Hubbry Logo
Alpha helixAlpha helixMain
Open search
Alpha helix
Community hub
Alpha helix
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Alpha helix
Alpha helix
Alpha helix
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Three-dimensional structure[1] of an alpha helix in the protein crambin

An alpha helix (or α-helix) is a sequence of amino acids in a protein that are twisted into a coil (a helix).

The alpha helix is the most common structural arrangement in the secondary structure of proteins. It is also the most extreme type of local structure, and it is the local structure that is most easily predicted from a sequence of amino acids.

The alpha helix has a right-handed helix conformation in which every backbone N−H group hydrogen bonds to the backbone C=O group of the amino acid that is four residues earlier in the protein sequence.

Other names

[edit]

The alpha helix is also commonly called a:

  • Pauling–Corey–Branson α-helix (from the names of three scientists who described its structure)
  • 3.613-helix because there are 3.6 amino acids in one ring, with 13 atoms being involved in the ring formed by the hydrogen bond (starting with amidic hydrogen and ending with carbonyl oxygen)[2]
Protein secondary structureBeta sheetAlpha helix
The image above contains clickable links
The image above contains clickable links
Interactive diagram of hydrogen bonds in protein secondary structure. Cartoon above, atoms below with nitrogen in blue, oxygen in red (PDB: 1AXC​​)


Discovery

[edit]
Side view of an α-helix of alanine residues in atomic detail. Two hydrogen bonds for the same peptide group are highlighted in magenta; the H to O distance is about 2 Å (0.20 nm). The protein chain runs upward here; that is, its N-terminus is at the bottom and its C-terminus at the top. Note that the sidechains (black stubs) angle slightly downward, toward the N-terminus, while the peptide oxygens (red) point up and the peptide NHs (blue with grey stubs) point down.
Top view of the same helix shown above. Four carbonyl groups are pointing upwards toward the viewer, spaced roughly 100° apart on the circle, corresponding to 3.6 amino-acid residues per turn of the helix.

In the early 1930s, William Astbury showed that there were drastic changes in the X-ray fiber diffraction of moist wool or hair fibers upon significant stretching. The data suggested that the unstretched fibers had a coiled molecular structure with a characteristic repeat of ≈5.1 ångströms (0.51 nanometres).

Astbury initially proposed a linked-chain structure for the fibers. He later joined other researchers (notably the American chemist Maurice Huggins) in proposing that:

  • the unstretched protein molecules formed a helix (which he called the α-form)
  • the stretching caused the helix to uncoil, forming an extended state (which he called the β-form).

Although incorrect in their details, Astbury's models of these forms were correct in essence and correspond to modern elements of secondary structure, the α-helix and the β-strand (Astbury's nomenclature was kept), which were developed by Linus Pauling, Robert Corey and Herman Branson in 1951 (see below); that paper showed both right- and left-handed helices, although in 1960 the crystal structure of myoglobin[3] showed that the right-handed form is the common one. Hans Neurath was the first to show that Astbury's models could not be correct in detail, because they involved clashes of atoms.[4] Neurath's paper and Astbury's data inspired H. S. Taylor,[5] Maurice Huggins[6] and Bragg and collaborators[7] to propose models of keratin that somewhat resemble the modern α-helix.

Two key developments in the modeling of the modern α-helix were: the correct bond geometry, thanks to the crystal structure determinations of amino acids and peptides and Pauling's prediction of planar peptide bonds; and his relinquishing of the assumption of an integral number of residues per turn of the helix. The pivotal moment came in the early spring of 1948, when Pauling caught a cold and went to bed. Being bored, he drew a polypeptide chain of roughly correct dimensions on a strip of paper and folded it into a helix, being careful to maintain the planar peptide bonds. After a few attempts, he produced a model with physically plausible hydrogen bonds. Pauling then worked with Corey and Branson to confirm his model before publication.[8] In 1954, Pauling was awarded his first Nobel Prize "for his research into the nature of the chemical bond and its application to the elucidation of the structure of complex substances"[9] (such as proteins), prominently including the structure of the α-helix.

Structure

[edit]

Geometry and hydrogen bonding

[edit]

The amino acids in an α-helix are arranged in a right-handed helical structure where each amino acid residue corresponds to a 100° turn in the helix (i.e., the helix has 3.6 residues per turn), and a translation of 1.5 Å (0.15 nm) along the helical axis. Dunitz[10] describes how Pauling's first article on the theme in fact shows a left-handed helix, the enantiomer of the true structure. Short pieces of left-handed helix sometimes occur with a large content of achiral glycine amino acids, but are unfavorable for the other normal, biological L-amino acids. The pitch of the alpha-helix (the vertical distance between consecutive turns of the helix) is 5.4 Å (0.54 nm), which is the product of 1.5 and 3.6. The most important thing is that the N-H group of one amino acid forms a hydrogen bond with the C=O group of the amino acid four residues earlier; this repeated i + 4 → i hydrogen bonding is the most prominent characteristic of an α-helix. Official international nomenclature[11][12] specifies two ways of defining α-helices, rule 6.2 in terms of repeating φ, ψ torsion angles (see below) and rule 6.3 in terms of the combined pattern of pitch and hydrogen bonding. The α-helices can be identified in protein structure using several computational methods, such as DSSP (Define Secondary Structure of Protein).[13]

Contrast of helix end views between α (offset squarish) vs 310 (triangular)

Similar structures include the 310 helix (i + 3 → i hydrogen bonding) and the π-helix (i + 5 → i hydrogen bonding). The α-helix can be described as a 3.613 helix, since the i + 4 spacing adds three more atoms to the H-bonded loop compared to the tighter 310 helix, and on average, 3.6 amino acids are involved in one ring of α-helix. The subscripts refer to the number of atoms (including the hydrogen) in the closed loop formed by the hydrogen bond.[14]

Ramachandran plot (φ, ψ plot), with data points for α-helical residues forming a dense diagonal cluster below and left of center, around the global energy minimum for backbone conformation.[15]

Residues in α-helices typically adopt backbone (φ, ψ) dihedral angles around (−60°, −45°), as shown in the image at right. In more general terms, they adopt dihedral angles such that the ψ dihedral angle of one residue and the φ dihedral angle of the next residue sum to roughly −105°. As a consequence, α-helical dihedral angles, in general, fall on a diagonal stripe on the Ramachandran diagram (of slope −1), ranging from (−90°, −15°) to (−70°, −35°). For comparison, the sum of the dihedral angles for a 310 helix is roughly −75°, whereas that for the π-helix is roughly −130°. The general formula for the rotation angle Ω per residue of any polypeptide helix with trans isomers is given by the equation[16][17]

3 cos Ω = 1 − 4 cos2 ⁠φ + ψ/2⁠

The α-helix is tightly packed; there is almost no free space within the helix. The amino-acid side-chains are on the outside of the helix, and point roughly "downward" (i.e., toward the N-terminus), like the branches of an evergreen tree (Christmas tree effect). This directionality is sometimes used in preliminary, low-resolution electron-density maps to determine the direction of the protein backbone.[18]

Stability

[edit]
See also: Stapled peptide

Helices observed in proteins can range from four to over forty residues long, but a typical helix contains about ten amino acids (about three turns). In general, short polypeptides do not exhibit much α-helical structure in solution, since the entropic cost associated with the folding of the polypeptide chain is not compensated for by a sufficient amount of stabilizing interactions. In general, the backbone hydrogen bonds of α-helices are considered slightly weaker than those found in β-sheets, and are readily attacked by the ambient water molecules. However, in more hydrophobic environments such as the plasma membrane, or in the presence of co-solvents such as trifluoroethanol (TFE), or isolated from solvent in the gas phase,[19] oligopeptides readily adopt stable α-helical structure. Furthermore, crosslinks can be incorporated into peptides to conformationally stabilize helical folds. Crosslinks stabilize the helical state by entropically destabilizing the unfolded state and by removing enthalpically stabilized "decoy" folds that compete with the fully helical state.[20] It has been shown that α-helices are more stable, robust to mutations and designable than β-strands in natural proteins,[21] and also in artificially designed proteins.[22]

An α-helix in ultrahigh-resolution electron density contours, with oxygen atoms in red, nitrogen atoms in blue, and hydrogen bonds as green dotted lines (PDB file 2NRL, 17–32). The N-terminus is at the top, here.

Visualization

[edit]

The three most popular ways of visualizing the alpha-helical secondary structure of oligopeptide sequences are (1) a helical wheel,[23] (2) a wenxiang diagram,[24] and (3) a helical net.[25] Each of these can be visualized with various software packages and web servers. To generate a small number of diagrams, Heliquest[26] can be used for helical wheels, and NetWheels[27] can be used for helical wheels and helical nets. To programmatically generate a large number of diagrams, helixvis[28][29] can be used to draw helical wheels and wenxiang diagrams in the R and Python programming languages.

Experimental determination

[edit]

Since the α-helix is defined by its hydrogen bonds and backbone conformation, the most detailed experimental evidence for α-helical structure comes from atomic-resolution X-ray crystallography such as the example shown at right. It is clear that all the backbone carbonyl oxygens point downward (toward the C-terminus) but splay out slightly, and the H-bonds are approximately parallel to the helix axis. Protein structures from NMR spectroscopy also show helices well, with characteristic observations of nuclear Overhauser effect (NOE) couplings between atoms on adjacent helical turns. In some cases, the individual hydrogen bonds can be observed directly as a small scalar coupling in NMR.

There are several lower-resolution methods for assigning general helical structure. The NMR chemical shifts (in particular of the Cα, Cβ and C′) and residual dipolar couplings are often characteristic of helices. The far-UV (170–250 nm) circular dichroism spectrum of helices is also idiosyncratic, exhibiting a pronounced double minimum at around 208 and 222 nm. Infrared spectroscopy is rarely used, since the α-helical spectrum resembles that of a random coil (although these might be discerned by, e.g., hydrogen-deuterium exchange). Finally, cryo electron microscopy is now capable of discerning individual α-helices within a protein, although their assignment to residues is still an active area of research.

Long homopolymers of amino acids often form helices if soluble. Such long, isolated helices can also be detected by other methods, such as dielectric relaxation, flow birefringence, and measurements of the diffusion constant. In stricter terms, these methods detect only the characteristic prolate (long cigar-like) hydrodynamic shape of a helix, or its large dipole moment.

Amino-acid propensities

[edit]

Different amino-acid sequences have different propensities for forming α-helical structure. Alanine, uncharged glutamate, leucine, charged arginine, methionine and charged lysine have especially high helix-forming propensities, whereas proline and glycine have poor helix-forming propensities.[30] Proline either breaks or kinks a helix, both because it cannot donate an amide hydrogen bond (because it has none) and because its sidechain interferes sterically with the backbone of the preceding turn – inside a helix, which forces a bend of about 30° in the helix's axis.[14] However, proline is often the first residue of a helix, presumably due to its structural rigidity. At the other extreme, glycine also tends to disrupt helices because its high conformational flexibility makes it entropically expensive to adopt the relatively constrained α-helical structure.

Table of standard amino acid alpha-helical propensities

[edit]

Estimated differences in free energy change, Δ(ΔG), estimated in kcal/mol per residue in an α-helical configuration, relative to alanine arbitrarily set as zero. Higher numbers (more positive free energy changes) are less favoured. Significant deviations from these average numbers are possible, depending on the identities of the neighbouring residues.

Differences in free energy change per residue[30]
Amino acid 3-
letter 		1-
letter 		Helical penalty
kcal/mol kJ/mol
Alanine Ala A 0.00 0.00
Arginine Arg R 0.21 0.88
Asparagine Asn N 0.65 2.72
Aspartic acid Asp D 0.69 2.89
Cysteine Cys C 0.68 2.85
Glutamic acid Glu E 0.40 1.67
Glutamine Gln Q 0.39 1.63
Glycine Gly G 1.00 4.18
Histidine His H 0.61 2.55
Isoleucine Ile I 0.41 1.72
Leucine Leu L 0.21 0.88
Lysine Lys K 0.26 1.09
Methionine Met M 0.24 1.00
Phenylalanine Phe F 0.54 2.26
Proline Pro P 3.16 13.22
Serine Ser S 0.50 2.09
Threonine Thr T 0.66 2.76
Tryptophan Trp W 0.49 2.05
Tyrosine Tyr Y 0.53 2.22
Valine Val V 0.61 2.55

Dipole moment

[edit]

A helix has an overall dipole moment due to the aggregate effect of the individual microdipoles from the carbonyl groups of the peptide bond pointing along the helix axis.[31] The effects of this macrodipole are a matter of some controversy. α-helices often occur with the N-terminal end bound by a negatively charged group, sometimes an amino acid side chain such as glutamate or aspartate, or sometimes a phosphate ion. Some regard the helix macrodipole as interacting electrostatically with such groups. Others feel that this is misleading and it is more realistic to say that the hydrogen bond potential of the free NH groups at the N-terminus of an α-helix can be satisfied by hydrogen bonding; this can also be regarded as set of interactions between local microdipoles such as C=O···H−N.[32][33]

Coiled coils

[edit]

Coiled-coil α helices are highly stable forms in which two or more helices wrap around each other in a "supercoil" structure. Coiled coils contain a highly characteristic sequence motif known as a heptad repeat, in which the motif repeats itself every seven residues along the sequence (amino acid residues, not DNA base-pairs). The first and especially the fourth residues (known as the a and d positions) are almost always hydrophobic; the fourth residue is typically leucine – this gives rise to the name of the structural motif called a leucine zipper, which is a type of coiled-coil. These hydrophobic residues pack together in the interior of the helix bundle. In general, the fifth and seventh residues (the e and g positions) have opposing charges and form a salt bridge stabilized by electrostatic interactions. Fibrous proteins such as keratin or the "stalks" of myosin or kinesin often adopt coiled-coil structures, as do several dimerizing proteins. A pair of coiled-coils – a four-helix bundle – is a very common structural motif in proteins. For example, it occurs in human growth hormone and several varieties of cytochrome. The Rop protein, which promotes plasmid replication in bacteria, is an interesting case in which a single polypeptide forms a coiled-coil and two monomers assemble to form a four-helix bundle.

Facial arrangements

[edit]

The amino acids that make up a particular helix can be plotted on a helical wheel, a representation that illustrates the orientations of the constituent amino acids (see the article for leucine zipper for such a diagram). Often in globular proteins, as well as in specialized structures such as coiled-coils and leucine zippers, an α-helix will exhibit two "faces" – one containing predominantly hydrophobic amino acids oriented toward the interior of the protein, in the hydrophobic core, and one containing predominantly polar amino acids oriented toward the solvent-exposed surface of the protein.

Changes in binding orientation also occur for facially-organized oligopeptides. This pattern is especially common in antimicrobial peptides, and many models have been devised to describe how this relates to their function. Common to many of them is that the hydrophobic face of the antimicrobial peptide forms pores in the plasma membrane after associating with the fatty chains at the membrane core.[34][35]

Larger-scale assemblies

[edit]
The Hemoglobin molecule has four heme-binding subunits, each made largely of α-helices.

Myoglobin and hemoglobin, the first two proteins whose structures were solved by X-ray crystallography, have very similar folds made up of about 70% α-helix, with the rest being non-repetitive regions, or "loops" that connect the helices. In classifying proteins by their dominant fold, the Structural Classification of Proteins database maintains a large category specifically for all-α proteins.

Hemoglobin then has an even larger-scale quaternary structure, in which the functional oxygen-binding molecule is made up of four subunits.

Functional roles

[edit]
Leucine zipper coiled-coil helices & DNA-binding helices: transcription factor Max (PDB file 1HLO)
Bovine rhodopsin (PDB file 1GZM), with a bundle of seven helices crossing the membrane (membrane surfaces marked by horizontal lines)

DNA binding

[edit]

α-Helices have particular significance in DNA binding motifs, including helix-turn-helix motifs, leucine zipper motifs and zinc finger motifs. This is because of the convenient structural fact that the diameter of an α-helix is about 12 Å (1.2 nm) including an average set of sidechains, about the same as the width of the major groove in B-form DNA, and also because coiled-coil (or leucine zipper) dimers of helices can readily position a pair of interaction surfaces to contact the sort of symmetrical repeat common in double-helical DNA.[36] An example of both aspects is the transcription factor Max (see image at left), which uses a helical coiled coil to dimerize, positioning another pair of helices for interaction in two successive turns of the DNA major groove.

Membrane spanning

[edit]

α-Helices are also the most common protein structure element that crosses biological membranes (transmembrane protein),[37] presumably because the helical structure can satisfy all backbone hydrogen-bonds internally, leaving no polar groups exposed to the membrane if the sidechains are hydrophobic. Proteins are sometimes anchored by a single membrane-spanning helix, sometimes by a pair, and sometimes by a helix bundle, most classically consisting of seven helices arranged up-and-down in a ring such as for rhodopsins (see image at right) and other G protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs). The structural stability between pairs of α-Helical transmembrane domains rely on conserved membrane interhelical packing motifs, for example, the Glycine-xxx-Glycine (or small-xxx-small) motif.[38]

Mechanical properties

[edit]

α-Helices under axial tensile deformation, a characteristic loading condition that appears in many alpha-helix-rich filaments and tissues, results in a characteristic three-phase behavior of stiff-soft-stiff tangent modulus.[39] Phase I corresponds to the small-deformation regime during which the helix is stretched homogeneously, followed by phase II, in which alpha-helical turns break mediated by the rupture of groups of H-bonds. Phase III is typically associated with large-deformation covalent bond stretching.

Dynamical features

[edit]

Alpha-helices in proteins may have low-frequency accordion-like motion as observed by the Raman spectroscopy[40] and analyzed via the quasi-continuum model.[41][42] Helices not stabilized by tertiary interactions show dynamic behavior, which can be mainly attributed to helix fraying from the ends.[43]

Helix–coil transition

[edit]
See also: Helix–coil transition model

Homopolymers of amino acids (such as polylysine) can adopt α-helical structure at low temperature that is "melted out" at high temperatures. This helix–coil transition was once thought to be analogous to protein denaturation. The statistical mechanics of this transition can be modeled using an elegant transfer matrix method, characterized by two parameters: the propensity to initiate a helix and the propensity to extend a helix.

In art

[edit]
Julian Voss-Andreae's Alpha Helix for Linus Pauling (2004), powder coated steel, height 10 ft (3 m). The sculpture stands in front of Pauling's childhood home on 3945 SE Hawthorne Boulevard in Portland, Oregon, USA.

At least five artists have made explicit reference to the α-helix in their work: Julie Newdoll in painting and Julian Voss-Andreae, Bathsheba Grossman, Byron Rubin, and Mike Tyka in sculpture.

San Francisco area artist Julie Newdoll,[44] who holds a degree in microbiology with a minor in art, has specialized in paintings inspired by microscopic images and molecules since 1990. Her painting "Rise of the Alpha Helix" (2003) features human figures arranged in an α helical arrangement. According to the artist, "the flowers reflect the various types of sidechains that each amino acid holds out to the world".[44] This same metaphor is also echoed from the scientist's side: "β sheets do not show a stiff repetitious regularity but flow in graceful, twisting curves, and even the α-helix is regular more in the manner of a flower stem, whose branching nodes show the influence of environment, developmental history, and the evolution of each part to match its own idiosyncratic function."[14]

Julian Voss-Andreae is a German-born sculptor with degrees in experimental physics and sculpture. Since 2001 Voss-Andreae creates "protein sculptures"[45] based on protein structure with the α-helix being one of his preferred objects. Voss-Andreae has made α-helix sculptures from diverse materials including bamboo and whole trees. A monument Voss-Andreae created in 2004 to celebrate the memory of Linus Pauling, the discoverer of the α-helix, is fashioned from a large steel beam rearranged in the structure of the α-helix. The 10-foot-tall (3 m), bright-red sculpture stands in front of Pauling's childhood home in Portland, Oregon.

Ribbon diagrams of α-helices are a prominent element in the laser-etched crystal sculptures of protein structures created by artist Bathsheba Grossman, such as those of insulin, hemoglobin, and DNA polymerase.[46] Byron Rubin is a former protein crystallographer now professional sculptor in metal of proteins, nucleic acids, and drug molecules – many of which featuring α-helices, such as subtilisin, human growth hormone, and phospholipase A2.[47]

Mike Tyka is a computational biochemist at the University of Washington working with David Baker. Tyka has been making sculptures of protein molecules since 2010 from copper and steel, including ubiquitin and a potassium channel tetramer.[48]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Alpha helix

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The alpha helix is a prevalent type of secondary structure in proteins, consisting of a right-handed helical coil in which the polypeptide backbone forms hydrogen bonds between the amide hydrogen of each residue and the carbonyl oxygen of the residue four positions earlier, resulting in approximately 3.6 residues per turn and a pitch of 5.4 . This configuration, first proposed by , Robert Corey, and Herman Branson in 1951 based on stereochemical analysis of polypeptide chains, provides structural rigidity and is one of the most abundant motifs in globular proteins, comprising about 30% of their secondary structure on average. The alpha helix plays a crucial role in and function, contributing to the overall three-dimensional architecture by facilitating hydrophobic interactions between side chains and enabling the formation of coiled-coil dimers in fibrous proteins like and . Its stability is influenced by the intrinsic helix-forming propensities of , with and favoring helical conformations due to their non-polar side chains, while disrupts helices by introducing kinks in the backbone. In transmembrane proteins, alpha helices often span bilayers, with their hydrophobic residues interacting with the interior. Experimental evidence from and NMR spectroscopy has confirmed the alpha helix's prevalence across diverse protein families, underscoring its evolutionary conservation as a fundamental building block of .

History and Discovery

Discovery

The alpha helix was first proposed as a structural motif in proteins through pioneering X-ray diffraction studies on fibrous proteins like keratin conducted in the 1930s and 1940s. British biophysicist William Astbury and his collaborators at the University of Leeds analyzed diffraction patterns from wool and hair fibers, identifying characteristic meridional reflections around 5.1 Å in unstretched keratin, which suggested a repeating polypeptide backbone structure but lacked a precise helical model due to assumptions about integral residues per turn. These observations provided crucial empirical data on protein periodicity, highlighting the need for a configuration that could accommodate hydrogen bonding and stereochemical constraints in the peptide chain. In the late 1940s, amid growing interest in elucidating biomolecular architectures, American chemist turned to while recovering from a cold during a 1948 visit to Oxford University. Confined to bed, Pauling sketched configurations on paper, intuiting a non-integral stabilized by intramolecular hydrogen bonds between peptide carbonyl and groups, informed by his earlier theory predicting planar peptide units. Upon returning to the , Pauling collaborated with Robert B. Corey and Herman R. Branson to refine the model using physical molecular models and bond length data from crystals, directly addressing the X-ray patterns from and synthetic polypeptides reported by Astbury and others. Pauling, Corey, and Branson formally proposed the alpha helix in a seminal paper published on February 28, 1951, in the Proceedings of the , describing it as a right-handed helix with approximately 3.6 residues per turn and a 5.4 pitch, compatible with observed spacings. This model represented a breakthrough by prioritizing stereochemical feasibility over rigid adherence to integral helical parameters, marking the first accurate depiction of a recurring secondary structure in proteins.

Nomenclature

The term "alpha helix" originates from early diffraction studies of protein fibers, where British physicist William T. Astbury identified distinct conformational states in : the unstretched "alpha" form, characterized by a more compact structure, and the stretched "beta" form. In , , Robert Corey, and Herman Branson proposed the alpha helix as a specific helical model that aligned with Astbury's alpha form observations, building on data from fibrous proteins like and hair to explain the underlying polypeptide chain arrangement. Pauling's work classified the alpha helix as one of several possible regular secondary structures for polypeptides, distinguishing it from the extended beta-sheet conformation (corresponding to Astbury's beta form) and other helical variants such as the tighter 3_{10} helix (with 3 residues per turn) and the wider \pi helix (with 4.4 residues per turn), which were also theoretically derived based on hydrogen bonding patterns and stereochemical constraints. These distinctions arose from model-building efforts emphasizing stable, repeating hydrogen bonds along the backbone, positioning the alpha helix (approximately 3.6 residues per turn) as the most favorable for natural proteins. Common synonyms include the "Pauling-Corey-Branson \alpha-helix," honoring its proposers, and more specifically the "right-handed alpha helix," which refers to the predominant chiral sense in biological contexts. Left-handed alpha helices, while theoretically possible, are exceedingly rare in proteins due to unfavorable steric interactions with L-amino acid side chains, occurring in only about 31 documented cases as of a 2005 survey across thousands of structures and often limited to short segments rich in glycine. In , the alpha helix is standardized as a right-handed coiled conformation where each backbone N-H group forms a with the C=O group four residues earlier, as defined by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). This terminology remains the cornerstone for describing secondary structures in protein databases and analyses, emphasizing its role as a fundamental motif without reference to tertiary context.

Structural Characteristics

Geometry and Hydrogen Bonding

The alpha helix is a right-handed helical conformation of the polypeptide backbone, characterized by a tight coil in which the side chains project outward. This structure features approximately 3.6 residues per turn, resulting in a helical pitch of 5.4 , with an axial rise of 1.5 per residue along the helix axis. These parameters arise from the stereochemical constraints of the planar and the L-chirality of , which favor the right-handed sense to minimize steric clashes between side chains and the backbone. The backbone conformation is defined by specific dihedral angles in the : the (φ) angle is approximately -57°, and the psi (ψ) angle is approximately -47°. These values position the alpha helix in the allowed region of the plot, enabling a regular, extended structure without significant torsional strain. The itself adopts a trans configuration with an omega (ω) angle near 180°, contributing to the overall rigidity. The core stability of the alpha helix stems from intramolecular hydrogen bonds between the backbone amide hydrogen and carbonyl oxygen. Specifically, the C=O group of residue i forms a hydrogen bond with the N-H group of residue i+4, creating a network of bonds nearly parallel to the helix axis. The N...O distance in these hydrogen bonds typically ranges from 2.8 to 3.0 Å, optimizing the bond strength while accommodating the helical geometry. This pattern results in 13 atoms (including hydrogens) per turn, though the structure is often denoted by the i to i+4 bonding motif.

Stability Factors

The primary stabilization of the alpha helix arises from intramolecular bonds between the backbone carbonyl oxygen of residue ii and the of residue i+4i+4, providing a net free energy contribution of approximately 1-2 kcal/mol per bond in . These bonds are marginally stronger in helical conformations than in other secondary structures, such as beta sheets, by about 0.2 kcal/mol, due to optimized geometry and reduced competition. In , the enthalpic gain from forming these bonds is partially offset by the desolvation penalty of the polar backbone groups, resulting in the modest net stabilization observed experimentally. Side-chain interactions further modulate alpha helix stability, with hydrophobic effects dominating in buried helices and electrostatic interactions, such as salt bridges, playing a key role in solvent-exposed ones. Nonpolar side chains, like those of , , and , shield the backbone polar groups from , reducing and enhancing stability by desolvating up to two carbonyl groups per residue; for example, and provide greater shielding than . In exposed helices, salt bridges between oppositely charged residues (e.g., glutamate-arginine pairs) can contribute 0.5-1.5 kcal/mol to stability, though their effect is context-dependent and often more pronounced on folding kinetics than equilibrium. These interactions vary between buried and exposed environments, where buried salt bridges are rarer but stronger due to lower screening. At the helix termini, unpaired hydrogen bond donors and acceptors are satisfied by capping motifs, which prevent destabilizing interactions with solvent and link helices to adjacent structures. N-capping motifs, such as those involving serine or side chains forming hydrogen bonds to the exposed N-terminal groups, stabilize the first turn by providing alternative partners for up to four backbone NH groups. C-terminal capping, exemplified by the Schellman motif (often featuring at the C-cap position followed by a turn), orients side chains to cap the last four carbonyls through hydrogen bonding and hydrophobic packing, contributing up to 1 kcal/mol per motif in proteins. These motifs are conserved across structures, with consensus sequences like Asn/Ser at N-cap enhancing overall helical propensity. Environmental conditions significantly influence alpha helix formation, with , , and altering side-chain , hydrogen bonding, and . At physiological , charged residues like aspartate favor N-capping due to electrostatic interactions with the helix , but extreme disrupts salt bridges and protonates/deprotonates side chains, reducing stability by 0.5-2 kcal/mol depending on the sequence. Elevated decrease helical content by weakening propagation (e.g., propensity drops from high at 0°C to lower at 50°C), while solvents like trifluoroethanol (TFE) enhance stability by strengthening backbone hydrogen bonds through reduced water competition. In non-aqueous environments, helix formation becomes more enthalpically driven, with nonpolar solvents favoring hydrophobic side-chain packing. The Zimm-Bragg model quantifies alpha helix stability through , treating the helix-coil transition as a one-dimensional Ising-like with two key parameters: the ss, which is the for extending an existing helix by one residue (typically s≈1s \approx 1 for average residues, >1 for helix-formers like ), and the nucleation constant σ\sigma (around 10−310^{-3} to 10−410^{-4}), reflecting the unfavorable of initiating a new helix. The partition function ZZ for a chain of NN residues is derived recursively, providing a framework to predict stability from sequence and conditions. This model highlights the cooperative nature of helix formation, where low σ\sigma ensures sharp transitions.

Physical Properties

Dipole Moment

The alpha helix possesses a prominent macrodipole due to the parallel alignment of the moments from its s along the helical axis. Each contributes an individual of approximately 3.5 (D), with the partial negative charge localized on the carbonyl oxygen (C=O) and the partial positive charge on the (N-H). In the alpha-helical conformation, these microdipoles sum vectorially, with the N-H groups oriented toward the amino ( and the C=O groups toward the carboxy (, resulting in a net positive pole at the and a negative pole at the . The magnitude of this macrodipole is estimated as the product of 3.5 D per residue and the number of residues (N) in the helix, yielding approximately 3.5N D, though partial cancellation occurs at the termini due to the non-ideal alignment of end-group dipoles. For a typical alpha helix spanning 10–15 residues, the total dipole moment thus ranges from about 40 to 60 D. This dipole influences protein folding and ligand binding through long-range electrostatic attractions and repulsions; for instance, the positive N-terminal pole can stabilize nearby negatively charged residues or ligands, enhancing binding affinity in enzymes and promoting favorable folding pathways. Experimental validation comes from (NMR) titration studies and , which demonstrate helix dipole effects on pKa shifts of ionizable groups near helical termini—for example, a histidine residue at the C-terminus of an alpha helix in barnase exhibits a pKa elevation of 1.6 units relative to a non-helical environment, attributed to desolvation and dipole interactions. Similarly, mutagenesis of charged residues in T4 lysozyme mutants reveals stabilizing interactions with the helix dipole, with pKa perturbations of up to 2.1 units observed at low ionic strength, confirming the dipole's role in modulating side-chain ionization.

Visualization Techniques

The visualization of alpha helices has evolved from rudimentary physical models to sophisticated computational and spectroscopic representations, enabling detailed observation at atomic and molecular scales. In 1951, and colleagues constructed the first physical space-filling models of the alpha helix using rods and balls to represent atoms and bonds, which allowed them to propose and verify the helical configuration based on stereochemical constraints. These tangible models were instrumental in confirming the right-handed spiral with 3.6 residues per turn, providing an intuitive grasp of the structure before computational tools existed. Contemporary structural models employ ribbon diagrams to depict alpha helices as coiled ribbons or cylindrical segments, simplifying the complex atomic arrangement for clarity in protein illustrations. Pioneered by Jane Richardson in 1981, these diagrams abstract the polypeptide backbone, rendering alpha helices as smooth, twisted ribbons to highlight secondary structure elements without overwhelming detail. Software like PyMOL facilitates the generation of such visualizations by interpolating spline curves through backbone atoms, often displaying helices as thick coils or tubes with customizable colors and transparency for enhanced interpretability in molecular dynamics simulations and analyses. Spectroscopic techniques offer indirect yet quantitative visualization of alpha helices through their optical properties. () spectroscopy reveals characteristic spectra for alpha-helical content, featuring negative ellipticity minima at approximately 208 nm and 222 nm, arising from the n-π* and π-π* transitions in the amide chromophores aligned parallel to the helix axis. These double minima serve as a diagnostic fingerprint, allowing researchers to estimate helical fractions in solution without crystallographic data, as the intensity ratio near 1:1 at these wavelengths confirms the presence of ordered helical segments. In , alpha helices manifest as elongated, rod-like features in maps, where the contiguous density along the helical axis reflects the tightly packed carbonyl and amide groups. Early applications, such as the 1958 structure determination, visualized these rods at 2 resolution, delineating eight alpha helices as continuous tubes spanning much of the protein core. Modern refinements use software like or Phenix to contour these maps at 1-1.5 σ levels, enabling precise fitting of atomic models to the helical densities for validation of hydrogen bonding patterns.

Experimental Determination

Laboratory Methods

X-ray crystallography remains a cornerstone for determining alpha-helical structures in proteins, requiring resolutions better than 2 Å to resolve the characteristic helical density and atomic positions. At lower resolutions, such as 6 Å, early studies identified rod-like electron densities suggestive of alpha helices, but refinement to 2 Å was essential for confirming the right-handed alpha-helical conformation with hydrogen bonding patterns. A seminal example is the 1958 structure of sperm whale myoglobin by John Kendrew and colleagues, initially at low resolution revealing ~75% helical content as dense cylindrical segments, later refined to 2 Å in 1960 to delineate eight alpha helices comprising 123 residues. This work established crystallography's ability to visualize alpha helices through Fourier synthesis, where the 5.4 Å axial repeat and 1.5 Å rise per residue produce distinct helical electron density. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy identifies alpha helices through chemical shift deviations and nuclear Overhauser effect (NOE) patterns that reflect the i to i+4 backbone hydrogen bonds. The chemical shift index (CSI) method assigns secondary structure by comparing observed chemical shifts of alpha protons (Hα), amide protons (HN), and carbon atoms (Cα, Cβ) to values; alpha-helical residues typically show upfield Hα shifts (< -0.1 ppm) and upfield Cα shifts (<-0.5 ppm) over stretches of four or more consecutive residues. NOE connectivities provide confirmatory evidence, with strong sequential dNN(i,i+1) NOEs between amide protons, medium-range daN(i,i+3) and daN(i,i+4) NOEs between alpha protons and amide protons three or four residues apart, and weak daN(i,i+2) NOEs distinguishing helices from turns. These patterns, observed in 2D or 3D NOESY spectra, have been pivotal in solution structures of small proteins like ubiquitin, where helical segments exhibit characteristic NOE ladders spanning 10-20 residues. Cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) has emerged since the 2010s as a powerful tool for detecting alpha-helical segments in large macromolecular complexes, leveraging resolutions of 3-4 Å to visualize secondary structure without crystallization. The "resolution revolution" enabled by direct electron detectors and advanced image processing reveals alpha helices as tubular densities with a 5-6 Å diameter and 5.4 Å pitch, often using secondary structure element (SSE) detection algorithms like SSEHunter to identify and trace them automatically. In post-2010 applications, cryo-EM has resolved helical bundles in complexes such as RNA polymerase II transcription machineries, where multiple alpha helices in subunits like TFIIH contribute to near-atomic models at 3.5 Å resolution. For even smaller assemblies under 100 kDa, recent advancements achieve 2.5-3 Å resolutions, confirming helical conformations in membrane proteins like ion channels through density fitting. Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy quantifies alpha-helical content by analyzing the amide I band, primarily arising from C=O stretching vibrations of the peptide backbone, which shifts to approximately 1650 cm⁻¹ in helical conformations due to hydrogen bonding. Deconvolution of the amide I region (1600-1700 cm⁻¹) distinguishes alpha helices from other structures, with the 1648-1658 cm⁻¹ component indicating unordered or helical forms, while beta-sheets appear at 1620-1640 cm⁻¹; quantitative analysis via peak area ratios estimates helical percentages in proteins like myoglobin at ~70%. This method is particularly useful for membrane proteins in lipid environments, where attenuated total reflectance (ATR)-FTIR confirms transmembrane alpha helices through the characteristic band position and solvent accessibility effects. Seminal studies on globular proteins established these assignments, enabling rapid secondary structure assessment in non-crystalline samples. Circular dichroism (CD) spectroscopy is a widely used technique for estimating alpha-helical content in proteins in solution, based on the differential absorption of left- and right-circularly polarized light in the far-UV region (190-250 nm). Alpha helices produce characteristic negative bands at approximately 222 nm (n-π* transition) and 208 nm (π-π* transition), with the intensity at 222 nm often used to quantify helical fraction via empirical calibration curves or deconvolution algorithms. For example, myoglobin exhibits strong signals corresponding to ~70% helical content. This non-destructive method is valuable for monitoring folding, stability, and ligand-induced changes in helical structure under physiological conditions.

Computational Approaches

Computational approaches to alpha helices encompass a range of in silico methods for predicting and analyzing their formation in proteins, from empirical algorithms to advanced simulations and machine learning models. These techniques enable researchers to forecast helical regions based on amino acid sequences, simulate dynamic behavior, and design novel structures, providing insights that complement experimental data. Secondary structure prediction algorithms represent foundational computational tools for identifying alpha helices. The Chou-Fasman method, developed in the 1970s, relies on empirical propensities of amino acids to adopt helical conformations, scanning sequences to identify regions where helix-favoring residues predominate and assigning helical segments based on nucleation and propagation rules. This approach achieves accuracies of approximately 50-60% for helix prediction, limited by its statistical basis but influential in early bioinformatics. Modern machine learning-based methods, such as AlphaFold, have dramatically improved performance by integrating deep neural networks trained on vast structural databases, achieving over 90% accuracy in predicting secondary structures, including alpha helices, through end-to-end learning of spatial arrangements. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations model the dynamic formation and stability of alpha helices at atomic resolution. Using force fields like , which parameterize bonded and non-bonded interactions, these simulations track peptide folding over nanosecond to microsecond timescales, revealing helix-coil transitions driven by hydrogen bonding and side-chain effects. For instance, AMBER ff99SB and its variants accurately reproduce experimental helix propensities in alanine-rich peptides, with simulations showing stable helical content aligning with spectroscopic measurements. Ab initio modeling employs quantum mechanical calculations to compute electronic structures of small peptide helices without empirical parameters. Density functional theory (DFT) optimizations of models like Ac-(Ala)_n-NHMe yield precise geometries for alpha helices, including bond lengths and dihedral angles, with energies highlighting the role of intramolecular hydrogen bonds in stabilization. These computations, feasible for systems up to 10-20 residues, provide benchmark data for refining classical force fields used in larger simulations. Recent advances in AI-driven structure prediction have enabled de novo design of proteins featuring alpha helices with high fidelity. Tools like RFdiffusion, a diffusion-based generative model, create novel helical backbones from scratch, followed by sequence optimization via , resulting in experimentally validated structures where predicted helices match observed folds with atomic precision. Between 2021 and 2025, such methods have facilitated designs of helical binders and enzymes, confirming alpha helix formation in non-natural sequences through iterative prediction and validation cycles.

Sequence Dependencies

Amino Acid Propensities

The propensity of individual amino acid residues to participate in alpha-helix formation varies significantly, reflecting their intrinsic structural preferences that influence the stability of the helical conformation. These propensities are determined by how well a residue's side chain accommodates the helical geometry without introducing undue strain or entropy penalties. Amino acids with high helix-forming tendencies, such as alanine (Ala), leucine (Leu), and methionine (Met), are frequently observed in helical segments due to their compact or non-polar side chains that minimize steric clashes and allow efficient packing within the helix core. In quantitative terms, experimental scales rank these residues based on their relative stabilization energies. For instance, in the helix propensity scale derived from peptide and protein studies, Ala serves as the reference with a ΔΔG of 0 kcal/mol, indicating maximal helix stabilization, while Leu and Met exhibit modestly lower propensities at 0.21 kcal/mol and 0.24 kcal/mol, respectively, reflecting slight destabilization relative to Ala. Conversely, helix-breaking residues like proline (Pro) and glycine (Gly) strongly disfavor alpha-helix incorporation; Pro disrupts the helix due to its rigid pyrrolidine ring, which prevents the necessary backbone hydrogen bonding and introduces a kink, while Gly's lack of a side chain confers excessive flexibility, increasing conformational entropy and opposing the ordered helical state. Gly shows a substantial destabilization with ΔΔG ≈ 1 kcal/mol. Several biophysical factors underpin these propensities, including side-chain entropy loss upon helix formation, interactions with the helix macrodipole, and steric hindrance. Bulky or branched side chains, such as in valine, incur high entropy penalties when confined to the helical environment, reducing overall stability, whereas small non-polar groups like in Ala experience minimal such losses. The alpha-helix dipole, arising from aligned peptide bond moments, can further modulate propensities through favorable electrostatic interactions with charged side chains, though this effect is secondary to entropic contributions for non-polar residues. Steric effects are particularly pronounced for Pro, where the cyclic side chain clashes with the preceding residue's backbone. These propensities have been rigorously quantified through host-guest peptide experiments, where a reference "host" sequence (often Ala-rich) is systematically mutated at a central "guest" position with different amino acids, and helix stability is assessed via changes in free energy (ΔΔG) using techniques like circular dichroism spectroscopy to monitor helical content. Such studies, pioneered in the late 1980s and compiled in comprehensive scales, isolate intrinsic residue effects by minimizing context dependence, revealing consistent trends across peptides and proteins.

Propensity Table and Analysis

The propensity of an amino acid to adopt an alpha-helical conformation is quantified by scales derived from statistical analysis of protein structures, where values greater than 1 indicate a preference for helices relative to random coil. These propensities reflect intrinsic tendencies influenced by side-chain properties, such as steric effects, hydrogen bonding potential, and conformational entropy. Modern scales, updated with large datasets from the (PDB), provide refined estimates compared to earlier empirical models. The following table presents alpha-helix propensities (Pα) for the 20 standard amino acids, calculated as the ratio of the amino acid's frequency in helical regions to its overall frequency in proteins. Values are from a 2012 analysis of PDB structures across multiple folds, representing a post-2000 dataset with thousands of proteins. Brief rationales highlight key structural factors contributing to each propensity.
Amino AcidOne-Letter CodePαBrief Rationale
AlanineA1.41Small methyl side chain allows tight packing and minimal steric hindrance in the helix core.
ArginineR1.21Long guanidino group enables side-chain hydrogen bonding that stabilizes helix ends.
AsparagineN0.73Polar amide side chain introduces flexibility but limited stabilizing interactions.
Aspartic AcidD0.82Short charged side chain can form hydrogen bonds but incurs desolvation penalty.
CysteineC0.85Thiol group provides weak hydrophobic character but potential for disulfide disruption.
Glutamic AcidE1.39Charged carboxylate forms salt bridges or hydrogen bonds, particularly at N-terminal caps.
GlutamineQ1.26Amide side chain supports intra-helical hydrogen bonding without charge repulsion.
GlycineG0.44Absence of side chain leads to high conformational entropy in the unfolded state.
HistidineH0.87Imidazole ring offers moderate hydrophobicity but pH-dependent charge effects.
IsoleucineI1.04Branched hydrophobic side chain fits core but causes slight steric clash.
LeucineL1.28Non-branched hydrophobic chain buries well in the helix interior.
LysineK1.17Long charged side chain facilitates electrostatic interactions at helix surfaces.
MethionineM1.26Flexible thioether side chain provides hydrophobic stabilization without bulk.
PhenylalanineF1.00Aromatic ring offers hydrophobicity but potential for pi-stacking distortions.
ProlineP0.44Cyclic side chain restricts phi angle and prevents backbone hydrogen bonding.
SerineS0.76Hydroxyl group allows hydrogen bonding but increases side-chain entropy loss.
ThreonineT0.78Branched polar side chain causes steric hindrance and beta-branching effects.
TryptophanW1.07Bulky indole provides strong hydrophobic burial but limited flexibility.
TyrosineY0.98Aromatic hydroxyl supports hydrogen bonding but introduces bulk.
ValineV0.91Branched isopropyl side chain leads to steric clashes in the tight helix.
Analysis of these propensities reveals trends such as elevated values for with hydrophobic or charged side chains (e.g., Leu, Met, Glu, Lys >1.2), which favor helix formation through core packing or electrostatic stabilization, while breakers like Pro and Gly (<0.5) disrupt due to rigidity or entropy. Propensities generally correlate with hydrophobicity for non-polar residues, as burial in the helix amphipathicity enhances stability, though polar residues like Ser and Thr show lower values due to unfavorable solvation costs. Comparisons across scales highlight consistencies—Ala remains the strongest helix former (Pα ≈1.42 in Chou-Fasman vs. 1.41 here)—but variations exist; for instance, Glu's propensity is 1.51 in the 1974 Chou-Fasman scale but 1.39 in modern PDB analyses, reflecting refinements from larger datasets excluding outliers like membrane proteins. These propensities are derived statistically from the PDB by computing the relative frequency of each in alpha-helical segments (defined by ≈ -57°, psi ≈ -47°) versus non-helical regions, using datasets post-2000 that encompass over 100,000 structures by the 2010s and exceeding 200,000 today. This approach aggregates data from diverse folds to capture average behaviors, with standard deviations typically <0.05, ensuring robustness. Despite their utility, these scales have limitations, as propensities are context-dependent; for example, values differ by helical position (e.g., Asp and Asn prefer N-caps due to side-chain capping motifs), neighboring residues (e.g., via i, i+4 interactions), and environment (soluble vs. membrane proteins). Thus, they provide intrinsic estimates but require integration with sequence context for accurate predictions.

Supramolecular Assemblies

Coiled Coils

Coiled coils represent a key supramolecular assembly in which two or more α-helices intertwine in a superhelical fashion, forming rope-like structures that enhance protein stability and enable specific interactions. This motif was first proposed by in 1953 as a solution to the packing of α-helices in fibrous proteins like keratin. The canonical coiled coil consists of parallel or antiparallel α-helical dimers, defined by a repeating heptad sequence (a-b-c-d-e-f-g)_n, where positions a and d are predominantly hydrophobic residues such as leucine, isoleucine, or valine that drive the association through burial in the helical interface. These hydrophobic cores create a characteristic seam that winds around each helix, necessitating a slight distortion of the individual α-helices from 3.6 to 3.5 residues per turn to allow close packing. A well-known variant is the leucine zipper motif, a dimeric coiled coil where leucine residues occupy the d positions of the heptad repeat, promoting parallel dimerization via interhelical hydrophobic contacts. This motif was identified in the 1980s in eukaryotic transcription factors and exemplifies how sequence periodicity dictates coiled coil formation. The stability of coiled coils arises from the "knobs-into-holes" packing geometry, in which the side chain of a residue at position a or d (the "knob") protrudes into a space formed by four residues on the facing helix (the "hole"), optimizing van der Waals interactions. The overall superhelix exhibits a left-handed twist with a pitch angle of approximately 20°–25° relative to the supercoil axis, resulting in a periodicity of 140–186 Å per full turn. The yeast transcription factor GCN4 provides a seminal structural example, with its leucine zipper domain resolved by X-ray crystallography in the early 1990s as a parallel two-stranded coiled coil spanning about 30 residues. This structure confirmed the heptad-based hydrophobic interface and knob-into-holes packing, serving as a model for understanding coiled coil assembly.

Facial and Larger Assemblies

Amphipathic alpha helices feature a segregation of hydrophobic and hydrophilic amino acid residues onto opposite faces of the helical structure, enabling interactions with both nonpolar and polar environments. This arrangement arises from the alpha helix's periodicity of approximately 3.6 residues per turn, resulting in each face typically comprising 3-4 residues that align to form distinct hydrophobic and hydrophilic sectors when projected onto a helical wheel. The hydrophobic moment, a quantitative measure of this amphiphilicity, highlights the helix's potential to adopt such facially asymmetric conformations, as originally defined for assessing helical amphipathicity in proteins. In higher-order assemblies, alpha helices often form bundles where multiple helices pack together via hydrophobic interactions between their nonpolar faces. A prominent example is the four-helix bundle, a motif characterized by four alpha helices arranged in an up-and-down topology, with adjacent helices typically oriented antiparallel to maximize side-chain packing efficiency. Cytochrome b562 from Escherichia coli exemplifies this structure, consisting of four helices (A, B, C, D) folded into a compact bundle that cradles a non-covalently bound heme group, with the bundle's stability derived from interhelical hydrophobic contacts. Topological analyses of such bundles reveal a preference for antiparallel pairings in most natural occurrences, facilitating close packing and structural integrity. Larger helical assemblies extend this bundling to more complex architectures, such as those forming pore-like structures in membrane proteins. Bacteriorhodopsin, a light-driven proton pump from Halobacterium salinarum, assembles seven transmembrane alpha helices into a barrel-shaped bundle that encircles the retinal chromophore, creating a central cavity for ion translocation. This arrangement utilizes helical wheel projections to align hydrophobic faces inward toward the lipid bilayer while exposing hydrophilic residues to the aqueous pore interior, as resolved in high-resolution electron microscopy studies. In fibrous proteins, alpha helices can further aggregate into extended assemblies, such as the protofilaments in intermediate filaments, where multiple helices align laterally to form robust, elongated structures. Key design principles governing these assemblies involve specific interhelical packing angles that optimize side-chain interdigitation and minimize steric clashes. In non-coiled bundles, helices typically pack at angles of approximately 20° to 50° relative to one another, with the ~20° angle promoting efficient hydrophobic core formation, as observed in both soluble and membrane-embedded motifs. These angles, derived from analyses of known protein structures, ensure complementary ridge-groove interactions, such as knob-into-hole packing, which stabilize the overall quaternary arrangement.

Biological Functions

DNA Binding

Alpha helices play a crucial role in DNA binding within various regulatory proteins, primarily through motifs that position the helix to interact with the major groove of the DNA double helix. The helix-turn-helix (HTH) motif is one of the most common structural elements for sequence-specific DNA recognition, consisting of two alpha helices connected by a short turn. In this motif, the second helix, known as the recognition helix, inserts into the major groove, making direct contacts with the DNA bases via side-chain atoms, while the first helix stabilizes the structure through hydrophobic interactions. This arrangement allows the recognition helix to contact approximately 3-4 base pairs per helix, enabling precise sequence discrimination. A classic example of the HTH motif is found in the lac repressor protein, which regulates the lac operon in Escherichia coli. The DNA-binding domain of the lac repressor features an HTH motif where the recognition helix (residues 17-24) binds to the operator sequence in the major groove, forming hydrogen bonds with specific bases such as those in the symmetric GTGA and TCAC sequences. Crystal structures reveal that the helix adopts a bent conformation upon binding, enhancing affinity through van der Waals contacts and electrostatic interactions with the DNA phosphate backbone. This binding is essential for the repressor's function in inhibiting transcription in the absence of lactose. Another prominent DNA-binding motif involving alpha helices is the basic region leucine zipper (bZIP), which facilitates dimerization and cooperative binding to DNA. In bZIP proteins, such as GCN4, the leucine zipper domain forms a parallel coiled-coil dimer of alpha helices, while the adjacent basic region extends as alpha helices that grip the DNA major groove like forceps. This structure allows each basic helix to contact about 3-4 base pairs in half-sites of palindromic sequences, such as the CRE (cAMP response element). Dimerization via the zipper is critical for stabilizing the complex and achieving high specificity. Homeodomain proteins, which control developmental gene expression, also utilize an HTH-like motif with a recognition helix (helix 3) that inserts into the DNA major groove. For instance, in the Antennapedia homeodomain, this helix makes specific contacts with AT-rich sequences, determining binding specificity through a single amino acid at its C-terminus. Additionally, the inherent macrodipole of the alpha helix, with its positive N-terminus, contributes to electrostatic attraction with the negatively charged DNA phosphates, enhancing binding stability in these nuclear contexts.

Membrane Spanning

Alpha helices serve as the primary structural elements for transmembrane segments in integral membrane proteins, enabling these proteins to embed within and traverse the lipid bilayer of cell membranes. These helical segments typically consist of 20-25 hydrophobic amino acid residues, sufficient to span the approximately 30 Å thickness of the non-polar core of a typical phospholipid bilayer. This length allows the helix, with its characteristic rise of about 1.5 Å per residue, to position the protein's functional domains on either side of the membrane while minimizing exposure of polar backbone elements to the hydrophobic environment. The core of these transmembrane alpha helices is predominantly composed of non-polar residues such as leucine and isoleucine, which orient outward to interact favorably with the acyl chains of surrounding lipids. This hydrophobic exterior stabilizes the helix within the bilayer's low-dielectric interior, preventing unfavorable desolvation penalties and promoting proper insertion during protein biosynthesis. Polar or charged residues, when present, are usually confined to the helix ends or specific functional sites, avoiding disruption of the overall hydrophobic character. Transmembrane alpha helices often exhibit tilts of 10-30° relative to the bilayer normal, which can accommodate variations in bilayer thickness or facilitate interhelical packing. Kinks, typically introducing bends of similar magnitude, frequently arise from proline residues that disrupt the regular hydrogen bonding pattern of the helix; these distortions are crucial for creating pores, binding sites, or dynamic conformational changes in membrane proteins. A classic example is bacteriorhodopsin, a light-driven proton pump featuring a bundle of seven transmembrane alpha helices that form a compact, tilted arrangement to enclose a retinal chromophore and channel ions across the membrane. Similarly, G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), such as rhodopsin whose high-resolution structure was determined in the early 2000s, utilize seven-helix bundles with proline-induced kinks to enable ligand binding and signal transduction while spanning the plasma membrane.

Mechanical Properties

The alpha helix imparts significant structural rigidity and elasticity to proteins, enabling them to withstand mechanical stresses in biological environments such as muscle contraction and viral assembly. This arises from the regular hydrogen bonding pattern along the backbone, which confers resistance to deformation while allowing reversible extensions under force. Simulations and experimental measurements reveal that alpha helices behave as stiff, elastic rods, with their mechanical responses differing markedly between axial stretching and lateral bending. The Young's modulus of alpha helices along their longitudinal axis, a measure of axial stiffness, typically ranges from 1 to 10 GPa, as determined by steered molecular dynamics simulations and atomic force microscopy (AFM) experiments. For instance, in the mechanosensitive channel MscL, simulations yielded values of 2.6–3.2 GPa for TM1 helices in aqueous environments and up to 12.5 GPa for TM2 helices, highlighting sequence- and solvent-dependent variations. Complementary AFM studies on single peptide molecules report a longitudinal Young's modulus of approximately 1.5 GPa for the alpha-helical state, dropping to 0.4 GPa upon elongation, underscoring the helix's role in maintaining protein integrity under load. Under tensile force, alpha helices exhibit unwinding as a force-buffering mechanism, extending by roughly 0.15–0.2 nm per residue before complete disruption of hydrogen bonds. In muscle protein myomesin, AFM force spectroscopy showed reversible elongation of an alpha-helical linker at ~30 pN, with a contour length increase of ~3 nm for ~15 residues, corresponding to partial unwinding that absorbs strain without full unfolding. Similarly, in spectrin repeats, low-force unwinding (~25 pN) produces viscous extensions of 100–300 Å, where hydrogen bonds dynamically break and reform, extending the structure quasi-elastically. In coiled coils, such as those in myosin tails, alpha helices contribute to overall mechanical resilience in muscle fibers, transmitting forces during contraction with high axial stiffness but allowing bending for flexibility. The supercoiled arrangement amplifies small axial displacements into larger lateral deflections, with persistence lengths of ~200 nm for bending, enabling conformational changes under physiological loads of 5–15 pN. In viral capsids, alpha-helical segments in coat proteins, like those in HIV-1, reinforce shell stability against internal genome pressure, contributing to the capsid's elastic modulus and resistance to buckling. The energy landscape of alpha helices reveals distinct responses to stretching versus bending: axial stretching encounters higher energy barriers (~17 kJ/mol per residue) due to sequential hydrogen bond rupture, leading to nonlinear force-extension behavior, while bending occurs elastically with sequence-independent persistence lengths of ~90–100 nm, treating the helix as an isotropic rod even in solvent. This dichotomy allows alpha helices to act as tunable springs in supramolecular assemblies, balancing rigidity and compliance. Stability under mechanical stress is further enhanced by side-chain interactions, as noted in factors influencing helix persistence.

Dynamic Aspects

Structural Dynamics

Alpha helices in proteins display inherent structural dynamics characterized by local motions that maintain flexibility without disrupting the overall folded structure. These include small-amplitude fluctuations such as bond librations around the peptide backbone and wobbling of side chains, which occur on picosecond to nanosecond timescales as captured by molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. In the B3 domain of protein G (GB3), MD trajectories reveal ps-ns motions in alpha-helical regions, with enhanced flexibility at helix borders due to transient disruptions in hydrogen bonding. Similarly, side-chain dynamics in calmodulin's alpha helices exhibit wobbling quantified by order parameters (O²) ranging from 0 (high flexibility) to 1 (rigid), correlating with conformational entropy changes on ps-ns scales during ligand interactions. A prominent feature of these dynamics is fraying at the helix ends, involving partial unraveling of terminal residues without progression to a full helix-coil transition. In transmembrane peptides like F4,5GW20ALP23 embedded in lipid bilayers, MD simulations show C-terminal fraying exposing backbone groups to lipid headgroups, which stabilizes helix orientation through hydrogen bonding while preserving the core helical structure. This local end fraying contributes to interfacial adaptability and reduces rotational averaging (σρ < 50°), highlighting its role in modulating helix-membrane interactions on short timescales. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy provides direct evidence for these dynamics through order parameters (S²) for N-H bond vectors, where values less than 1 indicate motional averaging. In alpha helices of human growth hormone at low pH, S² values as low as 0.5 in helical residues (e.g., positions 15, 20, 171) reflect dynamic mixtures of α-helical and 3₁₀-helical hydrogen bonds, confirming backbone flexibility. These S² measurements, derived from spin-relaxation data, align with MD predictions of ps-ns motions, underscoring the prevalence of local disorder in otherwise stable helices. Environmental factors, particularly solvent exposure, significantly modulate helix mobility. In simulations of Candida antarctica lipase B, alpha helices like α5 exhibit increased flexibility in water or acetonitrile (fast solvent dynamics, correlation coefficient up to 0.99 with local viscosity) compared to slower solvents like n-butanol, where mobility decreases due to restricted hydration layer motion. This solvent-dependent enhancement of ps-ns fluctuations highlights how exposure to polar environments promotes dynamic breathing in solvent-accessible helices, influencing overall protein function.

Helix-Coil Transition

The helix-coil transition describes the cooperative process by which an α-helix unfolds into a disordered coil state, a fundamental aspect of protein folding and stability driven by thermodynamic factors such as temperature, pH, and solvent conditions. This transition exhibits two-state-like behavior for sufficiently long helices, where the ordered helical conformation with intramolecular hydrogen bonds converts to an ensemble of random coil states lacking such bonds, resulting in a sharp, cooperative change rather than gradual residue-by-residue unfolding. The cooperativity arises from the energetic penalty of initiating a helix (nucleation) being higher than extending an existing one (propagation), leading to all-or-nothing transitions in model polypeptides like polyalanine. The Zimm-Bragg model, developed in 1959, provides a statistical mechanical framework for this transition by assigning statistical weights to helical and coil segments in a linear polypeptide chain. In this model, the nucleation parameter σ represents the free energy cost of starting a new helical segment and is typically small, on the order of 10^{-4} for common polypeptides, reflecting the difficulty of forming the first few hydrogen bonds without adjacent helical stabilization. The propagation parameter s quantifies the equilibrium constant for adding a residue to an existing helix and is greater than 1 (often around 1.5 for alanine-rich sequences) when the helical state is favored over coil, ensuring stability for longer chains. The fractional helicity θ, or average proportion of residues in helical conformation, derives from the partition function summing over all possible helical and coil configurations using the transfer matrix method; this yields sigmoidal melting curves as a function of temperature when s decreases with increasing thermal energy. Experimental characterization of the helix-coil transition commonly employs circular dichroism (CD) spectroscopy, which monitors the loss of helical secondary structure through changes in ellipticity at 222 nm, producing characteristic sigmoidal thermal melting curves indicative of cooperative unfolding. The midpoint temperature T_m of these curves, marking the point of half-maximal helicity, increases with helix length N due to enhanced stabilization from more propagation steps, approaching a plateau for N ≫ 1/√σ where nucleation effects diminish; for example, alanine-based peptides show T_m rising from ~20°C for short segments to over 50°C for longer ones under physiological conditions. These CD thermal melts allow extraction of σ and s by fitting to Zimm-Bragg predictions, providing quantitative insights into sequence-dependent stability. The Lifson-Roig model, introduced in 1967, extends the Zimm-Bragg approach by using a transfer matrix method with explicit statistical weights for each residue's state (helix or coil) and its neighbors, enabling more precise fitting to experimental data for heterogeneous sequences. Unlike Zimm-Bragg, which treats helices as isolated blocks, Lifson-Roig accounts for adjacent coil residues' influence on helix initiation, assigning weights w_h for isolated helices, w_c for coils, and penalties for coil-helix boundaries; this variant better captures subtle effects like side-chain interactions in non-homopolymeric peptides while maintaining the core nucleation-propagation dichotomy. Applications of Lifson-Roig have refined parameter estimates from CD and NMR data, confirming σ values near 10^{-4} and s >1 for stable α-helices in aqueous environments.

References

  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470235/
  2. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.37.4.205
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1299714/
  4. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2034522100
  5. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.1932.0003
  6. https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=3954
  7. https://www.lindahall.org/about/news/scientist-of-the-day/william-astbury/
  8. https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=3968
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC208735/
  10. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12966187/
  11. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15740737/
  12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022283605000707
  13. https://goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/12617
  14. https://goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/S05530
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2286714/
  16. https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.febslet.2014.05.006
  17. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.96.9.4930
  18. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jz500029a
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022283699932187
  20. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pro.5560070103
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2373482/
  22. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/bi9513766
  23. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1110/ps.50701
  24. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Biological_Chemistry/Concepts_in_Biophysical_Chemistry_(Tokmakoff)/05%3A_Cooperativity/18%3A_Cooperativity/18.01%3A_HelixCoil_Transition
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8095063/
  26. https://research.rug.nl/files/178817177/1_s2.0_007961078590001X_main.pdf
  27. https://jnsbm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/JNatScBiolMed-4-1-45.pdf
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969212605001346
  29. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3173493/
  30. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/bi00105a002
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2312398/
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867414014238
  33. https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2025/08/kendrew-lecture-2.pdf
  34. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/iucr/itc/Fa/ch1o2v0001/
  35. https://imserc.northwestern.edu/guide/eNMR/proteins/alphahelix.html
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2766081/
  37. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1110/ps.3180102
  38. https://cs.duke.edu/brd/Teaching/Bio/asmb/Papers/NMR/Prestegard-course/bcmb8190_102201.pdf
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6302067/
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006349517305155
  41. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08991-8
  42. https://jenalib.leibniz-fli.de/ImgLibDoc/ftir/IMAGE_FTIR.html
  43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006349502756051
  44. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7772415/
  45. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpclett.3c00391
  46. https://bmcstructbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6807-8-25
  47. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/bi00699a002
  48. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03819-2
  49. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jcim.3c01648
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3309278/
  51. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12209472/
  52. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06415-8
  53. https://www.embopress.org/doi/10.1038/s44320-025-00119-z
  54. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9649402/
  55. https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(19)67424-7/fulltext
  56. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.7.2833
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3495713/
  58. https://rbaldwin.stanford.edu/PDFs/helix_propensities_of_the_amino_acids.pdf
  59. https://www.rcsb.org/news/639b9e337f8444f313d20414
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5082667/
  61. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7110359/
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6164224/
  63. https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.86.17.6592
  64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022283685701921
  65. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.1990.0019
  66. https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~gchopra/class/public/readings/Molecular_Architecture_I_Lecture2/Walther_JMB_96_Helix_helix_packing.pdf
  67. https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0006-3495%2802%2975613-0
  68. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20512461_The_helix-turn-helix_DNA_Binding_motif
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC556785/
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631069105000685
  71. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1473154/
  72. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/009286748990038X
  73. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1350195/
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3500387/
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1779925/
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6309459/
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2750878/
  78. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpcb.1c01227
  79. https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1873-3468.13926
  80. https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/chem.201700896
  81. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-biosciences/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2018.00065/full
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.