mant, C. T.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
2583-2586[Free Full Text]
|
| 3.
|
Lupas, A.
(1996)
Trends Biochem. Sci.
21,
375-382[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 4.
|
Siegert, R.,
Leroux, M. R.,
Scheufler, C.,
Hartl, F. U.,
and Moarefi, I.
(2000)
Cell
103,
621-632[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 5.
|
Liu, J.,
and Rost, B.
(2001)
Protein Sci.
10,
1970-1979[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 6.
|
Hodges, R. S.
(1996)
Biochem. Cell Biol.
74,
133-154[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 7.
|
Kohn, W. D.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1998)
Trends Biotechnol.
16,
379-389[CrossRef]
|
| 8.
|
Müller, K. M.,
Arndt, K. M.,
and Alber, T.
(2000)
Methods Enzymol.
328,
261-282[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 9.
|
Crick, F. H. C.
(1953)
Acta Crystallogr.
6,
689-698[CrossRef]
|
| 10.
|
Kohn, W. D.,
Kay, C. M.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1998)
J. Mol. Biol.
283,
993-1012[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 11.
|
Krylov, D.,
Mikhailenko, I.,
and Vinson, C.
(1994)
EMBO J.
13,
2849-2861[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 12.
|
Lavigne, P.,
Kondejewski, L. H.,
Houston, M. E., Jr.,
Sönnichsen, F. D.,
Lix, B.,
Sykes, B. D.,
Hodges, R. S.,
and Kay, C. M.
(1995)
J. Mol. Biol.
254,
505-520[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 13.
|
Vinson, C. R.,
Hai, T.,
and Boyd, S. M.
(1993)
Genes Dev.
7,
1047-1058[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 14.
|
Chao, H.,
Bautista, D. L.,
Litowski, J.,
Irvin, R. T.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1998)
J. Chromatogr.
715,
307-329[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 15.
|
Graddis, T. J.,
Myszka, D. G.,
and Chaiken, I. M.
(1993)
Biochemistry
32,
12664-12671[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 16.
|
Kohn, W. D.,
Kay, C. M.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1995)
Protein Sci.
4,
237-250[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 17.
|
Kohn, W. D.,
Monera, O. D.,
Kay, C. M.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
25495-25506[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 18.
|
Monera, O. D.,
Kay, C. M.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1994)
Biochemistry
33,
3862-3871[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 19.
|
Monera, O. D.,
Zhou, N. E.,
Kay, C. M.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1993)
J. Biol. Chem.
268,
19218-19227[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 20.
|
Myszka, D. G.,
and Chaiken, I. M.
(1994)
Biochemistry
33,
2363-2372[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 21.
|
O'Shea, E. K.,
Lumb, K. J.,
and Kim, P. S.
(1993)
Curr. Biol.
3,
658-667[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 22.
|
Zhou, N. E.,
Kay, C. M.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1994)
J. Mol. Biol.
237,
500-512[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 23.
|
Walshaw, J.,
and Woolfson, D. N.
(2001)
Protein Sci.
10,
668-673[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 24.
|
Catimel, B.,
Faux, M. C.,
Nerrie, M.,
Rothacker, J.,
Otvos, L., Jr.,
Wade, J. D.,
Nice, E. C.,
and Burgess, A. W.
(2001)
J. Pept. Res.
58,
493-503[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 25.
|
Tripet, B., Yu, L.,
Bautista, D. L.,
Wong, W. Y.,
Irvin, R. T.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1996)
Protein Eng.
9,
1029-1042[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 26.
|
Wolber, V.,
Maeda, K.,
Schumann, R.,
Brandmeier, B.,
Wiesmuller, L.,
and Wittinghofer, A.
(1992)
Bio/Technology
10,
900-904[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 27.
|
Behncken, S. N.,
Billestrup, N.,
Brown, R.,
Amstrup, J.,
Conway-Campbell, B.,
and Waters, M. J.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
17000-17007[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 28.
|
Scott, C. A.,
Garcia, K. C.,
Carbone, F. R.,
Wilson, I. A.,
and Teyton, L.
(1996)
J. Exp. Med.
183,
2087-2095[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 29.
|
Wu, Z.,
Goldstein, B.,
Laue, T. M.,
Liparoto, S. F.,
Nemeth, M. J.,
and Ciardelli, T. L.
(1999)
Protein Sci.
8,
482-489[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 30.
|
Arndt, K. M.,
Müller, K. M.,
and Pluckthun, A.
(2001)
J. Mol. Biol.
312,
221-228[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 31.
|
de Kruif, J.,
and Logtenberg, T.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
7630-7634[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 32.
|
Pack, P.,
and Pluckthun, A.
(1992)
Biochemistry
31,
1579-1584[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 33.
|
Houston, M. E., Jr.,
Wallace, A.,
Bianchi, E.,
Pessi, A.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1996)
J. Mol. Biol.
262,
270-282[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 34.
|
Miceli, R.,
Myszka, D.,
Mao, J.,
Sathe, G.,
and Chaiken, I.
(1996)
Drug Des. Discov.
13,
95-105[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 35.
|
Petka, W. A.,
Harden, J. L.,
McGrath, K. P.,
Wirtz, D.,
and Tirrell, D. A.
(1998)
Science
281,
389-392[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 36.
|
Tang, A.,
Wang, C.,
Stewart, R. J.,
and Kopecek, J.
(2001)
J. Controlled Release
72,
57-70[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 37.
|
Wang, C.,
Stewart, R. J.,
and Kopecek, J.
(1999)
Nature
397,
417-420[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 38.
|
Chao, H.,
Houston, M. E., Jr.,
Grothe, S.,
Kay, C. M.,
O'Connor-McCourt, M.,
Irvin, R. T.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1996)
Biochemistry
35,
12175-12185[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 39.
|
Litowski, J. R.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(2001)
J. Pept. Res.
58,
477-492[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 40.
|
Cedervall, T.,
Johansson, M. U.,
and Åkerström, B.
(1997)
Biochemistry
36,
4987-4994[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 41.
|
Tripet, B.,
Wagschal, K.,
Lavigne, P.,
Mant, C. T.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(2000)
J. Mol. Biol.
300,
377-402[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 42.
|
Wagschal, K.,
Tripet, B.,
Lavigne, P.,
Mant, C.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1999)
Protein Sci.
8,
2312-2329[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 43.
|
Zhu, B.-Y.,
Zhou, N. E.,
Kay, C. M.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1993)
Protein Sci.
2,
383-394[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 44.
|
O'Neil, K. T.,
and DeGrado, W. F.
(1990)
Science
250,
646-651[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 45.
|
Zhou, N. E.,
Monera, O. D.,
Kay, C. M.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1994)
Protein Pept. Lett.
1,
114-119
|
| 46.
|
Erickson, B. W.,
and Merrifield, R. B.
(1976)
in
The Proteins
(Neurath, H.
, Hill, R. L.
, and Boeder, C.-L., eds), 3rd Ed., Vol. II
, pp. 255-527, Academic Press, New York
|
| 47.
|
Sereda, T. J.,
Mant, C. T.,
Quinn, A. M.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1993)
J. Chromatogr.
646,
17-30[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 48.
|
Litowski, J. R.,
Semchuk, P. D.,
Mant, C. T.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1998)
J. Pept. Res.
54,
1-11[CrossRef]
|
| 49.
|
Pace, C. N.
(1986)
Methods Enzymol.
131,
266-280[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 50.
|
De Francesco, R.,
Pastore, A.,
Vecchio, G.,
and Cortese, R.
(1991)
Biochemistry
30,
143-147[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 51.
|
Harbury, P. B.,
Zhang, T.,
Kim, P. S.,
and Alber, T.
(1993)
Science
262,
1401-1407[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 52.
|
Zhou, N. E.,
Kay, C. M.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1992)
J. Biol. Chem.
267,
2664-2670[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 53.
|
Zhou, N. E.,
Kay, C. M.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1992)
Biochemistry
31,
5739-5746[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 54.
|
Chakrabartty, A.,
Kortemme, T.,
and Baldwin, R. L.
(1994)
Protein Sci.
3,
843-852[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 55.
|
Lyu, P. C.,
Liff, M. I.,
Marky, L. A.,
and Kallenbach, N. R.
(1990)
Science
250,
669-673[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 56.
|
Monera, O. D.,
Sereda, T. J.,
Zhou, N. E.,
Kay, C. M.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1995)
J. Pept. Sci.
1,
319-329[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 57.
|
Moitra, J.,
Szilák, L.,
Krylov, D.,
and Vinson, C.
(1997)
Biochemistry
36,
12567-12573[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 58.
|
Woody, R. W.
(1995)
Methods Enzymol.
246,
34-71[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 59.
|
Chen, Y. H.,
Yang, J. T.,
and Chau, K. H.
(1974)
Biochemistry
13,
3350-3359[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 60.
|
Gans, P. J.,
Lyu, P. C.,
Manning, M. C.,
Woody, R. W.,
and Kallenbach, N. R.
(1991)
Biopolymers
31,
1605-1614[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 61.
|
Shiraki, K.,
Nishikawa, K.,
and Goto, Y.
(1995)
J. Mol. Biol.
245,
180-194[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 62.
|
Sönnichsen, F. D.,
Van Eyk, J. E.,
Hodges, R. S.,
and Sykes, B. D.
(1992)
Biochemistry
31,
8790-8798[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 63.
|
Lau, S. Y. M.,
Taneja, A. K.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1984)
J. Biol. Chem.
259,
13253-13261[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 64.
|
Vu, C.,
Robblee, J.,
Werner, K. M.,
and Fairman, R.
(2001)
Protein Sci.
10,
631-637[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 65.
|
Wagschal, K.,
Tripet, B.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1999)
J. Mol. Biol.
285,
785-803[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 66.
|
Gonzalez, J. L.,
Plecs, J. J.,
and Alber, T.
(1996)
Nat. Struct. Biol.
3,
510-515[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 67.
|
Jelesarov, I.,
and Bosshard, H. R.
(1996)
J. Mol. Biol.
263,
344-358[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 68.
|
Kiyokawa, T.,
Kanaori, K.,
Tajima, K.,
and Tanaka, T.
(2001)
Biopolymers
55,
407-414[CrossRef]
|
| 69.
|
Schnarr, N. A.,
and Kennan, A. J.
(2001)
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
123,
11081-11082[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 70.
|
Zhu, B. Y.,
Zhou, N. E.,
Semchuk, P. D.,
Kay, C. M.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1992)
Int. J. Pept. Protein Res.
40,
171-179[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 71.
|
Cornette, J. L.,
Cease, K. B.,
Margalit, H.,
Spouge, J. L.,
Berzofsky, J. A.,
and DeLisi, C.
(1987)
J. Mol. Biol.
195,
659-685[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 72.
|
Karplus, P. A.
(1997)
Protein Sci.
6,
1302-1307[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 73.
|
Eisenberg, D.,
and McLachlan, A. D.
(1986)
Nature
319,
199-203[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 74.
|
Fauchère, J.,
and Pliska, V.
(1983)
Eur. J. Med. Chem.
18,
369-375
|
| 75.
|
Fersht, A. R.,
and Serrano, L.
(1993)
Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.
3,
75-83[CrossRef]
|
| 76.
|
Chakrabartty, A.,
and Baldwin, R. L.
(1995)
Adv. Protein Chem.
46,
141-176[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 77.
|
Padmanabhan, S.,
York, E. J.,
Stewart, J. M.,
and Baldwin, R. L.
(1996)
J. Mol. Biol.
257,
726-734[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 78.
|
Krittanai, C.,
and Johnson, W. C., Jr.
(2000)
Proteins
39,
132-141[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 79.
|
Yang, J.,
Spek, E. J.,
Gong, Y.,
Zhou, H.,
and Kallenbach, N. R.
(1997)
Protein Sci.
6,
1264-1272[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 80.
|
Kwok, S. C.,
Mant, C. T.,
and Hodges, R. S.
(1998)
in
Peptides 1998: Proceedings of the 25th European Peptide Symposium
(Bajusz, S.
, and Hudecz, F., eds)
, pp. 34-35, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
|
| 81.
|
Su, J. Y.,
Hodges, R. S.,
and Kay, C. M.
(1994)
Biochemistry
33,
15501-15510[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 82.
|
Goodman, E. M.,
and Kim, P. S.
(1991)
Biochemistry
30,
11615-11620[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 83.
|
Holtzer, M. E.,
Lovett, E. G.,
d'Avignon, A.,
and Holtzer, A.
(1997)
Biophys. J.
73,
1031-1041[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 84.
|
Baxevanis, A. D.,
and Vinson, C. R.
(1993)
Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.
3,
278-285[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 85.
|
Moll, J. R.,
Olive, M.,
and Vinson, C.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
34826-34832[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 86.
|
Nautiyal, S.,
Woolfson, D. N.,
King, D. S.,
and Alber, T.
(1995)
Biochemistry
34,
11645-11651[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 87.
|
Fairman, R.,
Chao, H. G.,
Lavoie, T. B.,
Villafranca, J. J.,
Matsueda, G. R.,
and Novotny, J.
(1996)
Biochemistry
35,
2824-2829[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 88.
|
Krylov, D.,
Barchi, J.,
and Vinson, C.
(1998)
J. Mol. Biol.
279,
959-972[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
Copyright © 2002 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
P. Q. Nguyen, S. Liu, J. C. Thompson, and J. J. Silberg
Thermostability promotes the cooperative function of split adenylate kinases
Protein Eng. Des. Sel.,
May 1, 2008;
21(5):
303 - 310.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. M. Mason, M. A. Schmitz, K. M. Muller, and K. M. Arndt
Semirational design of Jun-Fos coiled coils with increased affinity: Universal implications for leucine zipper prediction and design
PNAS,
June 13, 2006;
103(24):
8989 - 8994.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
V. Rishi, J. Gal, D. Krylov, J. Fridriksson, M. S. Boysen, S. Mandrup, and C. Vinson
SREBP-1 Dimerization Specificity Maps to Both the Helix-Loop-Helix and Leucine Zipper Domains: USE OF A DOMINANT NEGATIVE
J. Biol. Chem.,
March 19, 2004;
279(12):
11863 - 11874.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. L. Lee, C. T. Mant, and R. S. Hodges
A Novel Method to Measure Self-association of Small Amphipathic Molecules: TEMPERATURE PROFILING IN REVERSED-PHASE CHROMATOGRAPHY
J. Biol. Chem.,
June 13, 2003;
278(25):
22918 - 22927.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
Copyright © 2002 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
|