ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Interplay of Affinity and Surface Tethering in Protein Recognition
My Activity

Figure 1Loading Img
  • Open Access
Physical Insights into Chemistry, Catalysis, and Interfaces

Interplay of Affinity and Surface Tethering in Protein Recognition
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Ali Imran
    Ali Imran
    Department of Physics, Syracuse University, 201 Physics Building, Syracuse, New York 13244-1130, United States
    More by Ali Imran
  • Brandon S. Moyer
    Brandon S. Moyer
    Ichor Life Sciences, Inc., 2651 US Route 11, LaFayette, New York 13084, United States
    Lewis School of Health Sciences, Clarkson University, 8 Clarkson Avenue, Potsdam, New York 13699, United States
  • Aaron J. Wolfe
    Aaron J. Wolfe
    Department of Physics, Syracuse University, 201 Physics Building, Syracuse, New York 13244-1130, United States
    Ichor Life Sciences, Inc., 2651 US Route 11, LaFayette, New York 13084, United States
    Lewis School of Health Sciences, Clarkson University, 8 Clarkson Avenue, Potsdam, New York 13699, United States
    Department of Chemistry, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 1 Forestry Dr., Syracuse, New York 13210, United States
  • Michael S. Cosgrove
    Michael S. Cosgrove
    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, 4249 Weiskotten Hall, 766 Irving Avenue, Syracuse, New York 13210, United States
  • Dmitrii E. Makarov
    Dmitrii E. Makarov
    Department of Chemistry, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, United States
    Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, United States
  • Liviu Movileanu*
    Liviu Movileanu
    Department of Physics, Syracuse University, 201 Physics Building, Syracuse, New York 13244-1130, United States
    Department of Biomedical and Chemical Engineering, Syracuse University, 329 Link Hall, Syracuse, New York 13244, United States
    The BioInspired Institute, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244, United States
    *Phone: 315-443-8078. Email: [email protected]
Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters

Cite this: J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2022, 13, 18, 4021–4028
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.2c00621
Published April 29, 2022

Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Surface-tethered ligand–receptor complexes are key components in biological signaling and adhesion. They also find increasing utility in single-molecule assays and biotechnological applications. Here, we study the real-time binding kinetics between various surface-immobilized peptide ligands and their unrestrained receptors. A long peptide tether increases the association of ligand–receptor complexes, experimentally proving the fly casting mechanism where the disorder accelerates protein recognition. On the other hand, a short peptide tether enhances the complex dissociation. Notably, the rate constants measured for the same receptor, but under different spatial constraints, are strongly correlated to one another. Furthermore, this correlation can be used to predict how surface tethering on a ligand–receptor complex alters its binding kinetics. Our results have immediate implications in the broad areas of biomolecular recognition, intrinsically disordered proteins, and biosensor technology.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society

Tethered ligand–receptor complexes are common in protein recognition (1,2) and cellular adhesion. (3) Surface-bound ligand–protein complexes are also the basis for biotechnological applications, such as biosensors (4−9) and cell-targeted therapeutic proteins, (10,11) as well as for single-molecule techniques that probe the dynamics and thermodynamics of protein binding. (12−16) Yet, how the presence of spatial constraints imposed by the surface and/or the tether affects the thermodynamics and, especially, kinetics of binding is largely an open experimental question. Most of the current insight into this topic comes from theoretical (17−21) and computational (10,22−24) studies. However, experimental examinations of tethered ligand–protein interactions are mostly limited to measuring macroscopic intermolecular forces, (25−28) equilibrium dissociation constants, (29) and effective protein concentrations. (29,30)

In contrast to the earlier experimental work, this study focuses on the question of how the kinetics of binding and unbinding is altered by the tethering of one of the binding partners to a surface. To this end, we measure the real-time kinetics of tethered ligand–receptor complexes using surface immobilization-based sensing approaches. In our case, the receptor is WD40 repeat protein 5 (WDR5), (31,32) a chromatin-associated hub that is primarily known for its regulatory role in histone methylation. (33,34) The 334-residue WDR5 features a seven-bladed β propeller circular structure and a central cavity. The WDR5 cavity hosts the binding site for the WDR5-interaction (Win) motif of human mixed lineage leukemia (MLL/SET1) methyltransferases, also named the Win binding site. We examined details of the interactions of five 14-residue Win-motif peptide ligands of SET1 proteins (SET1Win ligands; Table S1 and Supplemental Methods) (35,36) with WDR5 via its Win binding site. SET1Win ligands were chemically attached to a streptavidin-coated surface. Either a three-residue short peptide tether (ST-SET1Win ligands; Figure 1a) or a nine-residue long peptide tether (LT-SET1Win ligands; Figure 1b) was inserted between the biotinylated attachment site of the SET1Win ligand to the surface and the SET1Win sequence. In this way, the binding kinetics of the WDR5–SET1Win complex was probed by using biolayer interferometry (BLI). (37) The association and dissociation phases of the tethered ligand–receptor complex were discriminated optically by using changes in the interference pattern of reflected light waves at the sensor surface. Hence, these interactions were monitored by using WDR5-containing and WDR5-free assay buffers, respectively. Tethered ligand–receptor interactions were also evaluated by using Win binding site-directed WDR5 mutants (Table S2 and Supplemental Methods). To further examine the binding kinetics in the absence of restraining tethers, WDR5 proteins were immobilized on the surface plasmon resonance (SPR) sensors (38) (no tether, NT-SET1Win ligands; Figure 1c).

Figure 1

Figure 1. WDR5 protein interacting with the SET1Win peptide ligands under different conditions. WDR5 is shown in orange, while SET1Win ligands are shown in magenta. Bound interacting partners are shown in blue. Lightly colored receptors and ligands indicate interacting partners in the background. (a) Biotinylated ST-SET1Win ligands were chemically attached onto a streptavidin-coated biolayer interferometry (BLI) sensor surface. Either WDR5 proteins or one of its mutants was freely movable in solution. (b) The same system as in (a), but with LT-SET1Win ligands. (c) Either WDR5 proteins or one of its mutants was immobilized onto a surface plasmon resonance (SPR) chip surface, whereas the NT-SET1Win ligands were freely movable in solution.

We obtained the real-time kinetics of five SET1Win peptide ligands (MLL2Win, MLL3Win, MLL4Win, SETd1AWin, and SETd1BWin) with four WDR5 proteins (wild-type and 3 mutants of the Win binding site, P216L, F133L, and S218F) using ST and LT constraints (Figures S1 and S2,Tables S3–S5). Later, we validated the outcomes of this study using S175L, a fourth WDR5 mutant of unknown affinity. Interestingly, the association rate constants, ka, acquired with LT-SET1Win ligands (ka-LT) were on average higher than those corresponding values recorded with ST-SET1Win ligands (ka-ST) (Figure 2a and Table S6). To explain this observation, we considered the general framework of diffusion-controlled reactions, (39,40) which gives the following association rate constant:

ka=(kD1+kR1)1
(1)
where kR is the reaction-controlled rate constant and
kD=4πDrela
(2)
is the diffusion-controlled rate constant that depends on the relative diffusion coefficient of the two reacting species, Drel, and on a “geometric” parameter, a. Here, a is the contact distance or capture radius between the centers of the two interacting partners considered as spheres. In the limit kRkD, the association is purely diffusion controlled and kakD. (41)Equation 2 may be loosely interpreted as the rate constant of the association process happening instantaneously upon the reactants diffusing into a favorable relative configuration. This configuration is characterized by a linear length scale, a. Notably, simple dimensionality arguments require that the diffusion-controlled rate constant, kD, must be of the form of eq 2. Hence, eq 2 can be viewed as the definition of the effective “target” size of the diffusion-controlled reaction.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Scatter plots of kinetic and equilibrium constants for ST-SET1Win and LT-SET1Win ligands. (a) Association rate constants ka-ST of ST-SET1Win-WDR5 complexes plotted against association rate constants ka-LT of LT-SET1Win-WDR5 complexes. Points above the blue line correspond to complexes with faster association rate constants for ST-SET1Win ligands, while points below correspond to interactions with slower association rate constants for ST-SET1Win ligands. (b) Dissociation rate constants kd-ST of ST-SET1Win–WDR5 complexes plotted against dissociation rate constants kd-LT of LT-SET1Win–WDR5 complexes. Points above the blue line correspond to complexes with faster dissociation rate constants for ST-SET1Win ligands. (c) Equilibrium dissociation constants KD-ST of ST-SET1Win–WDR5 complexes plotted against equilibrium dissociation constants KD-LT of LT-SET1Win–WDR5 complexes. Points above the blue line correspond to less stable complexes with ST-SET1Win ligands. m indicates the slopes of linear fits in (b) and (c). Data represent mean ± s.d. which resulted from three independent BLI sensorgrams.

There are two notable examples of eq 2. First, Smoluchowski has obtained a formula for the diffusion-controlled rate constant, where the association process between two spherically symmetrical reactants takes place whenever their distance reaches the “capture radius” value a. (42,43) Second, Berg and Purcell derived a formula for the rate constant of the process where a freely diffusing particle hits a patch on a planar wall, with a being the linear size of the patch. (44) The Berg and Purcell scenario can be viewed as a prototype for the system studied here, as one of the reactants is surface immobilized.

It should be noted that the length parameter, a, generally depends on the interaction between the reactants. (39,40) Therefore, the parameter a is not purely geometric. (45,46) For example, for the model where the ligand and receptor are approximated as spheres interacting via a centrosymmetric potential, U(r), the diffusion-controlled rate constant to reach a geometric contact distance R is given by eq 2, with a defined as (39)

a=[ReU(r)/kBTr2dr]1
(3)
where kBT is the thermal energy and r is the intersphere distance. Unless U(r) = 0, a is different from the pure geometric capture radius R. Consistent with intuition, for example, attractive electrostatic interaction increases the apparent value of a. Rotational diffusion and site-specific physical restrains of interacting molecules may further affect the apparent value of a. The sensitivity of the effective capture radius, a, to the interaction energy explains, at least in part, the small changes in the ka between different SET1Win peptide ligands (Figure 2a and Table S3).

Equipped with these ideas, we consider the difference between the cases of ST- and LT-SET1Win ligands. The much smaller, surface-attached SET1Win ligand diffuses rapidly, with a diffusion coefficient DSET1WinDWDR5. Diffusion of the SET1Win ligand occurs around its attachment point within a certain volume, which depends on the tether length. This suggests a simple model of association, as follows. Like in Berg and Purcell’s model, (44) the surface-attached SET1Win ligand appears as target with a characteristic size, a, to a freely diffusing WDR5. Because of the complicated geometry of the system, it is challenging to derive a simple expression for a. LT-SET1Win can deviate further from the attachment point than ST-SET1Win. Therefore, LT-SET1Win is a larger “target” for the WDR5 than ST-SET1Win (i.e., aLT > aST), so the association rate constant for LT-SET1Win, ka–LT, is higher than that for ST-SET1Win, ka–ST, as observed in Figure 2a. Note, however, that this picture is expected to break down in the limit of long tethers where further increase of the tether length results in a larger search volume that has to be explored by the binding partners, reducing the overall association rate constant. Indeed, as recently discussed by Misiura and Kolomeisky, (45) the dependence of the association rate constant on the tether length is nonmonotonic, with the maximum association speedup occurring at an intermediate tether length.

The association speedup induced by a longer tether found here is an experimental validation of the “fly-casting association mechanism”, which was proposed earlier by Wolynes and co-workers on theoretical grounds and computational analysis (47−49) and discussed later by others. (13,45,50−54) This mechanism explains how intrinsically disordered proteins with random-coil conformations can bind faster to their targets. (12,55) Because of the geometric nature of the parameter a, it is expectable that the ratio of a values for LT-SET1Win and ST-SET1Win, aLT/aST, is nearly the same for all SET1Win ligands. Indeed, we observe a linear correlation between the association rate constants for LT-SET1Win and ST-SET1Win, ka–LT and ka–ST, respectively (Figure 2a). But recalling that the parameter a also depends on the energetics of the interactions, deviations from a perfectly linear correlation are not surprising.

In contrast to the association rate constants, the dissociation rate constants for ST-SET1Win ligands, kd-ST, were consistently higher than those for LT-SET1Win ligands, kd-LT (Figure 2b; Tables S7 and S8). Furthermore, kd-ST and kd-LT values closely followed a proportionality relationship. To explain these observations, we start with the Arrhenius law for the unimolecular dissociation process: (41)

kd=νexp(ΔGakBT)
(4)
where ν is a prefactor and ΔGa is the activation free energy, which is determined by the strength of cohesive interactions between SET1Win and WDR5. It is known that a microscopic object (e.g., a Brownian particle) tethered to a surface via a flexible polymer tether experiences a repulsive net force that pushes it away from the surface even when the surface is perfectly neutral. This is a typical situation in a single-molecule experiment, where a microscopic bead is anchored to a surface. This force is “entropic” in its nature, originating from the fact that the bead has more space available when it is further away from the surface. For example, if the tether length becomes very small, then this exclusion-volume effect is significant, resulting in a steric wall repulsion of the bead from the surface. (28) The properties of this force have been theoretically studied by Segall and co-workers, (56) who showed that it is roughly inversely proportional to the distance from the surface. Our real-time binding kinetics experiments with ST-SET1Win involve a three-residue tether. This means that our ST-SET1Win ligand–WDR5 receptor complex, whose size is ∼4.5 nm, is constrained to statistically fluctuate at a distance shorter than ∼1 nm from the surface. Here, we speculate that under these conditions the exclusion-volume effect of the tethered complex pushes WDR5 away from the surface and thus from SET1Win as well. In this way, the steric wall repulsion enhances the dissociation of WDR5 receptors from SET1Win ligands by lowering their dissociation barrier.

The simplest approximate description of this mechanochemical effect for the dissociation rate constant, kd, is the Eyring–Zhurkov–Bell formula: (57)

kd=νexp(ΔGafΔxkBT)=kd0exp(fΔxkBT)
(5)
where kd0 is kd at f = 0. Here, f is the magnitude of the force, and Δx is an activation length. Hence, kd0 is the dissociation rate constant in the absence of the surface. Clearly, the force f for ST-SET1Win, fST, is higher than that for LT-SET1Win, fLT. Therefore, the dissociation rate constant for ST-SET1Win, kd–ST, is greater than that for LT-SET1Win, kd–LT, as observed in Figure 2b. Assuming that the activation length Δx, being again a geometric parameter, is approximately the same for different constructs, the ratio of the two dissociation rate constants should be close to a constant. This should happen even though the rate constants themselves may vary considerably because of the variation of the activation free energy, ΔGa, and to exponential sensitivity of the dissociation rate constant to the energetics of interaction. Indeed, this is what we observe in Figure 2b. Despite almost 2 orders of magnitude variation between the individual kd constants for each construct, kd–ST and kd–LT remain proportional to each other. Note that the ka constants for the same constructs vary within a much narrower range, within a maximum factor of ∼4, supporting the above proposal that the association process is near the diffusion-controlled limit and thus less sensitive to energetics.

These results suggest that the length of the tether plays a significant role in modulating the interactions of the SET1Win–WDR5 complex. An increased physical constraint as a result of a decreased tether length not only reduces the rate constant of complex formation, as established earlier, but also substantially decreases the stability of the complex. Consequently, the overall impact of reducing the tether length is an increase in KD (Figure 2c; Tables S9 and S10). Changes observed for ka should normally be independent from those noted for kd because the mechanisms of changing the corresponding activation free energies are different. Indeed, we observed no correlation between the ka and kd values (Figures S3 and S4).

We then measured the kinetic rate constants for 20 ligand–receptor complexes using unrestricted conditions (no tether, NT-SET1Win ligands) (Figure S5, Tables S11–S13). In this case, BLI was not used because it does not have a satisfactory sensitivity to reliably detect a short-peptide binding to the surface. The SPR, (38) with its greater sensitivity, was a more effective choice for this case. Accumulation of ligand–receptor complexes onto the surface of the SPR sensor was monitored by changes in the refractive index. Therefore, WDR5 was immobilized onto the surface of the SPR chips (Figure 1c), and the association and dissociation phases were probed in real time. As established by our previous work, (58) the ka values for NT-SET1Win ligands were substantially greater than those for LT-SET1Win ligands (Figure 3a and Table S14). This significant difference is due to the increased translational and rotational diffusion coefficients of NT-SET1Win ligands relative to WDR5 and its derivatives. Moreover, our previous work (58) also showed, by comparison with values obtained from fluorescence polarization (FP) spectroscopy, that immobilizing WDR5 onto the SPR sensor surface does not impact its functional integrity. Let us assume that DNT–SET1Win and DWDR5 are the translational diffusion coefficients of NT-SET1Win and WDR5, respectively. For applying eq 2 to this problem, one now has to consider that DNT–SET1WinDWDR5 because either WDR5 or one of its derivatives was immobilized on the sensor surface. Therefore, the unrestrained NT-SET1Win was responsible for the diffusion-mediated mutual approach of the reacting species, so DrelDNT–SET1Win. Again, eq 2 predicts proportionality between ka–NT and ka–LT, as noted in Figure 3a, with the ratio of the two roughly equal to the ratio of SET1Win’s and WDR5’s diffusion coefficients.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Scatter plots of kinetic and equilibrium constants for NT-SET1Win and LT-SET1Win ligands. (a) Association rate constants ka-NT of NT-SET1Win–WDR5 complexes plotted against association rate constants ka-LT of LT-SET1Win–WDR5 complexes. Points above the blue line correspond to interactions with faster association rate constants for NT-SET1Win ligands. (b) Dissociation rate constants kd-NT of NT-SET1Win–WDR5 complexes plotted against dissociation rate constants kd-LT of LT-SET1Win–WDR5 complexes. Points above the blue line correspond to interactions with faster dissociation rate constants for NT-SET1Win ligands. (c) Equilibrium dissociation constants KD-NT values of NT-SET1Win–WDR5 complexes plotted against equilibrium dissociation constants KD-LT of LT-SET1Win–WDR5 complexes. Points below the blue line correspond to more stable complexes with LT-SET1Win ligands. m indicates the slopes of linear fits in all panels. Data represent mean ± s.d. which resulted from three independent BLI sensorgrams.

Remarkably, the kd values using NT-SET1Win and LT-SET1Win ligands were closely similar (Figure 3b and Table S15). Our interpretation of this finding is in terms of eq 5. In the case of LT-SET1Win ligands, but not for ST-SET1Win ligands, the repulsive force f is negligible as the complex is far enough from the surface. Hence, the dissociation rate constant is near that value corresponding to the zero-force limit, kd0, which is the dissociation rate constant for NT-SET1Win ligands, kd–NT. In other words, at long enough tether lengths, the experimental system approaches that of NT-SET1Win ligands in terms of the dissociation rate constant, kd. Therefore, the equilibrium dissociation constant, KD, of the ligand–receptor complex becomes larger as we go from NT-SET1Win ligands to LT-SET1Win ligands (Figure 3c; Tables S16 and S17). Moreover, the differential free energy of the ligand–receptor complex formation, ΔΔG, for NT-SET1Win ligands with respect to LT-SET1Win ligands is in the range −0.3 through −1.5 kcal/mol. The primary contribution to this change results from the considerable increase in the ka in the absence of the tether. This shows how the attachment of a binding partner to a surface influences the overall dynamic equilibrium of the interaction. In our case, the effect is substantial given the large difference in size between the two binding partners. Even though for NT-SET1Win ligands the WDR5 is restricted to the surface, the comparison between similar restriction and steady-state fluorescence polarization (FP) data of freely interacting SET1Win and WDR5 in solution shows that this condition can be thought as that of an unrestricted interaction. (58)

In Figure 4a, we illustrate a qualitative comparison of the free energy landscapes that correspond to NT-SET1Win, ST-SET1Win, and LT-SET1Win ligands. For short and long tethers, the presence of the flexible tether reduces the association rate constant of the SET1Win–WDR5 complex with respect to that in the absence of the tether (Figure S6). Further increase in the kd-ST with respect to kd-LT (Figure S7) due to repulsion forces of WDR5 proteins from the sensor surface explains the relative increase in the normalized values (KD-ST/KD-NT) > (KD-LT/KD-NT) (Figure 4b–e). Because there are linear correlations between measured affinities of various SET1Win–WDR5 pairs with specified constraints, we can advantageously utilize these findings to predict the kd and KD for a given tethered ligand–receptor complex. To demonstrate this, we examined the interactions of SET1Win ligands with S175L, a WDR5 derivative, whose single-site mutation is located within the Win binding site. Using the kinetic and equilibrium parameters measured for NT-SET1Win–S175L interactions via SPR (Tables S12 and S13), we established the proportionality relationships with their corresponding parameters for ST-SET1Win ligands (Figure S8). Remarkably, our experimental determinations of kd-ST for S175L against five ST-SET1Win ligands are closely similar to corresponding anticipated values (Table 1). Furthermore, using the same method, we demonstrate the predictive power of this approach for the KD-ST values (Table 2). Therefore, the binding affinity of tethered ligand–receptor interactions can be precisely modulated by changing the tether length (Figure S9).

Table 1. Predicted and Experimental Values of the kd-ST for S175L Interacting with ST-SET1Wina
parameterSET1Winpredicted values ×103 (s–1)experimental values ×103 (s–1)
kd-STMLL2Win14 ± 112 ± 1
 MLL3Win36 ± 128 ± 1
 MLL4Win190 ± 10180 ± 10
 SETd1AWin300 ± 10160 ± 10
 SETd1BWin13 ± 15.4 ± 0.2
a

kd-ST are the dissociation rate constants corresponding to ST-SET1Win ligands. Predicted values of kd-ST were obtained using the proportionality relationship between kd-ST and kd-NT (Figure S8) and the experimentally determined values of kd-NT (Table S12). Triplicate kd-NT values were used to calculate corresponding kd-ST values by linear interpolation. Values indicate mean ± s.d., which were calculated by using these triplicates.

Table 2. Predicted and Experimental Values of the KD-ST for S175L Interacting with ST-SET1Wina
parameterSET1Winpredicted values ×109 (M)experimental values ×109 (M)
KD-STMLL2Win150 ± 10360 ± 30
 MLL3Win270 ± 10810 ± 90
 MLL4Win2800 ± 1008500 ± 300
 SETd1AWin5500 ± 2002900 ± 100
 SETd1BWin110 ± 10110 ± 6
a

KD-ST are the equilibrium dissociation constants corresponding to ST-SET1Win ligands. Predicted values of KD-ST were obtained using the proportionality relationship between KD-ST and KD-NT (Figure S8) and the experimentally determined values of KD-NT (Table S13). Triplicate KD-NT values were used to calculate corresponding KD-ST values by linear interpolation. Values indicate mean ± s.d., which were calculated by using these triplicates.

Figure 4

Figure 4. 3D plots and contour maps of normalized KD constants. (a) Qualitative free energy landscapes of SET1Win–WDR5 interactions when NT-SET1Win (NT), ST-SET1Win (ST), and LT-SET1Win (LT) peptide ligands were used. Vertical lines 1, 2, and 3, which are marked in cyan, indicate the differential free energy barriers due to unrestrained diffusion of the ligand, fly casting mechanism, and repulsion entropic forces of the receptor from the sensor surface, respectively. (b) Bar graph and (c) contour map of KD-ST values for the interaction of ST-SET1Win ligands, with WDR5 and its mutants, divided by their corresponding KD-NT values measured with the corresponding NT-SET1Win ligands. (d) Bar graph and (e) contour map of KD-LT values for the interaction of LT-SET1Win ligands, with WDR5 and its mutants, divided by their corresponding KD-NT values measured with the corresponding NT-SET1Win ligands. KD-ST and KD-LT for MLL4Win–F133L interactions could not be quantitatively determined by using BLI measurements. These data points are colored in black.

In summary, we provide compelling experimental evidence for the fly casting mechanism of association between surface-attached peptide ligands and their receptors. The observed speedup in the association rate, ka, when using a longer tether is rather modest for the tether lengths employed here, which agrees with previous computational work. (47) We also found that the dissociation rate constant, kd, was greater in the case of a short tether length as a result of steric wall repulsion forces acting on the receptor pulling it away from the surface. Accordingly, this resulted in a weakened interaction of the tethered ligand–protein complex. As a longer tether accelerates the association but decelerates the dissociation, the binding affinity of the ligand–receptor complex is greater at increased tether lengths. From a practical point of view, our experimental approach can be used to predict dissociation rate constants and binding affinities of ligand–protein interactions for specified physicochemical properties of the tether. This study also reveals that the surface immobilization-based experiments are expected to provide different kinetic and equilibrium fingerprints of the tethered ligand–receptor interactions with respect to unrestrained conditions. For example, we show that the association rate constants of ligand–receptor interactions under NT conditions are about 1 order of magnitude greater than those acquired under LT conditions. In addition, we anticipate that the nature of the linker might impact these parameters as well. Therefore, our method can be employed in biosensor technology to modulate the interaction strength of a ligand–protein complex on a sensing surface by modifying the tether length. Finally, this result has been successfully validated by using a test WDR5 mutant of unknown dissociation constant for five ST-SET1Win ligands.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpclett.2c00621.

  • Peptide synthesis, purification, and analysis, protein expression and purification, biolayer interferometry, surface plasmon resonance, examples of BLI sensorgrams, determinations of the kinetic and equilibrium constants, scatter plots of the association rate constants versus the dissociation rate constants, examples of SPR sensorgrams, 3D plots and contour maps of the association and dissociation rate constants, supporting references (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
    • Liviu Movileanu - Department of Physics, Syracuse University, 201 Physics Building, Syracuse, New York 13244-1130, United StatesDepartment of Biomedical and Chemical Engineering, Syracuse University, 329 Link Hall, Syracuse, New York 13244, United StatesThe BioInspired Institute, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244, United StatesOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2525-3341 Email: [email protected]
  • Authors
    • Ali Imran - Department of Physics, Syracuse University, 201 Physics Building, Syracuse, New York 13244-1130, United States
    • Brandon S. Moyer - Ichor Life Sciences, Inc., 2651 US Route 11, LaFayette, New York 13084, United StatesLewis School of Health Sciences, Clarkson University, 8 Clarkson Avenue, Potsdam, New York 13699, United States
    • Aaron J. Wolfe - Department of Physics, Syracuse University, 201 Physics Building, Syracuse, New York 13244-1130, United StatesIchor Life Sciences, Inc., 2651 US Route 11, LaFayette, New York 13084, United StatesLewis School of Health Sciences, Clarkson University, 8 Clarkson Avenue, Potsdam, New York 13699, United StatesDepartment of Chemistry, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 1 Forestry Dr., Syracuse, New York 13210, United States
    • Michael S. Cosgrove - Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, 4249 Weiskotten Hall, 766 Irving Avenue, Syracuse, New York 13210, United States
    • Dmitrii E. Makarov - Department of Chemistry, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, United StatesOden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, United StatesOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8421-1846
  • Author Contributions

    A.I., B.S.M., A.J.W., M.S.C., D.E.M., and L.M. designed the research. A.I., B.S.M., and D.E.M. performed research and analyzed data. A.J.W., M.S.C., and L.M. provided reagents, supervision, and funding. A.I., D.E.M., and L.M. wrote the paper.

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

We thank our colleagues in the Movileanu and Cosgrove laboratories and at Ichor Life Sciences laboratories for their comments on the manuscript and stimulating discussions as well as for their technical assistance during the very early stage of this project. This work was supported by Robert A. Welch Foundation, Grant F-1514 (to D.E.M.), the National Science Foundation, Grant CHE 1955552 (to D.E.M.), the National Cancer Institute of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, Grant R01 CA140522 (to M.S.C.), and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, Grant R01 GM129429 (to L.M.).

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 58 other publications.

  1. 1
    Erlendsson, S.; Teilum, K. Binding Revisited-Avidity in Cellular Function and Signaling. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2021, 7, 615565,  DOI: 10.3389/fmolb.2020.615565
  2. 2
    Reiner, A.; Isacoff, E. Y. Tethered ligands reveal glutamate receptor desensitization depends on subunit occupancy. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2014, 10, 273280,  DOI: 10.1038/nchembio.1458
  3. 3
    Jurchenko, C.; Chang, Y.; Narui, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Salaita, K. S. Integrin-generated forces lead to streptavidin-biotin unbinding in cellular adhesions. Biophys. J. 2014, 106, 14361446,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2014.01.049
  4. 4
    Movileanu, L.; Howorka, S.; Braha, O.; Bayley, H. Detecting protein analytes that modulate transmembrane movement of a polymer chain within a single protein pore. Nat. Biotechnol. 2000, 18, 10911095,  DOI: 10.1038/80295
  5. 5
    Komatsu, N.; Aoki, K.; Yamada, M.; Yukinaga, H.; Fujita, Y.; Kamioka, Y.; Matsuda, M. Development of an optimized backbone of FRET biosensors for kinases and GTPases. Mol. Biol. Cell 2011, 22, 46474656,  DOI: 10.1091/mbc.e11-01-0072
  6. 6
    Watkins, H. M.; Vallee-Belisle, A.; Ricci, F.; Makarov, D. E.; Plaxco, K. W. Entropic and electrostatic effects on the folding free energy of a surface-attached biomolecule: an experimental and theoretical study. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 21202126,  DOI: 10.1021/ja208436p
  7. 7
    Schena, A.; Griss, R.; Johnsson, K. Modulating protein activity using tethered ligands with mutually exclusive binding sites. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 7830,  DOI: 10.1038/ncomms8830
  8. 8
    Fahie, M. A.; Yang, B.; Pham, B.; Chen, M. Tuning the selectivity and sensitivity of an OmpG nanopore sensor by adjusting ligand tether length. ACS Sens 2016, 1, 614622,  DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.6b00014
  9. 9
    Kang, D.; Sun, S.; Kurnik, M.; Morales, D.; Dahlquist, F. W.; Plaxco, K. W. New Architecture for Reagentless, Protein-Based Electrochemical Biosensors. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139, 1211312116,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.7b05953
  10. 10
    Robinson-Mosher, A.; Chen, J. H.; Way, J.; Silver, P. A. Designing cell-targeted therapeutic proteins reveals the interplay between domain connectivity and cell binding. Biophys. J. 2014, 107, 24562466,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2014.10.007
  11. 11
    Nagamune, T. Biomolecular engineering for nanobio/bionanotechnology. Nano Converg. 2017, 4, 9,  DOI: 10.1186/s40580-017-0103-4
  12. 12
    Kim, J. Y.; Meng, F.; Yoo, J.; Chung, H. S. Diffusion-limited association of disordered protein by non-native electrostatic interactions. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 4707,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-06866-y
  13. 13
    Borgia, A.; Borgia, M. B.; Bugge, K.; Kissling, V. M.; Heidarsson, P. O.; Fernandes, C. B.; Sottini, A.; Soranno, A.; Buholzer, K. J.; Nettels, D.; Kragelund, B. B.; Best, R. B.; Schuler, B. Extreme disorder in an ultrahigh-affinity protein complex. Nature 2018, 555, 6166,  DOI: 10.1038/nature25762
  14. 14
    Sturzenegger, F.; Zosel, F.; Holmstrom, E. D.; Buholzer, K. J.; Makarov, D. E.; Nettels, D.; Schuler, B. Transition path times of coupled folding and binding reveal the formation of an encounter complex. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 4708,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-07043-x
  15. 15
    Zosel, F.; Mercadante, D.; Nettels, D.; Schuler, B. A proline switch explains kinetic heterogeneity in a coupled folding and binding reaction. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 3332,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-05725-0
  16. 16
    Mayse, L. A.; Imran, A.; Larimi, M. G.; Cosgrove, M. S.; Wolfe, A. J.; Movileanu, L. Disentangling the recognition complexity of a protein hub using a nanopore. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 978,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-28465-8
  17. 17
    De Gennes, P.-G. Kinetics of diffusion-controlled processes in dense polymer systems. I. Nonentangled regimes. J. Chem. Phys. 1982, 76, 33163321,  DOI: 10.1063/1.443328
  18. 18
    Van Valen, D.; Haataja, M.; Phillips, R. Biochemistry on a leash: the roles of tether length and geometry in signal integration proteins. Biophys. J. 2009, 96, 12751292,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2008.10.052
  19. 19
    Ren, C. L.; Carvajal, D.; Shull, K. R.; Szleifer, I. Streptavidin-biotin binding in the presence of a polymer spacer. A theoretical description. Langmuir 2009, 25, 1228312292,  DOI: 10.1021/la901735d
  20. 20
    Kane, R. S. Thermodynamics of multivalent interactions: influence of the linker. Langmuir 2010, 26, 86368640,  DOI: 10.1021/la9047193
  21. 21
    Reeves, D.; Cheveralls, K.; Kondev, J. Regulation of biochemical reaction rates by flexible tethers. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 2011, 84, 021914,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.84.021914
  22. 22
    Levin, M. D.; Shimizu, T. S.; Bray, D. Binding and diffusion of CheR molecules within a cluster of membrane receptors. Biophys. J. 2002, 82, 18091817,  DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3495(02)75531-8
  23. 23
    Windisch, B.; Bray, D.; Duke, T. Balls and chains--a mesoscopic approach to tethered protein domains. Biophys. J. 2006, 91, 23832392,  DOI: 10.1529/biophysj.105.078543
  24. 24
    Shewmake, T. A.; Solis, F. J.; Gillies, R. J.; Caplan, M. R. Effects of linker length and flexibility on multivalent targeting. Biomacromolecules 2008, 9, 30573064,  DOI: 10.1021/bm800529b
  25. 25
    Wong, J. Y.; Kuhl, T. L.; Israelachvili, J. N.; Mullah, N.; Zalipsky, S. Direct measurement of a tethered ligand-receptor interaction potential. Science 1997, 275, 820822,  DOI: 10.1126/science.275.5301.820
  26. 26
    Jeppesen, C.; Wong, J. Y.; Kuhl, T. L.; Israelachvili, J. N.; Mullah, N.; Zalipsky, S.; Marques, C. M. Impact of polymer tether length on multiple ligand-receptor bond formation. Science 2001, 293, 465468,  DOI: 10.1126/science.293.5529.465
  27. 27
    Leckband, D.; Israelachvili, J. Intermolecular forces in biology. Q. Rev. Biophys. 2001, 34, 105267,  DOI: 10.1017/S0033583501003687
  28. 28
    Bauer, M.; Kékicheff, P.; Iss, J.; Fajolles, C.; Charitat, T.; Daillant, J.; Marques, C. M. Sliding tethered ligands add topological interactions to the toolbox of ligand-receptor design. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 8117,  DOI: 10.1038/ncomms9117
  29. 29
    Krishnamurthy, V. M.; Semetey, V.; Bracher, P. J.; Shen, N.; Whitesides, G. M. Dependence of effective molarity on linker length for an intramolecular protein-ligand system. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 13121320,  DOI: 10.1021/ja066780e
  30. 30
    Sørensen, C. S.; Kjaergaard, M. Effective concentrations enforced by intrinsically disordered linkers are governed by polymer physics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2019, 116, 2312423131,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1904813116
  31. 31
    Patel, A.; Dharmarajan, V.; Cosgrove, M. S. Structure of WDR5 bound to mixed lineage leukemia protein-1 peptide. J. Biol. Chem. 2008, 283, 3215832161,  DOI: 10.1074/jbc.C800164200
  32. 32
    Song, J. J.; Kingston, R. E. WDR5 interacts with mixed lineage leukemia (MLL) protein via the histone H3-binding pocket. J. Biol. Chem. 2008, 283, 3525835264,  DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M806900200
  33. 33
    Li, Y.; Han, J.; Zhang, Y.; Cao, F.; Liu, Z.; Li, S.; Wu, J.; Hu, C.; Wang, Y.; Shuai, J.; Chen, J.; Cao, L.; Li, D.; Shi, P.; Tian, C.; Zhang, J.; Dou, Y.; Li, G.; Chen, Y.; Lei, M. Structural basis for activity regulation of MLL family methyltransferases. Nature 2016, 530, 447452,  DOI: 10.1038/nature16952
  34. 34
    Xue, H.; Yao, T.; Cao, M.; Zhu, G.; Li, Y.; Yuan, G.; Chen, Y.; Lei, M.; Huang, J. Structural basis of nucleosome recognition and modification by MLL methyltransferases. Nature 2019, 573, 445449,  DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1528-1
  35. 35
    Dharmarajan, V.; Lee, J. H.; Patel, A.; Skalnik, D. G.; Cosgrove, M. S. Structural basis for WDR5 interaction (Win) motif recognition in human SET1 family histone methyltransferases. J. Biol. Chem. 2012, 287, 2727527289,  DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M112.364125
  36. 36
    Zhang, P.; Lee, H.; Brunzelle, J. S.; Couture, J. F. The plasticity of WDR5 peptide-binding cleft enables the binding of the SET1 family of histone methyltransferases. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012, 40, 42374246,  DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkr1235
  37. 37
    Weeramange, C. J.; Fairlamb, M. S.; Singh, D.; Fenton, A. W.; Swint-Kruse, L. The strengths and limitations of using biolayer interferometry to monitor equilibrium titrations of biomolecules. Protein Sci. 2020, 29, 1004,  DOI: 10.1002/pro.3827
  38. 38
    Masson, J. F. Surface Plasmon Resonance Clinical Biosensors for Medical Diagnostics. ACS Sens 2017, 2, 1630,  DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.6b00763
  39. 39
    Pang, X.; Zhou, H. X. Rate Constants and Mechanisms of Protein-Ligand Binding. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 2017, 46, 105130,  DOI: 10.1146/annurev-biophys-070816-033639
  40. 40
    Nitzan, A. Chemical Dynamics in Condensed Phases; Oxford University Press: 2006.
  41. 41
    Zhou, H. X. Rate theories for biologists. Q. Rev. Biophys. 2010, 43, 219293,  DOI: 10.1017/S0033583510000120
  42. 42
    Smoluchowski, M. Mathematical Theory of the Kinetics of the Coagulation of Colloidal Solutions. Z. Phys. Chem. 1917, 92, 129135
  43. 43
    Hanggi, P.; Talkner, P.; Borkovec, M. Reaction-Rate Theory - 50 Years After Kramers. Rev. Mod. Phys. 1990, 62, 251341,  DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.62.251
  44. 44
    Berg, H. C.; Purcell, E. M. Physics of chemoreception. Biophys. J. 1977, 20, 193219,  DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3495(77)85544-6
  45. 45
    Misiura, M. M.; Kolomeisky, A. B. Role of Intrinsically Disordered Regions in Acceleration of Protein-Protein Association. J. Phys. Chem. B 2020, 124, 2027,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.9b08793
  46. 46
    Schreiber, G.; Haran, G.; Zhou, H. X. Fundamental aspects of protein-protein association kinetics. Chem. Rev. 2009, 109, 839860,  DOI: 10.1021/cr800373w
  47. 47
    Shoemaker, B. A.; Portman, J. J.; Wolynes, P. G. Speeding molecular recognition by using the folding funnel: the fly-casting mechanism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2000, 97, 88688873,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.160259697
  48. 48
    Levy, Y.; Onuchic, J. N.; Wolynes, P. G. Fly-casting in protein-DNA binding: frustration between protein folding and electrostatics facilitates target recognition. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 738739,  DOI: 10.1021/ja065531n
  49. 49
    Trizac, E.; Levy, Y.; Wolynes, P. G. Capillarity theory for the fly-casting mechanism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2010, 107, 27462750,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0914727107
  50. 50
    Sugase, K.; Dyson, H. J.; Wright, P. E. Mechanism of coupled folding and binding of an intrinsically disordered protein. Nature 2007, 447, 10211025,  DOI: 10.1038/nature05858
  51. 51
    Wright, P. E.; Dyson, H. J. Linking folding and binding. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2009, 19, 3138,  DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2008.12.003
  52. 52
    Soranno, A.; Koenig, I.; Borgia, M. B.; Hofmann, H.; Zosel, F.; Nettels, D.; Schuler, B. Single-molecule spectroscopy reveals polymer effects of disordered proteins in crowded environments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014, 111, 48744879,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1322611111
  53. 53
    Mollica, L.; Bessa, L. M.; Hanoulle, X.; Jensen, M. R.; Blackledge, M.; Schneider, R. Binding Mechanisms of Intrinsically Disordered Proteins: Theory, Simulation, and Experiment. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2016, 3, 52,  DOI: 10.3389/fmolb.2016.00052
  54. 54
    Umezawa, K.; Ohnuki, J.; Higo, J.; Takano, M. Intrinsic disorder accelerates dissociation rather than association. Proteins 2016, 84, 11241133,  DOI: 10.1002/prot.25057
  55. 55
    Huang, Y.; Liu, Z. Kinetic advantage of intrinsically disordered proteins in coupled folding-binding process: a critical assessment of the “fly-casting” mechanism. J. Mol. Biol. 2009, 393, 11431159,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2009.09.010
  56. 56
    Segall, D. E.; Nelson, P. C.; Phillips, R. Volume-exclusion effects in tethered-particle experiments: bead size matters. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006, 96, 088306,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.088306
  57. 57
    Makarov, D. E. Perspective: Mechanochemistry of biological and synthetic molecules. J. Chem. Phys. 2016, 144, 030901,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4939791
  58. 58
    Imran, A.; Moyer, B. S.; Canning, A. J.; Kalina, D.; Duncan, T. M.; Moody, K. J.; Wolfe, A. J.; Cosgrove, M. S.; Movileanu, L. Kinetics of the multitasking high-affinity Win binding site of WDR5 in restricted and unrestricted conditions. Biochem. J. 2021, 478, 21452161,  DOI: 10.1042/BCJ20210253

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Citation Statements
Explore this article's citation statements on scite.ai

This article is cited by 11 publications.

  1. Jiaxin Sun, Antun Skanata, Liviu Movileanu. Single-Molecule Observation of Competitive Protein–Protein Interactions Utilizing a Nanopore. ACS Nano 2025, 19 (1) , 1103-1115. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.4c13072
  2. Guillermo Pérez-Ropero, Anna Pérez-Ràfols, Tommasso Martelli, U. Helena Danielson, Jos Buijs. Unraveling the Bivalent and Rapid Interactions Between a Multivalent RNA Recognition Motif and RNA: A Kinetic Approach. Biochemistry 2024, 63 (21) , 2816-2829. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biochem.4c00301
  3. Lauren A. Mayse, Yazheng Wang, Mohammad Ahmad, Liviu Movileanu. Real-Time Measurement of a Weak Interaction of a Transcription Factor Motif with a Protein Hub at Single-Molecule Precision. ACS Nano 2024, 18 (31) , 20468-20481. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.4c04857
  4. Lauren A. Mayse, Ali Imran, Yazheng Wang, Mohammad Ahmad, Rebecca A. Oot, Stephan Wilkens, Liviu Movileanu. Evaluation of Nanopore Sensor Design Using Electrical and Optical Analyses. ACS Nano 2023, 17 (11) , 10857-10871. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.3c02532
  5. Ali Imran, Brandon S. Moyer, Dan Kalina, Thomas M. Duncan, Kelsey J. Moody, Aaron J. Wolfe, Michael S. Cosgrove, Liviu Movileanu. Convergent Alterations of a Protein Hub Produce Divergent Effects within a Binding Site. ACS Chemical Biology 2022, 17 (6) , 1586-1597. https://doi.org/10.1021/acschembio.2c00273
  6. Anushree Sinha, Angel Mary Chiramel Tony, Susmita Roy. How fingers affect folding of a thumb: Inter-subdomain cooperation in the folding of SARS-CoV-2 RdRp protein. Biophysical Chemistry 2025, 316 , 107342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpc.2024.107342
  7. Mohammad Ahmad, Ali Imran, Liviu Movileanu. Overlapping characteristics of weak interactions of two transcriptional regulators with WDR5. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 2024, 258 , 128969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.128969
  8. Mohammad Ahmad, Jeung-Hoi Ha, Lauren A. Mayse, Maria F. Presti, Aaron J. Wolfe, Kelsey J. Moody, Stewart N. Loh, Liviu Movileanu. A generalizable nanopore sensor for highly specific protein detection at single-molecule precision. Nature Communications 2023, 14 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-36944-9
  9. Oleg Baranov, Kateryna Bazaka, Thierry Belmonte, Claudia Riccardi, H. Eduardo Roman, Mandhakini Mohandas, Shuyan Xu, Uroš Cvelbar, Igor Levchenko. Recent innovations in the technology and applications of low-dimensional CuO nanostructures for sensing, energy and catalysis. Nanoscale Horizons 2023, 8 (5) , 568-602. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2NH00546H
  10. Angéline Van der Heyden, Phoulinh Chanthavong, Eduardo Angles-Cano, Hugues Bonnet, Jérôme Dejeu, Audrey Cras, Christian Philouze, Guy Serratrice, Fatiha Zoubari El-Ghazouani, Florence Toti, Aurore Thibon-Pourret, Catherine Belle. Grafted dinuclear zinc complexes for selective recognition of phosphatidylserine: Application to the capture of extracellular membrane microvesicles. Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry 2023, 239 , 112065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2022.112065
  11. Marina Pons, Marine Perenon, Hugues Bonnet, Emilie Gillon, Celio Vallée, Liliane Coche-Guérente, Eric Defrancq, Nicolas Spinelli, Angeline Van der Heyden, Jérôme Dejeu. Conformational transition in SPR experiments: impact of spacer length, immobilization mode and aptamer density on signal sign and amplitude. The Analyst 2022, 147 (19) , 4197-4205. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2AN00824F

The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters

Cite this: J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2022, 13, 18, 4021–4028
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.2c00621
Published April 29, 2022

Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Article Views

1735

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. WDR5 protein interacting with the SET1Win peptide ligands under different conditions. WDR5 is shown in orange, while SET1Win ligands are shown in magenta. Bound interacting partners are shown in blue. Lightly colored receptors and ligands indicate interacting partners in the background. (a) Biotinylated ST-SET1Win ligands were chemically attached onto a streptavidin-coated biolayer interferometry (BLI) sensor surface. Either WDR5 proteins or one of its mutants was freely movable in solution. (b) The same system as in (a), but with LT-SET1Win ligands. (c) Either WDR5 proteins or one of its mutants was immobilized onto a surface plasmon resonance (SPR) chip surface, whereas the NT-SET1Win ligands were freely movable in solution.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Scatter plots of kinetic and equilibrium constants for ST-SET1Win and LT-SET1Win ligands. (a) Association rate constants ka-ST of ST-SET1Win-WDR5 complexes plotted against association rate constants ka-LT of LT-SET1Win-WDR5 complexes. Points above the blue line correspond to complexes with faster association rate constants for ST-SET1Win ligands, while points below correspond to interactions with slower association rate constants for ST-SET1Win ligands. (b) Dissociation rate constants kd-ST of ST-SET1Win–WDR5 complexes plotted against dissociation rate constants kd-LT of LT-SET1Win–WDR5 complexes. Points above the blue line correspond to complexes with faster dissociation rate constants for ST-SET1Win ligands. (c) Equilibrium dissociation constants KD-ST of ST-SET1Win–WDR5 complexes plotted against equilibrium dissociation constants KD-LT of LT-SET1Win–WDR5 complexes. Points above the blue line correspond to less stable complexes with ST-SET1Win ligands. m indicates the slopes of linear fits in (b) and (c). Data represent mean ± s.d. which resulted from three independent BLI sensorgrams.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Scatter plots of kinetic and equilibrium constants for NT-SET1Win and LT-SET1Win ligands. (a) Association rate constants ka-NT of NT-SET1Win–WDR5 complexes plotted against association rate constants ka-LT of LT-SET1Win–WDR5 complexes. Points above the blue line correspond to interactions with faster association rate constants for NT-SET1Win ligands. (b) Dissociation rate constants kd-NT of NT-SET1Win–WDR5 complexes plotted against dissociation rate constants kd-LT of LT-SET1Win–WDR5 complexes. Points above the blue line correspond to interactions with faster dissociation rate constants for NT-SET1Win ligands. (c) Equilibrium dissociation constants KD-NT values of NT-SET1Win–WDR5 complexes plotted against equilibrium dissociation constants KD-LT of LT-SET1Win–WDR5 complexes. Points below the blue line correspond to more stable complexes with LT-SET1Win ligands. m indicates the slopes of linear fits in all panels. Data represent mean ± s.d. which resulted from three independent BLI sensorgrams.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. 3D plots and contour maps of normalized KD constants. (a) Qualitative free energy landscapes of SET1Win–WDR5 interactions when NT-SET1Win (NT), ST-SET1Win (ST), and LT-SET1Win (LT) peptide ligands were used. Vertical lines 1, 2, and 3, which are marked in cyan, indicate the differential free energy barriers due to unrestrained diffusion of the ligand, fly casting mechanism, and repulsion entropic forces of the receptor from the sensor surface, respectively. (b) Bar graph and (c) contour map of KD-ST values for the interaction of ST-SET1Win ligands, with WDR5 and its mutants, divided by their corresponding KD-NT values measured with the corresponding NT-SET1Win ligands. (d) Bar graph and (e) contour map of KD-LT values for the interaction of LT-SET1Win ligands, with WDR5 and its mutants, divided by their corresponding KD-NT values measured with the corresponding NT-SET1Win ligands. KD-ST and KD-LT for MLL4Win–F133L interactions could not be quantitatively determined by using BLI measurements. These data points are colored in black.

