<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJPC</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Physical Chemistry</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2162-1969</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojpc.2015.54013</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJPC-61046</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Chemistry&amp;Materials Science</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  A Theoretical Study of &lt;i&gt;β&lt;/i&gt;-Amino Acid Conformational Energies and Solvent Effect
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>ictor</surname><given-names>F. Waingeh</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Felix</surname><given-names>N. Ngassa</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Jie</surname><given-names>Song</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Michigan-Flint, Flint, MI, USA</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Chemistry, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI, USA</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>School of Natural Sciences, Indiana University Southeast, New Albany, IN, USA</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>vwaingeh@ius.edu(IFW)</email>;<email>ngassaf@gvsu.edu(FNN)</email>;<email>jiesong@umflint.edu(JS)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>04</day><month>11</month><year>2015</year></pub-date><volume>05</volume><issue>04</issue><fpage>122</fpage><lpage>131</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>29</day>	<month>August</month>	<year>2015</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>accepted</day>	<month>9</month>	<year>November</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>12</day>	<month>November</month>	<year>2015</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  The conformations of four 
  β-amino acids in a model peptide environment were investigated using Hartree-Fock (HF) and density functional theory (DFT) methods in gas phase and with solvation. Initial structures were obtained by varying dihedral angles in increments of 45&#176; in the range 0&#176; - 360&#176;. Stable geometries were optimized at both levels of theory with the correlation consistent double-zeta basis set with polarization functions (cc-pVDZ). The results suggest that solvation generally stabilizes the conformations relative to the gas phase and that intramolecular hydrogen bonding may play an important role in the stability of the conformations. The 
  β<sup>3</sup> structures, in which the R-group of the amino acid is located on the carbon atom next to the N-terminus, are somewhat more stable relative to each other than the 
  β<sup>2</sup> structures which have the R-group on the carbon next to the carbonyl.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Density Functional Theory</kwd><kwd> &lt;i&gt;β&lt;/i&gt;-Amino Acids</kwd><kwd> Conformational Search</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>The functions of numerous biological systems depend on RNA and proteins. The conformation adopted by these biopolymers is linked to their functions in biological systems. As a consequence, there has been an increasing need to identify synthetic polymer backbones that adopt discrete and predictable conformations (“foldamers”) to mimic natural biological systems. Such backbones can serve as tools to probe the functions of large-molecule interactions, such as protein-protein and protein-RNA interactions. In foldamer design, β-amino acids are highly attractive building blocks because the additional carbon confers conformational flexibility to β-amino acids compared to their α-amino acid counterparts.</p><p>Early attempts at realizing ordered peptide structures with β-amino acids dated from the end of the 1960s and were continued in the 1970s [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref1">1</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref3">3</xref>] . In 1994, Dado and Gellman studied the intramolecular hydrogen bonding properties of β- and γ-amino acid derivatives [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref4">4</xref>] . They hypothesized that the formation of secondary structures by oligomers of α-amino acids was due in part to the formation of short range hydrogen bonds, such as intramolecular 5- or 7-membered hydrogen bonded rings which were energetically unfavorable among α-amino acid oligomers (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>). Based on their hypothesis, Dado and Gellman reasoned that other oligomers in which the formation of short range hydrogen bonds was unfavorable might also be predisposed to form secondary structures. To test this hypothesis further, Dado synthesized various derivatives of β-alanine as well as γ-isobutyric acid using IR spectroscopy, and examined the intramolecular hydrogen bonding of these molecules. The results demonstrated that while short range hydrogen bonds (7- and 9-membered rings) were common among the diamides of γ-amino-butyric acid, the same was not true for diamides of β-amino acids (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>). Therefore, based on these studies, Dado and Gellman concluded that oligomers of β-amino acids (β-peptides) could potentially form stable secondary structures. The studies carried out by Dado and Gellman did not take into account the substitution on α-, β-, or γ-carbons which could potentially had some constraining effects.</p><p>Although, it was predicted that β-peptides were capable of forming stable and compact secondary structures, investigations of the NMR solution structures of poly-β-alanine indicated that the polymer had no folded conformation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref2">2</xref>] . In contrast, IR data in the solid state indicated the formation of sheets [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref5">5</xref>] . Various research groups have studied the polymers of α-isobutyl-L-aspartate by X-ray diffraction, CD, and IR spectroscopy. In 1978, Yuki et al. reported that the polymer of α-isobutyl-L-aspartate formed extended sheets with hydrogen bonding between the strands [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref6">6</xref>] . In the mid 1980s, Fern&#225;ndez-Sant&#237;n and co-workers reported that in the solid state, the polymer of α-isobutyl-L-aspartate formed two helical conformations characterized by intramolecular 16- and 20-membered hydrogen bonded rings [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref8">8</xref>] . In 1995, L&#243;pez-Carrasquero et al. contrasted initial reports by Fern&#225;ndez-Sant&#237;n and co-workers and instead proposed that the helical conformations formed by the polymer of α-isobutyl-L-aspartate was characterized by 14- and 18-membered hydrogen bonded rings [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref9">9</xref>] .</p><p>The biggest breakthrough in the synthesis β-peptides of defined sequence that allowed crystallographic and high-resolution NMR data to be obtained was achieved by the research groups of Gellman [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref10">10</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref15">15</xref>] and Seebach [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref16">16</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref19">19</xref>] . Gellman and co-workers have synthesized and characterized the oligomers of trans-2-amino- cyclo-pentanecarboxylic acid (ACPC) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref12">12</xref>] , trans-2-aminocyclohexanecarboxylic acid (ACHC) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref11">11</xref>] and trans- 3-aminopyrrolidine-4-carboxylic acid (ACP) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref15">15</xref>] . Gellman et al. showed that while ACHC adopted a 14-helical conformation in organic solvent, ACPC adopted a 12-helical conformation. The Oligomers containing both ACPC and ACP residues were also shown to form 12-helical conformations in aqueous solution [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref15">15</xref>] . Seebach and co-workers showed that β-peptides composed of acyclic residues with side chains derived from α-amino acids also formed 14-helical conformations in organic solvent [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref16">16</xref>] .</p><p>In polypeptides of α-amino acids, the backbone conformations are defined by three sets of torsion angles and (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref20">20</xref>] . Generally in peptides and proteins, the torsion angle about the peptide bond is restricted to a trans geometry (β = 180). Backbone conformation of β-amino acid residues in peptides is determined by four main chain torsional variables q and using the convention of Balaram (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref20">20</xref>] . By this convention, the</p><fig id="fig1"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref></label><caption><title> Favorable and non-favorable intramolecular hydrogen bonding in α-, β-, and γ-amino acid peptides</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/4-1230234x7.png"/></fig><fig id="fig2"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref></label><caption><title> Backbone conformation of β-amino acid</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/4-1230234x8.png"/></fig><p>backbone conformation is read sequentially from the N- to the C-terminus with the torsional variables defined as (N-C<sup>β</sup>), q (C<sup>β</sup>-C<sup>α</sup>), (C<sup>α</sup>-CO), and (CO-N) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). In β-amino acids, the torsion angle about the C-C bond (q) can lie close to the gauche (q = &#177;60˚) and trans (q = 180˚) conformations [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref20">20</xref>] . A predominance of gauche conformations can easily lead to the formation of folded structures.</p><p>The interactions between oligomers and solvent can affect the conformations adopted by oligomers. The ability for an oligomer to fold can be favored or disfavored by such solvent properties as dielectric constant, solubility, and hydrogen bonding capability. Solvent effects on the conformations of phenylacetylene oligomers have been reported by Nelson and co-workers [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref21">21</xref>] . Based on NMR and UV spectroscopic studies, they concluded that a well-ordered conformation was observed in deuterated acetonitrile, but not in deuterated chloroform. The difference in behavior of the oligomer in the different solvents could be a result of difference in solubility. The oligomer was found to be completely soluble in chloroform irrespective of the number of residues and had many conformations. In acetonitrile, however, the oligomer became less soluble as the chain length increased resulting in a single, well-defined conformation.</p><p>Like natural peptides and proteins, β-peptides can adopt folded conformations including common secondary structures such as helices [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref11">11</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref22">22</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref28">28</xref>] , turns [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref18">18</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref29">29</xref>] and sheets [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref14">14</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref30">30</xref>] . Compared to α-peptides, β-peptides have the advantage of increased conformational stability in an aqueous environment. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref15">15</xref>] The β- peptide backbone compared to natural peptides is resistant to protease degradation and has the potential for a great variety of substitution patterns [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref31">31</xref>] . In addition β-peptides form more stable helices in solution compared to α-peptides; β-peptides can form secondary structures with as few as four to six residues in solution [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref19">19</xref>] , compared to over 30 residues needed for stability of the natural analogs. The stability of β-peptides, important for biological activity, makes them good candidates for useful drugs. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref18">18</xref>] It has been shown that foldamers comprising a mixture of α-, β-, and g-amino acid residues are not degraded by proteases which bodes well for biological application [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref26">26</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref27">27</xref>] .</p><p>Investigating the 3-D structure of β-peptides is critical to understanding their biological functions. Although crystal structures and NMR spectroscopy can provide adequate structural information for β-peptides, these methods still have some limitations. Crystallography only provides solid-state structural information and in most cases obtaining a good crystal structure for X-ray crystallography is often difficult. NMR spectroscopy can provide structural information corresponding to solution structures. However, limitations exist in the size of the peptide; NMR works best for relatively small peptides.</p><p>Computational modeling can provide structural information, at the atomic level, for β-peptides from the sequence of β-amino acids [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref32">32</xref>] . A good computational method depends on the ability to reproduce the structures and energies of β-amino acid conformations in a target molecule. Herein, the conformations of some selected β-peptides resulting from rotation along their backbones are studied theoretically. The conformations are first calculated in the gas phase at the HF and DFT level to determine their relative stabilities. Then, solvent effect is included by applying the continuum solvation model and comparisons of the two models are made.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Computational Details</title><p>Several conformations of selected β-amino acids were computed. To mimic the environment in longer peptide chains, the amino-end of the each amino acid was capped with an acetyl group and the carboxylic end was capped with methylamine. The resulting structure template and torsion angle labels are as shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>.</p><p>Selected β-amino acids for this study include β-alanine (R = −CH<sub>3</sub>), β-cysteine (R = −CH<sub>2</sub>SH), β-leucine</p><fig id="fig3"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref></label><caption><title> Structure of β-amino acid in peptide environment</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/4-1230234x9.png"/></fig><p>(R= −CH<sub>2</sub>CH(CH<sub>3</sub>)<sub>2</sub>), and β-serine (R = −CH<sub>2</sub>SH). In the β<sup>2</sup> structure, the R-group of the amino acid is on the carbon attached to the carbonyl function at the C-end while in β<sup>3</sup> the R-group is closer to the N-end. The β<sup>3</sup> conformation is included in this study because studies have shown that β<sup>3</sup>-peptides can populate a secondary structure known as a 14-helix, which is characterized by 14-membered ring hydrogen bonds between the amide at potion i and the carbonyl at position i + 2, a left-handed helical twist with three discrete faces [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref33">33</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref35">35</xref>] .</p><p>Initial conformations were obtained by rotating θ angles by 45˚ increments in the range 0˚ to 360˚. The structures were then optimized at HF/cc-pVDZ and DFT/cc-pVDZ levels of theory in the gas phase, without any restraints. Calculations were then repeated to include solvation effects by employing the Polarizable Continuum Model (PCM) for water at the DFT level. For comparisons with gas-phase conformational energies, calculations with solvation were all done with a constant dielectric of 1.0. In all instances, the estimation of relative conformational energies was concluded by performing single point energy calculations at both the HF and DFT levels for each conformation. All calculations were performed using GAMESS suite program [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref36">36</xref>] and Avogadro [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61046-ref37">37</xref>] was used for visualization.</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results and Discussions</title><p>HF and DFT were used to study the conformations of selected β-amino acids in both the gas phase and with solvation (DFT only). Stable conformations were identified and the relative energies calculated as the difference in energy between each identified conformation and the lowest energy conformation.</p><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. β-Alanine</title><p>Gas phase calculations for β-alanine predicted 5 stable conformations for both HF and DFT. The optimized dihedral angles and relative energies of conformers are given in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>. The minimum energy conformation occurred at a dihedral angle of 57˚ in the HF calculations and at −64˚ in the DFT calculations (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>).</p><p>The highest energy conformation in both cases is one with an optimized dihedral angle closer to 180˚ and is about 17 kJ/mol higher in energy than the minimum. When solvation is included, calculations yield seven stable conformations, with a 17 kJ/mol energy difference between the most and the least stable conformations. The β<sup>3</sup> structure of alanine shows a lot more variation in relative stabilities of its conformations with the lowest energy conformation at least 5 kJ/mol lower that the second lowest conformation as opposed to the smaller differences of 1 - 2 kJ/mol seen with the β<sup>2</sup> structures. Solvation seems to stabilize the β<sup>3</sup> structure to some extent as the relative energies of the identified conformations above the minimum are all within 2 kJ/mol of each other.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. β-Cysteine</title><p>The presence of the ?CH<sub>2</sub>SH side chain in cysteine would be expected to introduce additional degrees of freedom and conformational flexibility when compared to alanine. The calculated relative energies (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>) show a wide variation ranging from 0 - 29 kJ/mol. As was the case with β-alanine, solvation seems to introduce to form of stabilization for both the β<sup>2</sup> and β<sup>3</sup> structures. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref> shows the minimum energy conformations in gas phase.</p><p>Unlike in the corresponding β-amino acid, in β-cysteine, the positioning of ?CH<sub>2</sub>SH group also allows for the</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> β-Alanine conformations and relative energies</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >HF</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >DFT</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >DFT-Solvation</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Structure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Optimized Dihedral Angle</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Relative Energy (KJ/mol)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Structure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Optimized Dihedral Angle</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Relative Energy (KJ/mol)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Structure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Optimized Dihedral Angle</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Relative Energy (KJ/mol)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >β<sup>2</sup>-ala</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >β<sup>2</sup>-ala</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−64.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >β<sup>2</sup>-ala</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−63.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >−66.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−127.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.47</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56.62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63.76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.80</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >−50.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−56.57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−58.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.28</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >170.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >180.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−180.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.60</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >177.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.74</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >115.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.61</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >β<sup>3</sup>-ala</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−62.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >β<sup>3</sup>-ala</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−62.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >β<sup>3</sup>-ala</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−65.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5689</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−60.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.39</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >167.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >134.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.61</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >64.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >166.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.18</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.59</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >168.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.62</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >130.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.40</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> β-Cysteine conformations and relative energies</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >HF</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >DFT</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >DFT-Solvation</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Structure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Optimized Dihedral Angle</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Relative Energy (KJ/mol)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Structure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Optimized Dihedral Angle</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Relative Energy (KJ/mol)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Structure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Optimized Dihedral Angle</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Relative Energy (KJ/mol)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >β<sup>2</sup>-cys</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−47.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >β<sup>2</sup>-cys</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−51.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >β<sup>2</sup>-cys</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−55.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >−136.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−131.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−128.16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.91</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >80.37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55.79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >161.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−161.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−62.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.50</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >−155.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >161.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−158.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.09</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >β<sup>3</sup>-cys</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−65.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >β<sup>3</sup>-cys</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−63.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >β<sup>3</sup>-cys</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−64.34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.54</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >135.30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.57</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >171.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.29</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >176.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.08</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >168.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−177.76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.55</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>possibility of weak intramolecular hydrogen bonding between the side chain ?SH and the backbone ?C=O groups.</p><fig-group id="fig4"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref></label><caption><title> Most stable gas-phase conformers of β<sup>2</sup>-alanine (left) and β<sup>3</sup>-alanine (right).</title></caption><fig id ="fig4_1"><label></label><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/4-1230234x10.png"/></fig><fig id ="fig4_2"><label></label><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/4-1230234x11.png"/></fig></fig-group><fig-group id="fig5"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref></label><caption><title> Most stable conformers of β<sup>2</sup>-cysteine (left) and β<sup>3</sup>-cysteine (right).</title></caption><fig id ="fig5_1"><label></label><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/4-1230234x12.png"/></fig><fig id ="fig5_2"><label></label><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/4-1230234x13.png"/></fig></fig-group></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. β-Serine</title><p>The ?CH<sub>2</sub>OH side chain in serine is similar to that of cysteine, and would introduce the same conformational flexibility. However, the replacement of the sulfur in cysteine with the oxygen in serine results in less polarizability and more hydrogen bonding capability. The conformational search and single point energy calculations resulted in three stable conformations in the gas phase for both the β<sup>2</sup> and β<sup>3</sup> structures in both HF and DFT. The β<sup>3</sup> structures are more stable relative to each other than are the β<sup>2</sup> structures as evident from the calculated relative energies as seen in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>.</p><p>In both HF and DFT, the next lowest energy conformation is at least 14 kJ/mol higher than the minimum, however for the β<sup>3</sup> structures, the higher energy conformations are all within ~1 kJ/mol of each other. This would suggest that the possibility of favorable and strong intramolecular hydrogen bonding in the β<sup>3</sup> structure helps to restrict the molecule. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref> shows the optimized structures of the most stable conformers of β<sup>2</sup> and β<sup>3</sup>-serine. When solvation is included in the calculations, there is evidence of some substantial stabilization in solution with a mean deviation of about 22.9 &#177; 2.5 kJ/mol for the β<sup>2</sup> structure and 11.2 &#177; 1.9 kJ/mol for β<sup>3</sup> structures.</p></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. β-Leucine</title><p>In the gas phase, the lowest energy conformation for β<sup>2</sup>-leucine occurs at a optimized dihedral angle of 58˚ in both HF and DFT with relative energies of higher energy conformations ranging from 13 - 26 kJ/mol in HF and 17 - 29 kJ/mol in DFT. For β<sup>3</sup>-leucine, the most favorable conformation occurs at −63˚ (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7</xref>) with relative energies in the range 6 - 23 kJ/mol in HF and 8 - 23 kJ/mol in DFT. As was the case with other β-amino acids, solvation stabilizes the conformations relative to each other, with relative energies for the β<sup>2</sup>-leucine conformation in the range 3 - 18 kJ/mol and those for β<sup>3</sup>-leucine in the 2 - 11 kJ/mol range (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). In general, the β<sup>3</sup></p><fig-group id="fig6"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref></label><caption><title> Most stable conformers of β<sup>2</sup>-serine (left) and β<sup>3</sup>-serine (right).</title></caption><fig id ="fig6_1"><label></label><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/4-1230234x14.png"/></fig><fig id ="fig6_2"><label></label><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/4-1230234x15.png"/></fig></fig-group><fig-group id="fig7"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7</xref></label><caption><title> Most stable conformers of β<sup>2</sup>-leucine (left) and β<sup>3</sup>-leucine (right).</title></caption><fig id ="fig7_1"><label></label><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/4-1230234x16.png"/></fig><fig id ="fig7_2"><label></label><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/4-1230234x17.png"/></fig></fig-group><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> β-Serine conformations and relative energies</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >HF</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >DFT</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >DFT-Solvation</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Structure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Optimized Dihedral Angle</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Relative Energy (KJ/mol)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Structure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Optimized Dihedral Angle</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Relative Energy (KJ/mol)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Structure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Optimized Dihedral Angle</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Relative Energy (KJ/mol)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="6"  >β<sup>2</sup>-ser</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−65.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="6"  >β<sup>2</sup>-ser</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−63.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="6"  >β<sup>2</sup>-ser</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−167.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >141.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >134.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69.93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.70</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >75.94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >78.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.90</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >170.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.17</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.25</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−65.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.58</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >β<sup>2</sup>-ser</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >β<sup>2</sup>-ser</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >123.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >β<sup>2</sup>-ser</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >−62.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >160.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >160.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.12</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >163.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >107.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−60.93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.69</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−64.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.88</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Optimized dihedral angles and relative energies of β-Leucine conformations</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >HF</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >DFT</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >DFT-Solvation</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Structure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Optimized Dihedral Angle</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Relative Energy (KJ/mol)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Structure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Optimized Dihedral Angle</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Relative Energy (KJ/mol)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Structure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Optimized Dihedral Angle</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Relative Energy (KJ/mol)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >β<sup>2</sup>-leu</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >β<sup>2</sup>-leu</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >β<sup>2</sup>-leu</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−66.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >−56.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−56.65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.47</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >151.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >174.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−176.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.31</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >173.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−75.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.01</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >β<sup>3</sup>-leu</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−62.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >β<sup>3</sup>-leu</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−62.74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >β<sup>3</sup>-leu</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−61.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >165.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >166.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.14</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >163.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >153.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >152.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >150.74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.12</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>conformations seem to show slightly more solvent stabilization than the β<sup>2</sup> conformations.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Conclusion</title><p>In this study, the conformations of β-amino acids were investigated in the gas phase by HF and DFT calculations. The PCM water model was employed with DFT to investigate the solvation effects. Relative energies were computed for both gas phase and solution structures. The results suggest that solvation generally stabilizes the conformations relative to the gas phase, with smaller energy differences between the conformations in solution than in gas phase. It is also likely that intramolecular hydrogen bonding may play an important role in the stability of the conformations. The β<sup>3</sup> structures, in which the R-group of the amino acid is located on the carbon atom next to the N-terminus, are somewhat more stable relative to each other than the β<sup>2</sup> structures which have the R-group on the carbon next to the carbonyl. These results provide insight to the conformational structures of β-amino acids and may be useful in establishing the potential use of β-amino acids in the backbone of polypeptide chain that will be less susceptible to degradation. However, further work will need to be done, with a larger collection of β-amino acids. Also the use of a continuum solvent model to describe solvation of these systems is reasonable and provides a basis for qualitative comparison. However, to obtain a more quantitatively accurate description of the system, future work may employ explicit solvation models.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Victor F.Waingeh,Felix N.Ngassa,JieSong, (2015) A Theoretical Study of β-Amino Acid Conformational Energies and Solvent Effect. Open Journal of Physical Chemistry,05,122-131. doi: 10.4236/ojpc.2015.54013</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>NOTES</title></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.61046-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bestian, H. (1968) Poly-β-Amides. Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English, 7, 278-285.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/anie.196802781</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Glickson, J.D. and Applequist, J. (1971) The Conformation of Poly-β-Alanine in Aqueous Solution from Proton Magnetic Resonance and Deuterium Exchange Studies. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 93, 3276-3281.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja00742a030</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kovacs, J., Ballina, R., Rodin, R.L., Balasubramanian, D. and Applequist, J. (1965) Poly-β-L-Aspartic Acid. Synthesis through Pentachlorophenyl Active Ester and Conformational Studies. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 87, 119-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja01079a022</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dado, G.P. and Gellman, S.H. (1994) Redox Control of Secondary Structure in a Designed Peptide. Journal of American Chemical Society, 115, 12609-12610.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Narita, M., Doi, M., Kudo, K. and Terauchi, Y. (1986) Conformations in the Solid State and Solubility Properties of Protected Homooligopeptides of Glycine and Beta-Alanine. Bulletin of Chemical Society of Japan, 59, 3553-3557.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yuki, H., Okamoto, Y., Taketani, Y., Tsubota, T. and Marubayshi, Y. (1978) Poly(β-Amino Acid)s. IV. Synthesis and Conformational Properties of Poly(α-Isobutyl-L-Aspartate). Journal of Polymer Science Part A: Polymer Chemistry, 16, 2237-2251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pol.1978.170160913</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fernandez-Santin, J.M., Aymami, J., Rodrigues-Galan, A., Munoz-Guerra, S. and Subirana, J.A. (1984) Pseudo α-Helix from Poly(α-Isobutyl-L-aspartate), a Nylon-3 Derivative. Nature, 311, 53-54.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/311053a0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fernandez-Santin, J.M., Munoz-Guerra, S., Rodrigues-Galan, A., Aymami, J., Lloveras, J., Subrina, J.A., Giralt, E. and Ptak, M. (1987) Helical Conformations in Polyamide of the Nylon-3 Family. Macromolecules, 20, 62-68.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ma00167a013</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lopez-Carrasquero, F., Aleman, C. and Munoz-Guerra, S. (1995) Conformational Analysis of Helical Poly(β-L-Aspartate)s by IR Dichroism. Biopolymers, 36, 263-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bip.360360302</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Appella, D.H., Barchi Jr., J.J., Durell, S.R. and Gellman, S.H. (1999) Formation of Short, Stable Helices in Aqueous Solution by β-Amino Acid Hexamers. Journal of American Chemical Society, 121, 2309-2310.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja983918n</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Appella, D.H., Christianson, L.A., Karle, I.L., Powell, D.R. and Gellman, S.H. (1999) Synthesis and Characterization of Trans-2-Aminocyclohexanecarboxylic Acid Oligomers: An Unnatural Helical Secondary Structure and Implications for β-Peptide Tertiary Structure. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 121, 6206-6212.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja990748l</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Appella, D.H., Christianson, L.A., Klein, D.A., Richards, M.R., Powell, D.R. and Gellman, S.H. (1999) Synthesis and Structural Characterization of Helix-Forming β-Peptides: Trans-2-Aminocyclopentanecarboxylic Acid Oligomers. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 121, 7574-7581. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja991185g</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Barchi Jr., J.J., Huang, X., Appella, D.H., Christianson, L.A., Durell, S.R. and Gellman, S.H. (2000) Solution Conformations of Helix-Forming β-Amino Acid Homooligomers. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 122, 2711-2718.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja9930014</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Krauthauser, S., Christianson, L.A., Powell, D.R. and Gellman, S.H. (1997) Antiparallel Sheet Formation in β-Peptide Foldamers: Effects of β-Amino Acid Substitution on Conformational Preference. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 119, 11719-11720. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja9730627</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wang, X., Espinosa, J.F. and Gellman, S.H. (2000) 12-Helix Formation in Aqueous Solution with Short β-Peptides Containing Pyrrolidine-Based Residues. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 122, 4821-4822.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja000093k</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Seebach, D., Abele, S., Gademann, K., Guichard, G., Hintermann, T., Juan, B., Mathews, J.L. and Schreiber, J.V. (1998) Beta2- and Beta3-Peptides with Proteinaceous Side Chains: Synthesis and Solution Structures of the Constitutional Isomers, a Novel Helical Secondary Structure and the Influence of Solvation and Hydrophobic Interactions on Folding. Helvetica Chimica Acta, 81, 932-982. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hlca.19980810513</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Seebach, D., Ciceri, P., Overhand, M., Juan, B., Rigo, D., Oberer, L., Hommel, U., Amstutz, R. and Widmer, H. (1996) Probing the Helical Secondary Structure of Short-Chain-Beta-Peptides. Helvetica Chimica Acta, 79, 2043-2066.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hlca.19960790802</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Seebach, D. and Mathews, J.L. (1997) Beta-Peptides: A Surprise at Every Turn. Chemical Communications, No. 21, 2015-2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/a704933a</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Seebach, D., Schreiber, J.V., Abele, S., Daura, X. and van Gunsteren, W.F. (2000) Structure and Conformation of β-Oligopeptide Derivatives with Simple Proteinogenic Side Chains: Circular Dichroism and Molecular Dynamics Investigations. Helvetica Chimica Acta, 83, 34-57.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-2675(20000119)83:1&lt;34::AID-HLCA34&gt;3.0.CO;2-B</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Banerjee, A. and Balaram, P. (1997) Stereochemistry of Peptides and Polypeptides Containing Omega Amino Acids. Current Science, 73, 1067-1077.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nelson, J.C., Saven, J.G., Moore, J.S. and Wolynes, P.G. (1997) Solvophobically Driven Folding of Nonbiological Oligomers. Science, 277, 1793-1796. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5333.1793</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gellman, S.H. (1998) Foldamers: A Manifesto. Accounts of Chemical Research, 31, 173-180.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ar960298r</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hayen, A., Schmitt, M.A., Ngassa, F.N., Thomasson, K.A. and Gellman, S.H. (2004) Two Helical Conformations from a Single Foldamer Backbone: “Split Personality” in Short Alpha/Beta-Peptides. Angewandte Chemie, 43, 505-510.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/anie.200352125</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hill, D.J., Mio, M.J., Prince, R.B., Hughes, T.S. and Moore, J.S. (2001) A Field Guide to Foldamers. Chemical Reviews, 101, 3893-4012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/cr990120t</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Porter, E.A., Wang, X., Lee, H.S., Weisblum, B. and Gellman, S.H. (2000) Non-Haemolytic Beta-Amino-Acid Oligomers. Nature, 404, 13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35003742</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Porter, E.A., Weisblum, B. and Gellman, S.H. (2002) Mimicry of Host-Defense Peptides by Unnatural Oligomers: Antimicrobial Beta-Peptides. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 124, 7324-7330.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja0260871</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Raguse, T.L., Porter, E.A., Weisblum, B. and Gellman, S.H. (2002) Structure-Activity Studies of 14-Helical Antimicrobial Beta-Peptides: Probing the Relationship between Conformational Stability and Antimicrobial Potency. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 124, 12774-12785. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja0270423</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Werder, M., Hauser, H., Abele, S. and Seebach, D. (1999) Beta-Peptides as Inhibitors of Small-Intestinal Cholesterol and Fat Absorption. Helvetica Chimica Acta, 82, 1774-1783.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-2675(19991006)82:10&lt;1774::AID-HLCA1774&gt;3.0.CO;2-O</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">DeGrado, W.F., Schneider, J.P. and Hamuro, Y. (1999) The Twists and Turns of Beta-Peptides. The Journal of Peptide Research: Official Journal of the American Peptide Society, 54, 206-217.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-3011.1999.00131.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gung, B.W., Zou, D. and Miyahara, Y. (2000) Synthesis of a Hybrid Peptide with Both α- and β-Amino Acid Residues: Toward a New β-Sheet Nucleator. Tetrahedron, 56, 9739-9746. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0040-4020(00)00881-4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hintermann, T. and Seebach, D. (1997) The Biological Stability of Beta-Peptides: No Interactions between Alpha- and Beta-Peptide Structures. Chimia, 51, 244-247.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kaminsky, J. and Jensen, F. (2007) Force Field Modeling of Amino Acid Conformational Energies. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 3, 1774-1788. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ct700082f</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cheng, R.P., Gellman, S.H. and DeGrado, W.F. (2001) Beta-Peptides: From Structure to Function. Chemical Reviews, 101, 3219-3232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/cr000045i</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Seebach, D., Beck, A.K. and Bierbaum, D.J. (2004) The World of Beta- and Gamma-Peptides Comprised of Homologated Proteinogenic Amino Acids and Other Components. Chemistry &amp; Biodiversity, 1, 1111-1239.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cbdv.200490087</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Qiu, J.X., Petersson, E.J., Matthews, E.E. and Schepartz, A. (2006) Toward Beta-Amino Acid Proteins: A Cooperatively Folded Beta-Peptide Quaternary Structure. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 128, 11338-11339.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja063164+</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Schmidt, M.W., Baldridge, K.K., Boatz, J.A., Elbert, S.T., Gordon, M.S., Jensen, J.H., Koseki, S., Matsunaga, N., Nguyen, K.A., Su, S., Windus, T.L., Dupuis, M. and Montgomery, J.A. (1993) General Atomic and Molecular Electronics Structure System. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 14, 1347-1363.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcc.540141112</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61046-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hanwell, M.D., Curtis, D.E., Lonie, D.C., Vandermeersch, T., Zurek, E. and Hutchison, G.R. (2012) Avogadro: An Advanced Semantic Chemical Editor, Visualization, and Analysis Platform. Journal of Cheminformatics, 4, 17.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1758-2946-4-17</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>