Biophys. Acta, 2010, 1804, 1405–1412; (c) M. Groenning, J. Chem.
Biol., 2010, 3, 1–18.
7 H. Levine III, Amyloid, 2005, 12, 5–14.
C–CD3 distance (rCD) is longer than the van der Waals contact
range (>3.12 Å) and R4.8/9.6 is less than 1, the value of R4.8/9.6
has a one-to-one correspondence with the C–CD3 distance and
thus can be used for distance estimation. Assuming a single dis-
tance component, the C–CD3 distances were deduced to be
3.6–4.0 Å and 3.9–4.3 Å for CvO (R4.8/9.6 = 0.65) and Cα
(R4.8/9.6 = 0.55), respectively. Using the distance constraints from
the second residue (no detectable REDOR dephasing for 2/10)
as well as avoiding contact within the van der Waals surfaces of
2 and Q8, the possible geometry of CD3 in relation to the poly-
glutamine residue was estimated as shown in Fig. 6b.22 This
model indicated that the high-affinity ThT-binding site in the Q8
aggregate was located at the gap in the β-sheet structure where
the N-terminal Q residue has a hydrogen bonding partner only
on one face. The geometry of the CD3 group implied the pres-
ence of a CH3⋯OvC interaction between the 3-methyl group of
ThT and the main chain carbonyl group of the N-terminal Q
residue, which may be one of the possible interactions stabilizing
the ThT–Q8 complex at the high-affinity binding site.23
In conclusion, we synthesized various short polyQs (Q6–Q10),
determined the minimum peptide stained by the amyloid specific
dye ThT to be Q6, and observed the intermolecular contacts
between ThT and Q8 by REDOR NMR spectroscopy. The short
polyglutamine aggregates possessed β-sheet rich structures, and
their high- and low-affinity binding sites corresponded to the
same order of binding affinity as those formed in natural amy-
loids. Eight residue-specific labeled Q8(n-[1,2-13C2]Gln) pep-
tides were synthesized and mixed with [3-Me-d3]ThT for the
solid-state NMR measurements. 13C{2H}DQF–REDOR exper-
iments of these residue specific labeled samples successfully
resulted in the assignment of the N-terminal residue that was in
direct contact with ThT at the high-affinity binding site.
Although the peptides used in this study were a simplified
model, the strategy employed here to obtain precise local struc-
tural information should be generally applicable to binding sites
in other amyloids, and studies along this line are currently
ongoing.
8 (a) C. Wu, Z. Wang, H. Lei, Y. Duan, M. T. Bowers and J. E. Shea, J.
Mol. Biol., 2008, 384, 718–729; (b) C. Wu, M. T. Bowers and J. E. Shea,
Biophys. J., 2011, 100, 1316–1324.
9 (a) M. Harel, B. Cusack, J. L. Johnson, I. Silman, J. L. Sussman and
T. L. Rosenberry, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2008, 130, 7856–7861;
(b) M. Biancalana, K. Makabe, A. Koide and S. Koide, J. Mol. Biol.,
2009, 385, 1052–1063; (c) L. S. Wolfe, M. F. Calabrese, A. Nath,
D. V. Blaho, A. D. Miranker and Y. Xiong, Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. U. S. A., 2010, 107, 16863–16868.
10 (a) M. Viau, M. Létourneau, A. Sirois-Deslongchamps, Y. Boulanger and
A. Fournier, Biopolymers, 2007, 88, 754–763; (b) H. T. Orr and H.
Y. Zoghbi, Annu. Rev. Neurosci., 2007, 30, 575–621.
11 (a) R. H. Walters and R. M. Murphy, J. Mol. Biol., 2009, 393, 978–92;
Intensive study on model peptide K2QnK2 has been performed by Wetzel
et al., for example: (b) S. Chen, V. Berthelier, J. B. Hamilton,
B. O’Nuallain and R. Wetzel, Biochemistry, 2002, 41, 7391–7399;
(c) D. Sharma, L. M. Shinchuk, H. Inouye, R. Wetzel and
D. A. Kirschner, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf., 2005, 61, 398–411;
(d) K. Kar, M. Jayaraman, B. Sahoo, R. Kodali and R. Wetzel, Nat.
Struct. Mol. Biol., 2011, 18, 328–36.
12 The characteristic 4.8 Å reflection, which is attributed to the strand
spacing within β-sheet layers, was observed. X-ray diffraction patterns are
shown in the ESI as Fig. S2.‡ We thank Dr Yuya Koike (Radioisotope
Center, The University of Tokyo) for help in measurement of X-ray
diffraction.
13 Experimental results were shown as a Scatcherdplot (Fig. S3) in the
ESI.‡.
14 The affinity of ThT towards various types of amyloide has been
reported to be 0.033 to 23 μM. For details, see ref. 6c and references
therein.
15 (a) T. Gullion and J. Schaefer, Adv. Magn. Reson., 1989, 13, 58–83; For
reviews, see (b) J. Schaefer, in Recent Trends in Molecular Recognition,
ed. F. Diederich and H. Kunzer, Springer, Berlin, 1998, 26–52;
(c) S. L. Grage and A. Watts, Annu. Rep. NMR Spectrosc., 2006, 60,
191–228; (d) T. Gullion, Annu. Rep. NMR Spectrosc., 2009, 65, 111–137;
(e) S. Matsuoka and M. Inoue, Chem. Commun., 2009, 5664–5675;
(f) O. Toke and L. Cegelski, in Solid-State NMR Studies of Biopolymers,
ed. A. E. McDermott and T. Polenova, Wiley, New York, 2010, pp.
473–490.
16 (a) A. Schmidt, T. Kowalewski and J. Schaefer, Macromolecules, 1993,
26, 1729–1733; (b) P. L. Lee and J. Schaefer, Macromolecules, 1995, 28,
1921–1924; (c) M. E. Merritt, J. M. Goetz, D. Whitney, C.-P. P. Chang,
L. Heux, J. L. Halary and J. Schaefer, Macromolecules, 1997, 31, 1214–
1220; (d) T. Gullion, J. Magn. Reson., 1999, 139, 402–407;
(e) R. D. O’Connor, J. A. Byers, W. D. Arnold, E. Oldfied, K. L. Wooley
and J. Schaefer, Macromolecules, 2002, 35, 2618–2623; (f) S. D. Cady,
J. Wang, Y. Wu, W. F. Degrado and M. Hong, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2011,
133, 4274–4284; (g) S. A. Luthra, M. Utz, E. M. Gorman, M. J. Pikal,
E. J. Munson and J. W. Lubach, J. Pharm. Sci., 2012, 101, 283–290.
17 (a) D. S. Wishart and B. D. Sykes, J. Biomol. NMR, 1994, 4, 171–180;
(b) D. S. Wishart, Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc., 2011, 58, 62–87.
18 The size of REDOR dephasing (ΔS/S0) for different dephasing time is
shown in the ESI as Fig. S9.‡.
19 (a) A. Lesage, M. Bardet and L. Emsley, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1999, 121,
10987–10993; (b) R. Verel, J. D. van Beek and B. H. Meier, J. Magn.
Reson., 1999, 140, 300–303; (c) L. J. Mueller, D. W. Elliott, G.
M. Leskowitz, J. Struppe, R. A. Olsen, K.-C. Kim and C. A. Reed, J.
Magn. Reson., 2004, 168, 327–335.
20 The chemical shifts of all of Cα and amide CvO of 9–16 correspond to
those observed for the β-sheet structure, except for the carboxylic acid
CvO of 16.
21 S. Matsuoka and J. Schaefer, J. Magn. Reson., 2006, 183, 252–258.
22 Detailed distance restraints are shown in the ESI.‡.
23 (a) J. Zhang, H. Sato, H. Tsuji, I. Noda and Y. Ozaki, Macromolecules,
2005, 38, 1822–1828; (b) J. Zhang, H. Sato, H. Tsuji, I. Noda and
Y. Ozaki, J. Mol. Struct., 2005, 735–736, 249–257.
This research was financially supported by the Funding
Program for Next Generation World-Leading Researchers (M.I.)
and Grant-in-Aids for Young Scientists (start up) (S.M.).
Notes and references
1 P. S. Vassar and C. F. A. Culling, Arch. Path., 1959, 68, 487–498.
2 (a) A. J. Howie and D. B. Brewer, Micron, 2009, 40, 285–301; (b) C.
A. Mathis, Y. Wang and W. E. Klunk, Curr. Pharm. Des., 2004, 10,
1469–1492.
3 H. LeVine III, Methods Enzymol., 1999, 309, 274–284.
4 (a) R. W. Carrell and D. A. Lomas, Lancet, 1997, 350, 134–138;
(b) T. Scheibel and J. Buchner, Handb. Exp. Pharmacol., 2006, 172,
199–219.
5 (a) P. Westermark, M. D. Benson, J. N. Buxbaum, A. S. Cohen,
B. Frangione, S. Ikeda, C. L. Masters, G. Merlini, M. J. Saraiva and J.
D. Sipe, Amyloid, 2005, 12, 1–4; (b) M. Fändrich, Cell. Mol. Life Sci.,
2007, 64, 2066–2078.
6 For review, see: (a) A. A. Reinke and J. E. Gestwicki, Chem. Biol. Drug
Des., 2011, 77, 399–411; (b) M. Biancalana and S. Koide, Biochim.
5790 | Org. Biomol. Chem., 2012, 10, 5787–5790
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012