  • References


    This article references 58 other publications.

    1. 1
      Erlendsson, S.; Teilum, K. Binding Revisited-Avidity in Cellular Function and Signaling. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2021, 7, 615565,  DOI: 10.3389/fmolb.2020.615565
    2. 2
      Reiner, A.; Isacoff, E. Y. Tethered ligands reveal glutamate receptor desensitization depends on subunit occupancy. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2014, 10, 273280,  DOI: 10.1038/nchembio.1458
    3. 3
      Jurchenko, C.; Chang, Y.; Narui, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Salaita, K. S. Integrin-generated forces lead to streptavidin-biotin unbinding in cellular adhesions. Biophys. J. 2014, 106, 14361446,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2014.01.049
    4. 4
      Movileanu, L.; Howorka, S.; Braha, O.; Bayley, H. Detecting protein analytes that modulate transmembrane movement of a polymer chain within a single protein pore. Nat. Biotechnol. 2000, 18, 10911095,  DOI: 10.1038/80295
    5. 5
      Komatsu, N.; Aoki, K.; Yamada, M.; Yukinaga, H.; Fujita, Y.; Kamioka, Y.; Matsuda, M. Development of an optimized backbone of FRET biosensors for kinases and GTPases. Mol. Biol. Cell 2011, 22, 46474656,  DOI: 10.1091/mbc.e11-01-0072
    6. 6
      Watkins, H. M.; Vallee-Belisle, A.; Ricci, F.; Makarov, D. E.; Plaxco, K. W. Entropic and electrostatic effects on the folding free energy of a surface-attached biomolecule: an experimental and theoretical study. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 21202126,  DOI: 10.1021/ja208436p
    7. 7
      Schena, A.; Griss, R.; Johnsson, K. Modulating protein activity using tethered ligands with mutually exclusive binding sites. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 7830,  DOI: 10.1038/ncomms8830
    8. 8
      Fahie, M. A.; Yang, B.; Pham, B.; Chen, M. Tuning the selectivity and sensitivity of an OmpG nanopore sensor by adjusting ligand tether length. ACS Sens 2016, 1, 614622,  DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.6b00014
    9. 9
      Kang, D.; Sun, S.; Kurnik, M.; Morales, D.; Dahlquist, F. W.; Plaxco, K. W. New Architecture for Reagentless, Protein-Based Electrochemical Biosensors. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139, 1211312116,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.7b05953
    10. 10
      Robinson-Mosher, A.; Chen, J. H.; Way, J.; Silver, P. A. Designing cell-targeted therapeutic proteins reveals the interplay between domain connectivity and cell binding. Biophys. J. 2014, 107, 24562466,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2014.10.007
    11. 11
      Nagamune, T. Biomolecular engineering for nanobio/bionanotechnology. Nano Converg. 2017, 4, 9,  DOI: 10.1186/s40580-017-0103-4
    12. 12
      Kim, J. Y.; Meng, F.; Yoo, J.; Chung, H. S. Diffusion-limited association of disordered protein by non-native electrostatic interactions. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 4707,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-06866-y
    13. 13
      Borgia, A.; Borgia, M. B.; Bugge, K.; Kissling, V. M.; Heidarsson, P. O.; Fernandes, C. B.; Sottini, A.; Soranno, A.; Buholzer, K. J.; Nettels, D.; Kragelund, B. B.; Best, R. B.; Schuler, B. Extreme disorder in an ultrahigh-affinity protein complex. Nature 2018, 555, 6166,  DOI: 10.1038/nature25762
    14. 14
      Sturzenegger, F.; Zosel, F.; Holmstrom, E. D.; Buholzer, K. J.; Makarov, D. E.; Nettels, D.; Schuler, B. Transition path times of coupled folding and binding reveal the formation of an encounter complex. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 4708,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-07043-x
    15. 15
      Zosel, F.; Mercadante, D.; Nettels, D.; Schuler, B. A proline switch explains kinetic heterogeneity in a coupled folding and binding reaction. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 3332,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-05725-0
    16. 16
      Mayse, L. A.; Imran, A.; Larimi, M. G.; Cosgrove, M. S.; Wolfe, A. J.; Movileanu, L. Disentangling the recognition complexity of a protein hub using a nanopore. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 978,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-28465-8
    17. 17
      De Gennes, P.-G. Kinetics of diffusion-controlled processes in dense polymer systems. I. Nonentangled regimes. J. Chem. Phys. 1982, 76, 33163321,  DOI: 10.1063/1.443328
    18. 18
      Van Valen, D.; Haataja, M.; Phillips, R. Biochemistry on a leash: the roles of tether length and geometry in signal integration proteins. Biophys. J. 2009, 96, 12751292,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2008.10.052
    19. 19
      Ren, C. L.; Carvajal, D.; Shull, K. R.; Szleifer, I. Streptavidin-biotin binding in the presence of a polymer spacer. A theoretical description. Langmuir 2009, 25, 1228312292,  DOI: 10.1021/la901735d
    20. 20
      Kane, R. S. Thermodynamics of multivalent interactions: influence of the linker. Langmuir 2010, 26, 86368640,  DOI: 10.1021/la9047193
    21. 21
      Reeves, D.; Cheveralls, K.; Kondev, J. Regulation of biochemical reaction rates by flexible tethers. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 2011, 84, 021914,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.84.021914
    22. 22
      Levin, M. D.; Shimizu, T. S.; Bray, D. Binding and diffusion of CheR molecules within a cluster of membrane receptors. Biophys. J. 2002, 82, 18091817,  DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3495(02)75531-8
    23. 23
      Windisch, B.; Bray, D.; Duke, T. Balls and chains--a mesoscopic approach to tethered protein domains. Biophys. J. 2006, 91, 23832392,  DOI: 10.1529/biophysj.105.078543
    24. 24
      Shewmake, T. A.; Solis, F. J.; Gillies, R. J.; Caplan, M. R. Effects of linker length and flexibility on multivalent targeting. Biomacromolecules 2008, 9, 30573064,  DOI: 10.1021/bm800529b
    25. 25
      Wong, J. Y.; Kuhl, T. L.; Israelachvili, J. N.; Mullah, N.; Zalipsky, S. Direct measurement of a tethered ligand-receptor interaction potential. Science 1997, 275, 820822,  DOI: 10.1126/science.275.5301.820
    26. 26
      Jeppesen, C.; Wong, J. Y.; Kuhl, T. L.; Israelachvili, J. N.; Mullah, N.; Zalipsky, S.; Marques, C. M. Impact of polymer tether length on multiple ligand-receptor bond formation. Science 2001, 293, 465468,  DOI: 10.1126/science.293.5529.465
    27. 27
      Leckband, D.; Israelachvili, J. Intermolecular forces in biology. Q. Rev. Biophys. 2001, 34, 105267,  DOI: 10.1017/S0033583501003687
    28. 28
      Bauer, M.; Kékicheff, P.; Iss, J.; Fajolles, C.; Charitat, T.; Daillant, J.; Marques, C. M. Sliding tethered ligands add topological interactions to the toolbox of ligand-receptor design. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 8117,  DOI: 10.1038/ncomms9117
    29. 29
      Krishnamurthy, V. M.; Semetey, V.; Bracher, P. J.; Shen, N.; Whitesides, G. M. Dependence of effective molarity on linker length for an intramolecular protein-ligand system. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 13121320,  DOI: 10.1021/ja066780e
    30. 30
      Sørensen, C. S.; Kjaergaard, M. Effective concentrations enforced by intrinsically disordered linkers are governed by polymer physics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2019, 116, 2312423131,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1904813116
    31. 31
      Patel, A.; Dharmarajan, V.; Cosgrove, M. S. Structure of WDR5 bound to mixed lineage leukemia protein-1 peptide. J. Biol. Chem. 2008, 283, 3215832161,  DOI: 10.1074/jbc.C800164200
    32. 32
      Song, J. J.; Kingston, R. E. WDR5 interacts with mixed lineage leukemia (MLL) protein via the histone H3-binding pocket. J. Biol. Chem. 2008, 283, 3525835264,  DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M806900200
    33. 33
      Li, Y.; Han, J.; Zhang, Y.; Cao, F.; Liu, Z.; Li, S.; Wu, J.; Hu, C.; Wang, Y.; Shuai, J.; Chen, J.; Cao, L.; Li, D.; Shi, P.; Tian, C.; Zhang, J.; Dou, Y.; Li, G.; Chen, Y.; Lei, M. Structural basis for activity regulation of MLL family methyltransferases. Nature 2016, 530, 447452,  DOI: 10.1038/nature16952
    34. 34
      Xue, H.; Yao, T.; Cao, M.; Zhu, G.; Li, Y.; Yuan, G.; Chen, Y.; Lei, M.; Huang, J. Structural basis of nucleosome recognition and modification by MLL methyltransferases. Nature 2019, 573, 445449,  DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1528-1
    35. 35
      Dharmarajan, V.; Lee, J. H.; Patel, A.; Skalnik, D. G.; Cosgrove, M. S. Structural basis for WDR5 interaction (Win) motif recognition in human SET1 family histone methyltransferases. J. Biol. Chem. 2012, 287, 2727527289,  DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M112.364125
    36. 36
      Zhang, P.; Lee, H.; Brunzelle, J. S.; Couture, J. F. The plasticity of WDR5 peptide-binding cleft enables the binding of the SET1 family of histone methyltransferases. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012, 40, 42374246,  DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkr1235
    37. 37
      Weeramange, C. J.; Fairlamb, M. S.; Singh, D.; Fenton, A. W.; Swint-Kruse, L. The strengths and limitations of using biolayer interferometry to monitor equilibrium titrations of biomolecules. Protein Sci. 2020, 29, 1004,  DOI: 10.1002/pro.3827
    38. 38
      Masson, J. F. Surface Plasmon Resonance Clinical Biosensors for Medical Diagnostics. ACS Sens 2017, 2, 1630,  DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.6b00763
    39. 39
      Pang, X.; Zhou, H. X. Rate Constants and Mechanisms of Protein-Ligand Binding. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 2017, 46, 105130,  DOI: 10.1146/annurev-biophys-070816-033639
    40. 40
      Nitzan, A. Chemical Dynamics in Condensed Phases; Oxford University Press: 2006.
    41. 41
      Zhou, H. X. Rate theories for biologists. Q. Rev. Biophys. 2010, 43, 219293,  DOI: 10.1017/S0033583510000120
    42. 42
      Smoluchowski, M. Mathematical Theory of the Kinetics of the Coagulation of Colloidal Solutions. Z. Phys. Chem. 1917, 92, 129135
    43. 43
      Hanggi, P.; Talkner, P.; Borkovec, M. Reaction-Rate Theory - 50 Years After Kramers. Rev. Mod. Phys. 1990, 62, 251341,  DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.62.251
    44. 44
      Berg, H. C.; Purcell, E. M. Physics of chemoreception. Biophys. J. 1977, 20, 193219,  DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3495(77)85544-6
    45. 45
      Misiura, M. M.; Kolomeisky, A. B. Role of Intrinsically Disordered Regions in Acceleration of Protein-Protein Association. J. Phys. Chem. B 2020, 124, 2027,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.9b08793
    46. 46
      Schreiber, G.; Haran, G.; Zhou, H. X. Fundamental aspects of protein-protein association kinetics. Chem. Rev. 2009, 109, 839860,  DOI: 10.1021/cr800373w
    47. 47
      Shoemaker, B. A.; Portman, J. J.; Wolynes, P. G. Speeding molecular recognition by using the folding funnel: the fly-casting mechanism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2000, 97, 88688873,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.160259697
    48. 48
      Levy, Y.; Onuchic, J. N.; Wolynes, P. G. Fly-casting in protein-DNA binding: frustration between protein folding and electrostatics facilitates target recognition. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 738739,  DOI: 10.1021/ja065531n
    49. 49
      Trizac, E.; Levy, Y.; Wolynes, P. G. Capillarity theory for the fly-casting mechanism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2010, 107, 27462750,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0914727107
    50. 50
      Sugase, K.; Dyson, H. J.; Wright, P. E. Mechanism of coupled folding and binding of an intrinsically disordered protein. Nature 2007, 447, 10211025,  DOI: 10.1038/nature05858
    51. 51
      Wright, P. E.; Dyson, H. J. Linking folding and binding. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2009, 19, 3138,  DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2008.12.003
    52. 52
      Soranno, A.; Koenig, I.; Borgia, M. B.; Hofmann, H.; Zosel, F.; Nettels, D.; Schuler, B. Single-molecule spectroscopy reveals polymer effects of disordered proteins in crowded environments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014, 111, 48744879,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1322611111
    53. 53
      Mollica, L.; Bessa, L. M.; Hanoulle, X.; Jensen, M. R.; Blackledge, M.; Schneider, R. Binding Mechanisms of Intrinsically Disordered Proteins: Theory, Simulation, and Experiment. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2016, 3, 52,  DOI: 10.3389/fmolb.2016.00052
    54. 54
      Umezawa, K.; Ohnuki, J.; Higo, J.; Takano, M. Intrinsic disorder accelerates dissociation rather than association. Proteins 2016, 84, 11241133,  DOI: 10.1002/prot.25057
    55. 55
      Huang, Y.; Liu, Z. Kinetic advantage of intrinsically disordered proteins in coupled folding-binding process: a critical assessment of the “fly-casting” mechanism. J. Mol. Biol. 2009, 393, 11431159,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2009.09.010
    56. 56
      Segall, D. E.; Nelson, P. C.; Phillips, R. Volume-exclusion effects in tethered-particle experiments: bead size matters. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006, 96, 088306,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.088306
    57. 57
      Makarov, D. E. Perspective: Mechanochemistry of biological and synthetic molecules. J. Chem. Phys. 2016, 144, 030901,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4939791
    58. 58
      Imran, A.; Moyer, B. S.; Canning, A. J.; Kalina, D.; Duncan, T. M.; Moody, K. J.; Wolfe, A. J.; Cosgrove, M. S.; Movileanu, L. Kinetics of the multitasking high-affinity Win binding site of WDR5 in restricted and unrestricted conditions. Biochem. J. 2021, 478, 21452161,  DOI: 10.1042/BCJ20210253
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpclett.2c00621.

    • Peptide synthesis, purification, and analysis, protein expression and purification, biolayer interferometry, surface plasmon resonance, examples of BLI sensorgrams, determinations of the kinetic and equilibrium constants, scatter plots of the association rate constants versus the dissociation rate constants, examples of SPR sensorgrams, 3D plots and contour maps of the association and dissociation rate constants, supporting references (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.