Match!

Dynamic cluster formation determines viscosity and diffusion in dense protein solutions

Published on Apr 29, 2019in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America9.58
· DOI :10.1073/pnas.1817564116
Sören von Bülow1
Estimated H-index: 1
(MPG: Max Planck Society),
Marc Siggel (MPG: Max Planck Society)+ 1 AuthorsGerhard Hummer67
Estimated H-index: 67
(Goethe University Frankfurt)
Abstract
We develop a detailed description of protein translational and rotational diffusion in concentrated solution on the basis of all-atom molecular dynamics simulations in explicit solvent. Our systems contain up to 540 fully flexible proteins with 3.6 million atoms. In concentrated protein solutions (100 mg/mL and higher), the proteins ubiquitin and lysozyme, as well as the protein domains third IgG-binding domain of protein G and villin headpiece, diffuse not as isolated particles, but as members of transient clusters between which they constantly exchange. A dynamic cluster model nearly quantitatively explains the increase in viscosity and the decrease in protein diffusivity with protein volume fraction, which both exceed the predictions from widely used colloid models. The Stokes–Einstein relations for translational and rotational diffusion remain valid, but the effective hydrodynamic radius grows linearly with protein volume fraction. This increase follows the observed increase in cluster size and explains the more dramatic slowdown of protein rotation compared with translation. Baxter’s sticky-sphere model of colloidal suspensions captures the concentration dependence of cluster size, viscosity, and rotational and translational diffusion. The consistency between simulations and experiments for a diverse set of soluble globular proteins indicates that the cluster model applies broadly to concentrated protein solutions, with equilibrium dissociation constants for nonspecific protein–protein binding in the K d ≈ 10-mM regime.
Figures & Tables
  • References (118)
  • Citations (0)
References118
Newest
#1Joana Paulino (FSU: Florida State University)H-Index: 2
#2Xiaodong Pang (FSU: Florida State University)H-Index: 11
Last.Timothy A. Cross (FSU: Florida State University)H-Index: 48
view all 5 authors...
#1Grzegorz Nawrocki (MSU: Michigan State University)H-Index: 3
#2Alp Karaboga (MSU: Michigan State University)H-Index: 1
Last.Michael Feig (MSU: Michigan State University)H-Index: 44
view all 4 authors...
#1Alex J. Guseman (UNC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)H-Index: 4
#2Gerardo M. Perez Goncalves (UNC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)H-Index: 3
Last.Gary J. Pielak (UNC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)H-Index: 44
view all 5 authors...
#1Max Linke (MPG: Max Planck Society)H-Index: 2
#2Jürgen Köfinger (MPG: Max Planck Society)H-Index: 11
Last.Gerhard Hummer (Goethe University Frankfurt)H-Index: 67
view all 3 authors...
#1Germán Rivas (CSIC: Spanish National Research Council)H-Index: 38
#2Allen P. Minton (NIH: National Institutes of Health)H-Index: 47
#1Max Linke (MPG: Max Planck Society)H-Index: 2
#2Jürgen Köfinger (MPG: Max Planck Society)H-Index: 11
Last.Gerhard Hummer (Goethe University Frankfurt)H-Index: 67
view all 3 authors...
View next paperChallenges in Predicting Protein-Protein Interactions from Measurements of Molecular Diffusivity