Skip to main content
NCBI home page
ACS AuthorChoice logoLink to ACS AuthorChoice
. 2025 Apr 8;26(5):3128–3138. doi: 10.1021/acs.biomac.5c00176

Polymeric Properties of Telomeric G-Quadruplex Multimers: Effects of Chemically Inert Crowders

Deniz Mostarac †,*, Mattia Trapella ‡, Luca Bertini ‡, Lucia Comez §, Alessandro Paciaroni ‡, Cristiano De Michele †
PMCID: PMC12076513  PMID: 40199738

Abstract

graphic file with name bm5c00176_0007.jpg

G-quadruplexes are noncanonical DNA structures rather ubiquitous in the human genome, which are thought to play a crucial role in the development of the majority of cancers. Here, we present a novel coarse-grained approach in modeling G-quadruplexes that accounts for their structural flexibility. We apply it to study the polymeric properties of G-quadruplex multimers, with and without crowder molecules, to mimic in vivo conditions. We find that, contrary to some suggestions found in the literature, long G-quadruplex multimers are rather flexible polymeric macromolecules, with a local persistence length comparable to monomer size, exhibiting a chain stiffness variation profile consistent with a real polymer in good solvent. Moreover, in a crowded environment (up to 10% volume fraction), we report that G-quadruplex multimers exhibit an increased propensity for coiling, with a corresponding decrease in the measured chain stiffness.

Introduction

G-quadruplexes (G4s) are noncanonical DNA conformations, formed by guanine-rich oligonucleotides. Structurally, a G4 consists of an array of quasi-planar tetrads of guanine tracts (G-tetrads). G4s are polymorphic structures1−14 with three main topologies15−17 (parallel, antiparallel, and hybrid), long folding time scales, and a range of long-living, quasi-stable topologies that commonly coexist in solution.18−25 Note that, while the references summarized in the previous statement refer mainly to telomeric G4, the characteristics described therein are not telomeric-G4-specific. An example of the structure of G4 is given in Figure 1. The morphology of G4s is largely achieved via a network of Hoogsteen-type hydrogen bonds, pi-stacking interactions, and coordinating cations,26,27 and is contingent on environmental factors such as the cation type and concentration, molecular crowding, and dehydration conditions.28−33 Sequences capable of forming G4s are abundant in the genomes of higher eukaryotes,34−36 and particularly concentrated in telomeric regions, constituting up to 25% of all DNA G4s.27 Biological role(s) of G4 DNA and its metabolizing enzymes (e.g., helicases) in DNA transcription and genomic stability are not fully understood. G4s have been observed in vivo,37−40 and are believed to play a role in regulating transcription, translation, DNA replication, RNA localization, and various other crucial biological functions.41−43 G4s have received considerable attention as targets for drug design.44−47 They have been shown to inhibit telomerase and HIV integrase.48 There is a potential for specific G4-stabilizing compounds to be utilized as anticancer or antiviral medications.49−54 Moreover, G4s have been extensively explored as promising building blocks in synthetic biology and nanotechnology.55,56

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Stylized and simplified (lower right) structure of a folded conformation of the Tel22 sequence (Protein Data Bank entry 1KF14), with the so-called, parallel topology. The gray wireframe outlines Guanine nucleotides (other nucleotides not shown). Four in-plane Guanine nucleotides linked by Hoogsteen hydrogen bonds (not shown) constitute a G-tetrad (highlighted in red). The scaffold (and lines in the simplified view) highlighted in pink outlines the G4 monomer (sugar–phosphate) backbone. Monovalent K+ ions are depicted as black spheres. Arrows in the simplified structure view indicate the strand polarity of the backbone.

While much of the research on G4s has concentrated on their monomeric state, telomeric sequences have the potential to form higher-order multimeric structures with a variable number/arrangement of G4 units,57 with distinct biological roles and special interest as potential drug targets.58,59 The stacking interfaces between G4s could be viewed as binding grooves, valuable for drug targeting. Given that single-stranded telomeric overhang length ranges from 50 to ≈600 nucleotides,60,61 with a conservative estimate of the number of nucleotides needed for a G4 to form being ≈25, it is not surprising that G4 multimers form.62 G4 multimers tend to form in biological environments that are densely packed with various biomolecules.63 It has been reported that crowder molecules (CMs) tend to stabilize G4s and support the formation of multimers.33,64,65 However, how exactly they affect the dynamics of G4 formation is not well understood.

There is some disagreement about the telomeric G4 multimer formation in solution. Some literature reports G4 multimers that are describable as beads-on-a-string, with a maximal number of G4 for a given sequence.66−70 Others propose a more rigid backbone, where G4 multimers adopt compact, rod-like structures via stacking interactions.71−73 Some publications report highly flexible arrangements with large gaps occurring between G4s.74−76 Consequently, there is currently no clear view on the flexibility of G4 multimers. This is a crucial question to answer, as flexibility relates to the functions of biopolymers,77−80 and needs to be quantified in order to scrutinize any physical quantities that change according to the distance from the object of interest (i.e., counterion concentration and distribution for poly electrolyte chains).81 This is especially relevant for G4 multimers, as the complex interplay with crowding molecules and ligands could strongly affect multimer flexibility.58,82,83

There is little structural information on multimeric G4s, as X-ray crystallography and/or Nuclear Magnetic Resonance spectroscopy studies have been struggling to deal with longer nucleic acid sequences.62 Despite the recent advancements in small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) experiments, the interpretation of data necessitates the use of complex ab initio space-filling models or atomistic simulations.84−103 The extreme computational cost, system size, and time scale restrictions inherent to atomistic simulations limit their utility in the study of G4 multimers. Furthermore, strength of stacking interactions between G4s, which is crucial to determine G4 multimers’ conformation, is not well reproduced by current atomistic force fields.104−106 Coarse-grained (CG) simulations are a way to reach where atomistic simulations cannot be directly applied. Note that SAXS is not the only method for probing structural information on multimeric structures. Photon Correlation Spectroscopy and Dynamic Light Scattering can, in principle, also provide valuable insights into quadruplex dimensions and their behavior in solution.107−111

Recently, using hard cylinder Monte Carlo simulations, we enabled the direct interpretation of in vitro SAXS experiments on the self-assembly of Tel22 (d(TTAGGG)3)) and Tel72 (d(TTAGGG)12) multimers, with and without ligands (TMPyP4 porphyrin and BRACO-19, respectively).112 However, this approach cannot be used to scrutinize phenomenology where resolving the structural features of G4s is necessary (length scale less than a few nanometers). Here, we present a CG model of G4 mono- and multimers, validated against in vitro experimental data from Monsen et al.84 For an in-depth discussion of the experimental systems, we refer the reader to their exhaustive analysis. We perform long-time scale, bulk Molecular Dynamics113 (MD) simulations of G4 multimers, M × G4, where M denotes the number of monomers and M ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 15, 20}. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to simulate long G4 multimers and the first to investigate their behavior in both crowded and uncrowded environments. Using a novel CG model, we characterize the polymeric properties of G4 multimers in a general way, within the framework of real polymer theory. In this work, we provide new insights, set expectations, and lay a theoretical foundation for future in vitro studies of long G4 multimers.

