Journal of Chemical Sciences

, 130:158 | Cite as

Quantum mechanical investigation of the nature of nucleobase-urea stacking interaction, a crucial driving force in RNA unfolding in aqueous urea

  • Nitish Alodia
  • Tanashree Jaganade
  • U Deva PriyakumarEmail author
Regular Article


Urea-assisted denaturation of protein and RNA has been shown to be a valuable tool to study their stabilities and folding phenomena. It has been shown that stacking interactions between nucleobases and urea are one of the driving forces of denaturation. In this study, the ability of urea to form unconventional stacking interactions with RNA bases is investigated by performing high-level quantum calculations (RI-MP2/aug-cc-pVDZ level) on a few thousands of model systems. Four systems were considered based on the RNA nucleobases (GUA, ADE, CYT, and URA) for the investigation. For each system, a set of models were designed to study the role of hetero-atoms/groups of the nucleobases on stacking interactions with urea moiety with respect to every possible pair. Several plane-parallel complexes were generated with urea on top of aromatic systems to exhaustively study all possible factors for urea-nucleobases stacking interactions. Energy decomposition analysis (EDA), atoms in molecules (AIM) and natural bond orbital (NBO) analysis were performed to gain better insights on non-covalent stacking interactions. Dispersion component was found to be heavily stabilizing, while the \(\hbox {E}_\mathrm{HF}\) was found to be repulsive for all the four systems indicating lack of hydrogen bonding (HB) type interactions and presence of dispersion type interactions. Amide and carbonyl groups of urea molecule were found to play a major role in favourable stacking interactions. We demonstrate that along with functional groups present on the nucleobases, the orientation of urea molecules plays a vital role in stabilizing the urea-nucleobase non-covalent interactions. The proposed study quantifies and provides a comprehensive theoretical description of urea nucleobase unconventional stacking interactions which helps to unravel urea driven RNA unfolding mechanism.

Graphical Abstract

SYNOPSIS Position and orientation effects on the stacking interactions between the urea and nucleobases, the driving force in urea-induced RNA denaturation, were studied using quantum mechanical calculations. Dispersion effects, functional groups of the bases and orientation of urea molecules are the key contributing factors affecting these interactions.


RNA unfolding chemical denaturation stacking interactions substituent effect dispersion interactions 



We thank DST SERB for financial assistance (Grant No. EMR/2016/007697).

Supplementary material

12039_2018_1563_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (2.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 2273 KB)


  1. 1.
    Mercer T R, Dinger M E and Mattick J S 2009 Long non-coding RNAs: insights into functions Nat. Rev. Genet. 10 155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Breaker R R, Gesteland R F, Cech T R and Atkins J F 2006 The RNA world (New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blower M D 2013 Molecular insights into intracellular RNA localization Int. Rev. Cell Mol. Biol. 302 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burg M B and Ferraris J D 2008 Intracellular organic osmolytes: function and regulation J. Biol. Chem. 283 7309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yancey P H 2005 Organic osmolytes as compatible, metabolic and counteracting cytoprotectants in high osmolarity and other stresses J. Exp. Biol. 208 2819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Santoro M M, Liu Y, Khan S M A, Hou L X and Bolen D W 1992 Increased thermal stability of proteins in the presence of naturally occurring osmolytes Biochemistry (Mosc.) 31 5278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang A and Bolen D W 1997 A naturally occurring protective system in urea-rich cells: Mechanism of osmolyte protection of proteins against urea denaturation Biochemistry (Mosc.) 36 9101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schein C H 1990 Solubility as a function of protein structure and solvent components Nat. Biotechnol. 8 308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhou R, Li J, Hua L, Yang Z and Berne B J 2011 Comment on “urea-mediated protein denaturation: A consensus view” J. Phys. Chem. B 115 1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li W, Zhou R and Mu Y 2012 Salting effects on protein components in aqueous NaCl and urea solutions: toward understanding of urea-induced protein denaturation J. Phys. Chem. B 116 1446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wallqvist A, Covell D G and Thirumalai D 1998 Hydrophobic interactions in aqueous urea solutions with implications for the mechanism of protein denaturation J. Am. Chem. Soc. 120 427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guinn E J, Pegram L M, Capp M W, Pollock M N and Record M T 2011 Quantifying why urea is a protein denaturant, whereas glycine betaine is a protein stabilizer Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108 16932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hua L, Zhou R, Thirumalai D and Berne B J 2008 Urea denaturation by stronger dispersion interactions with proteins than water implies a 2-stage unfolding Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105 16928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lambert D and Draper D E 2012 Denaturation of RNA secondary and tertiary structure by urea: simple unfolded state models and free energy parameters account for measured m-values Biochemistry (Mosc.) 51 9014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Priyakumar U D, Hyeon C, Thirumalai D and MacKerell Jr A D 2009 Urea destabilizes RNA by forming stacking interactions and multiple hydrogen bonds with nucleic acid bases J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131 17759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shelton V M, Sosnick T R and Pan T 1999 Applicability of urea in the thermodynamic analysis of secondary and tertiary RNA folding Biochemistry (Mosc.) 38 16831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Canchi D R, Paschek D and García A E 2010 Equilibrium study of protein denaturation by urea J. Am. Chem. Soc. 132 2338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stumpe M C and Grubmüller H 2007 Interaction of urea with amino acids: implications for urea-induced protein denaturation J. Am. Chem. Soc. 129 16126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guinn E J, Schwinefus J J, Cha H K, McDevitt J L, Merker W E, Ritzer R, Muth G W, Engelsgjerd S W, Mangold K E and Thompson P J 2013 Quantifying functional group interactions that determine urea effects on nucleic acid helix formation J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135 5828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ma L, Pegram L, Record Jr M T and Cui Q 2010 Preferential interactions between small solutes and the protein backbone: A computational analysis Biochemistry (Mosc.) 49 1954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Auton M and Bolen D W 2005 Predicting the energetics of osmolyte-induced protein folding/unfolding Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 102 15065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baldwin R L 1975 Intermediates in protein folding reactions and the mechanism of protein folding Annu. Rev. Biochem. 44 453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Makhatadze G I and Privalov P L 1992 Protein interactions with urea and guanidinium chloride: a calorimetric study J. Mol. Biol. 226 491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goyal S, Chattopadhyay A, Kasavajhala K and Priyakumar U D 2017 Role of Urea–Aromatic Stacking Interactions in Stabilizing the Aromatic Residues of the Protein in Urea-Induced Denatured State J. Am. Chem. Soc. 139 14931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schneck E, Horinek D and Netz R R 2013 Insight into the molecular mechanisms of protein stabilizing osmolytes from global force-field variations J. Phys. Chem. B 117 8310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bennion B J and Daggett V 2003 The molecular basis for the chemical denaturation of proteins by urea Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100 5142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Levy Y and Onuchic J N 2006 Water mediation in protein folding and molecular recognition Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 35 389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vanzi F, Madan B and Sharp K 1998 Effect of the protein denaturants urea and guanidinium on water structure: A structural and thermodynamic study J. Am. Chem. Soc. 120 10748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Berteotti A, Barducci A and Parrinello M 2011 Effect of Urea on the \(\upbeta \)-Hairpin Conformational Ensemble and Protein Denaturation Mechanism J. Am. Chem. Soc. 133 17200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stumpe M C and Grubmüller H 2007 Aqueous urea solutions: structure, energetics, and urea aggregation J. Phys. Chem. B 111 6220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Guinn E J, Pegram L M, Capp M W, Pollock M N and Record M T 2011 Quantifying why urea is a protein denaturant, whereas glycine betaine is a protein stabilizer Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Liu C, Wang T, Bai Y and Wang J 2017 Electrostatic forces govern the binding mechanism of intrinsically disordered histone chaperones PLOS ONE 12 e0178405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rocco A G, Mollica L, Ricchiuto P, Baptista A M, Gianazza E and Eberini I 2008 Characterization of the protein unfolding processes induced by urea and temperature Biophys. J. 94 2241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sánchez I E and Kiefhaber T 2003 Evidence for sequential barriers and obligatory intermediates in apparent two-state protein folding J. Mol. Biol. 325 367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Streicher W W and Makhatadze G I 2007 Unfolding thermodynamics of Trp-cage, a 20 residue miniprotein, studied by differential scanning calorimetry and circular dichroism spectroscopy Biochemistry (Mosc.) 46 2876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    England J L and Haran G 2011 Role of solvation effects in protein denaturation: from thermodynamics to single molecules and back Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 62 257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Miner J C and García A E 2017 Equilibrium Denaturation and Preferential Interactions of an RNA Tetraloop with Urea J. Phys. Chem. B 121 3734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Herschlag D 1995 RNA chaperones and the RNA folding problem J. Biol. Chem. 270 20871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kiger A A, Baum B, Jones S, Jones M R, Coulson A, Echeverri C and Perrimon N 2003 A functional genomic analysis of cell morphology using RNA interference J. Biol. 2 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mercer T R and Mattick J S 2013 Structure and function of long noncoding RNAs in epigenetic regulation Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20 300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    McKay D B 1996 Structure and function of the hammerhead ribozyme: an unfinished story RNA 2 395PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wada A and Suyama A 1986 Local stability of DNA and RNA secondary structure and its relation to biological functions Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 47 113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lambert D and Draper D E 2007 Effects of osmolytes on RNA secondary and tertiary structure stabilities and RNA-Mg2+ interactions J. Mol. Biol. 370 993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pincus D L, Hyeon C and Thirumalai D 2008 Effects of trimethylamine N-oxide TMAO and crowding agents on the stability of RNA hairpins J. Am. Chem. Soc. 130 7364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yoon J, Thirumalai D and Hyeon C 2013 Urea-induced denaturation of preQ1-riboswitch J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135 12112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kasavajhala K, Bikkina S, Patil I, MacKerell Jr A D and Priyakumar U D 2015 Dispersion interactions between urea and nucleobases contribute to the destabilization of RNA by urea in aqueous solution J. Phys. Chem. B 119 3755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Salonen L M, Ellermann M and Diederich F 2011 Aromatic rings in chemical and biological recognition: energetics and structures Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 50 4808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schottel B L, Chifotides H T and Dunbar K R 2008 Anion-\(\uppi \) interactions Chem. Soc. Rev. 37 68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gallivan J P and Dougherty D A 1999 Cation-\(\uppi \) interactions in structural biology Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 96 9459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hunter C A, Lawson K R, Perkins J and Urch C J 2001 Aromatic interactions J. Chem. Soc. Perkin Trans. 2 651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Knowles R R and Jacobsen E N 2010 Attractive noncovalent interactions in asymmetric catalysis: links between enzymes and small molecule catalysts Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 201006402Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zürcher M and Diederich F 2008 Structure-based drug design: exploring the proper filling of apolar pockets at enzyme active sites J. Org. Chem. 73 4345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Schneider H-J 2009 Binding mechanisms in supramolecular complexes Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 48 3924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Weigend F, Häser M, Patzelt H and Ahlrichs R 1998 RI-MP2: optimized auxiliary basis sets and demonstration of efficiency Chem. Phys. Lett. 294 143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Schmidt M W, Baldridge K K, Boatz J A, Elbert S T, Gordon M S, Jensen J H, Koseki S, Matsunaga N, Nguyen K A and Su S 1993 General atomic and molecular electronic structure system J. Comput. Chem. 14 1347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Su P and Li H 2009 Energy decomposition analysis of covalent bonds and intermolecular interactions J. Chem. Phys. 131 014102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Reed A E, Curtiss L A and Weinhold F 1988 Intermolecular interactions from a natural bond orbital, donor-acceptor viewpoint Chem. Rev. 88 899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Todd A and Keith T K 2011 AIMALL Version 11.12. 19. Overland Park KS, USA: Gristmill SoftwareGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kitaura K and Morokuma K 1976 A new energy decomposition scheme for molecular interactions within the Hartree-Fock approximation Int. J. Quantum Chem. 10 325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Glendening E D and Streitwieser A 1994 Natural energy decomposition analysis: An energy partitioning procedure for molecular interactions with application to weak hydrogen bonding, strong ionic, and moderate donor–acceptor interactions J. Chem. Phys. 100 2900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lee E C, Kim D, Jurečka P, Tarakeshwar P, Hobza P and Kim K S 2007 Understanding of assembly phenomena by aromatic- aromatic interactions: benzene dimer and the substituted systems J. Phys. Chem. A 111 3446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hunter C A and Sanders J K 1990 The nature of. pi.-. pi. interactions J. Am. Chem. Soc. 112 5525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wheeler S E 2011 Local nature of substituent effects in stacking interactions J. Am. Chem. Soc. 133 10262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wheeler S E 2012 Understanding substituent effects in noncovalent interactions involving aromatic rings Acc. Chem. Res. 46 1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wheeler S E and Houk K N 2008 Substituent Effects in the Benzene Dimer are Due to Direct Interactions of the Substituents with the Unsubstituted Benzene J. Am. Chem. Soc. 130 10854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cheng X, Shkel I A, O’Connor K, Henrich J, Molzahn C, Lambert D and Record Jr M T 2017 Experimental Atom-by-Atom Dissection of Amide–Amide and Amide–Hydrocarbon Interactions in \(\text{H}_{2}\text{ O }\) J. Am. Chem. Soc. 139 9885Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Blanco F, Kelly B, Sánchez-Sanz G, Trujillo C, Alkorta I, Elguero J and Rozas I 2013 Non-covalent interactions: complexes of guanidinium with DNA and RNA nucleobases J. Phys. Chem. B 117 11608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Blanco F, Kelly B, Alkorta I, Rozas I and Elguero J 2011 Cation–\(\uppi \) interactions: Complexes of guanidinium and simple aromatic systems Chem. Phys. Lett. 511 129Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nitish Alodia
    • 1
  • Tanashree Jaganade
    • 1
  • U Deva Priyakumar
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Center for Computational Natural Sciences and BioinformaticsInternational Institute of Information TechnologyHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations