Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Magn Reson. 2019 Jul 9;306:42–47. doi: 10.1016/j.jmr.2019.07.015

Two decades of progress in structural and dynamic studies of amyloids by solid-state NMR

Christopher P Jaroniec 1,*
PMCID: PMC6703944  NIHMSID: NIHMS1534648  PMID: 31311708

Abstract

In this perspective article I briefly highlight the rapid progress made over the past two decades in atomic level structural and dynamic studies of amyloids, which are representative of non-crystalline biomacromolecular assemblies, by magic-angle spinning solid-state NMR spectroscopy. Given new and continuing developments in solid-state NMR instrumentation and methodology, ongoing research in this area promises to contribute to an improved understanding of amyloid structure, polymorphism, interactions, assembly mechanisms, and biological function and toxicity.

Keywords: Solid-state NMR, Magic-angle spinning, Protein structure and dynamics, Amyloid fibrils

Graphical Abstract

graphic file with name nihms-1534648-f0001.jpg

1. Introduction

The past two decades or so have seen incredible advances in the application of magic-angle spinning (MAS) solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) to biological systems. Until the mid 1990’s, solid-state NMR structural studies of biomolecules were largely confined to samples containing NMR-active low-γ 13C and 15N nuclei incorporated at specific sites, and carried out at low to moderate magnetic fields (< 500 MHz 1H frequency) and sample spinning rates (< 10 kHz) by using radiofrequency pulse schemes designed to measure anisotropic chemical shift and/or through-space magnetic dipole-dipole interactions [1,2]. While “low throughput” and cost and labor intensive, these pioneering studies nevertheless clearly underscored the potential of solid-state NMR—which suffers from relatively few limitations related to molecular size or crystalline state—to grow into a powerful tool for the atomic level structural (and dynamic) analysis of large biomacromolecular complexes and assemblies that may contain proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids and/or small molecule cofactors or ligands and are not amenable to or present considerable difficulties for other, complementary high-resolution techniques including solution NMR, X-ray crystallography and cryogenic electron microscopy (cryo-EM). This motivated and paved the way for a number of critical developments in solid-state NMR instrumentation and methodology as well as in sample preparation approaches including: (i) homogeneous high-field (800–1000 MHz) magnets, with commercial >1 GHz instruments in production or final stages of development, (ii) high-quality triple- and quadruple-resonance MAS NMR probes optimized for biological samples and capable of achieving sample spinning rates exceeding 100 kHz [37], (iii) new isotope labeling methods in addition to the standard uniform 13C and 15N enrichment [810], (iv) general protocols for the generation of optimal solid-state NMR samples with high degree of local order that yield the highest resolution spectra [1012], and (v) efficient pulse schemes for spin decoupling, recoupling and magnetization transfer facilitating backbone and side-chain assignments and distance and torsion angle measurements in coupled multiple spin systems [13,14]. Collectively, these developments have made possible the comprehensive solid-state NMR analysis of both structured and dynamic domains of large complexes and supramolecular assemblies, containing protein subunits of up to ~200–300 amino acids in size and exhibiting motions on a wide range of timescales, under physiologically relevant conditions [1534]. Most importantly, they have enabled fundamentally new questions, not readily addressable by other experimental techniques, to be explored, providing unique insights into biological function and mechanism.

In this short perspective article, I highlight the remarkable progress that has been made over the past ~20 years in the application of MAS solid-state NMR spectroscopy toward the understanding of structure, dynamics and interactions in amyloids, which are a representative example of the types of systems that can be successfully investigated by this technology [16,17,19,21,25,27,29,32]. Amyloids, which are discussed in additional detail below, are fibrillar supramolecular peptide or protein aggregates that are particularly challenging to probe at atomic resolution by most experimental structural biology tools given that they are highly polymorphic, frequently lack exact long-range order, and typically contain both structured and dynamically disordered large domains. In addition to amyloids, solid-state NMR has been utilized to successfully investigate other classes of biomacromolecular complexes and assemblies including but not limited to membrane proteins, enzymes, cytoskeletal and viral protein assemblies and protein-nucleic acid complexes such as chromatin, as discussed in detail in recent reviews [15,18,20,2326,28,30,31,33,34].

2. Amyloids

The assembly of peptides and proteins into amyloids, including structural and mechanistic aspects as well as the biological consequences of amyloid formation, has been discussed in depth in a number of excellent reviews [3541]. Briefly, amyloids are filamentous structures that are typically several nanometers in diameter and up to a few microns in length (see Figure 1 for a representative example). They may consist of one or multiple protofilaments that wind together along the fibril long axis, where the core of each protofilament is made up of peptide or protein molecules having similar conformation stacked onto one another in a cross-β architecture with the β-strand segments of successive molecules roughly perpendicular to the fibril long axis and hydrogen-bonded [35,36,40]. While many polypeptides having disparate amino acid sequences and native structures, ranging from intrinsically disordered to globular to membrane-bound, are capable of undergoing conformational conversion to the amyloid state under appropriate conditions in vitro (e.g., at low pH or in presence of denaturants), ~50 human proteins can do so in vivo under physiological conditions leading to disease with β-amyloid and tau proteins associated with Alzheimer’s disease and α-synuclein associated with Parkinson’s disease being among the most prominent examples [39]. Furthermore, recent studies indicate that in certain cases amyloid formation is non-pathogenic and important for function [37,38].

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

(A) Amino acid sequence of human PrP23–144. Relatively rigid amyloid core residues observable in cross-polarization based solid-state NMR spectra (panel C) are shown in red font and dynamically disordered residues observable in J-coupling based solid-state NMR spectra (panel D) are shown in green font. (B) Representative AFM image of human PrP23–144 amyloid fibrils. The scale bar corresponds to 1 pm. Adapted from Ref. [133]. (C) 2D 500 MHz cross-polarization based 15N-13Ca spectra of human PrP23–144 amyloid fibrils recorded at MAS rate of 11.111 kHz and temperatures of ca. 0 °C (red contours) and −30 °C (blue contours). At 0 °C signals corresponding to only the most rigid amyloid core residues are detected, while at −30 °C signals from all residues are detected, including those which are conformationally flexible at 0 °C. Adapted from Ref. [134]. (D) 2D 500 MHz J-coupling based 1H-13C spectra of human PrP23–144 amyloid fibrils recorded at MAS rate of 11.111 kHz and temperature of 30 °C, containing signals corresponding to only the dynamically disordered residues. Adapted from Ref. [129].

3. Solid-State NMR Structural Studies of Amyloids

Until the early 1990’s structural characterization of amyloids was largely limited to X-ray fiber diffraction, which typically revealed ~4.8 Å meridional and ~10 Å equatorial reflections indicative of the characteristic cross-β structure with multiple β-sheets separated by ~10 Å running parallel to the fibril long axis and each β-sheet composed of hydrogen-bonded strands spaced by the canonical distance of ~4.8 Å [42]. MAS solid-state NMR—with its ability to probe both rigid and highly flexible segments in non-crystalline biological solids by using pulse sequences based on dipolar coupling and J-coupling mediated magnetization transfers, respectively (Figure 1) [27], and to accurately determine site-specific intermolecular distances up to ~5–10 Å in proteins via measurements of dipolar couplings as well as protein backbone dynamics via measurements of nuclear dipolar couplings and spin relaxation rates [13,14,43]—is ideally suited for providing atomic resolution information on protofilament structure and dynamics in amyloids. Indeed, many of the fundamental principles of amyloid atomic structure were originally established by solid-state NMR, generating major impact across the scientific community. The structural information from solid-state NMR, when combined with additional data available from microscopic techniques including cryo-EM, scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM), dark-field TEM and/or atomic force microscopy (AFM) and spectroscopic and spectrometric techniques including electron paramagnetic resonance and hydrogen/deuterium exchange coupled with mass spectrometry or solution NMR, may then be used within an integrated approach to derive atomistic models for entire fibrils [19,27,29]. It is also worth mentioning that high-resolution structures could be determined in the absence of solid-state NMR data for amyloid fibrils formed by a number of short peptide sequences (~4–12 amino acids) using X-ray and electron microcrystallography [4448] and for several larger peptides and proteins using cryo-EM [4953], in spite of the fact that amyloids generally do not exhibit exact translational symmetry.

The initial structural solid-state NMR studies of amyloid fibrils were performed by Griffin, Lansbury and co-workers for a 9-residue peptide corresponding to amino acids 34–42 of the β-amyloid peptide (Aβ34–42) [54,55]. These studies were based on rotational resonance 13C-13C distance measurements [56] in site-specifically labeled samples and culminated in the determination of a relatively low-resolution structural model [55] in which the cross-β architecture was composed of antiparallel β-sheets. The same group concurrently carried out rotational resonance solid-state NMR measurements and proposed an antiparallel β-sheet model for residues 20–29 of human islet amyloid polypeptide (IAPP) associated with type II diabetes [57]. Subsequent 13C-13C dipolar recoupling and 13C multiple quantum solid-state NMR measurements for longer, site-specifically 13C labeled fragments of the β-amyloid peptide, including Aβ10–35, Aβ1–40 and Aβ1–42, by Botto, Lynn, Meredith and co-workers and Tycko and co-workers [5863] conclusively showed that these fibrils all adopt a parallel in-register β-sheet architecture, which, while somewhat surprising at the time in light of the data available for the shorter amyloid peptides, has since been found to be a common structural motif for most protein amyloids. Additionally, Tycko and co-workers proposed a much more detailed structural model for Aβ1–40 fibrils based on a larger set of distance and torsion angle restraints obtained from a set of fibril samples prepared with backbone 13CO labeling of specific residue pairs as well as uniform 13C,15N labeling of consecutive or non-consecutive residues, combined with fibril mass-per-length data [64].

