Advertisement

Prediction of membrane separation efficiency for hydrophobic and hydrophilic proteins

A coarse-grained Brownian dynamics simulation study
  • Yushan Zhang
  • Yong Zhang
  • Mark J. McCready
  • Edward J. MaginnEmail author
Original Paper
  • 75 Downloads

Abstract

A coarse-grained Brownian dynamics model was used to simulate two proteins of similar sizes inside model membrane pores of varying size and hydrophobicity. The two proteins, which have radii of gyration of approximately 9.5 Å in their native states, are a 36-residue hydrophilic villin head piece (HP-36) and a 40-residue hydrophobic amyloid beta (Aβ-40). From calculations of the separation factor, it is found that the two proteins are best separated using a pore radius of 15 Å and that hydrophobic pores select Aβ-40 while the hydrophilic pores preferentially pass through HP-36. In addition, it is found that a simple model based on the net hydropathy of a protein is capable of estimating the separation factor trends of other protein pairs. Together, the coarse-grained Brownian dynamics model and the simple model are fast methodologies to guide experimental membrane design and to provide insights on protein structure variations.

Graphical Abstract

Simulation setup and snapshots of protein in various pore sizes

Keywords

Separation efficiency Brownian dynamics simulation Hydrophobicity Protein separations 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding for this project was provided by the National Science Foundation: Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems (1511862). Computational resources are provided by Notre Dame’s Center for Research Computing.

References

  1. 1.
    Berg JM, Tymoczko JL, Stryer L (2002) Biochemistry. W. H. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lodish H, Berk A, Zipursky S (2000) Molecular Cell Biology. W. H. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhu Z, Lu JJ, Liu S (2012) Protein separation by capillary gel electrophoresis: A review. Analytica Chimica Acta 709:21–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tan SC, Yiap BC (2009) DNA, RNA, and protein extraction: The past and the present. J Biomed Biotechnol 2009: ID: 574398Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peterson BL, Cummings BS (2006) A review of chromatographic methods for the assessment of phospholipids in biological samples. Biomed Chromatogr 20(3):227–243PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Still WC, Kahn M, Mitra A (1978) Rapid chromatographic technique for preparative separations with moderate resolution. J Org Chem 43(14):2923–2925Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jennissen HP (1978) Multivalent interaction chromatography as exemplified by the adsorption and desorption of skeletal muscle enzymes on hydrophobic alkyl-agaroses. J Chromatogr 159:71–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paul-Dauphin S, Karaca F, Morgan TJ, Millan-Agorio M, Herod AA, Kandiyoti R (2007) Probing size exclusion mechanisms of complex hydrocarbon mixtures: The effect of altering eluent compositions. Energy Fuels 21(6):3484–3489Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Broek AP, Teunis HA, Bargeman D, Sprengers ED, Strathmann H, Smolders CA (1995) Characterization of hemodialysis membranes by inverse size exclusion chromatography. J Membr Sci 99(3):217–228Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hong P, Koza S, Bouvier ES (2012) A review size-exclusion chromatography for the analysis of protein biotherapeutics and their aggregates. J Liq Chromatogr Relat Technol 35(20):2923–2950PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lindqvist B, Storgards T (1955) Molecular-sieving properties of starch. Nature 175(4455):511–512Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berek D (2010) Size exclusion chromatography—a blessing and a curse of science and technology of synthetic polymers. J Sep Sci 33(3):315–335PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hofstee BHJ, Otillio N (1978) Non-ionic adsorption chromatography of proteins. J Chromatogr A 159 (1):57–69Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jennissen HP, Heilmeyer LM (1975) General aspects of hydrophobic chromatography. Adsorption and elution characteristics of some skeletal muscle enzymes. Biochemistry 14(4):754–760PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Porath J, Sundberg L, Fornstedt N, Olsson I (1973) Salting-out in amphiphilic Gels as a new approach to hydrophobia adsorption. Nature 245(5426):465–466PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Himstedt HH, Qian X, Weaver JR, Wickramasinghe SR (2013) Responsive membranes for hydrophobic interaction chromatography. J Membr Sci 447:335–344Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCue JT (2009) Chapter 25 theory and use of hydrophobic interaction chromatography in protein purification applications. In: Methods in Enzymology. 1st edn., vol 463. Elsevier Inc., Amsterdam, pp 405–414Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alpert AJ (1988) Hydrophobic interaction chromatography of peptides as an alternative to reversed-phase chromatography. J Chromatogr A 444(C):269–274Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mohammadi-Jam S, Waters KE (2014) Inverse gas chromatography applications: a review. Adv Colloid Interf Sci 212:21–44Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van Reis R, Zydney A (2001) Membrane separations in biotechnology. Curr Opin Biotechnol 12(2):208–211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Porter M (1972) Concentration Polarization with Membrane ultrafiltration. Ind Eng Chem Prod Res Dev 11 (3):234–248Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rohani MM, Zydney AL (2010) Role of electrostatic interactions during protein ultrafiltration. Adv Colloid Interf Sci 160(1-2):40–48Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Avramescu ME, Borneman Z, Wessling M (2003) Mixed-matrix membrane adsorbers for protein separation. J Chromatogr A 1006(1-2):171–183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Musale DA, Kulkarni SS (1997) Relative rates of protein transmission through poly(acrylonitrile) based ultrafiltration membranes. J Membr Sci 136(1-2):13–23Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weidman JL, Mulvenna RA, Boudouris BW, Phillip WA (2016) Unusually stable hysteresis in the ph-response of poly(acrylic acid) brushes confined within nanoporous block polymer thin films. J Am Chem Soc 138 (22):7030–7039PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Latour RA (2008) Molecular simulation of protein-surface interactions: Benefits, problems, solutions, and future directions (Review). Biointerphases 3(3):FC2–FC12PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Riccardi E, Wang JC, Liapis AI (2010) A molecular dynamics study on the transport of a charged biomolecule in a polymeric adsorbent medium and its adsorption onto a charged ligand. J Chem Phys 133(8):084904PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yesudasan S, Wang X, Averett RD (2018) Coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations of fibrin polymerization: effects of thrombin concentration on fibrin clot structure. J Mol Model 24(5):109PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nnyigide OS, Lee SG, Hyun K (2018) Exploring the differences and similarities between urea and thermally driven denaturation of bovine serum albumin: intermolecular forces and solvation preferences. J Mol Model 24(3):75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Basconi JE, Carta G, Shirts MR (2015) Effects of polymer graft properties on protein adsorption and transport in ion exchange chromatography: A multiscale modeling study. Langmuir 31(14):4176–4187PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Basconi JE, Carta G, Shirts MR (2017) Effects of protein properties on adsorption and transport in polymer-grafted ion exchangers: A multiscale modeling study. AICHE J 63(10):4564–4575. 0201037v1Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    May A, Pool R, van Dijk E, Bijlard J, Abeln S, Heringa J, Feenstra KA (2014) Coarse-grained versus atomistic simulations: realistic interaction free energies for real proteins. Bioinformatics 30(3):326–334PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tozzini V (2005) Coarse-grained models for proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol 15(2):144–150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mukherjee A, Bagchi B (2003) Correlation between rate of folding, energy landscape, and topology in the folding of a model protein HP-36. J Chem Phys 118(10):4733–4747Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bandyopadhyay S, Chakraborty S, Bagchi B (2006) Coupling between hydration layer dynamics and unfolding kinetics of HP-36. J Chem Phys 125(8):084912PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kmiecik S, Gront D, Kolinski M, Wieteska L, Dawid AE, Kolinski A (2016) Coarse-grained protein models and their applications. Chem Rev 116(14):7898–7936PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zimm BH, Bragg JK (1959) Theory of the phase transition between helix and random coil in polypeptide chains. J Chem Phys 31(2):526–535Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nick Pace C, Martin Scholtz J (1998) A helix propensity scale based on experimental studies of peptides and proteins. Biophys J 75(1):422–427Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Weidman JL, Mulvenna RA, Boudouris BW, Phillip WA (2015) Nanostructured membranes from triblock polymer precursors as high capacity copper adsorbents. Langmuir 31(40):11113– 11123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kyte J, Doolittle RF (1982) A simple method for displaying the hydropathic character of a protein. J Mol Biol 157(1):105– 132PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ermak DL, Mccammon JA (1978) Brownian dynamics with hydrodynamic interactions. J Chem Phys 1352(69):4Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Plimpton S (1995) Fast parallel algorithms for short-range molecular dynamics. J Comput Phys 117(1):1–19Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schneider T, Stoll E (1978) Molecular-dynamics study of a three-dimensional one-component model for distortive phase transitions. Phys Rev B 17(3):1302–1322Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gibbs JW (1902) Elementary Principles in Statistical Mechanics. Dover Publications, INC., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sandell EB (1968) Meaning of the term separation factor. Anal Chem 40(4):834–835Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Baker RW (2012) Membranes and modules. In: Membrane Technology and Applications, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp 97–168Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Grossfield A, Feller S, Pitman M (2007) Convergence of molecular dynamics simulations of membrane proteins. PROTEINS: Struct. Func, and Bioinfor 67:31–40Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lyman E, Zuckerman DM (2007) On the structural convergence of biomolecular simulations by determination of the effective sample size. J Phys Chem B 111(44):12876–12882PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Grossfield A, Zuckerman DM (2009) Quantifying Uncertainty and Sampling Quality in Biomolecular Simulations, vol 5. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    McKnight CJ, Matsudaira PT, Kim PS (1997) NMR Structure of the 35-residue villin headpiece subdomain. Nat Struct Biol 4(3):180–184PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lobanov MY, Bogatyreva NS, Galzitskaya OV (2008) Radius of gyration as an indicator of protein structure compactness. Mol Biol 42(4):623–628Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Jang S, Kim E, Shin S, Pak Y (2003) Ab initio folding of helix bundle proteins using molecular dynamics simulations. J Am Chem Soc 125(48):14841–14846PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Duan LL, Zhu T, Zhang QG, Tang B, Zhang JZH (2014) Electronic polarization stabilizes tertiary structure prediction of HP-36. J Mol Model 20(4):2195PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Vivekanandan S, Brender JR, Lee SY, Ramamoorthy A (2011) A partially folded structure of amyloid-beta(1-40) in an aqueous environment. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 411(2):312– 316PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zhang-Haagen B, Biehl R, Nagel-Steger L, Radulescu A, Richter D, Willbold D (2016) Monomeric amyloid beta peptide in hexafluoroisopropanol detected by small angle neutron scattering. PLOS ONE 11(2):e0150267PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nag S, Sarkar B, Bandyopadhyay A, Sahoo B, Sreenivasan VKA, Kombrabail M, Muralidharan C, Maiti S (2011) Nature of the amyloid-β monomer and the monomer-oligomer equilibrium. J Biol Chem 286(16):13827–13833PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sticht H, Bayer P, Willbold D, Dames S, Hilbich C, Beyreuther K, Frank RW, Rosch P (1995) Structure of amyloid A4-(1-40)-Peptide of Alzheimer’s disease. Eur J Biochem 233(1):293– 298PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Fraczkiewicz R, Braun W (1998) Exact and efficient analytical calculation of the accessible surface areas and their gradients for macromolecules. J Comput Chem 19(3):319–333Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Negi S, Zhu H, Fraczkiewicz R, Braun W (2008) Calculation of solvent accessible surface area, atomic solvation energies and their gradients for macromoleculesGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Eisenberg D, McLachlan AD, Eisenberg D, McLachlan AD, McLachlan AD (1986) Solvation energy in protein folding and binding. Nature 319(6050):199–203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    García De La Torre J, Huertas ML, Carrasco B (2000) Calculation of hydrodynamic properties of globular proteins from their atomic-level structure. Biophys J 78(2):719–730PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Akiyama S, Takahashi S, Kimura T, Ishimori K, Morishima I, Nishikawa Y, Fujisawa T (2002) Conformational landscape of cytochrome C folding studied by microsecond-resolved small-angle X-ray scattering. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99(3):1329–1334PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Santos SF, Zanette D, Fischer H, Itri R (2003) A systematic study of bovine serum albumin (BSA) and sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) interactions by surface tension and small angle X-ray scattering. J Colloid Interface Sci 262(2):400–408PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Schneider R, Mayer A, Schmatz W, Schelten J, Franzel R, Eicher H (1971) X-ray and neutron small-angle scattering from hemoglobin in aqueous solution and in crystal. Eur J Biochem 20(2):179–182PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical and Biomolecular EngineeringUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations