Abstract
We used solid-state NMR spectroscopy to investigate the oligomeric structure and insertion of protegrin-1 (PG-1), a β-hairpin antimicrobial peptide, in lipid bilayers that mimic either the bacterial inner membrane [palmitoyloleoylphosphatidyl ethanolamine and palmitoyloleoylphosphatidylglycerol (POPE/POPG) bilayers] or the red blood cell membrane [neutral palmitoyloleoylphosphatidylcholine (POPC)/cholesterol bilayers]. 1H spin diffusion from lipids to the peptide indicates that PG-1 contacts both the lipid acyl chains and the headgroups in the anionic membrane but resides far from the lipid chains in the POPC/cholesterol bilayer. 19F spin diffusion data indicates that 75% of the β-hairpins have homodimerized N strands and C strands in the anionic membrane. The resulting (NCCN)n multimer suggests a membrane-inserted β-barrel enclosing a water pore. The lipids surrounding the β-barrel have high orientational disorder and chain upturns, thus they may act as fillers for the pore. These results revise several features of the toroidal pore model, first proposed for magainin and subsequently applied to PG-1. In the POPC/cholesterol membrane, the N and C strands of PG-1 cluster into tetramers, suggesting the formation of β-sheets on the membrane surface. Thus, the membrane composition plays a decisive role in defining the assembly and insertion of PG-1. The different oligomeric structures of PG-1 help to explain its greater toxicity for bacteria than for eukaryotic cells.
Keywords: membrane composition, spin diffusion, toroidal pores, 19FNMR, protegrin-1
Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are part of the innate immune system of many animals and plants (1). They protect the host organism against bacterial and fungal attacks by destroying the barrier function of the invading microbe's membrane (2). AMPs selectively disrupt the microbial cell membranes while maintaining the integrity of the host cell membranes. This selectivity is commonly believed to result from the different compositions of the two types of membranes. The most striking difference is that bacterial membranes are rich in anionic lipids but devoid of cholesterol, whereas red blood cell (RBC) membranes contain as much as 50 mol% cholesterol but few anionic lipids in the outer leaflet (3). However, how different membrane compositions affect the structure of AMPs is unknown.
The oligomeric assembly of AMPs is one structural aspect that may depend on the membrane composition. Existing models of antimicrobial mechanisms commonly assume aggregation of these peptides at some stages of their membrane-bound state (4). In the barrel-stave model (5) and the toroidal pore model (6, 7), the peptides cluster in the pores, whereas in the carpet model (8), densely aggregated peptides on the membrane surface thin the membrane until it micellizes. Yet direct determination of the aggregated structure of AMPs is scarce. We recently introduced a 19F spin diffusion NMR technique, centerband-only detection of exchange (CODEX), to determine the oligomeric number and intermolecular distances of membrane proteins in lipid bilayers (9). In this experiment, distance-dependent polarization transfer between singly 19F-labeled peptides reduces the equilibrium intensity of a spin echo to 1/n, where n is the oligomeric number of the peptide. The time-dependent change of the echo intensity can be analyzed to extract intermolecular distances up to ≈15 Å (10). Using this method, we showed that the M2 peptide of influenza A virus forms tetramers in dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine (DMPC) bilayers (10), whereas protegrin-1 (PG-1), a β-hairpin AMP, has dimerized C strands in palmitoyloleoylphosphatidylcholine (POPC) bilayers (9).
Another distinction among various antimicrobial models is the degree of peptide insertion into lipid bilayers. The pore models postulate well inserted peptides, whereas the carpet model indicates surface-bound peptides. The depth of insertion can be determined by 1H spin diffusion from the lipid chains to the protein (11). The greater the peptide-lipid separation, the slower the polarization transfer. Thus, a surface-bound membrane peptide exhibits slow spin diffusion from the lipid chain protons to the peptide, whereas an inserted peptide shows fast spin diffusion.
In this work, we use 19F and 1H spin diffusion to determine the oligomeric structures of PG-1 in anionic membranes and cholesterol-containing neutral membranes. PG-1 is a disulfide-linked β-hairpin peptide originally isolated from pig leukocytes (12). It is active against a broad spectrum of pathogenic microorganisms, with minimum inhibitory concentrations of 0.1–2 μM (13–15). In contrast, the concentrations causing 50% lysis of human erythrocytes are 12–80 μM (14, 16) and are even higher for sheep and pigs (13). Thus PG-1 is at least 10-fold more selective against microbial cells than mammalian erythrocytes. The activity and the β-sheet conformation (17) of PG-1 are representative of many AMPs, such as human defensins (12). Thus, understanding the effect of membrane composition on PG-1's oligomeric structure may provide general insight into the origin of selective membrane disruption. We find that PG-1 adopts dramatically different oligomeric structures between the anionic membrane and the cholesterol-containing membrane, and the structure in the anionic membrane revises existing concepts of pore formation.
Results
Membrane Insertion of PG-1 in Anionic and Cholesterol-Containing Membranes.
PG-1 structure was investigated in two lipid bilayers. The anionic palmitoyloleoylphosphatidyl ethanolamine and palmitoyloleoylphosphatidylglycerol (POPE/POPG) bilayer (mole ratio 3:1) mimics the bacterial inner membrane, whereas the neutral POPC/cholesterol bilayer (mole ratio 1.2:1) resembles the RBC membrane. The high cholesterol concentration (45 mol%) of the latter is required to remove the PG-1 induced isotropic peak in the 31P spectra, which is indicative of bilayer disruption into micelles or small vesicles (Fig. 7, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site).
A 2D 13C-detected 1H spin diffusion experiment was conducted to determine the depth of insertion of PG-1. Fig. 1a shows a representative 2D spectrum at tm = 400 ms. The peptide is labeled with Val16 13C′ (172 ppm) and Leu5 13Cα (51 ppm), thus cross-peaks between these and the lipid chain CH2 (1.3 ppm) or CH3 (0.9 ppm) signals indicate spin diffusion from the acyl chains to the peptide. Fig. 1b shows the 1H cross-sections of Leu5 Cα at several tm values. The lipid CH2 peak is visible at tm as short as 100 ms, indicating that PG-1 is in close proximity with the hydrophobic center of the membrane.
Fig. 1.
1H spin diffusion data of PG-1 in POPE/POPG membrane. (a) 2D 13C-detected 1H spin diffusion spectrum of POPE/POPG (3:1) bilayers with (13Cα-Leu5, 13C′-Val16) PG-1 at tm = 400 ms. (b) Leu Cα 1H cross-sections for various tm. The CH2 and CH3 signals are already visible at 100 ms. The 1H one-pulse spectrum is shown at the top for comparison. (c) CH2 (open circles) and H2O (filled squares) buildup curves. The best fit for both is obtained with a distance of 2 ± 2 Å from the peptide by using DL = 0.012 nm2/ms, DI = 0.00125 nm2/ms, DW = 0.03 nm2/ms, and DP = 0.3 nm2/ms.
To extract distances, we analyze the cross-peak intensities as a function of tm. The intensities are read off from peak heights in the 1D cross-sections, corrected for 1H T1 relaxation (≈700 ms for H2O and CH3 and ≈600 ms for CH2), and normalized with respect to the maximum H2O intensity at tm = 100 ms. Because the equilibrium intensities of CH2 and CH3 peaks are only 36% and 14%, respectively, of the H2O intensity (Fig. 1b, top spectrum), the CHn (n = 2, 3) buildup curves are further scaled by these factors to account for the fact that, even at full-spin diffusion equilibrium, these cross-peaks are lower than the H2O peak. The normalized CH2 and CH3 intensities give the same buildup curves; thus, we analyze only the higher-sensitivity CH2 data below.
Fig. 1c shows the buildup curves of the H2O and CH2 peaks of the anionic membrane. To fit the data, we calculate magnetization (Mi) transfer as a discrete process along the bilayer normal by using ΔMi/Δt = −2ΩMi + ΩMi+1 + ΩMi−1, where the transfer rate Ω depends on the diffusion coefficients of the lipid (DL), water (DW), peptide (DP), and peptide-lipid or peptide-water interface (DI). DL and DP were estimated previously (11, 18) to be 0.012 nm2/ms and 0.3 nm2/ms, respectively. The buildup curve is determined by the thickness of the soft membrane between the source proton and the closest peptide residue, because its small DL limits the rate of spin diffusion. This is the distance of interest. The interfacial DI is an adjustable parameter in the simulation: it can be an order of magnitude smaller than DL because of the transient nature of the peptide-lipid association. Fortunately, the effect of DI on the buildup curve can be distinguished from the effect of the peptide-lipid separation (Fig. 8, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site).
Using DI = 1.25 × 10−3 nm2/ms, we obtained the best fit for the CH2 buildup with a peptide-lipid distance of ≈2 Å. Thus, PG-1 is in close contact with the acyl chains of the POPE/POPG bilayer. The H2O buildup curve also fits to an ≈2-Å distance, indicating that PG-1 also contacts the membrane surface. Because of the approximate nature of DL and DI values, the uncertainties of these distances are approximately ±2 Å.
The 1H spin diffusion of PG-1 in POPC/cholesterol bilayers differs dramatically from the anionic membrane case. Although the CH2-peptide cross-peak is clearly visible at 529 ms (Fig. 2a), it is completely absent until 225 ms (Fig. 2b). This result suggests that PG-1 does not insert into the hydrophobic part of the POPC/cholesterol bilayer. In contrast, the H2O buildup is rapid, reaching a plateau at 100 ms. The T1- and equilibrium-intensity-corrected buildup curves (Fig. 2c) quantitatively exhibit the different rates of spin diffusion from these two types of protons. The decay of the H2O intensity at longer times is attributable to net polarization loss to PG-1 and the lipids. Using the 1D lattice model, we find the best fit to the CH3 data at 20 ± 2 Å and the H2O data at 2 ± 2 Å, indicating that PG-1 lies on the surface of the bilayer, away from the center of the membrane. For the CH3 curve, a small DI of 2.5 × 10−4 nm2/ms was required to reproduce the small slope of the buildup, whereas the large distance reproduces the slow onset of spin diffusion.
Fig. 2.
1H spin diffusion data of PG-1 in POPC/cholesterol membrane. (a) 2D 13C-detected 1H spin diffusion spectra of POPC/cholesterol (1.2:1) membranes with (13Cα-Leu5, 13C′-Val16) PG-1 at tm = 529 ms. Assignment for lipid and cholesterol (italic) 13C peaks is indicated in addition to the two peptide labels. (b) Combined 1H cross-sections for Leu5-Cα and Val16-13C′. The CH2 and CH3 peaks are absent until 225 ms. The 1H one-pulse spectrum is shown at the top. (c) CH3 (open circles) and H2O (filled squares) buildup curves, best fit by distances of 20 ± 2 Å and 2 ± 2 Å, respectively.
PG-1 Oligomerization in Anionic Membranes.
To determine the oligomeric structure of PG-1, we carried out the 19F CODEX experiment. Two 19F-labeled peptides were used: one with 4-19F-Phg12 near the β-turn on the C-terminal strand (C strand) and the other with 4-19F-Phg7 on the N-terminal strand (N strand). The replacement of Phe by Phg, which does not have a β-CH2 group, removes χ1 torsional freedom, thus eliminating one possible mechanism of motional exchange. Antimicrobial assays indicate that Phg-containing PG-1 has very similar activities as wild-type PG-1 (Fig. 9, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site). The remaining motion of the Phg side chain, 180° flip of the ring, does not change the 19F position or the 19F chemical-shift tensor orientation, thus cannot cause exchange during tm. To minimize possible slow backbone motion, which could interfere with spin diffusion, the experiments were carried out at temperatures well below the phase-transition temperature (≈291 K) of the POPE/POPG bilayer (225 K for Phg12–PG-1 and 233 K for Phg7–PG-1).
Fig. 3 shows normalized exchange intensities of 4F-Phg12–PG-1 (Fig. 3a) and 4F-Phg7–PG-1 (Fig. 3b) in POPE/POPG membranes. Phg12–PG-1 shows an equilibrium value, (S/S0)eq, of 0.45, whereas Phg7–PG-1 exhibits a higher (S/S0)eq of 0.62. Thus, each 19F spin on average experiences couplings to one other 19F within a radius of ≈15 Å. The Phg12 (S/S0)eq of <0.5 suggests that spin diffusion to a third, more remote 19F spin is partly detected. On the other hand, the Phg7 (S/S0)eq of >0.5 is possible only if some monomers [with (S/S0)eq = 1] coexist with oligomers. The simplest oligomer is a dimer, in which case a dimer fraction of 75% and a monomer fraction of 25% are required to give the observed (S/S0)eq = 0.62.
Fig. 3.
19F CODEX data of 4F-Phg12–PG-1 (a) and 4F-Phg7–PG-1 (b) in POPE/POPG bilayers. S0 and S spectra at tm = 1 s are shown for each sample. The data in a is best fit with a 60%:40% mixture of a 9.0 ± 0.5 Å and a 5.0 ± 0.5 Å nearest-neighbor distance. The best fit for b is obtained with a 75%:25% mixture of a dimer with a distance of 6.5 Å and a monomer.
In addition to the different (S/S0)eq, the two 4F-Phg residues show different decay constants (τSD). Phg12 exhibits a τSD of 1.2 ± 0.4 s mixed with an initial fast component of 0.008 ± 0.002 s, whereas Phg7–PG-1 has a single-exponential τSD of 0.06 ± 0.01 s. To extract quantitative distances, we simulated the tm-dependent curves by using a rate-matrix approach. The tm-dependence of diffusion among n spins is described by M⇀(tm) = e−K̂tm, where K̂ is an n-dimensional exchange matrix containing the rate constants kij. These rate constants depend on the F-F dipolar couplings, ωij, and a spectral overlap integral, F(0), between the exchanging spins (19). With a known F(0), dipolar couplings can be extracted from curve fitting, from which distances can be derived as ωij = (γ2ℏμ0/4π)/rij3. We recently determined the 19F F(0) value to be 37 μs at 8 kHz magic angle spinning (MAS), by using model compounds with known crystal structures (10).
Using this rate-matrix approach, we find the Phg7 data are best fit by a 75%:25% mixture of a two-spin cluster with a distance of 6.5 Å and an isolated spin (Fig. 3b). For Phg12, a 60%:40% mixture of a distance of 9.0 ± 0.5 Å and 5.0 ± 0.5 Å fit the data well. The mixture is necessitated by the biexponentiality of the decay: the short distance fits the fast initial decay, whereas the long distance fits the slow decay. Note that these 19F-19F distances are more precise (±0.5 Å) than the 1H spin diffusion distances.
Because the Phg7 data indicates 75% dimerization of the N strand, the (S/S0)eq of <0.5 for Phg12 is most likely attributable to the presence of an additional 4F-Phg12 ≈15 Å away on a third hairpin. Indeed, simulations show that a four-spin cluster with the next-nearest-neighbor distance of 15 Å in addition to the nearest distance of 9 Å or 5 Å better reproduces (S/S0)eq. An odd-number cluster is ruled out by the double-stranded nature of the hairpin and the average cluster size of two for each 19F label. On the other hand, even-number clusters larger than four are possible because the detection limit is 15 Å.
To verify whether residual motion contributes to the fast exchange at short times (Fig. 3a), we measured the Phg12 50-ms CODEX at 225 K, 230 K, and 240 K. The 240 K data gave a significantly lower S/S0 of 0.60 ± 0.06, indicating the presence of motional exchange. However, at 230 K, S/S0 = 0.72 ± 0.05, which is indistinguishable from the value of 0.75 ± 0.07 at 225 K. Thus, the main mechanism of exchange at 225 K is spin diffusion.
Taking the majority conformer for Phg12 (60%) and Phg7 (75%), we consider the structure of the dominant fraction, 45% (= 60% × 75%), of PG-1 in POPE/POPG bilayers. Only four molecules (A–D) are shown in Fig. 4a for clarity. The β-hairpins pack in parallel. The C strand interfaces satisfy the Phg12A,C –Phg12B,D F-F distance of 9 Å, as well as previously measured Val16 C′–Phe12 4F distances of 9.3 Å and 16 Å, and Cys15 C′–Cys15 HN distances of 2.5 Å and 6.5 Å (20). The N strand is constrained by only the Phg7–Phg7 distance (6.5 Å), thus multiple packing arrangements are possible. These can be distinguished by whether the dimer CD is only translated from the dimer AB or whether the dimer CD is both rotated and translated from the dimer AB. For the former, the outermost N strands are isolated unless more peptides are oligomerized. To satisfy the 75% dimer fraction, at least eight hairpins must be packed in a sheet to have the right fraction of monomers. Such a flat β-sheet is unlikely to be inserted into the 2D membrane as dictated by the 1H spin diffusion data. Thus, the motif where the dimers are rotated from each other around the long axis of the molecule is more likely. The resulting curved (NCCN)n (n > 1) multimer suggests a β-barrel that closes onto itself, satisfying the two-spin requirement for each 19F label as well as forming hydrogen bonds for each β-strand. This β-barrel surrounds a water pore, whose diameter can be estimated from size-dependent blockage of PG-1 pores by polyethylene glycol (PEG) across Escherichia coli inner membranes (21, 22). PEG molecules with hydrodynamic radii (RH) up to 0.94 nm allowed membrane permeabilization, whereas those with RH = 1.05 nm blocked permeabilization by PG-1 (R.I.L., unpublished data). Thus, the diameter of the water pore is at most ≈21 Å, which is possible with 8 or 10 peptides (Fig. 4b).
Fig. 4.
Model of PG-1 β-barrel in POPE/POPG membrane. (a) Side view. The two dimers are rotated from each other along the molecular axis. Pore-lining lipids are orientationally disordered and have chain upturns. (b) Top view. An octameric PG-1 complex surrounds a water pore of ≈21-Å diameter. The outer diameter of the pore is ≈42 Å.
The (NCCN)n (n > 1) β-barrel is the dominant component of a heterogeneous mixture. The other oligomeric structures include a 30% (= 40% × 75%) fraction of multimers with more compact C strand interfaces (Phg12–Phg12, 5 Å) and a 25% fraction of NCCN dimers without an N strand interface. The latter is consistent with PG-1 fibrilization data indicating that the N strand interface is looser than the C strand interface, perhaps as a result of the cationic Arg4 in the middle of the hydrophobic N strand (23).
PG-1 Oligomerization in POPC/Cholesterol Membranes.
19F spin diffusion of PG-1 in POPC/cholesterol bilayers differs significantly from the case in the anionic membrane. (S/S0)eq values of ≈0.25 are observed for both Phe12–PG-1 and Phg7–PG-1 (Fig. 5), indicating that each 19F resides in a four-spin cluster. The Phe12 decay, acquired at 230 K and a peptide-lipid molar ratio (P/L) of 1:8, was reproduced at tm = 0.5 s and 2 s on Phg12–PG-1 at 225 K and P/L = 1:12.5. The use of Phg and the lower temperature both reduce the possibility of motional exchange, thus they should increase S/S0 if motion were present in the 1:8 sample. The lower peptide concentration also will increase S/S0 if oligomerization is incomplete at 1:12.5. The fact that identical S/S0 values were found is strong proof that the measured exchange is purely attributable to spin diffusion, and the average oligomeric size of four is constant between the two concentrations. We also tested the exchange mechanism of Phg7–PG-1 in the POPC/cholesterol/trehalose membrane. The experiment was repeated at 248 K versus 233 K for the full experiment. The S/S0 values remained the same at tm = 20 ms and 1 s, indicating that no slow motion is present between 233 K and 248 K.
Fig. 5.
19F CODEX data of 4F-Phe12–PG-1 (a) and 4F-Phg7–PG-1 (b) in POPC/cholesterol bilayers. Both show (S/S0)eq of ≈0.25, indicating four-spin clusters. Simulations performed with a square geometry gave a side length of 8.5 Å for a and 7.2 Å for b.
The CODEX decays were simulated assuming a symmetric tetramer model, so that the 4 × 4 rate matrix depends only on one distance, the length of the square (Fig. 5). For Phe12, the best-fit distance is 8.5 Å, whereas the Phg7 data gives a distance of 7.2 Å.
To obtain tetrameric clusters for both Phe12 and Phg7, the most likely packing motif is β-sheet on the surface of the POPC/cholesterol bilayer (Fig. 6a). The Phe12 cluster may be formed by two apposing NCCN dimers where four β-turns aggregate (Fig. 6b). The Phg7 cluster cannot easily be formed in one β-sheet because only two N strands can pack closely in a plane. Thus, two β-sheets may be stacked to produce the four-spin cluster (Fig. 6b).
Fig. 6.
A model of PG-1 structure in POPC/cholesterol bilayers. (a) PG-1 aggregates into β-sheets on the membrane surface. Cholesterol is embedded in the acyl chain and glycerol regions, exerting a negative curvature strain that prevents PG-1 insertion. (b) The β-sheets yield four-spin clusters for Phe12 and Phg7. The molecules in the two β-sheets are not aligned.
Discussion
The above experiments indicate that PG-1 has distinct oligomeric structures and insertion states in bacteria-mimetic anionic membranes and RBC-mimetic POPC/cholesterol membranes. In the anionic membrane, PG-1 contacts both the lipid headgroup and acyl chains and thus is well inserted. The peptide assembles into (NCCN)n multimers whose like-stranded interfaces are constrained not only by F-F distances but also by previously measured heteronuclear distances in POPC bilayers (20), which indicated parallel packed and hydrogen-bonded C strands. Such a hydrogen-bond stabilized (NCCN)n multimer strongly suggests the formation of a β-barrel.
Pore formation by PG-1 is known from a number of experiments. Conductance measurements indicated that PG-1 induces weakly anion-selective channels in both planar bilayers and Xenopus oocytes (24, 25). Scanning electron micrographs showed multiple, annular structures on the outer membranes of Neisseria gonorrhoeae (26) and other protegrin-treated Gram-negative bacteria. Neutron diffraction patterns indicate that PG-1-containing fluid dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine (DMPC) membranes have D2O-filled pores that become correlated across different bilayers as the membrane is dehydrated or cooled (27). None of these studies, however, yielded the molecular structure of PG-1 at the pores. The current solid-state NMR data fills this gap. Based on the intermolecular distances and the estimated pore inner diameter of 21 Å, the PG-1 β-barrel most likely contains four to five NCCN dimers, resulting in a pore outer diameter of ≈42 Å.
A well defined oligomeric β-barrel of PG-1 contradicts an important feature of the toroidal pore model, in which the lipids in one leaflet bend toward the other to make the two leaflets continuous (7, 28). One hypothesis of the model is that the peptides in the pores are monomeric and act as fillers to relieve membrane bending stress (7). This hypothesis is inconsistent with the current data. Instead, the PG-1 β-barrel has tight C strand interfaces, where the shortest intermolecular distance is 2.5 Å between Cys15 C′ and Cys15 HN (20). Even the N strand interfaces, with fewer distance constraints so far, have a remarkably short Phg7–Phg7 distance (6.5 Å) and a high percentage (75%) of dimerization. The extensive oligomerization is fully consistent with the lack of PG-1 mobility in POPC membranes (29), which interact with PG-1 similarly as POPE/POPG membranes (30). The PG-1 β-barrel resembles the multimeric pore proposed for HNP-2, a human β-defensin containing similar Cys-linked β-strands (31). The HNP-2 annulus, surrounding a pore with a maximum diameter of 25 Å, was hypothesized to contain six to eight dimers, whose amphipathic structure had been observed in the crystalline, nonlipidic state (32).
With the β-barrel forming the core of the toroidal pore, we propose that it is the lipids rather than the peptide that act as fillers of the pore. The pore-lining lipids have high orientational disorder (33). 31P lineshapes of glass-plate aligned POPE/POPG bilayers indicate a nonlamellar fraction of ≈50% at P/L = 1:25 (30). At P/L = 1:12.5, the disordered fraction should be even higher. However, the original proposal that the pore lining is covered completely by lipid headgroups contradicts the 1H spin diffusion data showing close contact between the lipid chains and the peptide. It also disagrees with the negative curvature of POPE, whose headgroup is smaller than the chains in the cross-sectional area. To resolve these conflicts, we propose that the lipids lining the pore have significant chain upturns and residual orientations parallel to the pore axis (Fig. 4a). Chain upturns have been observed even in lamellar bilayers (34) and may be quite common in defect regions of the membrane. Moreover, because the PG-1 barrel is only ≈30-Å thick, whereas the POPE/POPG membrane is ≈45-Å thick, the lipids above and below the β-barrel may be packed in such a way as to allow both headgroup and chain contacts with the peptide. Evidence that the pore-rich membrane is not thinned by PG-1 is found in 2H quadrupolar spectra of d31-POPC (33). A reduction of 2H quadrupolar couplings is known to denote membrane thinning. We found that the 2H splittings are unchanged by PG-1 binding, suggesting that the POPC membrane is not significantly thinned by PG-1.
The 25% of PG-1 that forms NCCN dimers are likely inserted into the residual lamellar portion of the bilayer. The presence of small dimers is understandable because aggregation is a cooperative, concentration-dependent phenomenon (35). The dimers may act as nucleating units for the β-barrels. C strand dimers of PG-1 are present even in dodecylphosphocholine micelles, indicating the strong oligomerization propensity of this more hydrophobic strand (36).
In contrast to the anionic membrane, PG-1 does not insert into the POPC/cholesterol bilayer. The shortest distance from PG-1 to the lipid methyl protons is ≈20 Å. The CH3 buildup curve is very similar to that of a DNA–lipid complex, where the anionic DNA is sandwiched between bilayers with cationic headgroups, 20 Å from the bilayer center (11). The surface location of PG-1 in POPC/cholesterol bilayers is reasonable, because cholesterol inserts into the hydrophobic and glycerol regions of the bilayer (37), and thus should exert a negative curvature strain that counters PG-1 insertion (Fig. 6a). The rigid sterol rings of cholesterol also help to reduce the membrane elasticity, making it more difficult for the bilayer to deform to accommodate PG-1 insertion. Lamellar x-ray diffraction data suggest that PG-1 undergoes a transition from a surface-bound state to an inserted state near P/L = 1:40 in cholesterol-free phosphocholine bilayers (38). Thus, the fact that PG-1 remains surface-bound at a much higher concentration in POPC/cholesterol bilayers is interesting and indicates that peptide insertion is sensitively influenced by the membrane composition.
The four-spin cluster of Phg7 requires the local stacking of two β-sheets because only two N strands can pack closely in each sheet. The β-sheets can be small, containing as few as eight peptides. The hairpins in the two sheets must not be aligned, in order that the Phg12 cluster size does not extend appreciably beyond four. The two β-sheets may pack between the bilayers: at 35–50 wt % H2O, the hydration layer in multilamellar POPC/cholesterol membranes is ≈25-Å thick (39), enough to accommodate two but not more β-sheets. More likely, however, the peptide may aggregate on the outer surface of the multilamellar liposome in a more disordered fashion. In either case, the effective surface concentration of the peptide is reduced by stacking, which decreases the lytic ability of PG-1 (40).
It should be pointed out that PG-1's hemolytic activities differ among mammals. For example, it is substantially more active against human RBC than those of ruminants (cattle and sheep) or pigs (13). This difference may reflect the interspecies variation of erythrocyte membranes, such as the asymmetric distribution of phospholipids in the outer and inner leaflets, their different phospholipid compositions, and the presence of embedded (glyco)proteins (41).
In both the β-barrel and the β-sheet structure, the Arg-rich β-turn of the peptide clusters together, causing as many as 6 or 12 Args to aggregate. Clustering of like-charged ions, although counterintuitive at first, is common in ionic polymers such as Nafion (42, 43). In PG-1, the Arg clusters are most likely solvated by the phosphate headgroups. Indeed, guanidinium–phosphate complexes are known to be very stable because of multiple hydrogen bonds (44, 45).
The PG-1 β-barrel and β-sheet structures proposed in this article for the anionic versus neutral cholesterol-containing membranes can be refined by measuring more intermolecular distance constraints, especially at the N strand interface. Heteronuclear distance experiments involving high-frequency nuclei such as 1H and 19F will be useful for this purpose. In comparison, structural information about lipid packing around the peptide will necessarily remain statistical because of the inherent disorder of the lipid membrane.
Materials and Methods
Materials.
PG-1 (NH2-RGGRLCYCRRRFCVCVGR-CONH2) was synthesized by using Fmoc solid-phase chemistry and purified by reverse-phase HPLC as described in ref. 33. Peptides with 4F-Phg contain a racemic mixture of D and L forms (46), which were separated by HPLC. The L fraction was identified by using Marfey's reagent (47), then purified by size-exclusion chromatography to remove trifluoroacetate ions, which interfere with the 19F experiments. The peptides were dialyzed exhaustively, and their purity was assessed by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry, analytical HPLC, and 19F solution NMR.
Membrane Sample Preparation.
PG-1 and lipids were mixed initially either in chloroform or in aqueous solution. For the former, the organic solvent was vacuum-dried, and then the membrane film was hydrated to 35 wt % water. For the latter, large unilamellar lipid vesicles were prepared by freeze-thawing, the peptide was mixed with the vesicle solution, and then the mixture was ultracentrifuged to give a membrane pellet containing ≈50 wt % water. Cholesterol-containing samples were prepared in both ways and gave the same oligomeric state based on the CODEX experiment. The POPE/POPG samples were prepared in the aqueous phase, and PG-1 binding was found to be quantitative (>90%) by UV/Vis absorption.
For membranes containing Phg7–PG-1, 20 wt % trehalose was added, and the membrane mixtures were lyophilized for the NMR experiments. Trehalose preserves the lameller structure of dry membranes in the absence of water by replacing the hydration water around the lipid headgroups (48). Small amounts of trehalose raise the phase-transition temperature of the membrane compared with the hydrated bilayer, thus reducing lipid motion (49) and allowing the CODEX experiments to be conducted at milder temperatures (M.T., unpublished data). Experiments on hydrated and trehalose-containing POPC/PG-1 membranes confirmed that the oligomeric state of PG-1 is the same between the two.
All membrane samples have a P/L of 1:12.5, except for the 4F-Phe12–PG-1 sample in the POPC/cholesterol bilayer, which has P/L = 1:8. Only phospholipids, not cholesterol and trehalose, are included in the mole ratio calculation.
Solid-State NMR Spectroscopy.
NMR experiments were carried out on a Bruker (Karlsruhe, Germany) DSX-400 spectrometer operating at a resonance frequency of 400.5 MHz for 1H, 376.8 MHz for 19F, and 100.7 MHz for 13C. The 19F experiments were conducted on a H/F/X probe at spinning speeds of 6.5, 7, and 8 kHz. Cross-polarization contact times were 0.2–0.5 ms. 13C and 19F chemical shifts were referenced externally to the α-glycine 13C′ signal at 176.49 ppm and the Teflon 19F signal at −122 ppm, respectively.
2D 13C-detected 1H spin-diffusion experiments were conducted at 298 K at 4 or 5 kHz magic angle spinning. After 1H evolution, a mixing time (tm) of 16–529 ms was applied to transfer 1H polarization from the mobile lipids and water to the peptide, which then was detected through 13C. To ensure that only the mobile lipid and water polarization served as the source of spin diffusion, we suppressed the rigid peptide polarization by a 1H T2 relaxation filter of 2 ms before 1H chemical-shift evolution and spin diffusion. 1D 13C spectra obtained without 1H spin diffusion confirmed that the 2-ms 1H T2 filter completely suppressed the peptide signals while retaining the lipid signals (Fig. 10, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site).
In the CODEX experiments, 19F chemical shift anisotropy (CSA) was recoupled before and after tm by using one π-pulse-containing rotor period. The recoupling time is 2τr. At 6.5–8 kHz magic angle spinning, and with a 19F CSA (δ = δzz − δiso) of 52 ppm, this amounts to 2πδ·2ôr = 10π − 12π, which is large enough to detect orientation differences as small as 20° (50). For each tm, a control experiment (S0) was carried out in which the z filter (10 μs) and tm were interchanged from those of the exchange experiment (S). The normalized intensity, S/S0, indicates spin exchange without 19F T1 relaxation and is monitored as a function of tm.
The uncertainties of S/S0, εS/S0, were propagated from the signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) of the S0 and S spectra according to εS/S0 = (S/S0)·[εS02 + εS2]1/2, where ε is 1/SNR (20). Sideband intensities were included in the SNR calculation by using SNRtotal = SNR0·(ΣPi2/P02), where P0 is the intensity of the highest peak of the spectrum.
PG-1 oligomeric structures were built and visualized in Insight II, starting from the solution-NMR monomer structure (17). Phe12 and Tyr7 were changed to L-Phg by replacing the side chains with a benzene ring. Recently determined C-F, C-H, and C-N distances (20) and the F-F distances are combined to constrain the intermolecular interfaces.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by National Institutes of Health Grants GM-066976 (to M.H.) and AI-37945 (to A.J.W. and R.I.L.).
Abbreviations
- PG-1
protegrin-1
- POPE
palmitoyloleoylphosphatidyl ethanolamine
- POPG
palmitoyloleoylphosphatidylglycerol
- POPC
palmitoyloleoylphosphatidylcholine
- AMP
antimicrobial peptide
- CODEX
centerband-only detection of exchange
- P/L
peptide-lipid molar ratio
- SNR
signal-to-noise ratio.
Footnotes
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS direct submission.
References
- 1.Zasloff M. Nature. 2002;415:389–395. doi: 10.1038/415389a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Hancock RE, Lehrer R. Trends Biotechnol. 1998;16:82–88. doi: 10.1016/s0167-7799(97)01156-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Rouser G, Nelson GJ, Fleischer S, Simon G. In: Biological Membranes: Physical Fact and Function. Chapman D, editor. New York: Academic; 1968. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Bechinger B. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1999;1462:157–183. doi: 10.1016/s0005-2736(99)00205-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.He K, Ludtke SJ, Worcester DL, Huang HW. Biophys J. 1996;70:2659–2666. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(96)79835-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Matsuzaki K. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1998;1376:391–400. doi: 10.1016/s0304-4157(98)00014-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Ludtke SJ, He K, Heller WT, Harroun TA, Yang L, Huang HW. Biochemistry. 1996;35:13723–13728. doi: 10.1021/bi9620621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Pouny Y, Rapaport D, Mor A, Nicolas P, Shai Y. Biochemistry. 1992;31:12416–12423. doi: 10.1021/bi00164a017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Buffy JJ, Waring AJ, Hong M. J Am Chem Soc. 2005;127:4477–4483. doi: 10.1021/ja043621r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Luo W, Hong M. J Am Chem Soc. 2006;128:7242–7251. doi: 10.1021/ja0603406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Huster D, Yao XL, Hong M. J Am Chem Soc. 2002;124:874–883. doi: 10.1021/ja017001r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kokryakov VN, Harwig SS, Panyutich EA, Shevchenko AA, Aleshina GM, Shamova OV, Korneva HA, Lehrer RI. FEBS Lett. 1993;327:231–236. doi: 10.1016/0014-5793(93)80175-t. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Bellm L, Lehrer RI, Ganz T. Exp Opin Invest Drugs. 2000;9:1731–1742. doi: 10.1517/13543784.9.8.1731. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Tam JP, Wu C, Yang JL. Eur J Biochem. 2000;267:3289–3300. doi: 10.1046/j.1432-1327.2000.01359.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Steinberg DA, Hurst MA, Fujii CA, Kung AHC, Ho JF, Cheng FC, Loury DJ, Fiddes JC. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41:1738–1742. doi: 10.1128/aac.41.8.1738. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Yasin B, Pang M, Turner JS, Cho Y, Dinh NN, Waring AJ, Lehrer RI, Wagar EA. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2000;19:187–194. doi: 10.1007/s100960050457. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Fahrner RL, Dieckmann T, Harwig SS, Lehrer RI, Eisenberg D, Feigon J. Chem Biol. 1996;3:543–550. doi: 10.1016/s1074-5521(96)90145-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Clauss J, Schmidt-Rohr K, Spiess HW. Acta Polymer. 1993;44:1–17. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Vanderhart DL. J Magn Reson. 1987;72:13–47. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Mani R, Tang M, Wu X, Buffy JJ, Waring AJ, Sherman MA, Hong M. Biochemistry. 2006;45:8341–8349. doi: 10.1021/bi060305b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Lehrer RI, Barton A, Ganz T. J Immunol Methods. 1988;108:153–158. doi: 10.1016/0022-1759(88)90414-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Ternovsky VI, Okada Y, Sabirov RZ. FEBS Lett. 2004;576:433–436. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2004.09.051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Tang M, Waring AJ, Hong M. J Am Chem Soc. 2005;127:13919–13927. doi: 10.1021/ja0526665. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Mangoni ME, Aumelas A, Charnet P, Roumestand C, Chiche L, Despaux E, Grassy G, Calas B, Chavanieu A. FEBS Lett. 1996;383:93–98. doi: 10.1016/0014-5793(96)00236-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Sokolov Y, Mirzabekov T, Martin DW, Lehrer RI, Kagan BL. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1999;1420:23–29. doi: 10.1016/s0005-2736(99)00086-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Qu XD, Harwig SS, Oren AM, Shafer WM, Lehrer RI. Infect Immun. 1996;64:1240–1245. doi: 10.1128/iai.64.4.1240-1245.1996. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Yang L, Weiss TM, Lehrer RI, Huang HW. Biophys J. 2000;79:2002–2009. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(00)76448-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Matsuzaki K, Murase O, Fujii N, Miyajima K. Biochemistry. 1996;35:11361–11368. doi: 10.1021/bi960016v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Buffy JJ, Waring AJ, Lehrer RI, Hong M. Biochemistry. 2003;42:13725–13734. doi: 10.1021/bi035187w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Mani R, Buffy JJ, Waring AJ, Lehrer RI, Hong M. Biochemistry. 2004;43:13839–13848. doi: 10.1021/bi048650t. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Wimley WC, Selsted ME, White SH. Protein Sci. 1994;3:1362–1373. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560030902. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Hill CP, Yee J, Selsted ME, Eisenberg D. Science. 1991;251:1481–1485. doi: 10.1126/science.2006422. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Yamaguchi S, Hong T, Waring A, Lehrer RI, Hong M. Biochemistry. 2002;41:9852–9862. doi: 10.1021/bi0257991. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Huster D, Gawrisch K. J Am Chem Soc. 1999;121:1992–1993. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Schwarz G, Stankowski S, Rizzo V. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1986;861:141–151. doi: 10.1016/0005-2736(86)90573-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Roumestand C, Louis V, Aumelas A, Grassy G, Calas B, Chavanieu A. FEBS Lett. 1998;421:263–267. doi: 10.1016/s0014-5793(97)01579-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Villalain J. Eur J Biochem. 1996;241:586–593. doi: 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1996.00586.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Huang HW. Biochemistry. 2000;39:8347–8352. doi: 10.1021/bi000946l. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Rand RP, Parsegian VA. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1989;988:351–376. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Wieprecht T, Apostolov O, Beyermann M, Seelig J. Biochemistry. 2000;39:442–452. doi: 10.1021/bi992146k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Virtanen JA, Cheng KH, Somerharju P. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1998;95:4964–4969. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.9.4964. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Mauritz KA, Moore RB. Chem Rev. 2004;104:4535–4585. doi: 10.1021/cr0207123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Gierke TD, Munn GE, Wilson FC. J Polymer Sci. 1981;19:1687–1704. [Google Scholar]
- 44.Sakai N, Mareda J, Matile S. Acc Chem Res. 2005;38:79–87. doi: 10.1021/ar0400802. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Schug KA, Lindner W. Chem Rev. 2005;105:67–114. doi: 10.1021/cr040603j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Afonin S, Glaser RW, Berditchevskaia M, Wadhwani P, Guhrs KH, Mollmann U, Perner A, Ulrich AS. ChemBioChem. 2003;4:1151–1163. doi: 10.1002/cbic.200300568. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Marfey P. Carlsberg Res Commun. 1984;49:591. [Google Scholar]
- 48.Crowe JH, Crowe LM, Chapman D. Science. 1984;223:701–703. doi: 10.1126/science.223.4637.701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Lee CW, Das Gupta SK, Mattai J, Shipley GG, Abdel-Mageed OH, Makriyannis A, Griffin RG. Biochemistry. 1989;28:5000–5009. doi: 10.1021/bi00438a015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.deAzevedo ER, Bonagamba TJ, Hu W, Schmidt-Rohr K. J Am Chem Soc. 1999;121:8411–8412. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.






