Journal of Biological Physics

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 681–703 | Cite as

Folding of pig gastric mucin non-glycosylated domains: a discrete molecular dynamics study

  • Bogdan Barz
  • Bradley S. Turner
  • Rama Bansil
  • Brigita Urbanc
Original Paper

Abstract

Mucin glycoproteins consist of tandem-repeating glycosylated regions flanked by non-repetitive protein domains with little glycosylation. These non-repetitive domains are involved in polymerization of mucin and play an important role in the pH-dependent gelation of gastric mucin, which is essential for protecting the stomach from autodigestion. We examine folding of the non-repetitive sequence of PGM-2X (242 amino acids) and the von Willebrand factor vWF-C1 domain (67 amino acids) at neutral and low pH using discrete molecular dynamics (DMD) in an implicit solvent combined with a four-bead peptide model. Using the same implicit solvent parameters, folding of both domains is simulated at neutral and low pH. In contrast to vWF-C1, PGM-2X folding is strongly affected by pH as indicated by changes in the contact order, radius of gyration, free-energy landscape, and the secondary structure. Whereas the free-energy landscape of vWF-C1 shows a single minimum at both neutral and low pH, the free-energy landscape of PGM-2X is characterized by multiple minima that are more numerous and shallower at low pH. Detailed structural analysis shows that PGM-2X partially unfolds at low pH. This partial unfolding is facilitated by the C-terminal region GLU236-PRO242, which loses contact with the rest of the domain due to effective “mean-field” repulsion among highly positively charged N- and C-terminal regions. Consequently, at low pH, hydrophobic amino acids are more exposed to the solvent. In vWF-C1, low pH induces some structural changes, including an increased exposure of CYS at position 67, but these changes are small compared to those found in PGM-2X. For PGM-2X, the DMD-derived average β-strand propensity increases from 0.26 ± 0.01 at neutral pH to 0.38 ± 0.01 at low pH. For vWF-C1, the DMD-derived average β-strand propensity is 0.32 ± 0.02 at neutral pH and 0.35 ± 0.02 at low pH. The DMD-derived structural information provides insight into pH-induced changes in the folding of two distinct mucin domains and suggests plausible mechanisms of the aggregation/gelation of mucin.

Keywords

Mucin PGM-2X vWF-C1 Mucin gelation DMD simulation Protein folding Free-energy landscape Pig gastric mucin 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. Yuriy V. Sereda for his contribution to the implementation of PRO amino acid into the four-bead protein model. B.U. and B.B. acknowledge the support by the NIH grant AG027818 and thank NSF for the access to the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE) supercomputing facilities through the grant PHYS100030. B.S.T. thanks Dr. Nezam Afdhal, M.D., Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center for financial support.

