Cyclol - Historical Context

Historical Context

By the mid-1930s, analytical ultracentrifugation studies by Theodor Svedberg had shown that proteins had a well-defined chemical structure, and were not aggregations of small molecules. The same studies appeared to show that the molecular weight of proteins fell into a few well-defined classes related by integers, such as M_w = 2p3q Da, where p and q are nonnegative integers. However, it was difficult to determine the exact molecular weight and number of amino acids in a protein. Svedberg had also shown that a change in solution conditions could cause a protein to disassemble into small subunits, now known as a change in quaternary structure.

The chemical structure of proteins was still under debate at that time. The most accepted (and ultimately correct) hypothesis was that proteins are linear polypeptides, i.e., unbranched polymers of amino acids linked by peptide bonds. However, a typical protein is remarkably long—hundreds of amino-acid residues—and several distinguished scientists were unsure whether such long, linear macromolecules could be stable in solution. Further doubts about the polypeptide nature of proteins arose because some enzymes were observed to cleave proteins but not peptides, whereas other enzymes cleave peptides but not folded proteins. Attempts to synthesize proteins in the test tube were unsuccessful, mainly due to the chirality of amino acids; naturally occurring proteins are composed of only left-handed amino acids. Hence, alternative chemical models of proteins were considered, such as the diketopiperazine hypothesis of Emil Abderhalden. However, no alternative model had yet explained why proteins yield only amino acids and peptides upon hydrolysis and proteolysis. As clarified by Linderstrøm-Lang, these proteolysis data showed that denatured proteins were polypeptides, but no data had yet been obtained about the structure of folded proteins; thus, denaturation could involve a chemical change that converted folded proteins into polypeptides.

The process of protein denaturation (as distinguished from coagulation) had been discovered in 1910 by Harriette Chick and Charles Martin, but its nature was still mysterious. Tim Anson and Alfred Mirsky had shown that denaturation was a reversible, two-state process that results in many chemical groups becoming available for chemical reactions, including cleavage by enzymes. In 1929, Hsien Wu hypothesized correctly that denaturation corresponded to protein unfolding, a purely conformational change that resulted in the exposure of amino-acid side chains to the solvent. Wu's hypothesis was also advanced independently in 1936 by Mirsky and Linus Pauling. Nevertheless, protein scientists could not exclude the possibility that denaturation corresponded to a chemical change in the protein structure, a hypothesis that was considered a (distant) possibility until the 1950s.

X-ray crystallography had just begun as a discipline in 1911, and had advanced relatively rapidly from simple salt crystals to crystals of complex molecules such as cholesterol. However, even the smallest proteins have over 1000 atoms, which makes determining their structure far more complex. In 1934, Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin had taken crystallographic data on the structure of the small protein, insulin, although the structure of that and other proteins were not solved until the late 1960s. However, pioneering X-ray fiber diffraction data had been collected in the early 1930s for many natural fibrous proteins such as wool and hair by William Astbury, who proposed rudimentary models of secondary structure elements such as the alpha helix and the beta sheet.

Since protein structure was so poorly understood in the 1930s, the physical interactions responsible for stabilizing that structure were likewise unknown. Astbury hypothesized that the structure of fibrous proteins was stabilized by hydrogen bonds in β-sheets. The idea that globular proteins are also stabilized by hydrogen bonds was proposed by Dorothy Jordan Lloyd in 1932, and championed later by Alfred Mirsky and Linus Pauling. At a 1933 lecture by Astbury to the Oxford Junior Scientific Society, physicist Frederick Frank suggested that the fibrous protein α-keratin might be stabilized by an alternative mechanism, namely, covalent crosslinking of the peptide bonds by the cyclol reaction above. The cyclol crosslink draws the two peptide groups close together; the N and C atoms are separated by ~1.5 Å, whereas they are separated by ~3 Å in a typical hydrogen bond. The idea intrigued J. D. Bernal, who suggested it to the mathematician Dorothy Wrinch as possibly useful in understanding protein structure.