Abstract

Theoretical and experimental evidence for non-linear hydrogen bonds in protein helices is ubiquitous. In particular, amide three-centered hydrogen bonds are common features of helices in high-resolution crystal structures of proteins. These high-resolution structures (1.0 to 1.5 Å nominal crystallographic resolution) position backbone atoms without significant bias from modeling constraints and identify Φ = -62°, ψ = -43 as the consensus backbone torsional angles of protein helices. These torsional angles preserve the atomic positions of α-β carbons of the classic Pauling α-helix while allowing the amide carbonyls to form bifurcated hydrogen bonds as first suggested by Némethy et al. in 1967. Molecular dynamics simulations of a capped 12-residue oligoalanine in water with AMOEBA (Atomic Multipole Optimized Energetics for Biomolecular Applications), a second-generation force field that includes multipole electrostatics and polarizability, reproduces the experimentally observed high-resolution helical conformation and correctly reorients the amide-bond carbonyls into bifurcated hydrogen bonds. This simple modification of backbone torsional angles reconciles experimental and theoretical views to provide a unified view of amide three-centered hydrogen bonds as crucial components of protein helices. The reason why they have been overlooked by structural biologists depends on the small crankshaft-like changes in orientation of the amide bond that allows maintenance of the overall helical parameters (helix pitch (p) and residues per turn (n)). The Pauling 3.613 α-helix fits the high-resolution experimental data with the minor exception of the amide-carbonyl electron density, but the previously associated backbone torsional angles (Φ, Ψ) needed slight modification to be reconciled with three-atom centered H-bonds and multipole electrostatics. Thus, a new standard helix, the 3.613/10-, Némethy- or N-helix, is proposed. Due to the use of constraints from monopole force fields and assumed secondary structures used in low-resolution refinement of electron density of proteins, such structures in the PDB often show linear hydrogen bonding.

Highlights

  • Fundamental Assumptions of the Classic α- and 310Helical ModelsThe α-helix model is the result of powerful deductions about the chemistry of amide bonds and peptides by Pauling [1]

  • The structural and energetics of the helical region of proteins has been examined by X-ray and neutron crystallography, molecular dynamics simulations, monopole and second-generation force fields that include multipole electrostatics and polarizability as well as quantum mechanics (focused primarily on the (φ = -100 ! 40, ψ = -50 ! 0) region of backbone torsional space)

  • A single Gaussian-like peak was observed in the high-resolution data, challenging the classical α-and 310-helical hypotheses that were based on linear hydrogen bonding

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Fundamental Assumptions of the Classic α- and 310Helical ModelsThe α-helix model is the result of powerful deductions about the chemistry of amide bonds and peptides by Pauling [1]. In 1951, Pauling, Corey and Branson [1] applied these constraints in the context of regular protein sequences to yield the α-helix, which originally had 3.7 residuesper-turn [3] and 13 atoms in a hydrogen-bonded ring (i.e., α-helix = 3.713-helix). The backbone torsional angles (F = -57°, C = -47°) associated with the α-helix (3.613-helix) became official in the article by the IUPAC-IUB Commission on Biochemical Nomenclature published in 1970 [4]. These values were based on experimental fitting of parameters to diffraction data for poly-L-alanine in 1967 by Arnott and Dover [5]

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call