Folding Amphipathic Helices Into Membranes: Amphiphilicity Trumps Hydrophobicity

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2007.05.016Get rights and content

Abstract

High amphiphilicity is a hallmark of interfacial helices in membrane proteins and membrane-active peptides, such as toxins and antimicrobial peptides. Although there is general agreement that amphiphilicity is important for membrane-interface binding, an unanswered question is its importance relative to simple hydrophobicity-driven partitioning. We have examined this fundamental question using measurements of the interfacial partitioning of a family of 17-residue amidated-acetylated peptides into both neutral and anionic lipid vesicles. Composed only of Ala, Leu, and Gln residues, the amino acid sequences of the peptides were varied to change peptide amphiphilicity without changing total hydrophobicity. We found that peptide helicity in water and interface increased linearly with hydrophobic moment, as did the favorable peptide partitioning free energy. This observation provides simple tools for designing amphipathic helical peptides. Finally, our results show that helical amphiphilicity is far more important for interfacial binding than simple hydrophobicity.

Introduction

The amphipathic (or amphiphilic) helix is an important structural motif in proteins. Its most common representation shows polar residues along the length of one-half of a helix surface and non-polar residues along the opposite surface (Figure 1). This polar–non-polar asymmetry, characterized mathematically by the so-called hydrophobic moment1H), makes the amphipathic helix ideally suited for binding to membrane interfaces with the polar surface facing the aqueous phase and the less polar surface facing the membrane interior. This arrangement is often seen in membrane proteins2,3 where amphipathic helices apparently provide structural stability. But they are also important functionally. For example, amphipathic helices play important functional roles in both ligand-gated4 (Figure 1) and voltage-gated K+ channels5 and in the insertion of disulfide bonds into Escherichia coli periplasmic proteins by the DsbB-DsbA complex.6 Because of its tendency to partition into membrane interfaces (Figure 1) and subsequently permeabilize membranes the amphipathic helix is a common starting motif for designing or re-engineering antimicrobial peptides.7., 8., 9., 10., 11., 12. Helix amphiphilicity has been widely examined in the context of membrane permeabilization, but little attention has been paid to the relationships between μH, peptide helix-forming ability, and membrane affinity. We present here the results of a systematic investigation of the influence of μH on the folding and partitioning of membrane-active peptides. We show that μH is a far more potent driving force for interfacial partitioning than total peptide hydrophobicity.

Most membrane-active helix-forming peptides have low or moderate helicity in aqueous solution but become highly helical when partitioned into membranes. This is due in part to the potent ability of membranes to promote secondary structure,13., 14., 15., 16. a process conveniently described as partitioning-folding coupling.17,18 A classic example is the partitioning of melittin, a 26-residue peptide that is the principal component of bee venom.19 Largely unstructured when free in solution, melittin strongly adopts an amphipathic α-helical conformation when partitioned into membranes.20., 21., 22., 23. An important driving force for folding arises from the lower energetic cost of partitioning H-bonded peptide bonds compared to free peptide bonds.17,18,23 Knowledge of the energetics of this folding process is important for improving the activity of antimicrobial peptides and for understanding the folding and stability of membrane proteins. An essential element of these energetics is the per-residue reduction in free energy, ΔGresidue, that drives secondary structure formation in the membrane interface. This parameter, as we shall show, plays a critical role in the development of an analytical description of peptide folding.

Reported values for ΔGresidue for α-helical peptides range between −0.1 and −0.4 kcal mol−1 per residue. Ladokhin & White23 estimated that ΔGresidue = −0.41(±0.06) kcal mol−1 for melittin partitioning-folding in zwitterionic large unilamellar vesicles (LUV) by measuring the partitioning free energies and helicities of native melittin and of a diastereomeric analog with four d-amino acids (D4, L-melittin).24 At about the same time, Seelig and co-workers,25 using a variant of the native/diastereomeric approach, measured the partitioning of the antimicrobial peptide magainin into small unilamellar vesicles (SUV) formed from zwitterionic palmitoyloleoylphosphatidylcholine (POPC) and anionic palmitoyloleoylphosphatidylglycerol (POPG). They reported a value of only −0.14 kcal mol−1 per residue for ΔGresidue. Subsequently, Li et al.26 published a value of −0.25(±0.05) kcal mol−1 per residue, using model host-guest fusion peptides. We show here that such differences in ΔGresidue can arise in part from differences in μH.

Helical peptides are typically rendered amphipathic by using combinations of charged and hydrophobic residues.27 But for the experiments reported here, we wished to avoid charged residues because of the non-additivity of Coulombic and hydrophobic interactions,28 and because we wished to examine whether μH effects are affected by surface charge. We therefore used electrically neutral peptides whose designs were inspired by the peptides that Baldwin and colleagues used for studies of α-helix stability in aqueous phases.29 As we describe below, we synthesized a family of peptides of the general form Ac-A8Q3L4-GW-NH2 in which we varied the A8Q3L4 sequence to cover a range of μH values. The result was a family of peptides with identical hydrophobicities but different hydrophobic moments. We report below each peptide's helicity and folding free energy in buffer and in POPC and POPC:POPG LUV. We show that peptide helicity in water and interface increase linearly with μH, as does the magnitude of peptide partitioning free energy.

Section snippets

Thermodynamic framework

Algorithms for predicting peptide folding and binding to membrane interfaces require an experimentally accessible thermodynamic cycle for analyzing partitioning-folding data30,31 that yields ΔGresidue. Figure 2(a) shows the thermodynamic cycle that forms the quantitative framework for our data. Its important feature is an experimentally definable unfolded reference state in the aqueous phase, which, as discussed below, is critical for predictions. We consider an equilibrium between four states:

Discussion

We have examined the folding in water and membranes of a family of uncharged peptides of fixed amino acid composition (Ac-A8Q3L4-GW-NH2), designed to have different amphiphilicities as measured by the hydrophobic moment1H). We have shown that all of the peptides form α-helical secondary structure in both water and membranes. Because all of the peptides have the same hydrophobicity, differences in folding and binding free energies must be due to structural differences described by μH. In

Materials

POPC and POPG were purchased from Avanti Polar Lipids (Alabaster, AL). Fmoc amino acids and resins for peptide synthesis were obtained from NovaBiochem (EMD Biosciences, San Diego, CA). All chemicals were of analytical reagent grade. A 10 mM potassium phosphate buffer solution (pH 7.0) was used to reduce the UV absorbance in CD experiments.

Peptide syntheses and purification

Peptides were synthesized on a 433A Applied Biosystems automatic synthesizer by step-wise solid-phase procedures51 using fluorenylmethoxycarbonyl (FMOC)

Acknowledgements

We thank Michael Myers for his editorial assistance and Drs Hirsh Nanda and Ryan Benz for providing coordinates from the simulation of melittin in a bilayer. This research was supported by grants to SHW and ASL from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, US National Institutes of Health.

References (56)

  • T. Wieprecht et al.

    Thermodynamics of the α-helix-coil transition of amphipathic peptides in a membrane environment: implications for the peptide-membrane binding equilibrium

    J. Mol. Biol.

    (1999)
  • A.S. Ladokhin et al.

    Protein chemistry at membrane interfaces: non-additivity of electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions

    J. Mol. Biol.

    (2001)
  • A. Chakrabartty et al.

    Stability of α-helices

    Adv. Protein Chem.

    (1995)
  • N. Hirota et al.

    Group additive contributions to the alcohol-induced α-helix formation of melittin: implication for the mechanism of the alcohol effects on proteins

    J. Mol. Biol.

    (1998)
  • A.S. Ladokhin et al.

    How to measure and analyze tryptophan fluorescence in membranes properly, and why bother?

    Anal. Biochem.

    (2000)
  • L. Serrano

    The relationship between sequence and structure in elementary folding units

    Adv. Protein Chem.

    (2000)
  • S.H. White et al.

    Protein folding in membranes: determining the energetics of peptide-bilayer interactions

    Methods Enzymol.

    (1998)
  • F. Avbelj et al.

    Role of main-chain electrostatics, hydrophobic effect and side-chain conformational entropy in determining the secondary structure of proteins

    J. Mol. Biol.

    (1998)
  • P. Luo et al.

    Origin of the different strengths of the (i,i+4) and (i,i+3) leucine pair interactions in helices

    Biophys. Chem.

    (2002)
  • V. Muñoz et al.

    Elucidating the folding problem of helical peptides using empirical parameters. II. Helix macrodipole effects and rational modification of the helical content of natural peptides

    J. Mol. Biol.

    (1995)
  • V. Muñoz et al.

    Elucidating the folding problem of helical peptides using empirical parameters. III. Temperature and pH dependence

    J. Mol. Biol.

    (1995)
  • E. Lacroix et al.

    Elucidating the folding problem of α-helices: local motifs, long-range electrostatics, ionic-strength dependence and prediction of NMR parameters

    J. Mol. Biol.

    (1998)
  • L.D. Mayer et al.

    Vesicles of variable sizes produced by a rapid extrusion procedure

    Biochim. Biophys. Acta

    (1986)
  • R.W. Benz et al.

    Diffraction-based density restraints for membrane and membrane/protein molecular dynamics simulations

    Biophys. J.

    (2006)
  • W. Humphrey et al.

    VMD: visual molecular dynamics

    J. Mol. Graph.

    (1996)
  • D. Eisenberg et al.

    The helical hydrophobic moment: a measure of the amphiphilicity of a helix

    Nature

    (1982)
  • D.C. Rees et al.

    Hydrophobic organization of membrane proteins

    Science

    (1989)
  • A. Kuo et al.

    Crystal structure of the potassium channel KirBac1.1 in the closed state

    Science

    (2003)
  • Cited by (142)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Present address: M. Fernández-Vidal, Department of Peptide and Protein Chemistry, IIQAB-CSIC, 08034 Barcelona, Spain.

    View full text