4.8 Article

Zeptoliter DNA Origami Reactor to Reveal Cosolute Effects on Nanoconfined G-Quadruplexes

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY LETTERS
卷 13, 期 37, 页码 8692-8698

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.2c02253

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01 CA236350]
  2. NSF [CBET-1904921]
  3. JSPS [18KK0139, 21H02057]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cellular environments can alter biomolecular properties, and the effects of crowding cosolutes on macromolecules in nanoconfinement have been investigated. The study found that hexaethylene glycol (HEG) can split a telomeric G-quadruplex (GQ) into two populations with different effects, either through long-range dehydration or direct interactions. Increasing the number of HEG molecules unexpectedly decreased the stability of the GQ, indicating the dominant role of direct interactions over long-range stabilizing effects in hydrophilic nanocavities.
Cellular environments such as nanoconfinement and molecular crowding can change biomolecular properties. However, in nanoconfinement, it is extremely challenging to investigate effects of crowding cosolutes on macromolecules. By using optical tweezers, here, we elucidated the effects of hexaethylene glycol (HEG) on the mechanical stability of a telomeric G-quadruplex (GQ) in a zeptoliter DNA origami reactor (zepto-reactor). When HEG molecules were introduced in the GQ-containing zepto-reactor at different positions, we found that the GQ species split into two equilibrated populations, reflecting diverse effects of the oligoethylene glycol on the GQ via either a long-range dehydration effect or direct interactions. When the number of HEG molecules was increased, the stability of the GQ unexpectedly decreased, suggesting that the direct destabilizing interaction between the GQ and HEG is dominating over the long-range stabilizing dehydration effects of the HEG in hydrophilic nanocavities. These findings indicate that a nanoconfined environment can alter regular effects of cosolutes on biomacromolecules.

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

4.8
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