Intrachain loops in polymers: Effects of excluded volume

Hue Sun  Chan; Ken A.  Dill

doi:10.1063/1.456500

ABSTRACT

We develop a theory for the formation of loops and intrachain contacts in polymer molecules which are subject to excluded volume. We use two methods: (i) exhaustive simulations of chain conformations on two‐dimensional square lattices, and (ii) the Edwards path integral approach. The predictions are compared to those of the Jacobson–Stockmayer theory, which neglects excluded volume. Our results show that the cyclization probability in two dimensions depends on loop length to a power between −1.6 to −2.4, in contrast to the prediction of Jacobson–Stockmayer of a power of −1. In addition, the cyclization probability depends on the position in the chain, and end effects are significant. A principal result of the present work is the development of ‘‘topological’’ correlation functions among multiple loops in a chain. If two loops are far apart along the chain, they act independently, but as they approach each other, or if they are interlinked, then one can strongly hinder or enhance the likelihood of another. For these situations, the path integral theory is an improvement over Jacobson–Stockmayer, but misses some important features of short‐ranged packing effects. A particularly striking conclusion is that in the presence of the most probable first loop, the formation of a second contact is strongly preferred to be in either of only two possible conformations: a helix or an antiparallel sheet. This suggests that the basis for secondary structure formation in globular proteins may be packing and conformational freedom, rather than hydrogen bonding or other specific interactions.

REFERENCES
Section:

1. H. Jacobson and W. H. Stockmayer, J. Chem. Phys. 18, 1600 (1950). Google ScholarScitation
2. P. J. Flory and J. A. Semlyen, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 84, 3209 (1966). Google ScholarCrossref
3. J. A. Semlyen, in Advances in Polymer Science, Vol. 21, edited by H.‐J. Cantow et al. (Springer, Berlin, 1976). Google Scholar
4. C. R. Cantor and P. R. Schimmel, Biophysical Chemistry (Freeman, San Francisco, 1980). Google Scholar
5. L. J. Perry and R. Wetzel, Science 226, 555 (1984). Google ScholarCrossref
6. W. J. Becktel, W. A. Baase, R. Wetzel, and L. J. Perry, Biophys. J. 49, 109a (1986). Google Scholar
7. J. A. Wells and D. B. Powers, J. Biol. Chem. 261, 6564 (1986). Google Scholar
8. R. Wetzel, Protein Eng. 1, 79 (1987). Google ScholarCrossref
9. D. H. Ohlendorf, B. C. Finzel, P. C. Weber, and F. R. Salemme, in Protein Engineering, edited by D. L. Oxender and C. F. Fox (Liss, New York, 1987). Google Scholar
10. C. N. Pace, G. R. Grimsley, J. A. Thomson, and B. J. Barnett, J. Biol. Chem. 263, 11820 (1988). Google Scholar
11. R. Schlief, Science 240, 127 (1988). Google ScholarCrossref
12. H. S. Chan and K. A. Dill (in preparation). Google Scholar
13. S. F. Edwards, Proc. Phys. Soc. London 85, 613 (1965). Google ScholarCrossref
14. K. F. Freed, Renormalization Group Theory of Macromolecules (Wiley, New York, 1987), and references therein. Google Scholar
15. C. Domb and M. F. Sykes, J. Math. Phys. 2, 63 (1961). Google ScholarScitation
16. B. J. Hiley and M. F. Sykes, J. Chem. Phys. 34, 1531 (1961). Google ScholarScitation
17. A. J. Guttmann, B. W. Ninham, and C. J. Thompson, Phys. Rev. 172, 554 (1968). Google ScholarCrossref
18. M. N. Barber and B. W. Ninham, Random and Restricted Walks; Theory and Applications (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1970), and references therein. Google Scholar
19. K. G. Wilson and M. E. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 248 (1972). Google Scholar
20. J. L. Martin, M. F. Sykes, and F. T. Hioe, J. Chem. Phys. 46, 3478 (1967). Google ScholarScitation
21. The “initial ring closure probability” ${(p}_{k}^{0})$ defined in Refs. 16 and 20 is proportional to our reduction factor $R(k−1,1,k)$ for a contact of order $(k−1).$ The power‐law behavior $p_{k}^{0} {∼k}^{−v}$ established by these authors therefore relates the reduction factor for contact order $(k−1)$ to $k^{−v},$ in contrast to relating it to ${(k−1)}^{−v}$ as adopted in this paper. Although this discrepancy should be negligible in the asymptotic regime of large k, the difference in definition affects the estimation of v from short‐chain simulations. If their definition were adopted instead of ours, data from our simulation would have given an estimation of $v≃1.83,$ identical to that given in the above references, instead of the value $v≃1.63$ reported in the text. Google Scholar
22. Many of the figures in this paper are prepared with the assistance of the 〈PLOT 79〉 computer graphics package. See the following reference for details: N. H. F. Beebe and R. P. C. Rodgers, 〈Plot 79〉: A Comprehensive Portable Fortran Scientific Line Graphics System Based Upon the SIGGRAPH CORE Proposal, as Applied to Biomedical Research (in press). Google Scholar
23. H. Yamakawa, Modern Theory of Polymer Solutions (Harper and Rows, New York, 1971), p. 130. Google Scholar
24. M. C. Wang and G. E. Uhlenbeck, Rev. Mod. Phys. 17, 323 (1945). Google ScholarCrossref
25. M. Fixman, J. Chem. Phys. 23, 1656 (1955). Google ScholarScitation
26. D. C. Poland and H. A. Scheraga, Biopolymer 3, 379 (1965). Google ScholarCrossref
27. We arrive at the factor 80/27 for this case through use of Eq. (36) of Poland and Scheraga (Ref. 26). In so doing, we also use the relation ${δ = (4/N)(p/r}_{s})^{2}$ in place of their Eq. (28), which contains a very small numerical error whereby 1.06 was erroneously substituted for 1.036 in the evaluation of the quantity ${[27/(8π)]}^{1/2}$ in their Eq. (27). Google Scholar
28. The occurrence of implied blocks in two‐dimensional square lattices is always confined to localized regions on the contact map. For a single presumed contact, the implied blocks can only occur in the two regions labeled II [see Fig. 9(c)]. Within these regions, we can determine by explicit construction the smaller area which bounds the possible extent of implied blocks. For example, for a single presumed contact $(0,2m+1),$ implied blocks in the section of region II to the upper left of the presumed contact can only occur within the area on the contact map defined by the following list of contacts: $(−2m−3+r+n,2m−r)$ where $0<n<2m−r+2,$ $0<r<m−2;$ $(n,m+1),$ where $−(m+2)<n<0(n,m−r),$ where $−m+r+l<n<0,$ $0<r<m−2.$ The corresponding condition for the section of region II to the lower right of the presumed contact is obtained by symmetry. We should emphasize that the above condition is only necessary but not sufficient in that no implied blocks can be found outside the defined area, but not every contact within the area is necessarily an implied block. At present, the only method we have found to determine the exact locations of implied blocks is by exhaustive simulations. Google Scholar
29. J. A. Schellman, C. R. Trav. Lab. Carlsberg, Ser. Chim. 29, 230 (1955). Google Scholar
30. R. P. Feynman, Rev. Mod. Phys. 20, 267 (1948). Google ScholarCrossref
31. R. E. Johnson, P. Adams, and J. A. Rupley, Biochemistry 17, 1479 (1978). Google ScholarCrossref
32. S. H. Lin, Y. Konishi, M. E. Denton, and H. A. Scheraga, Biochemistry 23, 5504 (1984). Google ScholarCrossref
33. T. Ueda, H. Yamada, M. Hirata, and T. Imoto, Biochemistry 24, 6316 (1985). Google ScholarCrossref
34. Y. Goto, M. Tsunenaga, Y. Kawata, and K. Hamaguchi, J. Biochem. 101, 319 (1987). Google ScholarCrossref

Intrachain loops in polymers: Effects of excluded volume

REFERENCES
Section:

Correction

Article Metrics

Altmetric

Resources

General Information

122

REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageABSTRACTREFERENCES <<CITING ARTICLES

Correction

Article Metrics

Altmetric

REFERENCES
Section: