Abstract
Enzyme-instructed self-assembly (EISA) and hydrogelation is a versatile approach for generating soft materials. Most of the substrates for alkaline phosphatase catalysed EISA utilizes phosphotyrosine (pTyr) as the enzymatic trigger for EISA and hydrogelation. Here we show the first example of phosphonaphthyl (pNP) and phosphobiphenyl (pBP) motifs acting as faster enzymatic triggers than phosphotyrosine for EISA and hydrogelation. This work illustrates novel enzyme triggers for rapid enzymatic self-assembly and hydrogelation.
Phosphonaphthyl (pNP) or phosphobiphenyl (pBP), acting as both the N-terminal capping group and and the enzymatic trigger, of short peptides results in alkaline phosphatase (ALP)-catalyzed gelation (almost) instantly.
Graphical Abstract:

Enzyme-instructed self-assembly (EISA) or enzymatic noncovalent synthesis,1 as a versatile approach for mimicking the regulation of noncovalent interactions of biomolecules in a living cell, has emerged as a useful bottom-up strategy for controlling functional supramolecular peptide assemblies,2 which promise a wide range of potential applications of soft materials in biomedicine, such as tissue engineering,3–4 molecular imaging,5–7 drug delivery,8–10 multimolecular crowding in biosystems,11 and cancer therapy.12–16 Because enzymatic reactions provide a fast and specific transformation of supramolecular peptide assemblies, EISA is particularly attractive for generating non-diffusive supramolecular assemblies17–19 in cellular environment20 for modulating cellular activities,21 such as apoptosis,22 morphogenesis,23 and protein trafficking.24–25 Most of these studies related to short peptides utilize phosphotyrosine (pTyr) as an enzymatic trigger26 being activated by alkaline phosphatase (ALP) for initiating self-assembly of the peptides because ALP plays important roles in cell biology and is overexpressed in certain tumours.27–28 Particularly, most of these peptides contain an aromatic capping motif, such as naphthyl,29 fluorenyl,30 or pyrenyl31 group, at the N-terminal and L- or D-pTyr at the C-terminal or in the middle of the peptides.31–34 A representative example of EISA substrates is Nap-ffpy (1P), which carries a D-pTyr (py) at the C-terminal of the peptide. 1P has revealed many key features of EISA and led to unexpected formation of pericellular nanofibers that selectively kill cancer cells.35 On the other hand, the phosphate trigger at N-terminal of peptide is much less explored, except the work of Ye et al. that employs a phosphorylated dye at the N-terminal of a peptide,7 but the rate of dephosphorylation is relatively slow.
Therefore, we decide to examine the dephosphorylation of N-terminal aromatic capping motif of short peptides for enzymatic self-assembly and hydrogelation. As shown in Scheme 1, we attach phosphohydroxybenzoic acid (pB), phosphohydroxynaphthoic acid (pNP), or phosphohydroxybiphenyl-carboxylic acid (pBP) at the N-terminal of D-diphenylalanine (ff)36 or D-tri-phenylalanine peptide (fff) to generate phosphorylated peptide derivatives (2-7P) as the substrates of ALP. Our results show that while the ff derivatives are unable to form hydrogels, the fff derivatives result in hydrogels after ALP-catalysed dephosphorylation converting the nanoparticles made of the precursors to the nanofibers consisted of the corresponding hydrogelators (i.e., 3, 5, or 7). Rheological evaluation shows that the resulting three hydrogels have relatively high storage moduli, up to 104 Pa, when the concentrations of the hydrogelators are about 8 mM (about 0.5 wt%). Moreover, pBP and pNP act as faster enzyme triggers than py and pB motif for hydrogelation. As the first example to show the dephosphorylation of pBP and pNP for rapid enzymatic self-assembly and hydrogelation, this work offers a novel molecular platform and identifies fast triggers for EISA catalysed by ALP.
Scheme 1.

Structures of the peptide derivatives with phosphate at the C-terminal (previously explored) and N-terminal (this work).
Scheme 1 shows the structures of the designed substrates of ALP. Based on the structure of 1P, we use pB, pNP or pBP as the enzymatic trigger of ALP to replace py in 1P. We also move the ALP trigger to the N-terminal of the peptides. That is, pB, pNP or pBP acts as the N-terminal capping group for ff or fff. Such a combination leads to six substrates of ALP: pB-ff (2P), pB-fff (3P), pNP-ff (4P), pNP-fff (5P), pBP-ff (6P), and pBP-fff (7P). After being dephosphorylated by ALP, these substrates would result in six peptide derivatives: B-ff (2), B-fff (3), NP-ff (4), NP-fff (5), BP-ff (6), and BP-fff (7). According to this design, we first produce pB, pNP and pBP according to previously reported procedures.37 Then, we, using Fmoc-based solid-phase peptide synthesis,38 synthesize the six substrates of ALP.
After obtaining the precursors, we examine enzymatic gelation of these substrates upon the addition of ALP. Each of precursor dissolves in PBS buffer to form a clear solution with the concentrations of 0.5 wt%. As shown in Figure 1, enzymatic dephosphorylation of 3P, 5P or 7P results in a hydrogel 24 h after adding ALP. While the dephosphorylation of 2P and 4P affords a solution, the dephosphorylation of 6P results in a suspension. This result indicates that 2 or 4 is more water soluble than 6, agreeing with the higher hydrophobicity of biphenyl (logP = 3.71) than those of naphthyl (logP = 3.03) and phenyl (logP = 2.03) groups. These results also suggest that the tri-phenylalanine enhances intermolecular interactions to favour hydrogelation of 3, 5, or 7.
Fig. 1.

The optical images of 2P, 3P, 4P, 5P, 6P and 7P (0.5 wt % in PBS buffer, pH7.4) before and after incubation with ALP (1 UmL−1) for 24 h.
We use dynamic time sweep to characterize the rheological properties of the hydrogels resulted from EISA of 3P, 5P, and 7P by measuring their storage and loss moduli (G’ and G”) (Fig. 2). We make the solutions of 3P, 5P, and 7P with the concentrations of 8 mM (about 0.5 wt%). After the addition of ALP to the solution of 3P, a crossover of G’ and G” occurs at about 1 h or 11 h of incubation when the concentration of ALP is 1.0 or 0.1 UmL−1, respectively. With the treatment of 1.0 UmL−1 or 0.1 UmL−1 ALP, the solution of 5P shows the crossover of G’ and G” around 2 minutes or at 20 minutes, respectively. Being incubated with ALP at 1.0 or 0.1 UmL−1, the solution of 7P exhibits the crossover of G’ and G” less than one minutes or at about 13 minutes, respectively. These results indicate that pBP or pNP, as an enzyme trigger, enables enzymatic hydrogelation about 50–60 times faster than pB does. Moreover, the times of 5P and 7P to reach the gelation point are two and three times shorter than that of 1P (Fig. S1), respectively. This result confirms that pBP and pNP are faster enzyme triggers for EISA than py does. After 12 hours, the G’ values of the hydrogels by EISA of 3P, 5P, and 7P reach their plateau values when the concentration of ALP is 1.0 UmL−1.
Fig. 2.

Dynamic time sweeps of 3P (8 mM), 5P (8 mM), and 7P (8 mM) incubated with ALP at 1 and 0.1 UmL−1 and at a strain of 1% and frequency of 6.28 rads−1.
We also conduct frequency and strain sweeps (Fig. 3) of the hydrogels. The strain and frequency applied in time sweep fall within the linear viscoelastic range of the gels, indicating that the time-dependent strain sweeps are carried out on appropriate conditions. Being incubated with 1 UmL−1 and 0.1 UmL−1 of ALP, the hydrogels, being made of 3, 5, or 7, obtained by the dephosphorylation of 3P, 5P, or 7P, exhibit frequency-independent G’ (0.1 rads−1 to 200 rads−1), suggesting that gels behave solid-like. For the gel resulted from dephosphorylation of 3P by 1 UmL−1 of ALP, G’ and G” are independent of strain below 1% and show the existence of linear viscoelastic region (LVR). Within the LVR, G′ (up to 104 Pa) is significantly greater than G′′, reflecting their dominant elastic nature. For the gel resulted from dephosphorylation of 3P by 0.1 UmL−1 of ALP, though G’> G” below 1% strain, G” fluctuates and increases with the increase of strain, which fails to show LVR and indicates the hydrogel being relatively weak. Unlike the case of 3P, the strain sweeps of the hydrogels resulted from dephosphorylation of 5P or 7P by 1 or 0.1 UmL−1 of ALP show that G’ and G” are independent of strain below 2%. Both show the existence of linear viscoelastic region (LVR), suggesting that NP or BP enhances the viscoelasticity of the hydrogels made of 5 or 7.
Fig. 3.

(A) Frequency sweeps of 3P (8 mM), 5P (8mM), and 7P (8 mM) conducted after 24 h incubation with ALP at 1.0 and 0.1 UmL−1 and at the strain of 1%. (B) Dynamic strain sweeps of 3P (8mM), 5P (8mM), and 7P (8mM) conducted after 24 h incubation with ALP at 1.0 and 0.1 UmL−1 and at the frequency of 6.28 rads−1.
To investigate the morphological properties, we use the transmission electron microscopy (TEM) to image these precursors without or with the addition of ALP. As shown in Fig. 4, TEM of the solutions of 2P, 4P, 6P, and 7P show aggregated nanoparticles, with the diameters about 10 nm. While the TEM of the solution of 3P reveals the existence of short nanofibers with the diameters of 4 nm, TEM of the solutions of 5P show the coexistence of short nanofibers with diameters of 4 nm and nanoparticles. After the addition of 0.1 UmL−1 of ALP into the solutions of 2P and 6P for 24 h, the resulting solutions of 2 and the suspension of 6 contain the nanoparticles with the diameters around 12 nm. The resulting solution of 4 showed coexistence of nanoparticles and nanosheets. The hydrogels of 3 show extended and entangled nanofibers with the diameters of 4 nm, and some of the nanofibers form bundles with the diameter of 14 nm; the hydrogel of 5 shows uniformed nanofibers with the width of 8 nm; and the hydrogel of 7 shows uniformed bundles with a diameter of 13 ± 2 nm. The formation of the nanofibers of 3, 5, or 7 likely contributes to the formation of the hydrogel of 3, 5, or 7. Notably, while the scanning electron microscopic (SEM) image of the dried gel of 3 display nanofiber networks, the dried gel of 7 is largely amorphous with a few thick fibres (Fig. S2), agreeing with that the high hydrophobicity of biphenyl group significantly enhances the intermolecular interactions of 7.
Fig. 4.

The TEM images of 2P, 3P, 4P, 5P, 6P and 7P at 8 mM before and after ALP treatment. The concentration of ALP is 0.1 UmL−1. The duration time is 24 h. The scale bar is 100 nm.
In summary, we design six short peptides containing phosphoaromatic both the capping groups and the enzyme trigger at the N-terminal as novel ALP substrates for EISA and hydrogelation. The ability to form the hydrogels indicate that the tripeptide backbone having aromatic groups (i.e., Phe and/or Tyr) enhances self-assembly and leads to hydrogelation. The result that pBP is a faster substrate than pTyr for ALP agrees with the report that pBP is a faster substrate than pTyr for protein tyrosine phosphatase 1 (PTP1B).39 The rates of the enzymatic hydrogelation catalysed by ALP follows the trend of 7P > 5P > 1P > 3P, implying that distancing the phosphate trigger away from the peptide backbone likely favours fast enzymatic self-assembly, a design principle that may help combine EISA with other self-assembling molecules.40–49 This work also suggests that it is worthwhile to examine other phosphobisaromatic capping groups for exploring the anticancer drug candidates that act via EISA catalysed by phosphatases.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgement
This work was partially supported by the NIH (CA142746, CA252364) and NSF (DMR-2011846 and PREM-1827820).
Footnotes
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts to declare.
ReferencesUncategorized References
- 1.He H, Tan W, Guo J, Yi M, Shy AN and Xu B, Chem Rev, 2020, 120, 9994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kim BJ and Xu B, Bioconjugate Chem, 2020, 31, 492. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Cui H, Webber MJ and Stupp SI, Pept Sci, 2010, 94, 1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Shang Y, Wang Z, Zhang R, Li X, Zhang S, Gao J, Li X and Yang Z, Chem Commun, 2019, 55, 5123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hai Z and Liang G, Advanced Biosystems, 2018, 2, 1800108. [Google Scholar]
- 6.He Y, Yu J, Hu X, Huang S, Cai L, Yang L, Zhang H, Jiang Y, Jia Y and Sun H, Chem Commun, 2020, 56, 13323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Yan R, Hu Y, Liu F, Wei S, Fang D, Shuhendler AJ, Liu H, Chen H-Y and Ye D, J Am Chem Soc, 2019, 141, 10331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Mei L, He S, Liu Z, Xu K and Zhong W, Chem Commun, 2019, 55, 4411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Shi Y, Wang Z, Zhang X, Xu T, Ji S, Ding D, Yang Z and Wang L, Chem Commun, 2015, 51, 15265. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Wang Y, Cheetham AG, Angacian G, Su H, Xie L and Cui H, Adv Drug Deliver Rev, 2017, 110–111, 112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Feng Z, Wang H and Xu B, J Am Chem Soc, 2018, 140, 16433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Feng Z, Han X, Wang H, Tang T and Xu B, Chem, 2019, 5, 2442. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Jeena MT, Lee S, Barui AK, Jin S, Cho Y, Hwang S-W, Kim S and Ryu J-H, Chem Commun, 2020, 56, 6265. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Tanaka A, Fukuoka Y, Morimoto Y, Honjo T, Koda D, Goto M and Maruyama T, J Am Chem Soc, 2015, 137, 770. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Yao Q, Lin F, Fan X, Wang Y, Liu Y, Liu Z, Jiang X, Chen PR and Gao Y, Nature Communications, 2018, 9, 5032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Yang ZM, Xu KM, Guo ZF, Guo ZH and Xu B, Advanced Materials, 2007, 19, 3152. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Hendricks MP, Sato K, Palmer LC and Stupp SI, Accounts Chem Res, 2017, 50, 2440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Ivnitski D, Amit M, Silberbush O, Atsmon-Raz Y, Nanda J, Cohen-Luria R, Miller Y, Ashkenasy G and Ashkenasy N, Angew Chem Int Ed, 2016, 55, 9988. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Ouyang G and Liu M, Materials Chemistry Frontiers, 2020, 4, 155. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Feng Z, Wang H, Wang F, Oh Y, Berciu C, Cui Q, Egelman EH and Xu B, Cell Rep Phys Sci, 2020, 1, 100085. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Zhan J, Zhong J, Ma S, Ma W, Wang Y, Yu Z, Cai Y and Huang W, Chem Commun, 2020, 56, 6957. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Du X, Zhou J, Wang H, Shi J, Kuang Y, Zeng W, Yang Z and Xu B, Cell Death & Disease, 2017, 8, e2614. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Zhou J, Du X, Chen X and Xu B, Biochemistry, 2018, 57, 4867. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.He H, Guo J, Xu J, Wang J, Liu S and Xu B, Nano Letters, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Yang D, He H, Kim BJ and Xu B, Bioconjugate Chem, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Yang Z, Gu H, Fu D, Gao P, Lam JK and Xu B, Adv Mater, 2004, 16, 1440. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Fishman WH, Inglis NR, Green S, Anstiss CL, Gosh NK, Reif AE, Rustigian R, Krant MJ and Stolbach LL, Nature, 1968, 219, 697. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Lange PH, Millan JL, Stigbrand T, Vessella RL, Ruoslahti E and Fishman WH, Cancer Res, 1982, 42, 3244. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Shi J, Du X, Yuan D, Zhou J, Zhou N, Huang Y and Xu B, Biomacromolecules, 2014, 15, 3559. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Gao J, Wang H, Wang L, Wang J, Kong D and Yang Z, J Am Chem Soc, 2009, 131, 11286. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Li J, Zhan Z, Du X, Wang J, Hong B and Xu B, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed, 2018, 57, 11716. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Wang H, Yang C, Tan M, Wang L, Kong D and Yang Z, Soft Matter, 2011, 7, 3897. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Yao Q, Wang C, Fu M, Dai L, Li J and Gao Y, ACS Nano, 2020, 14, 4882. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Zheng Z, Chen P, Xie M, Wu C, Luo Y, Wang W, Jiang J and Liang G, J Am Chem Soc, 2016, 138, 11128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Kuang Y, Shi J, Li J, Yuan D, Alberti KA, Xu Q and Xu B, Angew Chem Int Ed Engl, 2014, 53, 8104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Reches M and Gazit E, Science, 2003, 300, 625. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Gräber M, Janczyk W, Sperl B, Elumalai N, Kozany C, Hausch F, Holak TA and Berg T, ACS Chemical Biology, 2011, 6, 1008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Chan W and White P, Fmoc solid phase peptide synthesis: a practical approach, OUP Oxford, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 39.Montserat J, Chen L, Lawrence DS and Zhang Z-Y, J Biol Chem, 1996, 271, 7868. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Hamley IW, Soft Matter, 2011, 7, 4122. [Google Scholar]
- 41.Hamley IW, Dehsorkhi A, Castelletto V, Furzeland S, Atkins D, Seitsonen J and Ruokolainen J, Soft Matter, 2013, 9, 9290. [Google Scholar]
- 42.Shi J, Fichman G and Schneider JP, Angew Chem Int Ed, 2018, 57, 11188. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Wu D, Sinha N, Lee J, Sutherland BP, Halaszynski NI, Tian Y, Caplan J, Zhang HV, Saven JG, Kloxin CJ and Pochan DJ, Nature, 2019, 574, 658. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Wang F, Gnewou O, Wang S, Osinski T, Zuo X, Egelman EH and Conticello VP, Matter, 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Castelletto V, Seitsonen J, Ruokolainen J, Piras C, Cramer R, Edwards-Gayle CJC and Hamley IW, Chem Commun, 2020, 56, 11977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Gayen K, Nandi N, Das KS, Hermida-Merino D, Hamley IW and Banerjee A, Soft Matter, 2020, 16, 10106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Jervis PJ, Amorim C, Pereira T, Martins JA and Ferreira PMT, Soft Matter, 2020, 16, 10001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Liu Z, Jiang Y, Jiang J, Zhai D, Wang D and Liu M, Soft Matter, 2020, 16, 4115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Yoshisaki R, Kimura S, Yokoya M and Yamanaka M, Chem Asian J, 2021, 16, 1937. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
