{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023255813953488372, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0026578073089701, 'mean_word_length': 5.693333333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The neuropeptide Y monomer in solution is not folded in the pancreatic‐polypeptide fold

Fluorescence‐labelled analogs of NPY, a 36‐amino acid peptide amide, were synthesized by solid‐phase peptide synthesis and used for fluorescence‐resonance energy transfer studies to investigate the conformation. Energy‐transfer efficiency measurements in different media at the concentration of 10 μM are in agreement with a model of the NPY structure proposed by NMR studies (performed at millimolar concentration) in which the C‐terminal part of the molecule adopts an α‐helical conformation while the N‐terminal part is flexible. According to this model, the α‐helix is stabilized by intermolecular hydrophobic interactions because of the formation of dimers. The decrease of the peptide concentration causes a shift of the dimerization equilibrium toward the monomeric form. Energy‐transfer efficiency measurements performed at lower concentrations do not support the hypothesis of the folding back of the N‐terminal tail onto the C‐terminal α‐helix to yield the so‐called “PP‐fold” conformation. This structure is observed in the crystal structure of avian pancreatic polypeptide, a member of the NPY peptide hormone family, and it has been considered to be the bioactive one. Our results complete the structural characterization of NPY in solution at concentration ranges in which NMR experiments are not feasible. Furthermore, these results open the way to study the conformation of the receptor‐bound ligand.