Methodology

Modeling Details

An annotated depiction of our CG model of a G4 multimer can be seen in Figure 2. The baseline structure in our simulations is the G-tetrad, modeled as a 5 × 5 grid of equidistant spheres (see Figure 2 Panel B). The excluded volume of a sphere with a characteristic diameter σ is realized via the Weeks–Chandler–Andersen (WCA) potential:115

graphic file with name bm5c00176_m001.jpg 1

where ULJ(r) is the conventional Lennard-Jones potential:

graphic file with name bm5c00176_m002.jpg 2

where the cutoff value is rcut = 21/6σ. The parameter ϵ defines the interaction strength (relative to the energy scale). Only the center-of-mass (CoM) particle (black spheres in Figure 2 Panel A) in each G-tetrad is propagated using the equations of motion (eqs 4 and 5, respectively). The rest of the spherical particles outlining the G-tetrad are virtual (gray spheres in Figure 2), meaning that they have a fixed position with respect to the CoM particle, which incidentally is the only particle that carries mass. Note that the frictional coupling is set accordingly. The moment of inertia tensor of all CoM particles is modified to account for the halo of virtual sites outlining the G-tetrad shape.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Panel A: Simulation render of a G4 trimer, consisting from permanently bonded G4 monomers, joined by pairwise hinged interfaces and stacking interactions. The CoM particles are colored black. Particles outlining a G-tetrad (see panel B) and the links between adjacent G-tetrads and/or the neighboring G4 monomers are colored gray. The central attraction between the CoM particles on the outer G-tetrads (i.e., stacking interaction between G4 monomers) are depicted as transparent yellow spheres. Relative sizes and distances correspond to the interaction minima. Panel B: Qualitative superposition of the CG model of a G4 monomer and a G4 monomer folded from a Tel22 sequence (Protein Data Bank entry 1KF14). Visualizations made using the VMD molecular visualization program.114

A G4 monomer consists of three G-tetrads, linked together via finitely extensible, nonlinear elastic (FENE) bonds:116

graphic file with name bm5c00176_m003.jpg 3

where K is the rigidity of the bond, Δrmax is the maximal stretching length and r0 is the equilibrium bond length. Specifically, the corner particles in adjacent G-tetrads are linked. Making multimeric structures out of G4 monomers is achieved by introducing FENE linkers between a randomly chosen pair of corner particles on adjacent G-tetrads of neighboring G4 monomers. In order to mimic the stacking interactions between monomers,112 the center-of-mass (CoM) particles of the outer G-tetrads exhibit a central attraction, realized via Lennard-Jones interaction potential. The Lennard-Jones interaction (eq 2), used to mimic the stacking interactions between monomers, is a good representation of the affinity monomers might have for the solvent and/or each other, and is often used in computational studies for this purpose.117 Tuning the stacking interaction is a simple but effective way to mimic the solvent in experiments, as long as one is exclusively interested in equilibrium properties. The CoM particles within the same G4 do not have a central attraction between them.

This model is designed to minimize complexity (i.e., the number of tunable parameters) and to enable scalable, efficient simulations of G4 systems. It also reflects a particular perspective on the structure of a G4. Consider a single telomeric G4 monomer, folded from an AG3(T2AG3)3118 or 2JSL sequence.84 In physiological conditions, such a monomer consists of three G-tetrads that contain two K+ or three Na+ stabilizing cations. In fact, most of the structural stability of a G4 monomer comes from the electrostatic interaction (in this context, the hydrogen bonds are also electrostatic interactions) between the G-tetrads and the ions within the G4.66,70,72 Given that the electrostatic interactions within the G4 are effectively short-ranged due to evident interaction screening, we take the view that a G-tetrad can be represented as a purely topological, steric hindrance, firmly coupled to a monovalent ion. Since the G-tetrads in a G4 monomer are linked via short but elastic liners, whereas the intermonomer links are comparable to the average intertetrad links, the overall structure is rather soft.

We validate our model and its corresponding parameter choices by comparing the simulated results with the experimental ones reported by Monsen et al.84 Specifically, we reference the experimental SAXS data for the 2JSL, Tel48, Tel72, and Tel96 sequences reported in their study. In our simulations, these sequences correspond to M × G4 multimers, where M ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4}, respectively.

Simulation Method

We perform MD simulations using the ESPResSo software package.119 The carrier fluid was represented implicitly, via the Langevin thermostat at fixed temperature T.113 In practice, it means that the Langevin equations of motion are integrated over time t numerically:

graphic file with name bm5c00176_m004.jpg 4
graphic file with name bm5c00176_m005.jpg 5

where for the i-th particle in eq 4, Mi is, in general, a rank two mass tensor, that in our case of isotropic monomers reduces to a scalar, F⃗i is the force acting on the particle, ν⃗i denotes the translational velocity. ΓTl denotes the translational friction tensor that once again in our particular case reduces to one scalar friction coefficient. Finally, ξ⃗Tli is a stochastic force, modeling the thermal fluctuations of the implicit solvent. Similarly, in eq 5, Ii denotes i-th particle inertia tensor (scalar for a homogeneous sphere), τ⃗i is torque acting on it, ω⃗i is particle rotational velocity. As for the translation, ΓR denotes the rotational friction tensor that reduces to a scalar for our monomers, and the ξ⃗Ri is a stochastic torque serving the same purpose as ξ⃗Tli. Both stochastic terms satisfy the conditions on their time averages:120

graphic file with name bm5c00176_m006.jpg 6
graphic file with name bm5c00176_m007.jpg

where k, l = x, y, z.

Forces and torques in eqs 4 and 5 are calculated from interparticle interaction potentials. Each simulation box contained 6000 G-tetrads, which combine into 6000/(3M) multimers. Simulations were performed at a fixed concentration of C = 0.6 mM without CMs or C = 5 mM with CMs. We used periodic boundary conditions and a cubic simulation box to approximate infinite systems and extract bulk properties at equilibrium. For the integration, the velocity Verlet algorithm was used,121 with a time step of 0.01 in simulation units (SU; see the Simulation Units and Mapping to Physical Parameters section for more details on the simulation units). In all cases, the initial configurations were generated so that both the positions and orientations of the largest predefined structures are appropriately randomized. We ensure that the system relaxes into an equilibrium configuration by running an integration cycle for 2 × 106 integration steps. To obtain statistically significant results, we present averages over 100 uncorrelated data sets (10 simulation snapshots separated by 1 × 105 integration steps, across 10 independent simulation runs). The snapshot separation was determined as the number of subsequent snapshots necessary for the position autocorrelation function to decay to zero. Based on this, we (randomly) subsampled our data to obtain uncorrelated data sets.

Simulation Units and Mapping to Physical Parameters

In this subsection, we give a detailed overview of the units used in our simulations. We did not attempt to fit the parameters to match the scattering data for the specific experimental systems studied in Monsen et al.84 Instead, our interaction strength and parameter choices were informed by the parameter space explored in Rosi et al.,112 which studied different telomeric sequences, as a proof of the robustness of our parameter choices. The same parameters were used regardless of sequence/monomer number. We chose the time scale and length scale in our MD simulations to be [t] = 1 × 10–9 s and [x] = 0.4 nm, respectively. Note that the length scale corresponds to σ = 1 SU, which is the diameter of a single particle in the 5 × 5 grid of particles outlining a G-tetrad, in simulation units. The energy scale in the simulations is set to room temperature, T = 298.15 K, which corresponds to the Langevin thermostat temperature of kBT = 1 SU and steric repulsion strength ϵWCA = 1 SU. The central attraction strength has been set to ϵLJ = 5 SU. The above-stated parameter choices uniquely define a mass scale. It is, however, completely arbitrary as far as the scope of this work is concerned. The factor K of the potential in eq 3 is set to K = 10 SU. The equilibrium distance for FENE bonds is r0 = 2σ, and their maximum extension is Δrmax = 1.5r0. With these parameters, the aspect ratio of a CG G4 monomer in our simulations (the ratio of the longest, i.e., principal, to the shortest component of the gyration tensor, given in eq 9) aligns with the experimental aspect ratio of a G4 monomer folded from a Tel22 sequence, as reported in Libera et al.118 The experimental aspect ratio was determined by fitting the form factor of the monomer to that of a cylinder (the ratio of the cylinder height to the diameter of its base).

