4.5 Article

Improved Modeling of Thioamide FRET Quenching by Including Conformational Restriction and Coulomb Coupling

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B
卷 124, 期 47, 页码 10653-10662

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.0c06865

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Pennsylvania
  2. National Science Foundation [NSF DGE-1321851, NSF CHE-1708759]
  3. Parkinson's Disease Foundation [PF-RVSA-SFW-1754]
  4. University of Pennsylvania Center for Undergraduate and Research Fellowships
  5. Roy and Diana Vagelos Science Challenge Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thioamide-containing amino acids have been shown to quench a wide range of fluorophores through distinct mechanisms. Here, we quantitatively analyze the mechanism through which the thioamide functional group quenches the fluorescence of p-cyanophenylalanine (Cnf), tyrosine (Tyr), and tryptophan (Trp). By comparing PyRosetta simulations to published experiments performed on polyproline ruler peptides, we corroborate previous findings that both Cnf and Tyr quenching occurs via Forster resonance energy transfer (FRET), while Trp quenching occurs through an alternate mechanism such as Dexter transfer. Additionally, optimization of the peptide sampling scheme and comparison of thioamides attached to the peptide backbone and side chain revealed that the significant conformational restriction associated with the thioamide moiety results in a high sensitivity of the apparent FRET efficiency to underlying conformational differences. Moreover, by computing FRET efficiencies from structural models using a variety of approaches, we find that quantitative accuracy in the role of Coulomb coupling is required to explain contributions to the observed quenching efficiency from individual structures on a detailed level. Last, we demonstrate that these additional considerations improve our ability to predict thioamide quenching efficiencies observed during binding of thioamide-labeled peptides to fluorophore-labeled variants of calmodulin.

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