Supplementary material

10867_2012_9280_MOESM1_ESM.eps (4.2 mb)
Figure S1Normalized distributions of (a) the distance between the Cα atoms of a PRO residue and the residue directly preceding it in the sequence and (b) the dihedral angle ω defining trans (ω=π) versus cis (ω=0) conformation. The distributions were calculated using 15,000 reported protein structures from the Protein Data Bank (EPS 4.24 MB)
10867_2012_9280_MOESM2_ESM.eps (3.3 mb)
Figure S2Normalized distributions of pair-wise RMSD values for all initial and final DMD-derived conformations of (a) PGM-2X and (b) vWF-C1 domains. Distributions for final conformations at neutral and low pH are shown in black and red, respectively (EPS 3.31 MB)
10867_2012_9280_MOESM3_ESM.tiff (625 kb)
Figure S3A difference between the neutral and low pH contact map of PGM-2X folded structures (see Fig. 5). The triangle below the diagonal shows positive values of the contact map difference, i.e., the contacts that are stronger at neutral pH and the triangle above the diagonal shows the negative values of the contact map difference, i.e., the contacts that are stronger at low pH. The color scale quantifying the average number of contacts between two residues is displayed on the right (TIFF 624 kb)
10867_2012_9280_MOESM4_ESM.tiff (513 kb)
Figure S4A difference between the neutral and low pH contact map of vWF-C1 folded structures (see Fig. 10). The triangle below the diagonal shows positive values of the contact map difference, i.e., the contacts that are stronger at neutral pH and the triangle above the diagonal shows the negative values of the contact map difference, i.e., the contacts that are stronger at low pH. The color scale quantifying the average number of contacts between two residues is displayed on the right (TIFF 513 kb)
10867_2012_9280_MOESM5_ESM.eps (3.7 mb)
Figure S5Probability distribution of the separation |i-j| along the protein sequence between CYS residue i and CYS residue j for (A) PGM-2X and (B) vWF-C1 folded structures. Only the CYS-CYS residue pairs with respective Cβ atoms within a distance of 0.42 nm, corresponding to disulfide bonds in the model, were considered. Distributions at neutral and low pH conformations are shown in black and red, respectively (EPS 3.69 MB)
10867_2012_9280_MOESM6_ESM.tiff (947 kb)
Figure S6PGM-2X protein models predicted by the I-TASSER server. The N-terminal amino acid ASP1 is colored red and the C-terminal amino acid PRO242 is colored blue. The images were generated by the VMD software package [25] (TIFF 946 kb)
10867_2012_9280_MOESM7_ESM.tiff (672 kb)
Figure S7vWF-C1 protein models predicted by the I-TASSER server. The N-terminal amino acid CYS1 is colored red and the C-terminal amino acid CYS67 is colored blue. The images were generated by the VMD software package [25] (TIFF 671 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Bansil, R., Turner, B.S.: Mucin structure, aggregation, physiological functions and biomedical applications. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 11, 164–170 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Strous, G.J., Dekker, J.: Mucin-type glycoproteins. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 27, 57–92 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Perez-Vilar, J., Hill, R.L.: The structure and assembly of secreted mucins. J. Biol. Chem. 274, 31751–31754 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Turner, B.S.: Expression of cysteine-rich pig gastric mucin (MUC5AC) domains in Pichia pastoris and their pH-dependent properties. Dissertation, Boston University (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhaskar, K.R., Gong, D., Bansil, R., Pajevic, S., Hamilton, J.A., Turner, B.S., Lamont, J.T.: Profound increase in viscosity and aggregation of pig gastric mucin at low pH. Am. J. Physiol. 261, G827–G833 (1991)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cao, X.X., Bansil, R., Bhaskar, K.R., Turner, B.S., LaMont, J.T., Niu, N., Afdhal, N.H.: pH-dependent conformational change of gastric mucin leads to sol-gel transition. Biophys. J. 76, 1250–1258 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Celli, J.P., Turner, B.S., Afdhal, N.H., Ewoldt, R.H., McKinley, G.H., Bansil, R., Erramilli, S.: Rheology of gastric mucin exhibits a pH-dependent sol-gel transition. Biomacromolecules 8, 1580–1586 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hollander, F.: The two-component mucous barrier; its activity in protecting the gastroduodenal mucosa against peptic ulceration. AMA Arch. Intern. Med. 93, 107–120 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hong, Z., Chasan, B., Bansil, R., Turner, B.S., Bhaskar, K.R., Afdhal, N.H.: Atomic force microscopy reveals aggregation of gastric mucin at low pH. Biomacromolecules 6, 3458–3466 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cao, X.: Aggregation and gelation of mucin and its interactions with lipid vesicles. Dissertation, Boston University (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rapaport, D.C.: The Art of Molecular Dynamics Simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Teplow, D.B., Lazo, N.D., Bitan, G., Bernstein, S., Wyttenbach, T., Bowers, M.T., Baumketner, A., Shea, J.E., Urbanc, B., Cruz, L., Borreguero, J., Stanley, H.E.: Elucidating amyloid β-protein folding and assembly: a multidisciplinary approach. Acc. Chem. Res. 39, 635–645 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith, A.V., Hall, C.K.: α-helix formation: discontinuous molecular dynamics on an intermediate-resolution protein model. Protein Struct. Funct. Genet. 44, 344–360 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ding, F., Borreguero, J.M., Buldyrev, S.V., Stanley, H.E., Dokholyan, N.V.: Mechanism for the α-helix to β-hairpin transition. Proteins 53, 220–228 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Urbanc, B., Borreguero, J.M., Cruz, L., Stanley, H.E.: Ab initio discrete molecular dynamics approach to protein folding and aggregation. Meth. Enzymol. 412, 314–338 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Urbanc, B., Cruz, L., Yun, S., Buldyrev, S.V., Bitan, G., Teplow, D.B., Stanley, H.E.: In silico study of amyloid β-protein folding and oligomerization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 17345–17350 (2004)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kyte, J., Doolittle, R.F.: A simple method for displaying the hydropathic character of a protein. J. Mol. Biol. 157, 105–132 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lam, A.R., Teplow, D.B., Stanley, H.E., Urbanc, B.: Effects of the Arctic (E22–>G) mutation on amyloid β-protein folding: discrete molecular dynamics study. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 130, 17413–17422 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Urbanc, B., Betnel, M., Cruz, L., Bitan, G., Teplow, D.B.: Elucidation of amyloid β-protein oligomerization mechanisms: discrete molecular dynamics study. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 132, 4266–4280 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berendsen, H.J.C., Postma, J.P.M., van Gunsteren, W.F., Dinola, A., Haak, J.R.: Molecular dynamics with coupling to an external bath. J. Chem. Phys. 81, 3684–3690 (1984)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nosé, S.: A unified formulation of the constant temperature molecular dynamics methods. J. Chem. Phys. 81, 511 (1984)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dani, V.S., Ramakrishnan, C., Varadarajan, R.: MODIP revisited: re-evaluation and refinement of an automated procedure for modeling of disulfide bonds in proteins. Protein Eng. 16, 187–193 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Urbanc, B., Betnel, M., Cruz, L., Li, H., Fradinger, E.A., Monien, B.H., Bitan, G.: Structural basis for Aβ1-42 toxicity inhibition by Aβ C-terminal fragments: discrete molecular dynamics study. J. Mol. Biol. 410, 316–328 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Masunov, A., Lazaridis, T.: Potentials of mean force between ionizable amino acid side chains in water. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 125, 1722–1730 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Humphrey, W., Dalke, A., Schulten, K.: VMD: visual molecular dynamics. J. Mol. Graph. 14, 33–38 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Plaxco, K.W., Simons, K.T., Baker, D.: Contact order, transition state placement and the refolding rates of single domain proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 277, 985–994 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Turner, B.S., Bhaskar, K.R., Hadzopoulou-Cladaras, M., LaMont, J.T.: Cysteine-rich regions of pig gastric mucin contain von Willebrand factor and cystine knot domains at the carboxyl terminal. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1447, 77–92 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roy, A., Kucukural, A., Zhang, Y.: I-TASSER: a unified platform for automated protein structure and function prediction. Nat. Protoc. 5, 725–738 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang, Y.: Template-based modeling and free modeling by I-TASSER in CASP7. Proteins 69(Suppl 8), 108–117 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yun, S., Urbanc, B., Cruz, L., Bitan, G., Teplow, D.B., Stanley, H.E.: Role of electrostatic interactions in amyloid β-protein (Aβ) oligomer formation: a discrete molecular dynamics study. Biophys. J. 92, 4064–4077 (2007)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Barz, B., Urbanc, B.: Dimer formation enhances structural differences between amyloid β-protein (1–40) and (1–42): an explicit-solvent molecular dynamics study. PLoS ONE 7, e34345 (2012)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gniewek, P., Kolinski, A.: Coarse-grained Monte Carlo simulations of mucus: structure, dynamics, and thermodynamics. Biophys. J. 99, 3507–3516 (2010)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ruggeri, Z.M.: von Willebrand factor. J. Clin. Invest. 100, S41–S46 (1997)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    de Wit, T.R., van Mourik, J.A.: Biosynthesis, processing and secretion of von Willebrand factor: biological implications. Best. Pract. Res. Cl. Ha. 14, 241–255 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dekker, J., Rossen, J.W.A., Buller, H.A., Einerhand, A.W.C.: The MUC family: an obituary. Trends Biochem. Sci. 27, 126–131 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Berendsen, H.J.C., van der Spoel, D., van Drunen, R.: GROMACS: a message-passing parallel molecular dynamics implementation. Comput. Phys. Commun. 91, 43–56 (1995)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lindahl, E., Hess, B., van der Spoel, D.: GROMACS 3.0: a package for molecular simulation and trajectory analysis. J. Mol. Model. 7, 306–317 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bogdan Barz
    • 1
  • Bradley S. Turner
    • 2
  • Rama Bansil
    • 3
  • Brigita Urbanc
    • 1
  1. 1.Physics Dept.Drexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Division of GastroenterologyBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  3. 3.Physics Dept. and Center for Polymer StudiesBoston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations