4.5 Article

Quasi-Static Self-Quenching of Trp-X and X-Trp Dipeptides in Water: Ultrafast Fluorescence Decay

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B
卷 113, 期 35, 页码 12084-12089

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp903078x

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH, NHLBI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Time-resolved fluorescence decay profiles of N-acetyl-L-tryptophanamide (NATA) and tryptophan (Trp) dipeptides of the form Trp-X and X-Trp, where X is another aminoacyl residue, have been investigated using an ultraviolet upconversion spectrophoto fluorometer with time resolution better than 350 fs, together with a time-correlated single photon counting apparatus on the 100 ps to 20 ns time scale, We analyzed the set of fluorescence decay profiles at multiple wavelengths using the global analysis technique. Nanosecond fluorescence transients for Trp dipeptides all show multiexponential decay, while NATA exhibits a monoexponential decay near 3 ns independent of pH. In the first 100 ps, a time constant for the water bulk relaxation around Trp, NATA and Trp dipeptides are seen near 1-2 ps, with an associated preexponential amplitude that is positive or negative, depending on emission wavelength, as expected for a population conserving spectral shift. The initial brightness (sub-picosecond) we measure for all these dipeptides is less than that of NATA, implying even faster (<200 fs) intramolecular (quasi-) static quenching occurs within them, A new, third, ultrafast decay, hearing an exponential time constant of 20-30 ps with positive amplitude, has been found in many of these dipeptides. We believe it verifies our previous predictions of dipeptide QSSQ (quasi-static self-quenching)-the loss of quantum yield to sub-100-ps decay process (Chen, R. F.; et al. Biochemistry 1991, 30, 5184). Most important, this term is found in proteins as well (Xu, J.; et al. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 1214; Biophys. J. 2008, 94, 546; 2009, 96, 46a), suggesting an ultrafast quenching mechanism must be common to both.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据