Results and Discussion

Studying the profiles from SAXS measurements is a powerful way to characterize the structure of biological macromolecules such as G4 multimers. In addition to the structural information, scattering intensities are a way to experimentally access the structure factor, and by proxy, the pair-correlation function of the system. The pair-correlation function captures thermodynamic information about a given system and can, for example, be used to calculate the expectation value of observables, or even write the equation of state of a given system.122,123 On the other hand, the structure factor can be calculated directly from simulated data using

graphic file with name bm5c00176_m008.jpg 7

where q is the scattering wavevector, N is the total number of particles and ri is the position of the i-th particle. The crucial links are that the scattering intensity I(q) ∝ S(q) and that the S(q) is a Fourier transform of the pair-correlation function. So if an S(q) calculated from the simulated data of a CG model reproduces the experimental I(q) (up to a scaling factor), the CG model will reproduce the corresponding thermodynamic properties of the experimental system. Here, it is important to underline the implicit assumption that light-particle interaction effects present in experimental SAXS experiments, typically encompassed as a part of a measured form factor, do not warrant a special treatment here. In the low to intermediate q range, the I(q) is dominated by the pure S(q) signal, whereas, in the high-q range, the I(q) signal is noisy and does not convey useful information. Therefore, comparing experimental I(q) data with simulated S(q) is justified and can be used to validate the model. This is also why from this point onward, we refer to simulated S(q) as a simulated scattering intensity (in other words, from this point on, I(q) and S(q) are treated as equivalent). Scattering intensities from simulations were calculated using the espressoSq library.124 For more detail, see the Supporting Information.

In Figure 3, we are superimposing experimental and simulated I(q), denoted as Iexp(q) and Isim(q), respectively, where one can see that our CG model captures the experimentally measured SAXS profiles very well, with a mean relative error Inline graphic for all sequences. This validates the CG model and positions it as a viable tool to study the equilibrium properties of G4 multimers. Here, it is important to note that, while the parameter set we used is not unique, it is fairly robust and by no means arbitrary. For example, if the strength of the stacking interaction relative to thermal fluctuations were too high, the I(q) would be overestimated in the low-q region (see Rosi et al.112). Moreover, if the flexibility of a G4 monomer were not captured correctly, or if the design of the (short) hinged interface were not representative of the experimental system, the intermediate-q curvature and/or slope would be incorrect. Similarly, if our model did not capture the dimensions and/or G4s, we would see features contradicting the experimental data in the high-q range.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Comparison of scattering intensity I(q) between in vitro G4 multimers from Monsen et al.84 and CG simulations. The color coding, the relative error in Rg from Guinier analysis, ΔRg (see Supporting Information for details about the fitting procedure and parameters) and the mean relative error between experimental and simulated I(q), Inline graphic are shown in the legend. Error bars represent the standard deviation of simulated data.

In Monsen et al.,84 it is stated that the studied sequences fold into multimers with the maximum possible G4 monomer number. We assume that, for a given sequence, the corresponding CG G4 multimer has a fixed G4 monomer number, equal to the maximum possible G4 monomer number for that sequence. Furthermore, all G4 multimers in a given simulation are assumed to have the same G4 monomer number. Therefore, our data corroborates that differences in the curvature of the intermediate- to high-q range can be entirely attributed to increasing monomer numbers across the samples.

Experimental I(q) data on polymer-like structures is typically used to extract polymeric properties of the systems studied, such as the radius of gyration Rg.125 Formally, the (mass-independent) radius of gyration is defined as

graphic file with name bm5c00176_m010.jpg 8

where λ1 > λ2 > λ3 are the eigenvalues of the gyration tensor:

graphic file with name bm5c00176_m011.jpg 9

where ri,μ and rcm,μ are the μth Cartesian components of the position of the i-th particle and the center of mass, respectively. The summation is carried over all N particles. Rg can be extracted from scattering experiments using the well-known Guinier’s approximation.126 Namely, in the low-q range, the scattering intensity I(q) can be approximated as

graphic file with name bm5c00176_m012.jpg 10

We calculated the Rg using the Guinier approach for both simulated and experimental data (Rsimg and Rexpg, respectively), finding a very good match with a relative error ΔRg = |Rsimg – Rexpg|/Rexpg ≲ 5%. The Guinier approach relies on various assumptions about the experimental system and involves rather sensitive fitting. On the other hand, eq 8 can be used directly on the simulated data, which is, in our opinion, a transparent and preferable method to measure Rg for the experimental system since our model fits the entire I(q), instead of just the Guinier region, which is a fraction of scattering data. To qualify this distinction, we define the relative error δRg = |Rguinierg – Rdirectg|/Rdirectg to estimate the difference in simulated Rg if estimated from Guinier analysis (Rguinierg, which is equivalent to Rsimg used above) or using eq 8 (Rdirectg). As can be seen in Table 1, δRg indicates that there can be up to a 8% discrepancy in measured Rg depending on the measurement approach. This highlights the role of scalable, CG models, such as the one presented here, as tools where a reduced set of fit parameters (reduced complexity) can be tuned to match experimental measurements and, through that, enable further insights.

Table 1. Percent Difference in Measured Radius of Gyration, δRg, Based on Measurement Approach, Where We Used Either Guinier Analysis or Direct Analysis UsingEq 8.

  1 × G4 2 × G4 3 × G4 4 × G4
δRg [%] 2.9377 4.1977 8.5696 6.0594
Open in a new tab

Having established the validity of our CG model, we proceed to study long G4 multimers, which are beyond the scope of current experimental and/or atomistic simulation studies. In Figure 4, we show simulated I(q) profiles for long M × G4 multimers, where M ∈ {4, 10, 15, 20}. Looking at Figure 4 one notes the formation of two linear regions, in the low and the intermediate-q range, respectively. In the low-q range, we see the asymptotic approach to a maximal I(q) height with increasing G4 monomer number. Furthermore, the scattering profiles for 15 × G4 and 20 × G4 multimers do not approach the y-axis completely horizontally in the low-q range, which signals interparticle interactions and repulsion.125 Both of these points are consistent with an image of a flexible, coiling polymer. The slope of the I(q) linear region in the intermediate-q range can be related with the distribution of bond vectors in a polymeric sample, where it is known that a slope of −2 corresponds to ideal polymer statistics.127,128 The slope we extract, however, hints that there are nontrivial intermonomer correlations along the polymeric backbone.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Simulated scattering intensities I(q) for M × G4 multimers where M ∈ {4, 10, 15, 20}. The intermediate-q slope was fitted using f(q) = a + bq, with b = – 1.82 ± 0.01. Data without CMs are shown with squares, with C = 0.6 mM. Simulations with CMs (C = 5 mM) are shown with dotted lines, interpolated for clarity. The inset shows the percentage difference in scattering intensity, ΔI(q), between simulations with and without CMs, with linear-log axes. Color coding is explained in the legend. Color-matched halos and error bars represent standard deviation for the data with and without CMs, respectively.

To study the effect of excluded volume in a crowded environment on the properties of G4 multimers, we simulated M × G4 multimers where M ∈ {4, 10, 15, 20} at 1 and 10% volume fractions of CMs. The CMs are represented as WCA spheres with diameter σcrowder = 6 SU; for comparison, a sphere circumscribed around a single G4 monomer would have a diameter of approximately 8.5σ. This simulation setup is designed to set expectations for in vitro studies of crowded G4 multimers in a good solvent, where, for example, long PEG molecules are typically used.64 However, it is important to note that we take the view that CMs are, by definition, inert to the species of interest (G4 multimers) and exhibit only excluded volume interactions. Taking PEG as an example, while it is considered biologically inert, it has been reported not to act as a pure crowding agent and has been described as a poor mimic of the intranuclear environment.129 Therefore, one must keep in mind that the term CM is often used for a broader set of molecules than would fit the aforementioned definition. The underlying assumption in such studies—that the most prominent effect of typical molecules used in vitro to mimic crowded environments is steric—is reasonable. However, it is important to remember that CMs in this broader sense can also bind to G4, form complexes with the monovalent ions stabilizing G4, and significantly affect the folding/unfolding dynamics of the sequences. Moreover, different in vitro-used CMs can facilitate the formation of particular G4 conformations. Thus, if one deviates from the strict definition of what constitutes a CM presented above, one should account for electrostatic interactions and, more generally, consider that sequences capable of forming G4 behave as polyelectrolytes.