Around the same time, in the early 2000’s, solid-state NMR methods for sequential resonance assignments and high-resolution structure determination of highly and/or uniformly 13C,15N labeled peptides and small globular proteins were successfully demonstrated [8,65,66], opening up the possibilities for the application of analogous approaches to amyloids. In one such study, Griffin, Dobson and co-workers determined the high-resolution structure of an 11-residue peptide fragment of transthyretin (TTR105–115) within fibrils based on ca. 7 solid-state NMR intramolecular 13C-15N distance and/or dihedral angle restraints per residue (Figure 2A) [67,68]; combined with the monomer structure, additional solid-state NMR intermolecular distance measurements together with X-ray diffraction, AFM, STEM and cryo-EM data obtained by the same group permitted atomic-resolution structures to be determined for entire fibrils corresponding to three distinct TTR105–115 amyloid polymorphs containing different numbers of protofilaments [69,70]. Additional early solid-state NMR studies of this kind included the high-resolution structure determination of amyloid forming peptide fragments of the transcriptional activator human CA150 [71] and β2-microglobulin [72], as well as HET-s(218–289) prion amyloid fibrils (Figure 2B) [73,74]. For HET-s(218–289) fibrils a large number of intra- and intermolecular restraints (>1,000) was used to constrain the ~40 structured residues of HET-s(218–289) in the β-solenoid amyloid core, and the solid-state NMR data provided key information about the protein conformation and incorporation into the amyloid scaffold, including details of the hydrophobic core interactions, salt bridges and asparagine ladders. In subsequent years, atomic-resolution structures have been determined by similar solid-state NMR methods for a number of other peptide and protein amyloid fibrils including several Aβ1–40 polymorphs generated in vitro [75,76] and Aβ1–40 seeded with brain-derived amyloid [77], two Aβ1–40 mutants associated with early onset neurodegeneration [78,79], Aβ1–42 (Figure 2C) [8082], α-synuclein associated with Parkinson’s disease (Figure 2D) [83], and the low-complexity domain of the FUS RNA-binding protein [84].

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Representative high-resolution structures of amyloid peptides and proteins determined by solid-state NMR. (A) TTR105–115. Adapted from Refs. [68] and [70]. (B) HET-s(218–289). Adapted from Ref. [73]. (C) Aβ1–42. Adapted from Ref. [81]. (D) α-synuclein. Adapted from Ref. [83].

The above examples of successful solid-state NMR studies that have resulted in elucidation of high-resolution amyloid fibril structures, as well as the numerous investigations of other amyloidogenic peptides and proteins along these lines that are underway in multiple research groups [19,27], clearly demonstrate the importance of solid-state NMR spectroscopy for understanding amyloid structure and assembly. These endeavors will undoubtedly be further facilitated by recent developments in solid-state NMR methodology including fast (~60–120 kHz) MAS combined with detection [6,8590], the use of covalent paramagnetic tags, including nitroxide spin labels and metal chelates, which enable site-resolved measurements of multiple long-range (up to ~20 Å) structural restraints in the form of electron-nucleus distances [9197] and dynamic nuclear polarization (DNP) [69,98103]. Collectively, these methodological advances are expected to permit rapid structural analysis using smaller (sub-milligram) amyloid samples. As one example, in Figure 3 we illustrate a recent application of paramagnetic solid-state NMR to amyloids where a low-resolution fold for fibrils formed by residues 23–144 of human prion protein (PrP23–144) could be determined based on a sparse set of intra- and intermolecular paramagnetic relaxation enhancement (PRE) restraints measured in nitroxide spin label and Cu(II)-EDTA tagged fibril samples [96].

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Ensemble of ten low-energy backbone structures for the core region of human PrP23–144 amyloid fibrils (residues 109–144) corresponding to one layer of the two protofilament assembly. The structural model was derived by using sparse long-range intra- and intermolecular paramagnetic relaxation enhancement restraints measured using fibril samples tagged with nitroxide spin labels or Cu(II)-EDTA side-chains at positions indicated by the red spheres. Adapted from Ref. [96].

4. Beyond High-Resolution Structure Determination

Many amyloid peptides and proteins are capable of assembling into multiple distinct, self-propagating fibril structures. This molecular level polymorphism is believed to be responsible for the emergence of strains and transmissibility barriers in prion diseases [104,105], and similar phenomena appear to be operative in neurological disorders, including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, where amyloid polymorphism may play a role in clinical manifestation and pathogenesis [25]. In solid-state NMR spectra, information about molecular structure and structural heterogeneity is encoded in resonance frequencies and/or linewidths. This permits rapid fingerprinting of distinct structural conformers (including the concurrent presence of multiple polymorphs within the same sample), without the necessity to determine high-resolution structures. In the context of amyloids, solid-state NMR has been used to identify distinct structural polymorphs for different peptides and proteins including Aβ [7577,106,107], IAPP [108], α-synuclein [109111], tau [112115] and PrP23–144 variants [116] (see Figure 4 for a representative example), investigate the influence of amino acid mutations and/or deletions on amyloid core structures [78,79,116120], and assess the structural variation in Aβ fibrils stemming from different regions of the brain or associated with different patients and/or disease subtypes [77,121]. In related studies, available high-resolution amyloid structures have been successfully used to characterize the binding of small molecule ligands to fibrils (Figure 5) [122126]. Investigations in the latter direction promise to contribute to the development of improved amyloid markers and/or drug molecules.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4.

2D 800 MHz cross-polarization based 15N-13Cα spectra of two structural strains of Syrian hamster PrP23–144 amyloid, generated at 25 °C under quiescent conditions (q25) and at 37 °C with continuous slow rotation (r37). Adapted from Ref. [116].

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5.

Structural model of a polythiophene compound (LIN5001) bound to amyloid fibrils formed by the E265K mutant of HET-s(218–289). LIN5001, which contains four carboxylate moieties, interacts with the side-chains of lysine residues 229 and 265 (highlighted in cyan and blue) that are located in adjacent protein layers and form an extended positively charged region. Adapted from Ref. [123].

Finally, as noted above (c.f., Figure 1), solid-state NMR experiments enable facile identification of both relatively rigid amyloid core residues as well as highly dynamically disordered domains typically located outside the core region [27]. While the functional relevance of such dynamic domains in amyloids is generally unclear, in certain cases their flexibility appears to be correlated with fibril toxicity [127,128]. In addition, solid-state NMR measurements of nuclear dipolar couplings and spin relaxation rates permit the characterization of protein backbone motions on a wide range of timescales from picoseconds to milliseconds [43]. Interestingly, for several amyloid peptides and proteins, including Aβ, HET-s(218–289) and PrP23–144 [89,129132], such measurements have revealed that the core regions can exhibit considerable dynamics in spite of their overall highly ordered nature.

5. Concluding Remarks

Major progress in solid-state NMR instrumentation and methodology has enabled tremendous advances to be made over the past two decades in the investigation of molecular structure, dynamics and interactions of amyloids and other large biomacromolecular complexes. Importantly, these studies, frequently in combination with experimental and computational data available from complementary techniques, are collectively yielding unprecedented insights into biological function and mechanism. In the coming years, ongoing developments in solid-state NMR technology, including rapid sample spinning coupled with proton detection, dynamic nuclear polarization and paramagnetism-based approaches, promise to further increase the throughput and information content of solid-state NMR studies for amyloids and other assemblies of biological macromolecules.

Highlights.

  • Amyloids are filamentous supramolecular peptide or protein aggregates

  • Amyloid formation is a hallmark of many neurodegenerative and other diseases

  • Amyloid formation can be non-pathogenic and important for function

  • Solid-state NMR provides atomic resolution data on amyloid structure and dynamics

Acknowledgments

I acknowledge support from the National Institutes of Health (R01GM094357, R01GM123743, RF1AG061797), the National Science Foundation (MCB-1715174), and the Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation (Camille Dreyfus Teacher-Scholar Award). I also thank all the current and former members of my research group for stimulating discussions.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

  • [1].McDowell LM, Schaefer J, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol 6 (1996) 624–629. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Griffin RG, Nat. Struct. Biol 5 (1998) 508–512. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Martin RW, Paulson EK, Zilm KW, Rev. Sci. Instrum 74 (2003) 3045–3061. [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Stringer JA, Bronnimann CE, Mullen CG, Zhou DHH, Stellfox SA, Li Y, Williams EH, Rienstra CM, J. Magn. Reson 173 (2005) 40–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Gor’kov PL, Chekmenev EY, Li C, Cotten M, Buffy JJ, Traaseth NJ, Veglia G, Brey WW, J. Magn. Reson 185 (2007) 77–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Struppe J, Quinn CM, Lu M, Wang M, Hou G, Lu X, Kraus J, Andreas LB, Stanek J, Lalli D, Lesage A, Pintacuda G, Maas W, Gronenborn AM, Polenova T, Solid State Nucl. Magn. Reson 87 (2017) 117–125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Penzel S, Oss A, Org ML, Samoson A, Bockmann A, Ernst M, Meier BH, Biomol J NMR 73 (2019) 19–29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Castellani F, van Rossum B, Diehl A, Schubert M, Rehbein K, Oschkinat H, Nature 420 (2002) 98–102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Lacabanne D, Meier BH, Bockmann A, Biomol J NMR 71 (2018) 141–150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].Martin RW, Kelly JE, Kelz JI, J. Struct. Biol 206 (2019) 73–89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Martin RW, Zilm KW, J. Magn. Reson 165 (2003) 162–174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Lacabanne D, Fogeron ML, Wiegand T, Cadalbert R, Meier BH, Bockmann A, Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc 110 (2019) 20–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Baldus M, Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spect 41 (2002) 1–47. [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Rienstra CM, Magic-angle spinning recoupling techniques for distance determinations among spin-1/2 nuclei in solid peptides and proteins, in: Ramamoorthy A (Ed.), NMR Spectroscopy of Biological Solids, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2006, pp. 1–38. [Google Scholar]
  • [15].McDermott AE, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol 14 (2004) 554–561. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Tycko R, Q. Rev. Biophys 39 (2006) 1–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Heise H, Chembiochem 9 (2008) 179–189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].McDermott A, Annu. Rev. Biophys 38 (2009) 385–403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Tycko R, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem 62 (2011) 279–299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Loquet A, Habenstein B, Lange A, Acc. Chem. Res 46 (2013) 2070–2079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Comellas G, Rienstra CM, Annu. Rev. Biophys 42 (2013) 515–536. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Tang M, Comellas G, Rienstra CM, Acc. Chem. Res 46 (2013) 2080–2088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Wang S, Ladizhansky V, Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc 82 (2014) 1–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Quinn CM, Lu M, Suiter CL, Hou G, Zhang H, Polenova T, Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc 86–87 (2015) 21–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Tycko R, Neuron 86 (2015) 632–45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Kaplan M, Pinto C, Houben K, Baldus M, Q. Rev. Biophys 49 (2016) e15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].van der Wel PCA, Solid State Nucl. Magn. Reson 88 (2017) 1–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Quinn CM, Polenova T, Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics 50 (2017) e1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Meier BH, Riek R, Bockmann A, Trends Biochem. Sci 42 (2017) 777–787. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].van der Wel PCA, Emerg. Top. Life Sci 2 (2018) 57–67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Quinn CM, Wang M, Polenova T, Methods Mol. Biol 1688 (2018) 1–35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].Loquet A, El Mammeri N, Stanek J, Berbon M, Bardiaux B, Pintacuda G, Habenstein B, Methods 138–139 (2018) 26–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [33].van Emmerik CL, van Ingen H, Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc 110 (2019) 1–19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Marchanka A, Carlomagno T, Methods Enzymol. 615 (2019) 333–371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [35].Dobson CM, Trends Biochem. Sci 24 (1999) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [36].Chiti F, Dobson CM, Annu. Rev. Biochem 75 (2006) 333–366. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [37].Fowler DM, Koulov AV, Balch WE, Kelly JW, Trends Biochem. Sci 32 (2007) 217–224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [38].Greenwald J, Riek R, Structure 18 (2010) 1244–1260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [39].Knowles TP, Vendruscolo M, Dobson CM, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol 15 (2014) 384–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [40].Riek R, Eisenberg DS, Nature 539 (2016) 227–235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [41].Dobson CM, Knowles TPJ, Vendruscolo M, Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol (2019) doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a033878. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [42].Serpell LC, Fraser PE, Sunde M, Methods Enzymol. 309 (1999) 526–536. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [43].Schanda P, Ernst M, Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spect 96 (2016) 1–46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [44].Makin OS, Atkins E, Sikorski P, Johansson J, Serpell LC, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102 (2005) 315–320. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [45].Nelson R, Sawaya MR, Balbirnie M, Madsen AO, Riekel C, Grothe R, Eisenberg D, Nature 435 (2005) 773–778. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [46].Sawaya MR, Sambashivan S, Nelson R, Ivanova MI, Sievers SA, Apostol MI, Thompson MJ, Balbirnie M, Wiltzius JJ, McFarlane HT, Madsen A0, Riekel C, Eisenberg D, Nature 447 (2007) 453–457. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [47].Sawaya MR, Rodriguez J, Cascio D, Collazo MJ, Shi D, Reyes FE, Hattne J, Gonen T, Eisenberg DS, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113 (2016) 11232–11236. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [48].Saelices L, Sievers SA, Sawaya MR, Eisenberg DS, Protein Sci. 27 (2018) 1295–1303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [49].Gremer L, Scholzel D, Schenk C, Reinartz E, Labahn J, Ravelli RBG, Tusche M, Lopez-Iglesias C, Hoyer W, Heise H, Willbold D, Schroder GF, Science 358 (2017) 116–119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [50].Fitzpatrick AWP, Falcon B, He S, Murzin AG, Murshudov G, Garringer HJ, Crowther RA, Ghetti B, Goedert M, Scheres SHW, Nature 547 (2017) 185–190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [51].Guerrero-Ferreira R, Taylor NM, Mona D, Ringler P, Lauer ME, Riek R, Britschgi M, Stahlberg H, Elife 7 (2018) e36402. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [52].Li Y, Zhao C, Luo F, Liu Z, Gui X, Luo Z, Zhang X, Li D, Liu C, Li X, Cell Res. 28 (2018) 897–903. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [53].Li B, Ge P, Murray KA, Sheth P, Zhang M, Nair G, Sawaya MR, Shin WS, Boyer DR, Ye S, Eisenberg DS, Zhou ZH, Jiang L, Nat. Commun 9 (2018) 3609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [54].Spencer RGS, Halverson KJ, Auger M, McDermott AE, Griffin RG, Lansbury PT, Biochemistry 30 (1991) 10382–10387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [55].Lansbury PT, Costa PR, Griffiths JM, Simon EJ, Auger M, Halverson KJ, Kocisko DA, Hendsch ZS, Ashburn TT, Spencer RGS, Tidor B, Griffin RG, Nat. Struct. Biol 2 (1995) 990–998. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [56].Raleigh DP, Levitt MH, Griffin RG, Chem. Phys. Lett 146 (1988) 71–76. [Google Scholar]
  • [57].Griffiths JM, Ashburn TT, Auger M, Costa PR, Griffin RG, Lansbury PT, J. Am. Chem. Soc 117 (1995) 3539–3546. [Google Scholar]
  • [58].Benzinger TLS, Gregory DM, Burkoth TS, Miller-Auer H, Lynn DG, Botto RE, Meredith SC, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95 (1998) 13407–13412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [59].Gregory DM, Benzinger TLS, Burkoth TS, Miller-Auer H, Lynn DG, Meredith SC, Botto RE, Solid State Nucl. Magn. Reson 13 (1998) 149–166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [60].Burkoth TS, Benzinger TLS, Urban V, Morgan DM, Gregory DM, Thiyagarajan P, Botto RE, Meredith SC, Lynn DG, J. Am. Chem. Soc 122 (2000) 7883–7889. [Google Scholar]
  • [61].Antzutkin ON, Balbach JJ, Leapman RD, Rizzo NW, Reed J, Tycko R, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97 (2000) 13045–13050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [62].Antzutkin ON, Leapman RD, Balbach JJ, Tycko R, Biochemistry 41 (2002) 15436–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [63].Balbach JJ, Petkova AT, Oyler NA, Antzutkin ON, Gordon DJ, Meredith SC, Tycko R, Biophys J 83 (2002) 1205–1216. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [64].Petkova AT, Ishii Y, Balbach JJ, Antzutkin ON, Leapman RD, Delaglio F, Tycko R, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99 (2002) 16742–16747. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [65].McDermott A, Polenova T, Bockmann A, Zilm KW, Paulsen EK, Martin RW, Montelione GT, Biomol J NMR 16 (2000) 209–219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [66].Rienstra CM, Tucker-Kellogg L, Jaroniec CP, Hohwy M, Reif B, Lozano-Perez T, Tidor B, Griffin RG, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99 (2002) 10260–10265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [67].Jaroniec CP, MacPhee CE, Astrof NS, Dobson CM, Griffin RG, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99 (2002) 16748–16753. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [68].Jaroniec CP, MacPhee CE, Bajaj VS, McMahon MT, Dobson CM, Griffin RG, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101 (2004) 711–716. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [69].Debelouchina GT, Bayro MJ, Fitzpatrick AW, Ladizhansky V, Colvin MT, Caporini MA, Jaroniec CP, Bajaj VS, Rosay M, Macphee CE, Vendruscolo M, Maas WE, Dobson CM, Griffin RG, J. Am. Chem. Soc 135 (2013) 19237–19247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [70].Fitzpatrick AW, Debelouchina GT, Bayro MJ, Clare DK, Caporini MA, Bajaj VS, Jaroniec CP, Wang L, Ladizhansky V, Muller SA, MacPhee CE, Waudby CA, Mott HR, De Simone A, Knowles TP, Saibil HR, Vendruscolo M, Orlova EV, Griffin RG, Dobson CM, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110 (2013) 5468–5473. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [71].Ferguson N, Becker J, Tidow H, Tremmel S, Sharpe TD, Krause G, Flinders J, Petrovich M, Berriman J, Oschkinat H, Fersht AR, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103 (2006) 16248–16253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [72].Iwata K, Fujiwara T, Matsuki Y, Akutsu H, Takahashi S, Naiki H, Goto Y, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 103 (2006) 18119–18124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [73].Wasmer C, Lange A, Van Melckebeke H, Siemer AB, Riek R, Meier BH, Science 319(2008)1523–1526. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [74].Van Melckebeke H, Wasmer C, Lange A, AB E, Loquet A, Bockmann A, Meier BH, J. Am. Chem. Soc 132 (2010) 13765–13775. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [75].Paravastu AK, Leapman RD, Yau WM, Tycko R, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105 (2008) 18349–18354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [76].Bertini I, Gonnelli L, Luchinat C, Mao J, Nesi A, J. Am. Chem. Soc 133 (2011) 16013–16022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [77].Lu JX, Qiang W, Yau WM, Schwieters CD, Meredith SC, Tycko R, Cell 154 (2013) 1257–1268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [78].Qiang W, Yau WM, Luo Y, Mattson MP, Tycko R, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109 (2012) 4443–4448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [79].Schutz AK, Vagt T, Huber M, Ovchinnikova OY, Cadalbert R, Wall J, Guntert P, Bockmann A, Glockshuber R, Meier BH, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 54 (2015) 331–335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [80].Xiao Y, Ma B, McElheny D, Parthasarathy S, Long F, Hoshi M, Nussinov R, Ishii Y, Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol 22 (2015) 499–505. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [81].Colvin MT, Silvers R, Ni QZ, Can TV, Sergeyev I, Rosay M, Donovan KJ, Michael B, Wall J, Linse S, Griffin RG, J. Am. Chem. Soc 138 (2016) 9663–9674. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [82].Walti MA, Ravotti F, Arai H, Glabe CG, Wall JS, Bockmann A, Guntert P, Meier BH, Riek R, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113 (2016) E4976–4984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [83].Tuttle MD, Comellas G, Nieuwkoop AJ, Covell DJ, Berthold DA, Kloepper KD, Courtney JM, Kim JK, Barclay AM, Kendall A, Wan W, Stubbs G, Schwieters CD, Lee VM, George JM, Rienstra CM, Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol 23 (2016) 409–415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [84].Murray DT, Kato M, Lin Y, Thurber KR, Hung I, McKnight SL, Tycko R, Cell 171(2017)615–627. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [85].Linser R, Dasari M, Hiller M, Higman V, Fink U, Lopez del Amo JM, Markovic S, Handel L, Kessler B, Schmieder P, Oesterhelt D, Oschkinat H, Reif B, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 50 (2011) 4508–4512. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [86].Stanek J, Andreas LB, Jaudzems K, Cala D, Lalli D, Bertarello A, Schubeis T, Akopjana I, Kotelovica S, Tars K, Pica A, Leone S, Picone D, Xu ZQ, Dixon NE, Martinez D, Berbon M, El Mammeri N, Noubhani A, Saupe S, Habenstein B, Loquet A, Pintacuda G, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 55 (2016) 15504–15509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [87].Smith AA, Ravotti F, Testori E, Cadalbert R, Ernst M, Bockmann A, Meier BH, Biomol J NMR 67 (2017) 109–119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [88].Tolchard J, Pandey MK, Berbon M, Noubhani A, Saupe SJ, Nishiyama Y, Habenstein B, Loquet A, Biomol J NMR 70 (2018) 177–185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [89].Shannon MD, Theint T, Mukhopadhyay D, Surewicz K, Surewicz WK, Marion D, Schanda P, Jaroniec CP, Chemphyschem 20 (2019) 311–317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [90].Andreas LB, Le Marchand T, Jaudzems K, Pintacuda G, J. Magn. Reson 253 (2015) 36–49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [91].Pintacuda G, Kervern G, Top. Curr. Chem 335 (2012) 157–200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [92].Jaroniec CP, J. Magn. Reson 253 (2015) 50–59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [93].Nadaud PS, Helmus JJ, Höfer N, Jaroniec CP, J. Am. Chem. Soc 129 (2007) 7502–7503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [94].Sengupta I, Nadaud PS, Helmus JJ, Schwieters CD, Jaroniec CP, Nat. Chem 4 (2012) 410–417. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [95].Mukhopadhyay D, Nadaud PS, Shannon MD, Jaroniec CP, J. Phys. Chem. Lett 8 (2017) 5871–5877. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [96].Theint T, Xia Y, Nadaud PS, Mukhopadhyay D, Schwieters CD, Surewicz K, Surewicz WK, Jaroniec CP, J. Am. Chem. Soc 140 (2018) 13161–13166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [97].Perez A, Gaalswyk K, Jaroniec CP, MacCallum JL, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 58 (2019) 6564–6568. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [98].Barnes AB, Paëpe GD, van der Wel PC, Hu KN, Joo CG, Bajaj VS, Mak-Jurkauskas ML, Sirigiri JR, Herzfeld J, Temkin RJ, Griffin RG, Appl. Magn. Reson 34 (2008) 237–263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [99].Bayro MJ, Debelouchina GT, Eddy MT, Birkett NR, MacPhee CE, Rosay M, Maas WE, Dobson CM, Griffin RG, J. Am. Chem. Soc. (2011) in press, doi: 10.1021/ja203756x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [100].Lopez del Amo JM, Schneider D, Loquet A, Lange A, Reif B, Biomol J NMR 56 (2013) 359–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [101].Potapov A, Yau WM, Ghirlando R, Thurber KR, Tycko R, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 137 (2015) 8294–307. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [102].Nagaraj M, Franks TW, Saeidpour S, Schubeis T, Oschkinat H, Ritter C, van Rossum BJ, Chembiochem 17 (2016) 1308–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [103].Konig A, Scholzel D, Uluca B, Viennet T, Akbey U, Heise H, Solid State Nucl. Magn. Reson 98 (2019) 1–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [104].Collinge J, Clarke AR, Science 318 (2007) 930–936. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [105].Aguzzi A, Sigurdson C, Heikenwaelder M, Annu. Rev. Pathol 3 (2008) 11–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [106].Petkova AT, Leapman RD, Guo ZH, Yau WM, Mattson MP, Tycko R, Science 307 (2005) 262–265. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [107].Lopez del Amo JM, Schmidt M, Fink U, Dasari M, Fandrich M, Reif B, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 51 (2012) 6136–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [108].Luca S, Yau WM, Leapman R, Tycko R, Biochemistry 46 (2007) 13505–13522. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [109].Heise H, Hoyer W, Becker S, Andronesi OC, Riedel D, Baldus M, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102 (2005) 15871–15876. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [110].Comellas G, Lemkau LR, Nieuwkoop AJ, Kloepper KD, Ladror DT, Ebisu R, Woods WS, Lipton AS, George JM, Rienstra CM, J. Mol. Biol 411 (2011) 881–895. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [111].Bousset L, Pieri L, Ruiz-Arlandis G, Gath J, Jensen PH, Habenstein B, Madiona K, Olieric V, Bockmann A, Meier BH, Melki R, Nat. Commun 4 (2013) 2575. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [112].Andronesi OC, von Bergen M, Biernat J, Seidel K, Griesinger C, Mandelkow E, Baldus M, J. Am. Chem. Soc 130 (2008) 5922–5928. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [113].Daebel V, Chinnathambi S, Biernat J, Schwalbe M, Habenstein B, Loquet A, Akoury E, Tepper K, Muller H, Baldus M, Griesinger C, Zweckstetter M, Mandelkow E, Vijayan V, Lange A, J. Am. Chem. Soc 134 (2012) 13982–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [114].Xiang S, Biernat J, Mandelkow E, Becker S, Linser R, Chem. Commun 52 (2016) 4002–4005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [115].Xiang S, Kulminskaya N, Habenstein B, Biernat J, Tepper K, Paulat M, Griesinger C, Becker S, Lange A, Mandelkow E, Linser R, J. Am. Chem. Soc 139 (2017) 2639–2646. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [116].Theint T, Nadaud PS, Aucoin D, Helmus JJ, Pondaven SP, Surewicz K, Surewicz WK, Jaroniec CP, Nat. Commun 8 (2017) 753. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [117].Elkins MR, Wang T, Nick M, Jo H, Lemmin T, Prusiner SB, DeGrado WF, Stohr J, Hong M, J. Am. Chem. Soc 138 (2016) 9840–9852. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [118].Heise H, Celej MS, Becker S, Riedel D, Pelah A, Kumar A, Jovin TM, Baldus M, J. Mol. Biol 380 (2008) 444–450. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [119].Jones EM, Wu B, Surewicz K, Nadaud PS, Helmus JJ, Chen S, Jaroniec CP, Surewicz WK, J. Biol. Chem 286 (2011) 42777–42784. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [120].Lemkau LR, Comellas G, Kloepper KD, Woods WS, George JM, Rienstra CM, J. Biol. Chem 287 (2012) 11526–11532. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [121].Qiang W, Yau WM, Lu JX, Collinge J, Tycko R, Nature 541 (2017) 217–221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [122].Schutz AK, Soragni A, Hornemann S, Aguzzi A, Ernst M, Bockmann A, Meier BH, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 50 (2011) 5956–5960. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [123].Herrmann US, Schutz AK, Shirani H, Huang D, Saban D, Nuvolone M, Li B, Ballmer B, Aslund AK, Mason JJ, Rushing E, Budka H, Nystrom S, Hammarstrom P, Bockmann A, Caflisch A, Meier BH, Nilsson KP, Hornemann S, Aguzzi A, Sci. Transl. Med 7 (2015) 299ra123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [124].Prade E, Bittner HJ, Sarkar R, Lopez Del Amo JM, Althoff-Ospelt G, Multhaup G, Hildebrand PW, Reif B, J. Biol. Chem 290 (2015) 28737–28745. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [125].Gowda C, Zandomeneghi G, Zimmermann H, Schutz AK, Bockmann A, Ernst M, Meier BH, Biomol J NMR 69 (2017) 207–213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [126].Schutz AK, Hornemann S, Walti MA, Greuter L, Tiberi C, Cadalbert R, Gantner M, Riek R, Hammarstrom P, Nilsson KPR, Bockmann A, Aguzzi A, Meier BH, ACS Chem. Neurosci 9 (2018) 475–481. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [127].Nekooki-Machida Y, Kurosawa M, Nukina N, Ito K, Oda T, Tanaka M, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106 (2009) 9679–9684. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [128].Lin HK, Boatz JC, Krabbendam IE, Kodali R, Hou Z, Wetzel R, Dolga AM, Poirier MA, van der Wel PCA, Nat. Commun 8 (2017) 15462. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [129].Helmus JJ, Surewicz K, Surewicz WK, Jaroniec CP, J. Am. Chem. Soc 132 (2010) 2393–2403. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [130].Scheidt HA, Morgado I, Rothemund S, Huster D, J. Biol. Chem 287 (2012) 2017–2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [131].Smith AA, Testori E, Cadalbert R, Meier BH, Ernst M, Biomol J NMR 65 (2016) 171–191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [132].Smith AA, Ernst M, Riniker S, Meier BH, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed (2019) doi: 10.1002/anie.201901929. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [133].Theint T, Nadaud PS, Surewicz K, Surewicz WK, Jaroniec CP, Biomol. NMR Assign 11 (2017) 75–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [134].Helmus JJ, Surewicz K, Nadaud PS, Surewicz WK, Jaroniec CP, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105 (2008) 6284–6289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES