This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

thanks: Corresponding author phone: 301-405-4803; fax: 301-314-9404; thirum@umd.edu

Force Dependent Hopping Rates of RNA Hairpins can be Estimated from Accurate Measurement of the Folding Landscapes

Changbong Hyeon1†, Greg Morrison2,3† and D. Thirumalai2,4 1Department of Chemistry, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 156-756, Republic of Korea
2Biophysics Program, Institute For Physical Science and Technology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742
3Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742
4Department of Chemistry, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742
C.H. and G.M. contributed equally to this work.
(July 26, 2025)
Abstract

The sequence-dependent folding landscapes of nucleic acid hairpins reflect much of the complexity of biomolecular folding. Folding trajectories, generated using single molecule force clamp experiments by attaching semiflexible polymers to the ends of hairpins have been used to infer their folding landscapes. Using simulations and theory, we study the effect of the dynamics of the attached handles on the handle-free RNA free energy profile Feqo(zm)F^{o}_{eq}(z_{m}), where zmz_{m} is the molecular extension of the hairpin. Accurate measurements of Feqo(zm)F^{o}_{eq}(z_{m}) requires stiff polymers with small L/lpL/l_{p}, where LL is the contour length of the handle, and lpl_{p} is the persistence length. Paradoxically, reliable estimates of the hopping rates can only be made using flexible handles. Nevertheless, we show that the equilibrium free energy profile Feqo(zm)F^{o}_{eq}(z_{m}) at an external tension fmf_{m}, the force (ff) at which the folded and unfolded states are equally populated, in conjunction with Kramers’ theory, can provide accurate estimates of the force-dependent hopping rates in the absence of handles at arbitrary values of ff. Our theoretical framework shows that zmz_{m} is a good reaction coordinate for nucleic acid hairpins under tension.

A molecular understanding of how proteins and RNA fold is needed to describe the functions of enzymes FershtBook and ribozymes DoudnaNature02 , interactions between biomolecules, and the origins of misfolding that is linked to a number of diseases Dobson99TBS . The energy landscape perspective has provided a conceptual framework for describing the mechanisms by which unfolded molecules navigate the large conformational space in search of the native state DillNSB97 ; OnuchicCOSB04 ; HyeonBC05 . Recently, single molecule techniques have been used to probe features of the energy landscape of proteins and RNA that are not easily accessible in ensemble experiments Fisher00NSB ; Bustamante01Science ; Haran03PNAS ; TinocoBJ06 ; SchulerNATURE2002 ; ZhuangCOSB03 ; EvansNature99 ; Woodside06PNAS ; Block06Science ; Li07PNAS ; DietzPNAS04 ; Mickler07PNAS . It is possible to construct the shape of the energy landscape, including the energy scales of ruggedness HyeonPNAS03 ; ReichEMBOrep05 , using dynamical trajectories that are generated by applying a constant force (ff) to the ends of proteins and RNA Schlierf04PNAS ; Woodside06PNAS ; Fernandez06NaturePhysics ; Block06Science . If the observation time is long enough for the molecule to sample the accessible conformational space, then the time average of an observable XX recorded for the αth\alpha^{th} molecule (X=limt1t0t𝑑τXα(τ)\langle X\rangle=\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{t}\int^{t}_{0}d\tau X_{\alpha}(\tau)) should equal the ensemble average (X=limN1Ni=1NXi\langle X\rangle=\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}X_{i}), and the distribution P(X)P(X) should converge to the equilibrium distribution function Peq(X)P_{eq}(X). Using this strategy, laser optical tweezer (LOT) experiments have been used to obtain the sequence-dependent folding landscape of a number of RNA and DNA hairpins Bustamante01Science ; Woodside06PNAS ; Bustamante03Science ; Block06Science , using X=RmX=R_{m}, the end-to-end distance of the hairpin that is conjugate to ff, as a natural reaction coordinate. In LOT experiments, the hairpin is held between two long handles (DNA Block06Science or DNA/RNA hybrids Bustamante01Science ), whose ends are attached to polystyrene beads (Fig. 1a). The equilibrium free energy profile βFeq(Rm)=logPeq(Rm)\beta F_{eq}(R_{m})=-\log{P_{eq}(R_{m})} (β1/kBT\beta\equiv 1/k_{B}T, kBk_{B} is the Boltzmann constant, and TT is the absolute temperature) may be useful in describing the dynamics of the molecule, provided RmR_{m} is an appropriate reaction coordinate.

The dynamics of the RNA extension in the presence of ff (zm=z3z5Rmz_{m}=z_{3^{\prime}}-z_{5^{\prime}}\approx R_{m}, provided transverse fluctuations are small) is indirectly obtained in an LOT experiment by monitoring the distance between the attached polystyrene beads (zsys=zpzoz_{sys}=z_{p}-z_{o}), one of which is optically trapped at the center of the laser focus (Fig 1a). The goal of these experiments is to extract the folding landscape (βFeqo(zm)\beta F_{eq}^{o}(z_{m})) and the dynamics of the hairpin in the absence of handles, using the ff-dependent trajectories zsys(t)z_{sys}(t). To achieve these goals, the fluctuations in the handles should minimally perturb the dynamics of the hairpin in order to probe the true dynamics of a molecule of interest. However, depending on LL and lpl_{p} (LL is the contour length of the handle and lpl_{p} is its persistence length), the intrinsic fluctuations of the handles can not only disort the signal from the hairpin, but also directly affect its dynamics. The first is a problem that pertains to the measurement process, while the second is a problem of the coupling between the instruments and the dynamics of RNA.

Here, we use coarse-grained molecular simulations of RNA hairpin and theory to show that, in order to obtain accurate βFeq(Rm)\beta F_{eq}(R_{m}), the linkers used in the LOT have to be stiff, i.e., the value of L/lpL/l_{p} has to be small. To investigate the handle effects on the energy landscape and hopping kinetics, we simulated the hairpin dynamics under force-clamp conditions by explicitly modeling the linkers as polymers with varying LL and lpl_{p}. Surprisingly, the force-dependent folding and unfolding rates that are directly measured using the time traces, zm(t)z_{m}(t), are close to the ideal values (those that are obtained by directly applying ff, without the handles, to the 3’ end with a fixed 5’ end) only when the handles are flexible. Most importantly, accurate estimates of the ff-dependent hopping rates over a wide range of ff-values, in the absence of handles, can be made using βFeq(R)\beta F_{eq}(R), in the presence of handles obtained at f=fmf=f_{m}, the transition midpoint at which the native basin of attraction (NBA) and the unfolded basin of attraction (UBA) of the RNA are equally populated. The physics of a hairpin attached to handles is captured using a generalized Rouse model (GRM), in which there is a favorable interaction between the two non-covalently linked ends. The GRM gives quantitative agreement with the simulation results. The key results announced here provide a framework for using the measured folding landscape of nucleic acid hairpins at ffmf\approx f_{m} to obtain ff-dependent folding and unfolding times and the transition state movements as ff is varied KlimovPNAS99 ; HyeonPNAS05 ; RitortPRL06 ; West06BJ ; Dudko06PRL ; Hyeon07JP .


RESULTS and DISCUSSIONS

Modeling the LOT experiments: In order to extract the folding landscape from LOT experiments, the time scales associated with the dynamics of the beads, handles, and the hairpin have to be well-separated RitortBJ05 ; HyeonBJ06 ; Manosas07BJ ; WestPRE . The bead fluctuations are described by the overdamped Langevin equation γdxp/dt=kxp+F(t)\gamma dx_{p}/dt=-kx_{p}+F(t) where kk is the spring constant associated with the restoring force, and the random white-noise force F(t)F(t) satisfies F(t)=0\langle F(t)\rangle=0 and F(t)F(t)=2γkBTδ(tt)\langle F(t)F(t^{\prime})\rangle=2\gamma k_{B}T\delta(t-t^{\prime}). The bead relaxes to its equilibrium position on a time scale τr=γ/k\tau_{r}=\gamma/k. In terms of the trap stiffness, kpk_{p}, and the stiffness kmk_{m} associated with the Handle-RNA-Handle (H-RNA-H; see Fig. 1), k=kp+kmk=k_{p}+k_{m}. With γ=6πηa\gamma=6\pi\eta a, a=1μa=1\mum, η1\eta\approx 1cP, kp0.01k_{p}\approx 0.01 pN/nm Block94ARBBS , and km0.1k_{m}\approx 0.1 pN/nm, we find τr1\tau_{r}\lesssim 1 ms. In LOT experiments RitortBJ05 ; Manosas07BJ ; WestPRE , separation in time scales is satisfied such that τUoτFoτr\tau^{o}_{U}\approx\tau_{F}^{o}\gg\tau_{r} at ffmf\approx f_{m}, where τUo\tau_{U}^{o} and τFo\tau_{F}^{o} are the intrinsic values of the RNA (un)folding times in the absence of handles.

Since zmz_{m} is a natural reaction coordinate in force experiments, the dispersion of the bead position may affect the measurement of Feq(zm)F_{eq}(z_{m}). At equilibrium, the fluctuations in the bead positions satisfy δxeq2kBT/(kp+km)kBT/km\delta x^{2}_{eq}\sim k_{B}T/(k_{p}+k_{m})\sim k_{B}T/k_{m}, and hence kmk_{m} should be large enough to minimize the dispersion of the bead position. The force fluctuation, δfeq2kBTkp2/(kp+km)\delta f^{2}_{eq}\sim k_{B}Tk_{p}^{2}/(k_{p}+k_{m}), is negligible in the LOT because kpkmk_{p}\ll k_{m}, and as a result δfeq/fm0\delta f_{eq}/f_{m}\sim 0, since δfeq0.1\delta f_{eq}\approx 0.1 pN while fm15f_{m}\sim 15 pN. Thus, we model the LOT setup by assuming that the force and position fluctuations due to the bead are small, and exclusively focus on the effect of handle dynamics on the folding landscape and hopping kinetics of RNA (Figs. 1a-b).

Short, stiff handles are required for accurate free energy profiles: For purposes of illustration, we used the self-organized polymer (SOP) model of the P5GA hairpin HyeonBJ07 , and applied a force f=fm15.4f=f_{m}\approx 15.4 pN. The force is exerted on the end of the handle attached to the 3’ end of the RNA (P in Fig.1a), while fixing the other end (O in Fig.1a). Simulations of P5GA with handles of length L=25L=25 nm and persistence length lp=70l_{p}=70 nm show that the extension of the entire system (zsys=zpz0z_{sys}=z_{p}-z_{0}) fluctuates between two limits centered around zsys50z_{sys}\approx 50 nm and zsys56z_{sys}\approx 56 nm (Fig. 1b). The time-dependent transitions in zsysz_{sys} between 50 nm and 56 nm correspond to the hopping of the RNA between the Native Basin of Attraction (NBA) and Unfolded Basin of Attraction (UBA). Decomposition of zsysz_{sys} as zsys=zH5+zm+zH3z_{sys}=z_{H}^{5^{\prime}}+z_{m}+z_{H}^{3^{\prime}}, where zH5(=z5zo)z_{H}^{5^{\prime}}(=z_{5^{\prime}}-z_{o}) and zH3(=zpz3)z_{H}^{3^{\prime}}(=z_{p}-z_{3^{\prime}}) are the extensions of the handles parallel to the force direction (Fig. 1a), shows that zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) reflects the transitions in zm(t)z_{m}(t) (Fig. 1b). Because the simulation time is long enough for the harpin to ergodically explore the conformations between the NBA and UBA, the histograms collected from the time traces amount to the equilibrium distributions Peq(X)P_{eq}(X) where X=zsysX=z_{sys}, zH5z_{H}^{5^{\prime}}, zmz_{m}, or zH3z_{H}^{3^{\prime}} (Fig 1b; for Peq(zH5)P_{eq}(z_{H}^{5^{\prime}}) and Peq(zH3)P_{eq}(z_{H}^{3^{\prime}}), see the Supporting Information SI Fig. 6a). To establish that the time traces are ergodic, we show that z¯T(t)=1t0t𝑑τzsys(τ)\overline{z}_{T}(t)=\frac{1}{t}\int^{t}_{0}d\tau z_{sys}(\tau) reaches the thermodynamic average (\approx zsysPeq(zsys)𝑑zsys\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}z_{sys}P_{eq}(z_{sys})dz_{sys}=53.7 nm) after t0.1t\gtrsim 0.1 sec (the magenta line on zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) in Fig. 1b).

Fig. 1b shows that the positions of the handles along the ff direction fluctuate, even in the presence of tension, which results in slight differences between Peq(zsys)P_{eq}(z_{sys}) and Peq(zm)P_{eq}(z_{m}). Comparison between the free energy profiles obtained from the zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) and zm(t)z_{m}(t) can be used to investigate the effect of the characteristics of the handles on the free energy landscape. To this end, we repeated the force-clamp simulations by varying the contour length (L=5100L=5-100 nm) and persistence length (lp=0.6l_{p}=0.6 and 70 nm) of the handles. Fig. 2 shows that the discrepancy between the measured free energy Feq(zsys)F_{eq}(z_{sys}) (dashed lines in blue) and the molecular free energy Feq(zm)F_{eq}(z_{m}) (solid lines in red) increases for the more flexible and longer handles (see the SI text and SI Fig. 6 for further discussion of the dependence of the handle fluctuations on LL and lpl_{p}). For small lpl_{p} and large LL, the basins of attraction in Feq(zm)F_{eq}(z_{m}) are not well resolved. The largest deviation between Feq(zsys)F_{eq}(z_{sys}) and Feq(zm)F_{eq}(z_{m}) is found when lp=0.6l_{p}=0.6 nm and L=25L=25 nm (L/lp40L/l_{p}\approx 40) (the graph enclosed by the orange box in Fig. 2a). In contrast, the best agreement between Feq(zsys)F_{eq}(z_{sys}) and Feq(zm)F_{eq}(z_{m}) is found for lp=70l_{p}=70 nm and L=5L=5 nm (the graph inside the magenta box in Fig. 2), which corresponds to L/lp0.07L/l_{p}\approx 0.07. In the LOT experiments, L/lp67L/l_{p}\approx 6-7 Bustamante01Science ; Woodside06PNAS ; Block06Science .

Generalized Rouse model (GRM) captures the physics of H-RNA-H under tension: In order to establish the generality of the relationship between the free energy profiles as measured by zmz_{m} and those measured by zsysz_{sys}, we introduce an exactly solvable model that minimally represents the RNA and handles (Fig. 3a). We mimic the hairpin using a Gaussian chain with N0N_{0} monomers and Kuhn length aa. The endpoints of the RNA mimic are harmonically trapped in a potential with stiffness kk as long as they are within a cutoff distance c=4c=4nm. Two handles, each with NhN_{h} monomers and Kuhn length bb, are attached to the ends of the RNA (see Methods). We fix one endpoint of the entire chain at the origin, and apply a force fm15.4f_{m}\approx 15.4 pN to the other end. The free energies as a function of both the RNA’s extension, Rm=|𝐫3𝐫5|R_{m}=|\mathbf{r}_{3^{\prime}}-\mathbf{r}_{5^{\prime}}| (zm\approx z_{m} at high ff) and the system’s extension Rsys=|𝐫P𝐫0|R_{sys}=|{\mathbf{r}}_{P}-{\mathbf{r}}_{0}| (zsys\approx z_{sys} at high ff) are exactly solvable in the continuum representation. We choose kk such that fmf_{m} is near the midpoint of the transition, so that 0cd3𝐫Peq(𝐫)cd3𝐫Peq(𝐫)\int_{0}^{c}d^{3}{\mathbf{r}}\,P_{eq}({\mathbf{r}})\approx\int_{c}^{\infty}d^{3}{\mathbf{r}}\,P_{eq}({\mathbf{r}}). We tune N0N_{0} so that the barrier heights for the GRM and P5GA are similar at f=fmf=f_{m}. These requirements give N0=20N_{0}=20 and k0.54k\approx 0.54 pN/nm.

While the stiffness in the handles of the simulated system (Fig. 1) cannot be accurately modeled using a Gaussian chain, the primary effect of attaching the handles is to alter the fluctuations of the endpoints of the RNA. By equating the longitudinal fluctuations for the WLC, δ𝐑||2WLCLlp1/2(βf)3/2\langle\delta{\mathbf{R}}^{2}_{||}\rangle_{WLC}\sim Ll_{p}^{-1/2}(\beta f)^{-3/2}, with the fluctuations for the Gaussian handles, δ𝐑||2GLb\langle\delta{\mathbf{R}}^{2}_{||}\rangle_{G}\sim Lb, we estimate that the effective persistence length of the handles scales as lpeffb2f3l_{p}^{eff}\sim b^{-2}f^{-3} (see the SI for details). Thus, smaller spacing in the Gaussian handles in the GRM will mimic stiffer handles in the H-RNA-H system. The free energies computed for the GRM, shown in Fig. 3b-c, are consistent with the results of the simulations. The free energy profiles deviate significantly from Feqo(zm)F^{o}_{eq}(z_{m}) as NhN_{h} increases or ‘stiffness’ decreases. The relevant variable that determines the accuracy of Feq(zsys)F_{eq}(z_{sys}) is Nhb2L/lpeffN_{h}b^{2}\sim L/l_{p}^{eff}, with the free energies remaining unchanged if Nhb2N_{h}b^{2} is kept constant. The barrier height and well depths as a function of zmz_{m} are unchanged as a function of LL and bb. However, the apparent activation energy is decreased as measured by zsysz_{sys} (seen in Fig. 2 as well). The GRM confirms that accurate measurement of the folding landscape using zsysz_{sys} requires stiff handles.

Accurate estimates of the hopping kinetics requires short and flexible handles: Because LOT experiments can also be used to measure the force-dependent rates of hopping between the NBA and the UBA, it is important to assess the influence of the dynamics of the handles on the intrinsic hopping kinetics of the RNA hairpin. In other words, how should the structural characteristics of the linkers be chosen so that the measured hopping rates using the time traces z(t)z(t) and the intrinsic rates are as close as possible?

Folding and unfolding rates of P5GA and the free energy profile without handles : We first performed force clamp simulations of P5GA in the absence of handles to obtain the intrinsic (or ideal) folding (τFo\tau_{F}^{o}) or unfolding (τUo\tau_{U}^{o}) times, that serve as a reference for the H-RNA-H system. To obtain the boundary conditions for calculating the mean refolding and unfolding times, we collected the histograms of the time traces and determined the positions of the minima of the NBA and UBA, zF=1.9z_{F}=1.9 nm and zU=7.4z_{U}=7.4 nm (Fig. 4a). The analysis of the time traces provides the transition times in which zmz_{m} reaches zm=zUz_{m}=z_{U} starting from zm=zFz_{m}=z_{F}. The mean unfolding time τU\tau_{U} is obtained using either τU=1/NiτU(i)\tau_{U}=1/N\sum_{i}\tau_{U}(i), or from the fits to the survival probability PF(t)=et/τUP_{F}(t)=e^{-t/\tau_{U}} (SI Fig. 8). The mean folding time is similarly calculated, and the two methods give similar results. The values of τUo\tau_{U}^{o} and τFo\tau_{F}^{o} computed from the time trace of zm(t)z_{m}(t) are 2.9 ms and 1.9 ms, respectively. At fm=15.4f_{m}=15.4 pN and L=0L=0 nm, the equilibrium constant Keq=τFo/τUo=0.67K_{eq}=\tau^{o}_{F}/\tau^{o}_{U}=0.67, which shows that the bare molecular free energy is slightly tilted towards NBA at f=15.4f=15.4 pN.

Hopping times depend on the handle characteristics : The values of the folding (τFm\tau_{F}^{m}) and unfolding(τUm\tau_{U}^{m}) times were also calculated for the P5GA hairpin with attached handles (Fig. 1). As the length of the handles increases both τUm\tau_{U}^{m} and τFm\tau_{F}^{m} increase gradually, and the equilibrium distribution shifts towards the UBA, i.e. Keq=τFm/τUmK_{eq}=\tau^{m}_{F}/\tau_{U}^{m} increases (Fig. 4b). Strikingly, the use of flexible handles results in minimal deviations of τUm\tau_{U}^{m} and τFm\tau_{F}^{m} from their intrinsic values (Fig.4b). Attachment of handles (stiff or flexible) to the 5’ and 3’ ends restricts their movement, which results in a decrease in the number of paths to the NBA and UBA. Thus, both τUm\tau_{U}^{m} and τFm\tau_{F}^{m} increase (Fig.4b). As the stiffness of the handle increases the extent of pinning increses. These arguments show that flexible and short handles, that have the least restriction on the fluctuations of the 5’ and 3’ ends of the hairpin, cause minimal perturbation to the intrinsic RNA dynamics, and hence the hopping rates.

Because the experimentally accessible quantity is the extension of the H-RNA-H, it is important to show that the transition times can be reliably obtained using zsys(t)z_{sys}(t). Although zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) differs from zm(t)z_{m}(t) in amplitude, the “phase” between the two quantities track each other reliably throughout the simulation, even when the handles are long and flexible (see SI Fig.7). We calculated τUsys\tau_{U}^{sys} and τFsys\tau_{F}^{sys} by analyzing the trajectories zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) using the same procedure used to compute their intrinsic values. Comparison of τUsys\tau_{U}^{sys} (τFsys\tau_{F}^{sys}) and τUm\tau_{U}^{m} (τFm\tau_{F}^{m}) for both stiff and flexible handles shows excellent agreement at all LL values (Fig.4b). Thus, it is possible to infer the RNA dynamics zm(t)z_{m}(t) by measuring zsys(t)z_{sys}(t).

Theoretical predictions using the GRM are consistent with the simulations: The simulation results can be fully understood using the GRM (Fig 3a), for which we can exactly solve the overdamped Langevin equation using the discrete representation of the Gaussian chain (see Methods). By assuming that transverse fluctuations are small (which is reasonable under the relatively high tension of f=15.4f=15.4 pN), we use the Wilemski and Fixman (WF) theory FixmanJCP74II to determine an approximate time of contact formation (τFm=(kFm)1\tau_{F}^{m}=(k_{F}^{m})^{-1}) as a function of bb (i.e. increasing handle ‘stiffness’) and NhN_{h}. The refolding rate of the RNA hairpin under tension is analogous to kFmk_{F}^{m}. A plot of kFm(L)/kFm(0)k^{m}_{F}(L)/k^{m}_{F}(0) versus LL (Fig. 4c) illustrates that smaller deviations from the handle-free values occur when lpl_{p} is small. Moreover, Fig. 4c shows that the refolding rate decreases for increasing NhN_{h} regardless of the stiffness of the chain. The saturating value of kFmk_{F}^{m} as NhN_{h}\to\infty depends on bb, with ‘stiffer’ handles having a much larger effect on the folding rate. While the handles used in LOT experiments are significantly longer than the handle lengths considered here, the saturation of the folding rate suggests that L100L\sim 100 nm is sufficiently long for finite-size effects to be negligible.

We also find the dependence of kFk_{F} on LL agrees well with the behavior observed in the simulation of P5GA. The ratio kFm(L)/kFm(0)k_{F}^{m}(L)/k_{F}^{m}(0) for b=ab=a agrees well with the trends of the flexible linker (lp=0.6l_{p}=0.6 nm) for all of the simulated lengths, with both saturating at kF(L)0.35kF(0)k_{F}(L)\approx 0.35k_{F}(0) for large LL. The trends for ‘stiffer’ chains (smaller bb) in the GRM qualitatively agree with the P5GA simulation with stiff handles (lp=70l_{p}=70 nm), with remarkably good agreement for 0.1b/a0.20.1\leq b/a\leq 0.2 over the entire range of LL. The GRM, which captures the physics of both the equilibrium and kinetic properties of the more complicated H-RNA-H, provides a theoretical basis for extracting kinetic information from experimentally (or computationally) determined folding landscapes.

Free energy landscapes and hopping rates: Stiff handles are needed to obtain Feq(zsys)F_{eq}(z_{sys}) Block06Science that resembles Feqo(zm)F_{eq}^{o}(z_{m}), whereas the flexible handles produce hopping rates that are close to their handle-free values. These two findings appear to demand two mutually exclusive requirements in the choice of the handles in LOT experiments. However, if zmz_{m} is a good reaction coordinate, then it should be possible to extract the hopping rates using accurately measured Feq(zsys)(Feq(zm)Feqo(zm))F_{eq}(z_{sys})(\approx F_{eq}(z_{m})\approx F_{eq}^{o}(z_{m})) at ffmf\approx f_{m}, using handles with small L/lpL/l_{p}. The (un)folding times can be calculated using the mean first passage time (Kramers’ rate expression) with appropriate boundary conditions ZwanzigBook ,

τUKR\displaystyle\tau^{KR}_{U} =\displaystyle= zFzU𝑑yeβFeq(y)1DUzminy𝑑xeβFeq(x),\displaystyle\int^{z_{U}}_{z_{F}}dye^{\beta F_{eq}(y)}\frac{1}{D_{U}}\int^{y}_{z_{min}}dxe^{-\beta F_{eq}(x)},
τFKR\displaystyle\tau^{KR}_{F} =\displaystyle= zFzU𝑑yeβFeq(y)1DFyzmax𝑑xeβFeq(x),\displaystyle\int^{z_{U}}_{z_{F}}dye^{\beta F_{eq}(y)}\frac{1}{D_{F}}\int^{z_{max}}_{y}dxe^{-\beta F_{eq}(x)}, (1)

where zminz_{min}, zmaxz_{max}, zUz_{U} and zFz_{F} are defined in Fig. 4a. The effective diffusion coefficient DF(DU)D_{F}(D_{U}) is obtained by equating τFKR\tau_{F}^{KR} (τUKR\tau_{U}^{KR}) in equation (1), with Feq(zm)=Feqo(zm)F_{eq}(z_{m})=F_{eq}^{o}(z_{m}), to the simulated τFo(τUo)\tau_{F}^{o}\ (\tau_{U}^{o}). We calculated the ff-dependent τUm(f)\tau_{U}^{m}(f) and τFm(f)\tau_{F}^{m}(f) by evaluating equation (1) using Feqo(zm|f)=Feqo(zm|fm)(ffm)zmF_{eq}^{o}(z_{m}|f)=F_{eq}^{o}(z_{m}|f_{m})-(f-f_{m})\cdot z_{m}. The calculated and simulated results for P5GA are in good agreement (Fig 5a-b). At the higher force (f=16.8f=16.8 pN), the statistics of hopping transition within our simulation time is not sufficient to establish ergodicity. As a result, the simulation results are not as accurate at high forces (see SI Fig. 9). To further show that the use of Feqo(zm|f)F_{eq}^{o}(z_{m}|f) in equation (1) gives accurate hopping rates, we calculated τUo(f)\tau_{U}^{o}(f) for the GRM and compared the results with direct simulations of the handle-free GRM, which allows the study of a wider range of forces (see Methods). The results in Fig. 5c show that Feqo(zm|f)F_{eq}^{o}(z_{m}|f) indeed gives very accurate values for the transition times from the UBA and NBA over a wide force range.

CONCLUSIONS

The self-assembly of RNA and proteins may be viewed as a diffusive process in a multi-dimensional folding landscape. To translate this physical picture into a predictive tool, it is important to discern a suitable low-dimensional representation of the complex energy landscape, from which the folding kinetics can be extracted. Our results show that, in the context of nucleic acid hairpins, precise measurement of the sequence-dependent folding landscape of RNA is sufficient to obtain good estimates of the ff-dependent hopping rates in the absence of handles. It suffices to measure Feq(zsys)Feq(zm)Feqo(zm)F_{eq}(z_{sys})\approx F_{eq}(z_{m})\approx F_{eq}^{o}(z_{m}) at f=fmf=f_{m} using stiff handles, while Feq(zm|f)F_{eq}(z_{m}|f) at other values for ff can be obtained by tilting Feq(zm|fm)F_{eq}(z_{m}|f_{m}). The accurate computation of the hopping rates using Feq(zm)F_{eq}(z_{m}) show that zmz_{m} is an excellent reaction coordinate for nucleic acid hairpins under tension. Further theoretical and experimental work is needed to test if the proposed framework can be used to predict the force dependent hopping rates for other RNA molecules that fold and unfold through populated intermediates.

METHODS

RNA hairpin: The Hamiltonian for the RNA hairpin with NN nucleotides, which is modeled using the self-organized polymer (SOP) model HyeonBJ07 , is

HSOP\displaystyle H_{SOP} =\displaystyle= kR022i=1N1log(1(ri,i+1ri,i+1o)2R02)+i=1N3j=i+3Nϵh[(ri,jori,j)122(ri,jori,j)6]Δi,j\displaystyle-\frac{kR_{0}^{2}}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N-1}\log\bigg{(}1-\frac{(r_{i,i+1}-r_{i,i+1}^{o})^{2}}{R_{0}^{2}}\bigg{)}+\sum_{i=1}^{N-3}\sum_{j=i+3}^{N}\epsilon_{h}\bigg{[}\bigg{(}\frac{r_{i,j}^{o}}{r_{i,j}}\bigg{)}^{12}-2\bigg{(}\frac{r_{i,j}^{o}}{r_{i,j}}\bigg{)}^{6}\ \bigg{]}\Delta_{i,j} (2)
+i=1N3j=i+3Nϵl(σri,j)12(1Δi,j)+i=1N2ϵl(σri,i+2)6,\displaystyle\qquad\qquad\qquad+\sum_{i=1}^{N-3}\sum_{j=i+3}^{N}\epsilon_{l}\bigg{(}\frac{\sigma}{r_{i,j}}\bigg{)}^{12}(1-\Delta_{i,j})+\sum_{i=1}^{N-2}\epsilon_{l}\bigg{(}\frac{\sigma^{*}}{r_{i,i+2}}\bigg{)}^{6},

where ri,j=|𝐫i𝐫j|r_{i,j}=|{\mathbf{r}}_{i}-{\mathbf{r}}_{j}| and ri,jor^{o}_{i,j} is the distance between monomers ii and jj in the native structure. The first term enforces backbone chain connectivity using the finite extensible nonlinear elastic (FENE) potential, with k1.4×104k\approx 1.4\times 10^{4} pN\cdotnm-1 and R0=0.2R_{0}=0.2 nm. The Lennard-Jones interaction (second term in equation (2)) describes interactions only between native contacts (defined as ri,jo1.4r^{o}_{i,j}\leq 1.4 nm for |ij|>2|i-j|>2), with Δi,j=1\Delta_{i,j}=1 if monomers ii and jj are within 1.4 nm in the native state, and Δi,j=0\Delta_{i,j}=0 otherwise. Non-native interactions are treated as purely repulsive (the third term in equation (2)) with σ=0.7\sigma=0.7 nm. We take ϵh=4.9\epsilon_{h}=4.9 pN\cdotnm and ϵl=7.0\epsilon_{l}=7.0 pN\cdotnm for the strength of interactions. In the fourth term, the repulsion between the ithi^{th} and (i+2)th(i+2)^{th} interaction sites along the backbone has σ=0.35\sigma^{*}=0.35 nm to prevent disruption of the native helical structure.

Handle polymers: The handles are modeled using the Hamiltonian

Hhandles=kS2i=1N1(ri,i+1r0)2kAi=1N2𝐫^i,i+1𝐫^i+1,i+2.H_{handles}=\frac{k_{S}}{2}\sum^{N-1}_{i=1}({{r}}_{i,i+1}-r_{0})^{2}-k_{A}\sum^{N-2}_{i=1}\hat{\mathbf{r}}_{i,i+1}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{r}}_{i+1,i+2}. (3)

The neighboring interaction sites, with an equilibrium distance r0=0.5r_{0}=0.5 nm, are harmonically constrained with a spring constant kS1.4×104k_{S}\approx 1.4\times 10^{4} pN\cdotnm-1. In the second term of eq. (3), the strength of the bending potential, kAk_{A}, determines the handle flexibility. We choose two values, kA=k_{A}=7.0 pN\cdotnm and kA=k_{A}=561 pN\cdotnm to model flexible and semiflexible handles respectively, and assign kA=35k_{A}=35 pN\cdotnm to the junction connecting two ends of the RNA and the handles. We determine the corresponding persistence length for the two kAk_{A} values as lp=0.6l_{p}=0.6 and 70 nm (see SI text). The contour length of each handle is varied from N=5200N=5-200.
Generalized Rouse model (GRM): The Hamiltonian for the GRM (Fig. 3a) is

βH\displaystyle\beta H =\displaystyle= 32b2i=1Nh(𝐫i+1𝐫i)2+32b2i=Nh+N0+12Nh+N0(𝐫i+1𝐫i)2β𝐟(𝐫N𝐫1)+βk0𝐫12\displaystyle\frac{3}{2b^{2}}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{h}}({\mathbf{r}}_{i+1}-{\mathbf{r}}_{i})^{2}+\frac{3}{2b^{2}}\sum_{i=N_{h}+N_{0}+1}^{2N_{h}+N_{0}}({\mathbf{r}}_{i+1}-{\mathbf{r}}_{i})^{2}-\beta{\mathbf{f}}\cdot({\mathbf{r}}_{N}-{\mathbf{r}}_{1})+\beta k_{0}{\mathbf{r}}_{1}^{2} (4)
+32a2i=Nh+1Nh+N0(𝐫i+1𝐫i)2+βV[𝐫NNh+1𝐫Nh+1],\displaystyle\qquad\qquad\qquad+\frac{3}{2a^{2}}\sum_{i=N_{h}+1}^{N_{h}+N_{0}}({\mathbf{r}}_{i+1}-{\mathbf{r}}_{i})^{2}+\beta V[{\mathbf{r}}_{N-N_{h}+1}-{\mathbf{r}}_{N_{h}+1}],

where

V[𝐫]={k𝐫2|𝐫|ckc2|𝐫|>c.\displaystyle V[{\mathbf{r}}]=\left\{\begin{array}[]{cc}k{\mathbf{r}}^{2}&|{\mathbf{r}}|\leq c\\ kc^{2}&|{\mathbf{r}}|>c\end{array}\right.. (7)

The first two terms in equation (4) are the discrete connectivity potentials for the two handles, each with NhN_{h} bonds (Nh+1N_{h}+1 monomers), and with Kuhn length bb. The mechanical force 𝐟{\mathbf{f}} in the third term is applied along the zz direction, with |𝐟|=fm=15.4|{\mathbf{f}}|=f_{m}=15.4 pN. We also fix the 5’ end of the system with a harmonic bond of strength k0=2.5×104k_{0}=2.5\times 10^{4} pN\cdotnm-1 in the fourth term of eq. (4). The fifth term mimics the RNA hairpin with N0N_{0} bonds and spacing a=0.5a=0.5 nm. Interactions between the two ends of the RNA hairpin are modeled as harmonic bond with strength k0.54k\approx 0.54 pN\cdotnm-1 that is cut off at c=4c=4 nm (eq. (7)). When |𝐑m||{\mathbf{R}}_{m}| exceeds 4nm, the bond is broken, mimicking the unfolded state.

The free energies as a function of both RmzmR_{m}\approx z_{m} and RsyszsysR_{sys}\approx z_{sys} are most easily determined in the continuum limit of the Hamiltonian in equation (4), with i=1N0N𝑑s\sum_{i=1}^{N}\to\int_{0}^{N}ds. Because of the relatively large value of the external tension (fmkBT/lpf_{m}\gg k_{B}T/l_{p}), we can neglect transverse fluctuations without significantly altering the equilibrium or kinetic properties of the GRM. The refolding time, τFm\tau_{F}^{m} of the RNA mimic (Fig. 3a), which is the WF closure time FixmanJCP74II , can be determined by numerically diagonalizing the Rouse-like matrix with elements Edwardsbook 𝐌ij=12δ2H/δ𝐫iδ𝐫j{\mathbf{M}}_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\delta^{2}H/\delta{\mathbf{r}}_{i}\delta{\mathbf{r}}_{j}.

Acknowledgements : We are grateful to Arthur Laporta and N. Toan for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation (CHE 05-14056).

References

  • (1) A. Fersht. Structure and Mechanism in Protein Science : A Guide to Enzyme Catalysis and Protein Folding. W. H. Freeman Company, 1998.
  • (2) J.A. Doudna and T.R. Cech. The chemical repertoire of natural ribozymes. Nature, 418(11):222–228, 2002.
  • (3) C. M. Dobson. Protein misfolding, evolution and disease. Trends Biochem. Sci., 24:329–332, 1999.
  • (4) K. A. Dill and H. S. Chan. From Levinthal to Pathways to Funnels. Nature Struct. Biol., 4:10–19, 1997.
  • (5) J. N. Onuchic and P. G. Wolynes. Theory of protein folding. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 14:70–75, 2004.
  • (6) D. Thirumalai and C. Hyeon. RNA and Protein folding: Common Themes and Variations. Biochemistry, 44(13):4957–4970, 2005.
  • (7) T. E. Fisher, P. E. Marszalek, and J. M. Fernandez. Stretching single molecules into novel conformations using the atomic force microscope. Nature Struct. Biol., 7(9):719–724, 2000.
  • (8) J. Liphardt, B. Onoa, S. B. Smith, I. Tinoco, Jr., and C. Bustamante. Reversible unfolding of single RNA molecules by mechanical force. Science, 292:733–737, 2001.
  • (9) E. Rhoades, E. Gussakovsky, and G. Haran. Watching proteins fold one molecule at a time. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 100:3197–3202, 2003.
  • (10) P. T. X. Li, D. Collin, S. B. Smith, C. Bustamante, and I. Tinoco, Jr. Probing the Mechanical Folding Kinetics of TAR RNA by Hopping, Force-Jump, and Force-Ramp Methods. Biophys. J., 90:250–260, 2006.
  • (11) B. Schuler, E.A. Lipman, and W.A. Eaton. Probing the free-energy sufrace for protein folding with single-molecule fluorescence spectroscopy. Nature, 419:743–747, 2002.
  • (12) X. Zhuang and M. Rief. Single-molecule folding. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 13:86–97, 2003.
  • (13) R. Merkel, P. Nassoy, A. Leung, K. Ritchie, and E. Evans. Energy landscapes of receptor-ligand bonds explored with dynamic force spectroscopy. Nature, 397:50–53, 1999.
  • (14) M. T. Woodside, W. M. Behnke-Parks, K. Larizadeh, K. Travers, D. Herschlag, and S. M. Block. Nanomechanical measurements of the sequence-dependent folding landscapes of single nucleic acid hairpins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 103:6190–6195, 2006.
  • (15) M. T. Woodside, P. C. Anthony, W. M. Behnke-Parks, K. Larizadeh, D. Herschlag, and S. M. Block. Direct measurement of the full, sequence-dependent folding landscape of a nucleic acid. Science, 314:1001–1004, 2006.
  • (16) P. T. X. Li, C. Bustamante, and I. Tinoco Jr. Real-time control of the energy landscape by force directs the folding of RNA molecules. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 104:7039–7044, 2007.
  • (17) H. Dietz and M. Rief. Exploring the energy landscape of GFP by single-molecule mechanical experiments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 101(46):16192–16197, 2004.
  • (18) M. Mickler, R. I. Dima, H. Dietz, C. Hyeon, D. Thirumalai, and M. Rief. Revealing the bifurcation in the unfolding pathways of GFP by using single-molecule experiments and simulations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 104:20268–20273, 2007.
  • (19) C. Hyeon and D. Thirumalai. Can energy landscape roughness of proteins and RNA be measured by using mechanical unfolding experiments? Proc. Natl .Acad. Sci., 100:10249–10253, 2003.
  • (20) R. Nevo, V. Brumfeld, R. Kapon, P. Hinterdorfer, and Z. Reich. Direct measurement of protein energy landscape roughness. EMBO reports, 6(5):482, 2005.
  • (21) M. Schlierf, H. Li, and J. M. Fernandez. The unfolding kinetics of ubiquitin captured with single-molecule force-clamp techniques. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 101:7299–7304, 2004.
  • (22) J. Brujić, R. I. Hermans Z, K. A. Walther, and J. M. Fernandez. Single-molecule force spectroscopy reveals signatures of glassy dynamics in the energy landscape of ubiquitin. Nature Physics, 2:282–286, 2006.
  • (23) B. Onoa, S. Dumont, J. Liphardt, S. B. Smith, I. Tinoco, Jr., and C. Bustamante. Identifying Kinetic Barriers to Mechanical Unfolding of the T. thermophila Ribozyme. Science, 299:1892–1895, 2003.
  • (24) D. K. Klimov and D. Thirumalai. Stretching single-domain proteins: Phase diagram and kinetics of force-induced unfolding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 96(11):6166–6170, 1999.
  • (25) C. Hyeon and D. Thirumalai. Mechanical unfolding of RNA hairpins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 102:6789–6794, 2005.
  • (26) M. Manosas, D. Collin, and F. Ritort. Force-dependent fragility in RNA hairpins. Phys. Rev. Lett., 96:218301, 2006.
  • (27) D. K. West, D. J. Brockwell, P. D. Olmsted, S. E. Radford, and E. Paci. Mechanical Resistance of Proteins Explained Using Simple Molecular Models. Biophys. J., 90:287–297, 2006.
  • (28) O. K. Dudko, G. Hummer, and A. Szabo. Intrinsic rates and activation free energies from single-molecule pulling experiments. Phys. Rev. Lett., 96:108101, 2006.
  • (29) C. Hyeon and D. Thirumalai. Measuring the energy landscape roughness and the transition state location of biomolecules using single molecule mechanical unfolding experiments. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, 19:113101, 2007.
  • (30) M. Manosas and F. Ritort. Thermodynamic and Kinetic Aspects of RNA pulling experiments. Biophys. J., 88:3224–3242, 2005.
  • (31) C. Hyeon and D. Thirumalai. Forced-unfolding and force-quench refolding of RNA hairpins. Biophys. J., 90:3410–3427, 2006.
  • (32) M. Manosas, J. D. Wen, P. T. X. Li, S. B. Smith, C. Bustamante, I. Tinoco, Jr., and F. Ritort. Force Unfolding Kinetics of RNA using Optical Tweezers. II. Modeling Experiments. Biophys. J., 92:3010–3021, 2007.
  • (33) D. K. West, E. Paci, and P. D. Olmsted Internal protein dynamics shifts the distance to the mechanical transition state. Phys. Rev. E, 74:061912, 2006
  • (34) K. Svoboda and S. M. Block. Biological applications of optical forces. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct., 23:247–285, 1994.
  • (35) C. Hyeon and D. Thirumalai. Mechanical unfolding of RNA : from hairpins to structures with internal multiloops. Biophys. J., 92:731–743, 2007.
  • (36) G. Wilemski and M. Fixman. Diffusion-controlled intrchain reactions of polymers. II Results for a pair of terminal reactive groups. J. Chem. Phys., 60(3):878–890, 1974.
  • (37) R. Zwanzig. Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics. Oxford University press, New York, 2001.
  • (38) M. Doi and S. F. Edwards. The Theory of Polymer Dynamics. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988.
Refer to caption
Figure 1: A schematic diagram of the optical tweezers setup used to measure the hairpin’s folding landscape. a. Two RNA/DNA hybrid linkers are attached to the 5’ and 3’ ends of the RNA hairpin, and a constant force is applied to one end through the bead. b. Ensemble of sampled conformations of the H-RNA-H system during the hopping transitions obtained using L=25 nm and lp=70l_{p}=70 nm. The illustration is created using the simulated structures collected every 0.5 ms. An example of the time trace of each component of the system, at f=15.4f=15.4 pN, is given LL for both linkers is 25 nm. zm(=z5z3)z_{m}(=z_{5^{\prime}}-z_{3^{\prime}}) and zsys(=zpzo)z_{sys}(=z_{p}-z_{o}) measure the extension dynamics of the RNA hairpin and of the entire system respectively. The time averaged value z¯T(t)=1t0t𝑑τzsys(τ)\overline{z}_{T}(t)=\frac{1}{t}\int^{t}_{0}d\tau z_{sys}(\tau) for the time trace of zsysz_{sys} is shown as the bold line. The histograms of the extension are shown on top of each column.
Refer to caption
Figure 2: The free energy profiles, Feq(zsys)F_{eq}(z_{sys}) (dashed line in blue) and Feq(zm)F_{eq}(z_{m}) (solid line in red), calculated using the histograms obtained from the time traces zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) and zm(t)z_{m}(t) for varying LL and lpl_{p}. Feq(zsys)F_{eq}(z_{sys}) and Feq(zm)F_{eq}(z_{m}) for a given lpl_{p} and different LL are plotted in the same graph to highlight the differences. The intrinsic free energy Feqo(zm)F_{eq}^{o}(z_{m}), the free energy profile in the absence of handle, is shown in black. The condition that produces the least deviation (lp=70l_{p}=70 nm, L=5L=5 nm) and the condition of maximal difference (lp=0.6l_{p}=0.6 nm, L=25L=25 nm) between Feq(zm)F_{eq}(z_{m}) and Feq(zsys)F_{eq}(z_{sys}) are enclosed in the magenta and orange boxes, respectively.
Refer to caption
Figure 3: Free energy profiles for the GRM. a. A schematic diagram of the GRM, showing the number of monomers (N0N_{0} and NhN_{h}) and Kuhn lengths (aa and bb) in each region of the chain, the harmonic interaction between the ends of the RNA mimic, and the external tension. b. The free energy profile for a fixed b(=a/3)b(=a/3) and increasing NhN_{h} as a function of RsyszsysR_{sys}\approx z_{sys}. The barrier heights decrease and the well depths increase for increasing NhN_{h}. c: The free energy profile for fixed Nh=20N_{h}=20 and varying bb. The barrier heights decrease and the well depths increase for increasing bb. In both b and c, the profiles are shifted so that the positions of the local maxima and minima coincide with those of the intrinsic free energy (with Nh=0N_{h}=0).
Refer to caption
Figure 4: a. The free energy profile for P5GA with L=0L=0 nm. b. The transition times at f=fmf=f_{m}, obtained using zm(t)z_{m}(t) (filled symbols) and zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) (empty symbols). The ratio τU(F)m/τU(F)sys1\tau^{m}_{U(F)}/\tau^{sys}_{U(F)}\approx 1, which shows that zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) mirrors the hopping of P5GA. c. Folding rate kFm(L)/kFm(0)k_{F}^{m}(L)/k_{F}^{m}(0) as a function of LL for varying bb, using the GRM. The plots show b/a=b/a=1, 1/2, 1/5, and 1/10. The simulation results for P5GA are also shown as symbols, to emphasize that the GRM accounts for the hopping kinetics in the H-RNA-H system accurately.
Refer to caption
Figure 5: a. Comparison of the measured free energy profiles (symbols) with the shifted free energy profiles βFeqo(zm|fm)β(ffm)zm\beta F^{o}_{eq}(z_{m}|f_{m})-\beta(f-f_{m})\cdot z_{m}. b. Folding and unfolding times as a function of force f=14f=14 pN <fm<f_{m}, f=15.4f=15.4 pN fm\approx f_{m}, and f=16.8f=16.8 pN >fm>f_{m}. τF(U)m\tau_{F(U)}^{m} is obtained from the time trace in Figure 2B in Ref HyeonBJ07 at each force, while τF(U)m\tau_{F(U)}^{m} is computed using the tilted profile βFeqo(zm|f)=βFeqo(zm|fm)β(ffm)zm\beta F_{eq}^{o}(z_{m}|f)=\beta F_{eq}^{o}(z_{m}|f_{m})-\beta(f-f_{m})\cdot z_{m} in equation (1). c. Folding and unfolding times using the GRM. Symbols are a direct simulation of the GRM (error bars are standard deviation of the mean). The solid lines are obtained using the Kramers theory (equation (1)). We choose DU3D0D_{U}\approx 3D_{0}, so that that the simulated and Kramers times agree at f=fmf=f_{m}. The position of each basin of attraction as a function of force for the GRM is given by zUN0a2βf/3z_{U}\approx N_{0}a^{2}\beta f/3 and zFN0a2βf/(3+2N0a2βk)z_{F}\approx N_{0}a^{2}\beta f/(3+2N_{0}a^{2}\beta k).

SUPPORTING INFORMATION (SI)

Fluctuations of the handle polymer under tension : Using the force clamp simulations of the RNA hairpin in the presence of handles, the dynamics of the fluctuations of the handle can be independently extracted by probing the time-dependent changes in the 5’ and 3’ ends of the RNA molecule. The distribution of the longitudinal fluctuations (zH5z5zoz_{H}^{5^{\prime}}\equiv z_{5^{\prime}}-z_{o} and zH3zpz3z_{H}^{3^{\prime}}\equiv z_{p}-z_{3^{\prime}}) and the dispersion in the transverse fluctuations (x5x_{5^{\prime}} or y5y_{5^{\prime}} and x3x_{3^{\prime}} or y3y_{3^{\prime}}) are shown in SI Fig. 6. Assuming that the force 𝐟=f𝐞^+f𝐞^{\mathbf{f}}=f_{\parallel}\hat{\mathbf{e}}_{\parallel}+f_{\perp}\hat{\mathbf{e}}_{\perp} is decomposed into f=|𝐟|f+f2/2f+𝒪(f4)f=|{\mathbf{f}}|\approx f_{\parallel}+f_{\perp}^{2}/2f_{\parallel}+\mathcal{O}(f^{4}_{\perp}) (with fff_{\parallel}\gg f_{\perp}), and using the partition function of the worm-like chain polymer under tension, Z=𝑑Ωe(HWLC/kBTfR/kBT)Z=\int d\Omega e^{-(H_{WLC}/k_{B}T-\vec{f}\cdot\vec{R}/k_{B}T)} Marko05PRE , one can express the longitudinal fluctuation as

δR2=kBTdRdf{Llpfor fkBTlpLlp1/2(f/kBT)3/2for fkBTlp,\langle\delta R_{\parallel}^{2}\rangle=k_{B}T\frac{d\langle R_{\parallel}\rangle}{df}\sim\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}Ll_{p}&\mbox{for $f\lesssim\frac{k_{B}T}{l_{p}}$}\\ L\,l_{p}^{-1/2}(f/k_{B}T)^{-3/2}&\mbox{for $f\gg\frac{k_{B}T}{l_{p}}$}\end{array}\right., (8)

where the force extension relations of a worm-like chain R/Lflp/kBTR_{\parallel}/L\approx fl_{p}/k_{B}T for f<kBT/lpf<k_{B}T/l_{p} and R/L1kBT/4lpfR_{\parallel}/L\approx 1-\sqrt{k_{B}T/4l_{p}f} for f>kBT/lpf>k_{B}T/l_{p} are used for small and large forces, respectively Marko95Macro . These results are consistent with the fluctuations observed in the simulations. When f<kBT/lpf<k_{B}T/l_{p}, the transverse fluctuations are independent of the force, and are determined solely by the nature of the linker. For f=fm15.4f=f_{m}\approx 15.4 pN, the tension is in the regime that satisfies f>kBT/lpf>k_{B}T/l_{p} for both values of lpl_{p} used in the simulations, and the longitudinal fluctuations δR||2\langle\delta R_{||}^{2}\rangle decrease as the stiffness of the polymer increases for all LL (SI Fig.6a). The distribution of the extensions coincide for both the 3’ and 5’ ends of the handles for all LL and lpl_{p} (SI Fig. 6a). This suggests that the constant force applied at the point zpz_{p} propagates uniformly throughout the whole system.

The transverse fluctuations are given by

δR2=(kBT)22logZf2|f=f,f=0=kBTfR{Llpfor fkBTlpLkBTf(112kBTlpf)for fkBTlp.\langle\delta R_{\perp}^{2}\rangle=(k_{B}T)^{2}\frac{\partial^{2}\log{Z}}{\partial f_{\perp}^{2}}|_{f_{\parallel}=f,f_{\perp}=0}=\frac{k_{B}T}{f}\langle R_{\parallel}\rangle\approx\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}Ll_{p}&\mbox{for $f\lesssim\frac{k_{B}T}{l_{p}}$}\\ \frac{Lk_{B}T}{f}\left(1-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{k_{B}T}{l_{p}f}}\right)&\mbox{for $f\gg\frac{k_{B}T}{l_{p}}$}\end{array}\right.. (9)

The transverse fluctuations also decrease as f(>kBT/lp)f(>k_{B}T/l_{p}) increases, with a different power. It is worth noting that the transverse fluctuations, which also increase as LL increases, are nearly independent of the handle stiffness if f>kBT/lpf>k_{B}T/l_{p}. The standard deviations of distributions are plotted with respect to the contour length at each bending rigidity (SI Fig. 6b). The fit shows that σ0.28×L1/2\sigma\sim 0.28\times L^{1/2} nm and σ0.30×L1/2\sigma\sim 0.30\times L^{1/2} nm for lp=0.6l_{p}=0.6 nm and lp=70l_{p}=70 nm, respectively, which is consistent with the analysis in equation 9.
Determination of the persistence length of the handles : In order to determine the persistence length of the handles, we numerically generated the end-to-end distribution function P(R)P(R) of the free handles in the absence of tension, and fit the simulated distribution to the analytical result HaBook ; HyeonJCP06

PWLC(R)=4πCρ2L(1ρ2)9/2exp(α1ρ2)P_{WLC}(R)=\frac{4\pi C\rho^{2}}{L(1-\rho^{2})^{9/2}}\exp{\left(-\frac{\alpha}{1-\rho^{2}}\right)} (10)

with ρ=R/L\rho=R/L and α=3L/4lp\alpha=3L/4l_{p}. The normalization constant C=C=[π3/2eαα3/2(1+3α1+15α2/4)]1\left[\pi^{3/2}e^{-\alpha}\alpha^{3/2}(1+3\alpha^{-1}+15\alpha^{-2}/4)\right]^{-1} ensures 0L𝑑RPWLC(R)=1\int_{0}^{L}dR\ P_{WLC}(R)=1.

Quantifying the synchronization of zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) and zm(t)z_{m}(t) : The origin of the small discrepancy between Feq(zsys)F_{eq}(z_{sys}) and Feq(zm)F_{eq}(z_{m}) when the handles are flexible can be found by comparing zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) with zm(t)z_{m}(t) for the two extreme cases in Fig. 2 of the main text. To quantitatively express the synchronization between zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) and zm(t)z_{m}(t), we defined a correlation function at each time tt using

C(t)=zsys(t)zsysTSzsysTS×zm(t)zmTSzmTSC(t)=\frac{z_{sys}(t)-z_{sys}^{TS}}{z_{sys}^{TS}}\times\frac{z_{m}(t)-z_{m}^{TS}}{z_{m}^{TS}} (11)

where zsysTSz_{sys}^{TS} and zmTSz_{m}^{TS} are the positions of the transition states determined from Feq(zsys)F_{eq}(z_{sys}) and Feq(zm)F_{eq}(z_{m}) respectively. If C(t)>0C(t)>0 at time tt, both zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) and zm(t)z_{m}(t) are in the same basins of attraction, i.e. the status of zm(t)z_{m}(t) is correctly detected by the measurement through the handles. If C(t)<0C(t)<0, then the information of zm(t)z_{m}(t) is lost due to fluctuations or the slow response of the handles. The near perfect synchronization between zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) and zm(t)z_{m}(t) for lp=60l_{p}=60 nm and L=5L=5 nm are reflected in C(t)>0C(t)>0 for almost all tt. Thus, when the handles are stiff, zm(t)zsys(t)2Lz_{m}(t)\approx z_{sys}(t)-2L, which implies that zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) faithfully reflects the dynamics (zm(t)z_{m}(t)) of the hairpin. In contrast, with lp=0.6l_{p}=0.6 nm and L=25L=25 nm, zm(t)z_{m}(t) can not be determined from zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) using zsys(t)2×Lzm(t)z_{sys}(t)-2\times L\neq z_{m}(t). The amplitudes of zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) are typically larger than that of zm(t)z_{m}(t), leading to C(t)<0C(t)<0 occasionally (shown by an arrow on the right plot in SI Fig. 7). The histograms of P(C)P(C) for the two extreme cases show that the dynamics between zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) and zm(t)z_{m}(t) are more synchronous for the rigid and short handles (0.0<P(C)<0.50.0<P(C)<0.5) than for the flexible and longer handles (0.05<P(C)<0.2-0.05<P(C)<0.2) (see the graph at the bottom in the SI Fig.7). The finding that short and stiff (L/lpO(1)L/l_{p}\sim O(1)) handles minimize the differences between Feq(zm)F_{eq}(z_{m}) and Feq(zsys)F_{eq}(z_{sys}) is related to the tension-dependent fluctuations in the linkers.

References

  • (1) Yan, J., Kawamura, R. & Marko, J. F. Statistics of loop formation along double helix DNAs. Phys. Rev. E 71, 061905 (2005).
  • (2) Marko, J. F. & Siggia, E. D. Stretching DNA. Macromolecules 28, 8759–8770 (1995).
  • (3) Thirumalai, D. & Ha, B.-Y. Theoretical and Mathematical Models in Polymer Research, chapter I. Statistical Mechanics of Semiflexible Chains: A Mean Field Variational Approach, 1–35. Academic Press, San Diego (1998). edited by A. Grosberg.
  • (4) Hyeon, C. & Thirumalai, D. Kinetics of interior loop formation in semiflexible chains. J. Chem. Phys. 124, 104905 (2006).
  • (5) Woodside, M. T. et al. Direct Measurement of the Full, Sequence-Dependent Folding Landscape of a Nucleic Acid. Science 314, 1001–1004 (2006).
Refer to caption
Figure 6: Fluctuations of the handles with varying lengths and flexibilities at f=15.4f=15.4 pN. a. Longitudinal fluctuations of the handle attached at the 5’ and 3’ sides of the RNA hairpin. b. Transverse fluctuations are fit to a Gaussian distribution, and the standard deviation (σ\sigma) is plotted as a function of the contour length and flexibility.
Refer to caption
Figure 7: The time traces, zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) and zm(t)z_{m}(t), for two extreme cases that produce the free energy profiles in the magenta and orange boxes in Fig. 2 of the main text, are overlapped to show the differences. For lp=70l_{p}=70 nm and L=5L=5 nm, both the phase and amplitude between zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) and zm(t)z_{m}(t) coincide throughout the time series, while for lp=0.6l_{p}=0.6 nm and L=25L=25 nm the amplitude of zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) are larger than zm(t)z_{m}(t) and the phase between zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) and zm(t)z_{m}(t) is occasionally offset from one another. The correlation measure C(t)C(t) quantifies the synchrony between zsys(t)z_{sys}(t) and zm(t)z_{m}(t) at time tt. The histograms of C(t)C(t) show that the time trace for lp=l_{p}=70 nm and L=5L=5 nm is more synchronized than the one for lp=0.6l_{p}=0.6 nm and L=25L=25 nm.
Refer to caption
Figure 8: The survival probabilities PF(t)P_{F}(t) and PU(t)P_{U}(t) are fit to a single exponential function to calculate τU\tau_{U} and τF\tau_{F}. For LL=0 nm, τU=2.9\tau_{U}=2.9 ms and τF=1.9\tau_{F}=1.9 ms. For LL=20 nm, τU=5.0\tau_{U}=5.0 ms and τF=12.1\tau_{F}=12.1 ms. The quality of the fits for L=20L=20 nm (dashed lines) is not as good as for L=0L=0 nm. The survival probabilities show lag phases for both unfolding and refolding.
Refer to caption
Figure 9: Time traces of molecular extension under tension f=f=14.0, 15.4, and 16.8 pN, and corresponding distribution P(zm|f)P(z_{m}|f) at each force. The distributions are converted to the free energy profile in Fig.5a by using Feqo(zm)/kBT=logP(zm)F_{eq}^{o}(z_{m})/k_{B}T=-\log{P(z_{m})}. Note that the hairpin is pinned in the UBA at f=16.8f=16.8pN (>fm>f_{m}) with infrequent transitions to the NBA. Just as in experiments Block06Science , accurate measurement of Feq(zm)F_{eq}(z_{m}) is possible only at ffmf\approx f_{m}, where multiple hopping events between the NBA and UBA can be observed.