Looking at Figure 4, where we also provide the scattering profiles for 4 × G4, 10 × G4 and 20 × G4 multimers with the CMs at volume fraction ϕ = 10%, we can see that the presence of crowding molecules reduces the I(q) in the low-q region, with a correspondingly increased variance. As seen in the inset of Figure 4, the noted reduction in I(q) is statistically significant and can be attributed to the increased coiling propensity of G4 multimers in a crowded environment. We expect this effect would be enhanced in human cells – where the volume fraction of CMs is estimated to be around 30–40%.130

The in vitro G4 multimers discussed in Monsen et al.84 are reported as semiflexible polymers, consistent with rigid G4 units linked by hinged interfaces. Similar reports (and contradictory ones) can be found across the literature summarized above, where Rg as a function of monomer numbers is fitted with a random Gaussian coil and/or the Worm-like chain model to estimate persistence length Lp. These models are known to reproduce the stiffness of canonical duplex DNA.131 While such an analysis is certainly useful, it is not sufficient to characterize the flexibility of G4 long multimers. Flexibility of macromolecules is commonly characterized using the notion of persistence length.132 Classically, Lidp is calculated from the decay of the autocorrelation function between vectors a⃗k connecting each pair k of neighboring monomers along the backbone, separated by Nb bond vectors:

graphic file with name bm5c00176_m013.jpg 11

where a bond vector is defined as the center-of-mass distance between a pair of adjacent monomers and Lb is the average bond vector length. For real polymers, this is not the case, as nontrivial excluded volume correlations persist throughout the polymeric backbone, and exhibit a power law decorrelation profile.133 More generally, persistence length is a chain property that can, within real polymer theory, vary substantially along the chain backbone. Schäfer and Elsner134 have shown that, to a very good approximation:

graphic file with name bm5c00176_m014.jpg 12

where Re is the end-to-end distance vector.

Looking at Figure 5, we can see how well the classic notion Lidp can be applied in the context of G4 multimers. The C(Nb) corresponds to the expected exponential decay only for 10 × G4 multimers. For longer multimers (15 × G4 and 20 × G4), we observe the onset of a power law decay, characteristic of real polymers. It is important to note that the M × G4 multimers we studied are short from the perspective of polymer physics scaling theories.135 Since deviations start being notable only for small correlations C(Nb) ≈ 0.05, we can use Lidp as a monomer number independent estimate of the stiffness of G4 multimers. We obtain Lidp = 3.54 ± 0.15 nm, which is compatible with the values reported by Monsen et al.84 However, G4 multimers do not follow ideal polymer statistics. While Lidp is a useful relative quantity,136,137 it is not strictly correct to apply it to G4 multimers. Looking at Figure 6, we can see the Lrep fits to our simulated data on 10 × G4, 15 × G4 and 20 × G4 well. This elucidates key properties to be expected from long G4 multimers, which is that, as is characteristic of real polymers, chain stiffness varies within a G4 multimer, well captured by the concave shape of eq 12. The Lrep and Lidp (monomer number independent) values we measured are compatible. Consistent with what we have observed in Figure 4, the presence of CMs systematically decreases the Lp. Obtaining a measure of Lrep that is M independent is not feasible as it is necessary to consider much larger monomer numbers to make such an estimate sensible.133 The matter is further complicated by the fact that it is highly unlikely for G4 multimers with a higher monomer number than we have studied here to form.61,138 Having said that, the analysis we present here is sufficient to show that, in the in vitro conditions reported in Monsen et al.,84 the scaling exponent is close to the expected value for a real polymer in a good solvent.132 Our results support a view where stacking interactions between the monomers in a G4 multimer are weak. In this case, provided the short hinged interfaces between the monomers, it is clear that G4 monomers bend and twist away from each other to maximize entropy, in which case the steric hindrance coming from the monomer shape is not relevant. Preventing neighboring G4 monomers to twist away from each other will require significant solvent induced hydrophobic interactions, at which point G4 multimers would probably also start to aggregate.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Bond correlation function C(Nb). Data with (10% volume fraction) and without CMs is shown with circles and squares, respectively. Fits of eq 11 are shown as dash-dotted (with CMs) and dashed lines (without CMs). The color coding and the extracted Lp values (Lidp in eq 11, given in nm) are provided in the legend. The y-axis is logarithmic.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Persistence length Lp (Lrep in eq 12, given in nm). Data without CMs are shown with squares, and with 10% CM volume fraction with circles. Fits of eq 12 are shown as dashed (no CMs) and dotted lines (CMs), with color coding in the legend.

Conclusions

One of the most distinctive features of G4s is the quasi-cubic monomer shape. Even for soft systems, monomer shape reflects on to polymeric properties substantially, provided that both the translational and rotational degrees of freedom between the monomers are coupled and the average intermonomer distance is low.139 This is not the case for G4 multimers, which can exhibit polymeric properties in line with a flexible real polymer in a good solvent, at least as far as we can see from in vitro studies. It is interesting to consider that the fact that G4 multimers sit between single-strand DNA and duplex DNA in terms of flexibility,62 serves a functional purpose. It has been shown that ligands such as TMPyP4 porphyrin, broadly speaking, stack between G4 units118 (yellow terminals in Figure 2) and their action can be represented as an effective increase in stacking interaction strength.112 Moreover, this selective action provides a significant advantage in the use of G4 stabilizers as anticancer drugs.140,141 In light of the results we presented here it is clear that such ligands increase the stiffness of G4 structures, that are otherwise entirely flexible, especially in a crowded complex biological environment. Therefore, we suggest that the efficacy of anticancer G4 targeting ligands is closely related to the G4 multimer stiffness increase they cause. Hopefully, this work inspires further experimental studies to scrutinize this point and to further use CG models to study G4 systems, unlocking a variety of implicit and explicit solvent simulation studies that were previously not feasible. The CG model we present here specifically, can be used to investigate dynamics of G4 systems, which is something we are currently working on. In this respect, this model could be expanded to efficiently study the folding/unfolding pathways and aggregation kinetics of ligands and G4s.

Acknowledgments

All authors acknowledge financial support from European Union – Next Generation EU (MUR-PRIN2022 TAMeQUAD CUP:B53 D23004500006). Computer simulations were performed at the Vienna Scientific Cluster (VSC-5).

Supporting Information Available

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.biomac.5c00176.

  • Guinier analysis procedure; fitting parameters from the Guinier analysis are provided; radius of gyration extraction procedure and raw values are provided; details about structure factor calculation and technical detail are provided (PDF)

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Supplementary Material

bm5c00176_si_001.pdf (153KB, pdf)

