Back

β-Hairpin Fold Peptide Brush Polymers

Oktawiec, J.; Nadeem, H.; Ebrahim, O.; Chen, Y.; Barbut, C.; Byrnes, J.; Thompson, M.; Shukla, D.; Gianneschi, N.

2026-10-06 biochemistry
10.64898/2026.10.02.756272 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Peptide-brush polymers prepared via graft-through polymerization of peptide-based olefinic monomers form Protein-Like Polymers (PLPs) with demonstrated utility as chemical biology tools for modulating intracellular protein--protein interactions and are in development as a emerging class of therapeutic. This favorable bioactivity has been achieved in part by mimicking some of the structural and functional features of proteins, such as their dynamic, globular solution-phase structures, ability to insert into lipid membranes and enter cells, and tendency to enforce -helicity in peptide side chains. However, because structure leads to function, insight into the structure of these proteomimetic polymers, particularly their overall tertiary structure and the extent to which this influences the brush peptide structure, is incomplete. To further this understanding, we prepared a set of brush polymers incorporating the trpzip2 peptide sequence, commonly used as a model system for protein folding. We examine these polymers via circular dichroism spectroscopy, infrared spectroscopy, and small-angle X-ray scattering, coupled with insights from molecular dynamics simulations. Here, a loss of the {beta}-hairpin structure of the monomer is observed regardless of polymer composition, and simulations corroborate that the polymer backbone destabilizes local secondary structure, restricting peptide motion and altering the accessible free-energy landscape. This study provides insight into design rules governing these synthetic polymer-based proteomimetics.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.