Elucidating ATP’s Role as Solubilizer of Biomolecular Aggregate

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This work combines molecular dynamics (MD) simulations along with experimental elucidation of the efficacy of ATP as a biological hydrotrope. While ATP is broadly known as the energy currency, it has also been suggested to modulate the stability of biomolecules and their aggregation propensity. In the computational part of the work, the authors demonstrate that ATP increases the population of the more expanded conformations (higher radius of gyration) in both a soluble folded mini-protein Trp-cage and an intrinsically disordered protein (IDP) Aβ40. Furthermore, ATP is shown to destabilise the pre-formed fibrillar structures using both simulation and experimental data (ThT assay and TEM images). They have also suggested that the biological hydrotrope ATP has significantly higher efficacy as compared to the commonly used chemical hydrotrope sodium xylene sulfonate (NaXS).

Strengths:

This work presents a comprehensive and compelling investigation of the effect of ATP on the conformational population of two types of proteins: globular/folded and IDP. The role of ATP as an "aggregate solubilizer" of pre-formed fibrils has been demonstrated using both simulation and experiments. They also elucidate the mechanism of action of ATP as a multi-purpose solubilizer in a protein-specific manner. Depending on the protein, it can interact through electrostatic interactions (for predominantly charged IDPs like Aβ40), or primarily van der Waals' interactions through (for Trp-Cage).

Weaknesses:

The data presented by the authors are sound and adequately support the conclusions drawn by the authors. However, there are a few points that could be discussed or elucidated further to broaden the scope of the conclusions drawn in this work as discussed below:

(i) The concentration of ATP used in the simulations is significantly higher (500 mM) as compared to those used in the experiments (6-20 mM) or cellular cytoplasm (~5 mM as mentioned by the authors). Since the authors mention already known concentration dependence of the effect of ATP, it is worth clarifying the possible limitations and implications of the high ATP concentrations in the simulations. It seems ATP can stabilise the proteins at low concentrations, but the current work does not address this possible effect. It would be interesting to see whether the effect of ATP on globular proteins and IDPs remains similar even at lower ATP concentrations.

(ii) The authors make a somewhat ambitious statement that the role of ATP as a solubilizer of pre-formed fibrils could be used as a therapeutic strategy in protein aggregation-related diseases. However, it is not clear how it would be so since ATP is a promiscuous substrate in several biochemical processes and any additional administration of ATP beyond normal cellular concentration (~5 mM) could be detrimental.

(iii) A natural question arises about what is so special about ATP as a solubilizer. The authors have also asked this question but in a limited scope of comparing to a commonly used chemical hydrotrope NaXS. However, a bigger question would be what kind of chemical/physical features make ATP special? For example, (i) if the amphiphilic property is important, what about some standard surfactants? (ii) how would ATP compare to other nucleotides like ADP or GTP? It might be useful to explore such questions in the future to further establish the special role of ATP in this regard.

(iv) In Figure 2F, it seems that in the presence of 0.5 M ATP, the Rg increases (as expected), but the number of native contacts remains almost similar. The reduction in the number of native contacts at higher ATP concentrations is not as dramatic as the increase in Rg. This is somewhat counterintuitive and should be looked into. Normally one would expect a monotonous reduction in the number of native contacts as the protein unfolds (increase in Rg).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this work, Sarkar et al. investigated the potential ability of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) as a solubilizer of protein aggregates by combining MD simulations and ThT/TEM experiments. They explored how ATP influences the conformational behaviors of Trp-cage and β-amyloid Aβ40 proteins. Currently, there are no experiments in the literature supporting their simulation results of ATP on Trp-cage. The simulation protocol employed for the Aβ40 monomer system is conventional MD simulation, while REMD simulation (an enhanced sampling method) is used for the Aβ monomer + ATP system. It is not clear whether the conformational difference is caused by ATP or by the different simulation methods used. ThT/TEM experiments should be performed on Aβ40 fibrils rather than on Aβ(16-22) aggregates. Moreover, to elucidate their experimental results that ATP can dissolve preformed Aβ fibrils, the authors need to study the influence of ATP on Aβ fibrils instead of on Aβ dimer in their MD simulations. The novelty of this study is limited. The role of ATP in inhibiting Aβ fibril formation and dissolving preformed Aβ fibrils has been reported in previous experimental and computational studies (Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 2014, 41: 561; Science 2017, 2017, 356, 753-756 J. Phys. Chem. B 2019, 123, 9922−9933; Scientific Reports, 2024, 14: 8134). However, most of those papers are not discussed in this manuscript. Additionally, some details of MD simulations and data analysis are missing in the manuscript, including the initial structures of all the simulations, the method for free energy calculation, the dielectric constant used, etc.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Since its first experimental report in 2017 (Patel et al. Science 2017), there have been several studies on the phenomenon in which ATP functions as a biological hydrotrope of protein aggregates. In this manuscript, by conducting molecular dynamics simulations of three different proteins, Trp-cage, Abeta40 monomer, and Abeta40 dimer at a high concentration of ATP (0.1, 0.5 M), Sarkar et al. find that the amphiphilic nature of ATP, arising from its molecular structure consisting of phosphate group (PG), sugar ring, and aromatic base, enables it to interact with proteins in a protein-specific manner and prevents their aggregation and solubilize if they aggregate. The authors also point out that in comparison with NaXS, which is the traditional chemical hydrotrope, ATP is more efficient in solubilizing protein aggregates because of its amphiphilic nature.

Trp-cage, featured with a hydrophobic core in its native state, is denatured at high ATP concentration. The authors show that the aromatic base group (purine group) of ATP is responsible for inducing the denaturation of helical motifs in the native state.

For Abeta40, which can be classified as an IDP with charged residues, it is shown that ATP disrupts the salt bridge (D23-K28) required for the stability of beta-turn formation.

By showing that ATP can disassemble preformed protein oligomers (Abeta40 dimer), the authors argue that ATP is "potent enough to disassemble existing protein droplets, maintaining proper cellular homeostasis," and enhancing solubility.

Overall, the message of the paper is clear and straightforward to follow. I did not follow all the literature, but I see in the literature search, that there are several studies on this subject. (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2021, 143, 31, 11982-11993; J. Phys. Chem. B 2022, 126, 42, 8486-8494; J. Phys. Chem. B 2021, 125, 28, 7717-7731; J. Phys. Chem. B 2020, 124, 1, 210-223).

If this study is indeed the first one to test using MD simulations whether ATP is a solubilizer of protein aggregates, it may deserve some attention from the community. But, the authors should definitely discuss the content of existing studies, and make it explicit what is new in this study.

Strengths:

The authors showed that due to its amphiphilic nature, ATP can interact with different proteins in a protein-specific manner, a. finding more general and specific than merely calling ATP a biological hydrotrope.

Weaknesses:

(1) My only major concern is that the simulations were performed at unusually high ATP concentrations (100 and 500 mM of ATP), whereas the real cellular concentration of ATP is 1-5 mM. Even if ATP is a good solubilizer of protein aggregates, the actual concentration should matter. I was wondering if there is a previous report on a titration curve of protein aggregates against ATP, and what is the transition mid-point of ATP-induced solubility of protein aggregates.

For instance, urea or GdmCl have long been known as the non-specific denaturants of proteins, and it has been well experimented that their transition mid-point of protein unfolding is ~(1 - 6) M depending on the proteins.

(2) The sentence "... a clear shift of relative population of Abeta40 conformational subensemble towards a basin with higher Rg and lower number of contacts in the presence of ATP" is not a precise description of Figures 4A and 4B. It is not clear from the figures whether the Rg of Abeta40 is increased when Abeta40 is subject to ATP. The authors should give a more precise description of what is observed in the result from their simulations or consider a better-order parameter to describe the change in molecular structure. In addition, the disruption of beta-sheet from Figure 4E to 4F is not very clear. The authors may want to use an arrow to indicate the region of the contact map associated with this change.

Although the full atomistic simulations were carried out, the analyses demonstrated in this study are a bit rudimentary and coarse-grained (e.g, Rg is a rather poor order parameter to discuss dynamics involved in proteins). The authors could go beyond and say more about how ATP interacts with proteins and disrupts the stable configurations.

(3) Although the amphiphilic character of ATP is highlighted, a similar comment can be made as to GTP. Is GTP, whose cellular concentration is ~0.5 mM, also a good solubilizer of protein aggregates? If not, why? Please comment.