References

  1. Lim K. W.; Amrane S.; Bouaziz S.; Xu W.; Mu Y.; Patel D. J.; Luu K. N.; Phan A. T. Structure of the human telomere in K+ solution: a stable basket-type G-quadruplex with only two G-tetrad layers. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 4301–4309. 10.1021/ja807503g. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Lim K. W.; Ng V. C. M.; Martín-Pintado N.; Heddi B.; Phan A. T. Structure of the human telomere in Na+ solution: an antiparallel (2+ 2) G-quadruplex scaffold reveals additional diversity. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013, 41, 10556–10562. 10.1093/nar/gkt771. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Wang Y.; Patel D. J. Solution structure of the human telomeric repeat d [AG3 (T2AG3) 3] G-tetraplex. Structure 1993, 1, 263–282. 10.1016/0969-2126(93)90015-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Parkinson G. N.; Lee M. P.; Neidle S. Crystal structure of parallel quadruplexes from human telomeric DNA. Nature 2002, 417, 876–880. 10.1038/nature755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ambrus A.; Chen D.; Dai J.; Bialis T.; Jones R. A.; Yang D. Human telomeric sequence forms a hybrid-type intramolecular G-quadruplex structure with mixed parallel/antiparallel strands in potassium solution. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34, 2723–2735. 10.1093/nar/gkl348. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dai J.; Carver M.; Punchihewa C.; Jones R. A.; Yang D. Structure of the Hybrid-2 type intramolecular human telomeric G-quadruplex in K+ solution: insights into structure polymorphism of the human telomeric sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007, 35, 4927–4940. 10.1093/nar/gkm522. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dai J.; Punchihewa C.; Ambrus A.; Chen D.; Jones R. A.; Yang D. Structure of the intramolecular human telomeric G-quadruplex in potassium solution: a novel adenine triple formation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007, 35, 2440–2450. 10.1093/nar/gkm009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Luu K. N.; Phan A. T.; Kuryavyi V.; Lacroix L.; Patel D. J. Structure of the human telomere in K+ solution: an intramolecular (3+ 1) G-quadruplex scaffold. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 9963–9970. 10.1021/ja062791w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Phan A. T.; Kuryavyi V.; Luu K. N.; Patel D. J. Structure of two intramolecular G-quadruplexes formed by natural human telomere sequences in K+ solution. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007, 35, 6517–6525. 10.1093/nar/gkm706. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Zhang Z.; Dai J.; Veliath E.; Jones R. A.; Yang D. Structure of a two-G-tetrad intramolecular G-quadruplex formed by a variant human telomeric sequence in K+ solution: insights into the interconversion of human telomeric G-quadruplex structures. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010, 38, 1009–1021. 10.1093/nar/gkp1029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Phan A. T.; Luu K. N.; Patel D. J. Different loop arrangements of intramolecular human telomeric (3+ 1) G-quadruplexes in K+ solution. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34, 5715–5719. 10.1093/nar/gkl726. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Li J.; Correia J. J.; Wang L.; Trent J. O.; Chaires J. B. Not so crystal clear: the structure of the human telomere G-quadruplex in solution differs from that present in a crystal. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005, 33, 4649–4659. 10.1093/nar/gki782. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dai J.; Carver M.; Yang D. Polymorphism of human telomeric quadruplex structures. Biochimie 2008, 90, 1172–1183. 10.1016/j.biochi.2008.02.026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Obara P.; Wolski P.; Pańczyk T. Insights into the Molecular Structure, Stability, and Biological Significance of Non-Canonical DNA Forms, with a Focus on G-Quadruplexes and i-Motifs. Molecules 2024, 29, 4683. 10.3390/molecules29194683. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Webba da Silva M. Geometric formalism for DNA quadruplex folding. Chem. - Eur. J. 2007, 13, 9738–9745. 10.1002/chem.200701255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Neidle S.; Parkinson G. N. The structure of telomeric DNA. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2003, 13, 275–283. 10.1016/S0959-440X(03)00072-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Karsisiotis A. I.; Hessari N. M.; Novellino E.; Spada G. P.; Randazzo A.; da Silva M. W. Topological characterization of nucleic acid G-quadruplexes by UV absorption and circular dichroism. Angew. Chem. 2011, 123, 10833–10836. 10.1002/ange.201105193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Long X.; Stone M. D. Kinetic partitioning modulates human telomere DNA G-quadruplex structural polymorphism. PLoS One 2013, 8, e83420 10.1371/journal.pone.0083420. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gray R. D.; Trent J. O.; Chaires J. B. Folding and unfolding pathways of the human telomeric G-quadruplex. J. Mol. Biol. 2014, 426, 1629–1650. 10.1016/j.jmb.2014.01.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. You H.; Zeng X.; Xu Y.; Lim C. J.; Efremov A. K.; Phan A. T.; Yan J. Dynamics and stability of polymorphic human telomeric G-quadruplex under tension. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014, 42, 8789–8795. 10.1093/nar/gku581. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Bessi I.; Jonker H. R.; Richter C.; Schwalbe H. Involvement of long-lived intermediate states in the complex folding pathway of the human telomeric G-quadruplex. Angew. Chem. 2015, 127, 8564–8568. 10.1002/ange.201502286. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Armstrong R. E.; Riskowski R. A.; Strouse G. F. Nanometal surface energy transfer optical ruler for measuring a human telomere structure. Photochem. Photobiol. 2015, 91, 732–738. 10.1111/php.12423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Xue Y.; Liu J.-q.; Zheng K.-w.; Kan Z.-y.; Hao Y.-h.; Tan Z. Kinetic and thermodynamic control of G-quadruplex folding. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2011, 50, 8046–8050. 10.1002/anie.201101759. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lannan F. M.; Mamajanov I.; Hud N. V. Human telomere sequence DNA in water-free and high-viscosity solvents: G-quadruplex folding governed by Kramers rate theory. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 15324–15330. 10.1021/ja303499m. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gabelica V. A pilgrim’s guide to G-quadruplex nucleic acid folding. Biochimie 2014, 105, 1–3. 10.1016/j.biochi.2014.08.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lane A. N.; Chaires J. B.; Gray R. D.; Trent J. O. Stability and kinetics of G-quadruplex structures. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008, 36, 5482–5515. 10.1093/nar/gkn517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Biffi G.; Tannahill D.; McCafferty J.; Balasubramanian S. Quantitative visualization of DNA G-quadruplex structures in human cells. Nat. Chem. 2013, 5, 182–186. 10.1038/nchem.1548. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Huppert J. L. Structure, location and interactions of G-quadruplexes. FEBS J. 2010, 277, 3452–3458. 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2010.07758.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Phan A. T.; Kuryavyi V.; Patel D. J. DNA architecture: from G to Z. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2006, 16, 288–298. 10.1016/j.sbi.2006.05.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Víglaský V.; Tlučková K.; Bauer L. The first derivative of a function of circular dichroism spectra: biophysical study of human telomeric G-quadruplex. Eur. Biophys. J. 2011, 40, 29–37. 10.1007/s00249-010-0625-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Chaires J. B. Human telomeric G-quadruplex: thermodynamic and kinetic studies of telomeric quadruplex stability. FEBS J. 2010, 277, 1098–1106. 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2009.07462.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Smargiasso N.; Rosu F.; Hsia W.; Colson P.; Baker E. S.; Bowers M. T.; De Pauw E.; Gabelica V. G-quadruplex DNA assemblies: loop length, cation identity, and multimer formation. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 10208–10216. 10.1021/ja801535e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Heddi B.; Phan A. T. Structure of human telomeric DNA in crowded solution. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 9824–9833. 10.1021/ja200786q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Huppert J. L.; Balasubramanian S. Prevalence of quadruplexes in the human genome. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005, 33, 2908–2916. 10.1093/nar/gki609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Todd A. K.; Johnston M.; Neidle S. Highly prevalent putative quadruplex sequence motifs in human DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005, 33, 2901–2907. 10.1093/nar/gki553. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hänsel-Hertsch R.; Di Antonio M.; Balasubramanian S. DNA G-quadruplexes in the human genome: detection, functions and therapeutic potential. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2017, 18, 279–284. 10.1038/nrm.2017.3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Schaffitzel C.; Berger I.; Postberg J.; Hanes J.; Lipps H. J.; Plückthun A. In vitro generated antibodies specific for telomeric guanine-quadruplex DNA react with Stylonychia lemnae macronuclei. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2001, 98, 8572–8577. 10.1073/pnas.141229498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Henderson A.; Wu Y.; Huang Y. C.; Chavez E. A.; Platt J.; Johnson F. B.; Brosh R. M.; Sen D.; Lansdorp P. M. Detection of G-quadruplex DNA in mammalian cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014, 42, 860–869. 10.1093/nar/gkt957. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Bao H.-L.; Liu H.-s.; Xu Y. Hybrid-type and two-tetrad antiparallel telomere DNA G-quadruplex structures in living human cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019, 47, 4940–4947. 10.1093/nar/gkz276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lam E. Y. N.; Beraldi D.; Tannahill D.; Balasubramanian S. G-quadruplex structures are stable and detectable in human genomic DNA. Nat. Commun. 2013, 4, 1796 10.1038/ncomms2792. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Huppert J. L.; Balasubramanian S. G-quadruplexes in promoters throughout the human genome. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007, 35, 406–413. 10.1093/nar/gkl1057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Kendrick S.; Hurley L. H. The role of G-quadruplex/i-motif secondary structures as cis-acting regulatory elements. Pure Appl. Chem. 2010, 82, 1609–1621. 10.1351/PAC-CON-09-09-29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Rhodes D.; Lipps H. J. G-quadruplexes and their regulatory roles in biology. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015, 43, 8627–8637. 10.1093/nar/gkv862. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Bianchi F.; Comez L.; Biehl R.; D’Amico F.; Gessini A.; Longo M.; Masciovecchio C.; Petrillo C.; Radulescu A.; Rossi B.; et al. Structure of human telomere G-quadruplex in the presence of a model drug along the thermal unfolding pathway. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018, 46, 11927–11938. 10.1093/nar/gky1092. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Comez L.; Bianchi F.; Libera V.; Longo M.; Petrillo C.; Sacchetti F.; Sebastiani F.; D’Amico F.; Rossi B.; Gessini A.; et al. Polymorphism of human telomeric quadruplexes with drugs: A multi-technique biophysical study. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2020, 22, 11583–11592. 10.1039/D0CP01483D. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Sharma T.; Kundu N.; Kaur S.; Shankaraswamy J.; Saxena S. Why to target G-quadruplexes using peptides: Next-generation G4-interacting ligands. J. Pept. Sci. 2023, 29, e3491 10.1002/psc.3491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Basak S.; Biswas S.; Naskar J. Peptides and Peptide Derivatives as G-Quadruplex Targeting Ligands: A Brief Review. ChemistrySelect 2023, 8, e202302177 10.1002/slct.202302177. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Zahler A. M.; Williamson J. R.; Cech T. R.; Prescott D. M. Inhibition of telomerase by G-quartet DMA structures. Nature 1991, 350, 718–720. 10.1038/350718a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Tahara H.; Shin-Ya K.; Seimiya H.; Yamada H.; Tsuruo T.; Ide T. G-Quadruplex stabilization by telomestatin induces TRF2 protein dissociation from telomeres and anaphase bridge formation accompanied by loss of the 3 telomeric overhang in cancer cells. Oncogene 2006, 25, 1955–1966. 10.1038/sj.onc.1209217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhou G.; Liu X.; Li Y.; Xu S.; Ma C.; Wu X.; Cheng Y.; Yu Z.; Zhao G.; Chen Y. Telomere targeting with a novel G-quadruplex-interactive ligand BRACO-19 induces T-loop disassembly and telomerase displacement in human glioblastoma cells. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 14925 10.18632/oncotarget.7483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Neidle S. Human telomeric G-quadruplex: The current status of telomeric G-quadruplexes as therapeutic targets in human cancer. FEBS J. 2010, 277, 1118–1125. 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2009.07463.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Perrone R.; Butovskaya E.; Daelemans D.; Palu G.; Pannecouque C.; Richter S. N. Anti-HIV-1 activity of the G-quadruplex ligand BRACO-19. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2014, 69, 3248–3258. 10.1093/jac/dku280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Roxo C.; Pasternak A. Switching off cancer–An overview of G-quadruplex and i-motif functional role in oncogene expression. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2025, 116, 130038 10.1016/j.bmcl.2024.130038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Kosiol N.; Juranek S.; Brossart P.; Heine A.; Paeschke K. G-quadruplexes: a promising target for cancer therapy. Mol. Cancer 2021, 20, 40 10.1186/s12943-021-01328-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Yatsunyk L. A.; Mendoza O.; Mergny J.-L. “Nano-oddities”: unusual nucleic acid assemblies for DNA-based nanostructures and nanodevices. Acc. Chem. Res. 2014, 47, 1836–1844. 10.1021/ar500063x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Mergny J.-L.; Sen D. DNA quadruple helices in nanotechnology. Chem. Rev. 2019, 119, 6290–6325. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00629. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Kolesnikova S.; Curtis E. A. Structure and function of multimeric G-quadruplexes. Molecules 2019, 24, 3074. 10.3390/molecules24173074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Frasson I.; Pirota V.; Richter S. N.; Doria F. Multimeric G-quadruplexes: A review on their biological roles and targeting. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2022, 204, 89–102. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.01.197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Rigo R.; Groaz E.; Sissi C. Polymorphic and higher-order G-Quadruplexes as possible transcription regulators: Novel perspectives for future anticancer therapeutic applications. Pharmaceuticals 2022, 15, 373. 10.3390/ph15030373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. RK M. A highly conseved repetitive DNA sequence, (TTAGGG) n, present at the telomeres of human chromosomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1988, 85, 6622–6626. 10.1073/pnas.85.18.6622. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Wright W. E.; Tesmer V. M.; Huffman K. E.; Levene S. D.; Shay J. W. Normal human chromosomes have long G-rich telomeric overhangs at one end. Genes Dev. 1997, 11, 2801–2809. 10.1101/gad.11.21.2801. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Monsen R. C.; Trent J. O.; Chaires J. B. G-quadruplex DNA: a longer story. Acc. Chem. Res. 2022, 55, 3242–3252. 10.1021/acs.accounts.2c00519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Bajpai G.; Pavlov D. A.; Lorber D.; Volk T.; Safran S. Mesoscale phase separation of chromatin in the nucleus. Biophys. J. 2020, 118, 549a. 10.1016/j.bpj.2019.11.3001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Aznauryan M.; Birkedal V. Dynamics of G-Quadruplex Formation under Molecular Crowding. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2023, 14, 10354–10360. 10.1021/acs.jpclett.3c02453. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Gao C.; Mohamed H. I.; Deng J.; Umer M.; Anwar N.; Chen J.; Wu Q.; Wang Z.; He Y. Effects of Molecular Crowding on the Structure, Stability, and Interaction with Ligands of G-quadruplexes. ACS Omega 2023, 8, 14342–14348. 10.1021/acsomega.3c01169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Yu H.-Q.; Miyoshi D.; Sugimoto N. Characterization of structure and stability of long telomeric DNA G-quadruplexes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 15461–15468. 10.1021/ja064536h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Renčiuk D.; Kejnovská I.; Školáková P.; Bednářová K.; Motlová J.; Vorlíčková M. Arrangements of human telomere DNA quadruplex in physiologically relevant K+ solutions. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37, 6625–6634. 10.1093/nar/gkp701. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Xu Y.; Ishizuka T.; Kurabayashi K.; Komiyama M. Consecutive formation of G-quadruplexes in human telomeric-overhang DNA: a protective capping structure for telomere ends. Angew. Chem. 2009, 121, 7973–7976. 10.1002/ange.200903858. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Abraham Punnoose J.; Cui Y.; Koirala D.; Yangyuoru P. M.; Ghimire C.; Shrestha P.; Mao H. Interaction of G-quadruplexes in the full-length 3 human telomeric overhang. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 18062–18069. 10.1021/ja510079u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Bugaut A.; Alberti P. Understanding the stability of DNA G-quadruplex units in long human telomeric strands. Biochimie 2015, 113, 125–133. 10.1016/j.biochi.2015.04.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Petraccone L.; Garbett N. C.; Chaires J. B.; Trent J. O. An integrated molecular dynamics (MD) and experimental study of higher order human telomeric quadruplexes. Biopolymers 2010, 93, 533–548. 10.1002/bip.21392. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Petraccone L.; Spink C.; Trent J. O.; Garbett N. C.; Mekmaysy C. S.; Giancola C.; Chaires J. B. Structure and stability of higher-order human telomeric quadruplexes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 20951–20961. 10.1021/ja209192a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Chaires J. B.; Dean W. L.; Le H. T.; Trent J. O.. Methods in enzymology; Elsevier, 2015; Vol. 562, pp 287–304. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Wang H.; Nora G. J.; Ghodke H.; Opresko P. L. Single molecule studies of physiologically relevant telomeric tails reveal POT1 mechanism for promoting G-quadruplex unfolding. J. Biol. Chem. 2011, 286, 7479–7489. 10.1074/jbc.M110.205641. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Kar A.; Jones N.; Arat N. Ö.; Fishel R.; Griffith J. D. Long repeating (TTAGGG) n single-stranded DNA self-condenses into compact beaded filaments stabilized by G-quadruplex formation. J. Biol. Chem. 2018, 293, 9473–9485. 10.1074/jbc.RA118.002158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Abraham Punnoose J.; Ma Y.; Hoque M. E.; Cui Y.; Sasaki S.; Guo A. H.; Nagasawa K.; Mao H. Random formation of G-quadruplexes in the full-length human telomere overhangs leads to a kinetic folding pattern with targetable vacant G-tracts. Biochemistry 2018, 57, 6946–6955. 10.1021/acs.biochem.8b00957. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Henzler-Wildman K.; Kern D. Dynamic personalities of proteins. Nature 2007, 450, 964–972. 10.1038/nature06522. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Karplus M.; Kuriyan J. Molecular dynamics and protein function. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2005, 102, 6679–6685. 10.1073/pnas.0408930102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Zimmerberg J.; Kozlov M. M. How proteins produce cellular membrane curvature. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2006, 7, 9–19. 10.1038/nrm1784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Pyle A. Metal ions in the structure and function of RNA. JBIC. J. Biol. Inorg. Chem. 2002, 7, 679–690. 10.1007/s00775-002-0387-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Hsu H.-P.; Binder K.; Paul W. How to define variation of physical properties normal to an undulating one-dimensional object. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2009, 103, 198301 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.198301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Zhao J.; Zhai Q. Recent advances in the development of ligands specifically targeting telomeric multimeric G-quadruplexes. Bioorg. Chem. 2020, 103, 104229 10.1016/j.bioorg.2020.104229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Figueiredo J.; Mergny J.-L.; Cruz C. G-quadruplex ligands in cancer therapy: Progress, challenges, and clinical perspectives. Life Sci. 2024, 340, 122481 10.1016/j.lfs.2024.122481. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Monsen R. C.; Chakravarthy S.; Dean W. L.; Chaires J. B.; Trent J. O. The solution structures of higher-order human telomere G-quadruplex multimers. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021, 49, 1749–1768. 10.1093/nar/gkaa1285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Limongelli V.; De Tito S.; Cerofolini L.; Fragai M.; Pagano B.; Trotta R.; Cosconati S.; Marinelli L.; Novellino E.; Bertini I.; et al. The G-Triplex DNA. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2013, 52, 2269–2273. 10.1002/anie.201206522. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Galindo-Murillo R.; Robertson J. C.; Zgarbova M.; Sponer J.; Otyepka M.; Jurecka P.; Cheatham T. E. III Assessing the current state of amber force field modifications for DNA. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2016, 12, 4114–4127. 10.1021/acs.jctc.6b00186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Islam B.; Sgobba M.; Laughton C.; Orozco M.; Sponer J.; Neidle S.; Haider S. Conformational dynamics of the human propeller telomeric DNA quadruplex on a microsecond time scale. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013, 41, 2723–2735. 10.1093/nar/gks1331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Wei D.; Husby J.; Neidle S. Flexibility and structural conservation in a c-KIT G-quadruplex. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015, 43, 629–644. 10.1093/nar/gku1282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Ghosh S.; Jana J.; Kar R. K.; Chatterjee S.; Dasgupta D. Plant Alkaloid Chelerythrine Induced Aggregation of Human Telomere Sequence A Unique Mode of Association between a Small Molecule and a Quadruplex. Biochemistry 2015, 54, 974–986. 10.1021/bi501117x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Bian Y.; Tan C.; Wang J.; Sheng Y.; Zhang J.; Wang W. Atomistic picture for the folding pathway of a hybrid-1 type human telomeric DNA G-quadruplex. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2014, 10, e1003562 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003562. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Yang C.; Kulkarni M.; Lim M.; Pak Y. In silico direct folding of thrombin-binding aptamer G-quadruplex at all-atom level. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017, 45, 12648–12656. 10.1093/nar/gkx1079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Stadlbauer P.; Kührová P.; Vicherek L.; Banáš P.; Otyepka M.; Trantírek L.; Šponer J. Parallel G-triplexes and G-hairpins as potential transitory ensembles in the folding of parallel-stranded DNA G-Quadruplexes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019, 47, 7276–7293. 10.1093/nar/gkz610. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Rocca R.; Palazzesi F.; Amato J.; Costa G.; Ortuso F.; Pagano B.; Randazzo A.; Novellino E.; Alcaro S.; Moraca F.; et al. Folding intermediate states of the parallel human telomeric G-quadruplex DNA explored using Well-Tempered Metadynamics. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 3176 10.1038/s41598-020-59774-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Pokorná P.; Mlỳnskỳ V.; Bussi G.; Šponer J.; Stadlbauer P. Molecular dynamics simulations reveal the parallel stranded d (GGGA) 3GGG DNA quadruplex folds via multiple paths from a coil-like ensemble. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2024, 261, 129712 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.129712. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Kim E.; Yang C.; Pak Y. Free-energy landscape of a thrombin-binding DNA aptamer in aqueous environment. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2012, 8, 4845–4851. 10.1021/ct300714u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Bergues-Pupo A. E.; Arias-Gonzalez J. R.; Morón M. C.; Fiasconaro A.; Falo F. Role of the central cations in the mechanical unfolding of DNA and RNA G-quadruplexes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015, 43, 7638–7647. 10.1093/nar/gkv690. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Zeng X.; Zhang L.; Xiao X.; Jiang Y.; Guo Y.; Yu X.; Pu X.; Li M. Unfolding mechanism of thrombin-binding aptamer revealed by molecular dynamics simulation and Markov State Model. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 24065 10.1038/srep24065. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Luo D.; Mu Y. Computational insights into the stability and folding pathways of human telomeric DNA G-quadruplexes. J. Phys. Chem. B 2016, 120, 4912–4926. 10.1021/acs.jpcb.6b01919. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Kogut M.; Kleist C.; Czub J. Molecular dynamics simulations reveal the balance of forces governing the formation of a guanine tetrad–a common structural unit of G-quadruplex DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016, 44, 3020–3030. 10.1093/nar/gkw160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Gajarský M.; Zivkovic M. L.; Stadlbauer P.; Pagano B.; Fiala R.; Amato J.; Tomáška L.; Sponer J.; Plavec J.; Trantirek L. Structure of a stable G-hairpin. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139, 3591–3594. 10.1021/jacs.6b10786. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Bian Y.; Ren W.; Song F.; Yu J.; Wang J. Exploration of the folding dynamics of human telomeric G-quadruplex with a hybrid atomistic structure-based model. J. Chem. Phys. 2018, 148, 204107 10.1063/1.5028498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Bian Y.; Song F.; Zhang J.; Yu J.; Wang J.; Wang W. Insights into the kinetic partitioning folding dynamics of the human telomeric G-quadruplex from molecular simulations and machine learning. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2020, 16, 5936–5947. 10.1021/acs.jctc.0c00340. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. Stadlbauer P.; Islam B.; Otyepka M.; Chen J.; Monchaud D.; Zhou J.; Mergny J.-L.; Sponer J. Insights into G-quadruplex-hemin dynamics using atomistic simulations: implications for reactivity and folding. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2021, 17, 1883–1899. 10.1021/acs.jctc.0c01176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Maffeo C.; Luan B.; Aksimentiev A. End-to-end attraction of duplex DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012, 40, 3812–3821. 10.1093/nar/gkr1220. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Maffeo C.; Yoo J.; Comer J.; Wells D. B.; Luan B.; Aksimentiev A. Close encounters with DNA. J. Condens. Matter Phys. 2014, 26, 413101 10.1088/0953-8984/26/41/413101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Saurabh S.; Lansac Y.; Jang Y. H.; Glaser M. A.; Clark N. A.; Maiti P. K. Understanding the origin of liquid crystal ordering of ultrashort double-stranded DNA. Phys. Rev. E 2017, 95, 032702 10.1103/PhysRevE.95.032702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Protozanova E.; Macgregor R. B. Jr Thermal activation of DNA frayed wire formation. Biophys. Chem. 2000, 84, 137–147. 10.1016/S0301-4622(00)00105-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  108. Włodarczyk A.; Grzybowski P.; Patkowski A.; Dobek A. Effect of ions on the polymorphism, effective charge, and stability of human telomeric DNA. Photon correlation spectroscopy and circular dichroism studies. J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 3594–3605. 10.1021/jp045274d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Spindler L.; Rigler M.; Drevenšek-Olenik I.; Ma’ani Hessari N.; Webba da Silva M. Effect of Base Sequence on G-Wire Formation in Solution. J. Nucleic Acids 2010, 2010, 431651 10.4061/2010/431651. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Zimbone M.; Bonaventura G.; Baeri P.; Barcellona M. L. Unusual salt-induced behaviour of guanine-rich natural DNA evidenced by dynamic light scattering. Eur. Biophys. J. 2012, 41, 425–436. 10.1007/s00249-012-0795-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Ilc T.; Sket P.; Plavec J.; Webba da Silva M.; Drevenšek-Olenik I.; Spindler L. Formation of G-wires: the role of G: C-base pairing and G-quartet stacking. J. Phys. Chem. C 2013, 117, 23208–23215. 10.1021/jp4019348. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  112. Rosi B. P.; Libera V.; Bertini L.; Orecchini A.; Corezzi S.; Schirò G.; Pernot P.; Biehl R.; Petrillo C.; Comez L.; et al. Stacking Interactions and Flexibility of Human Telomeric Multimers. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2023, 145, 16166–16175. 10.1021/jacs.3c04810. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Allen M. P.; Tildesley D. J.. Computer Simulation of Liquids; Oxford University Press, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  114. Humphrey W.; Dalke A.; Schulten K. VMD – Visual Molecular Dynamics. J. Mol. Graphics 1996, 14, 33–38. 10.1016/0263-7855(96)00018-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  115. Weeks J. D.; Chandler D.; Andersen H. C. Role of repulsive forces in determining the equilibrium structure of simple liquids. J. Chem. Phys. 1971, 54, 5237–5247. 10.1063/1.1674820. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  116. Kremer K.; Grest G. S. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations for polymers. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 1990, 2, SA295 10.1088/0953-8984/2/S/045. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  117. Coldstream J. G.; Camp P. J.; Phillips D. J.; Dowding P. J. Gradient copolymers versus block copolymers: self-assembly in solution and surface adsorption. Soft Matter 2022, 18, 6538–6549. 10.1039/D2SM00741J. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Libera V.; Andreeva E. A.; Martel A.; Thureau A.; Longo M.; Petrillo C.; Paciaroni A.; Schirò G.; Comez L. Porphyrin binding and irradiation promote G-quadruplex DNA dimeric structure. The. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2021, 12, 8096–8102. 10.1021/acs.jpclett.1c01840. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  119. Weik F.; Weeber R.; Szuttor K.; Breitsprecher K.; de Graaf J.; Kuron M.; Landsgesell J.; Menke H.; Sean D.; Holm C. ESPResSo 4.0–an extensible software package for simulating soft matter systems. Eur. Phys. J.:Spec. Top. 2019, 227, 1789–1816. 10.1140/epjst/e2019-800186-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  120. Uhlenbeck G. E.; Ornstein L. S. On the theory of the Brownian motion. Phys. Rev. 1930, 36, 823. 10.1103/PhysRev.36.823. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  121. Rapaport D. C.The Art of Molecular Dynamics Simulation; Cambridge University Press, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  122. Grosberg A. Y.; Khokhlov A. R.. Statistical Physics of Macromolecules; AIP Press, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  123. Frenkel D.; Smit B.. Understanding Molecular Simulation; Academic Press, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  124. Mostarac D.espressoSq. https://github.com/stekajack/espressoSq, 2024; (Accessed Aug 6, 2024).
  125. Feigin L.; Svergun D. I.. et al. Structure Analysis by Small-angle X-ray and Neutron Scattering; Springer, 1987; Vol. 1. [Google Scholar]
  126. Guinier A.; Fournet G.; Walker C. B.; Yudowitch K. L.. Small-angle Scattering of X-rays; Wiley: New York, 1955. [Google Scholar]
  127. Beaucage G. Small-angle scattering from polymeric mass fractals of arbitrary mass-fractal dimension. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 1996, 29, 134–146. 10.1107/S0021889895011605. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  128. Beaucage G. Approximations leading to a unified exponential/power-law approach to small-angle scattering. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 1995, 28, 717–728. 10.1107/S0021889895005292. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  129. Buscaglia R.; Miller M. C.; Dean W. L.; Gray R. D.; Lane A. N.; Trent J. O.; Chaires J. B. Polyethylene glycol binding alters human telomere G-quadruplex structure by conformational selection. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013, 41, 7934–7946. 10.1093/nar/gkt440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  130. Sharp K. A. Unpacking the origins of in-cell crowding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2016, 113, 1684–1685. 10.1073/pnas.1600098113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  131. Bustamante C.; Marko J. F.; Siggia E. D.; Smith S. Entropic elasticity of λ-phage DNA. Science 1994, 265, 1599–1600. 10.1126/science.8079175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  132. Rubinstein M.; Colby R. H.. Polymer Physics; Oxford University Press, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  133. Hsu H.-P.; Paul W.; Binder K. Standard definitions of persistence length do not describe the local “intrinsic” stiffness of real polymer chains. Macromolecules 2010, 43, 3094–3102. 10.1021/ma902715e. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  134. Schäfer L.; Elsner K. Calculation of the persistence length of a flexible polymer chain with short-range self-repulsion. Eur. Phys. J E Soft Matter 2004, 13, 225–237. 10.1140/epje/i2003-10071-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  135. Hsu H.-P.; Paul W.; Binder K. Estimation of persistence lengths of semiflexible polymers: Insight from simulations. Polym. Sci., Ser. C 2013, 55, 39–59. 10.1134/S1811238213060027. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  136. Forero-Martinez N. C.; Baumeier B.; Kremer K. Backbone chemical composition and monomer sequence effects on phenylene polymer persistence lengths. Macromolecules 2019, 52, 5307–5316. 10.1021/acs.macromol.9b00819. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  137. Micka U.; Kremer K. The persistence length of polyelectrolyte chains. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 1996, 8, 9463. 10.1088/0953-8984/8/47/046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  138. Moyzis R. K.; Buckingham J. M.; Cram L. S.; Dani M.; Deaven L. L.; Jones M. D.; Meyne J.; Ratliff R. L.; Wu J.-R. A highly conserved repetitive DNA sequence, (TTAGGG) n, present at the telomeres of human chromosomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1988, 85, 6622–6626. 10.1073/pnas.85.18.6622. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  139. Mostarac D.; Xiong Y.; Gang O.; Kantorovich S. Nanopolymers for magnetic applications: how to choose the architecture?. Nanoscale 2022, 14, 11139–11151. 10.1039/D2NR01502A. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  140. Criscuolo A.; Napolitano E.; Riccardi C.; Musumeci D.; Platella C.; Montesarchio D. Insights into the small molecule targeting of biologically relevant G-quadruplexes: An overview of NMR and crystal structures. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 2361. 10.3390/pharmaceutics14112361. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  141. Zegers J.; Peters M.; Albada B. DNA G-quadruplex-stabilizing metal complexes as anticancer drugs. JBIC, J. Biol. Inorg. Chem. 2023, 28, 117–138. 10.1007/s00775-022-01973-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

bm5c00176_si_001.pdf (153KB, pdf)

Articles from Biomacromolecules are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES