A fast and accurate computational
approach to protein ionization:
combining the Generalized Born
model with an iterative m...
Outline


• Introduction

• Background/theory

• Results/validation

• Conclusions




© 2008 Accelrys, Inc.   2
INTRODUCTION


Protein Ionization and pK
  Scientific Needs
           • To provide a fast and convenient way to study the...
Introduction
   Calculate Protein Ionization and Residue pK
   A new Discovery Studio computational protocol to calculate ...
Protein Ionization and pK: Background

                                                                                   ...
THEORY
Calculate Protein Ionization and Residue pK


   CHARMM force-field                                                ...
Protein Ionization and pK: Solution
 • New method1 to ‘Calculate Protein Ionization and pK’
    – Predicts pK1/2 and titra...
Model Compounds




        MEAD, UHBD and others                                 DS Protein Ionization
        Structure:...
IMC (Iterative Mobile Clustering) Approach
                                                                               ...
Protein Ionization and pK: Method


• Electrostatic interaction energies are calculated using an implementation of
  Gener...
Parameterization of the model
        In contrast to some popular pK prediction programs based on multi-parameter empirica...
Results: pK Prediction of Selected Proteins


                                                                    Sites wi...
Results: pK Prediction of Selected Proteins
          14
                                      y = 0.9868x + 0.0282
      ...
The Comparison of the accuracy of pK
predictions with other methods



                        sites   GB/IMC   MCCE    Co...
pK1/2 Prediction – Applications

• Application 1: Optimize the protonation state of proteins and hydrogen coordinates
   –...
Application – Protonation and Hydrogen Coordinates

Rubredoxin from Pyrococcus Furiosus at pH 8; 1vcx.pdb
Comparison of th...
Application – Protonation and Hydrogen Coordinates

• Protonation state of HEWL: Comparison with neutron diffraction data ...
Myoglobin 1l2k.pdb: Neutron Diffraction Structure at pH 6.8

             The protonation and tautomeric states of histidi...
Application – Protonation and Hydrogen Coordinates


                                           1lzn, pH 4.7            1l...
Application - Optimized Protonation for
Stable Molecular Dynamics
 • HIV Protease dimer has two Asp 25
   residues in bind...
Application – Unfolding Energy
                                                                                           ...
Application – Ligand Binding Energy



         Energy of binding of KNI-272 to HIV-1 protease – 1hpx.pdb


              ...
MEMBRANE PROTEINS



       Bacteriorhodopsin: 1c3w.pdb1
                                                                 ...
MEMBRANE PROTEINS

β2-adrenergic G Protein-coupled Receptor: 2rh1.pdb1




                                               ...
MEMBRANE PROTEINS

β2-adrenergic G Protein-coupled Receptor:
Electrostatic contribution to the free energy of ligand bindi...
MEMBRANE PROTEINS

MD simulation of β2-adrenergic G Protein-coupled Receptor – adrenaline
complex.

                      ...
MEMBRANE PROTEINS

  A 1 ns MD simulation of β2-adrenergic G Protein-coupled Receptor complex with
  adrenaline.

    RMSD...
Conclusions
• The combination of the GB calculations with IMC approach increases dramatically
  the speed of calculations ...
Acknowledgments

          Lisa Yan
          Paul Flook
          Don Bashford




© 2008 Accelrys, Inc.      29
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

A fast and accurate computational approach to protein ionization: combining the Generalized Born model with an iterative mobile cluster method

1,153
-1

Published on

We report a fast and accurate computational method to calculate the pH dependent electrostatic effects in protein molecules. The method combines the Generalized Born approximation with an iterative mobile clustering approach to predict the equilibria of proton binding to multiple titratable sites in a macromolecule. The computational protocol also includes a novel algorithm to construct and refine the coordinates of all hydrogen atoms at a given pH. The tests on a set of 24 proteins demonstrate a high accuracy of the predicted pKa values with an average r.m.s. error close to 0.5 pK units. The comparisons to the available neutron-diffraction data also show a high accuracy of the predicted hydrogen positions. The use of the GBIM (Generalized Born with Implicit Membrane) approach makes the method applicable not only to water soluble proteins but also to proteins embedded in membrane. The method is implemented as a computational protocol in the Accelrys Discovery Studio software. We will demonstrate the function of this protocol based on a study of the activation mechanism of Beta 2-adrenergic receptor. The protonation states of the receptor and ligands and the binding energy of agonists and inverse agonists are calculated as a function of pH and at different stages of molecular dynamics trajectories.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,153
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
24
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

A fast and accurate computational approach to protein ionization: combining the Generalized Born model with an iterative mobile cluster method

  1. 1. A fast and accurate computational approach to protein ionization: combining the Generalized Born model with an iterative mobile cluster method Velin Z Spassov, Accelrys
  2. 2. Outline • Introduction • Background/theory • Results/validation • Conclusions © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 2
  3. 3. INTRODUCTION Protein Ionization and pK Scientific Needs • To provide a fast and convenient way to study the effects of the pH changes on a wide range of important mechanism such as enzyme catalysis, ligand binding and protein stability. • In protein modeling, a correct assignment of protonation states and hydrogen atom positions are critical for: » Accurate docking of small molecules to receptors » Accurate protein-protein docking » Stable, convergent molecular dynamics simulations © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 3
  4. 4. Introduction Calculate Protein Ionization and Residue pK A new Discovery Studio computational protocol to calculate the pH dependent electrostatic effects in protein molecules*. Calculates: – the titration curves and pK1/2 of the titratible residues. – the electrostatic contribution to the protein free energy as a function of pH. – the pH dependency of the folding energy of the protein and the pH optimum of protein stability. – pI of the protein. Optimizes the positions of all hydrogen atoms and – automatically sets the protonation state of each residue at a given pH, based on the calculated pK1/2 . – finds the optimal proton binding sites for tautomeric ASP, GLU and HIS residues. – flips the O and N atoms of ASN and GLN residue to find an optimal conformation. *Spassov, V.Z. and Yan, L. (2008) Protein Science,17,1955-1969. © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 4
  5. 5. Protein Ionization and pK: Background Deprotonated Protonated Deprotonated Protonated H+ Arg Lys H + Asp Glu • Titratable residues: exist in protonated and deprotonated forms • A titration curve gives the fractional protonation of a titratable group as a function of pH Tyr His B:ASP30 Cys HA + H2O  H3O+ + A- 1.2 1 N-ter 0.8 pH = pKa + log10{[A-]/[HA]} 0.6 B:ASP30 C-ter pK1/2 = 3.9 0.4 0.2 Titratable Groups in Proteins 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 5
  6. 6. THEORY Calculate Protein Ionization and Residue pK CHARMM force-field Extended GB/IM2,3,4,5 instead of grid based PB solvers Ionization Model1 exp[−G ( X l , pH ) / RT ] ρ ( X l , pH ) = 2N ∑ exp[−G(X , pH ) / RT ] l =1 l ( ) N G (X, pH ) = 2.3RT ∑ xi pH − pK intr ,i + 1 / 2∑ Wij ( xi , x j ) i i, j pK int r = pK mod + (2.303RT ) −1 [∆∆G ( PH , P ) − ∆∆G ( MH , M )] Library of pentapeptide model compounds and pKmod data7 IMC6 instead of Monte Carlo instead of monopeptides CHARMm-based Protocol for Preliminary Optimization 1Bashford D, Karplus M. (1990) Biochemistry, 29, 10219-10225. 5Spassov VZ et al. (2002) J. Phys. Chem B106:8762-8738. 2Still, W.C. et al. (1990)J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1990, 112, 6127-6129 6Spassov V.Z., Bashford, D. (1999) J..Comput. Chem.,20,1091-1111. 3Dominy, B.N.,Brooks III, C.L. (1999) J. Phys. Chem. B 103, 3765-3773. 7Thurlkill et al. 2006. Protein Science,15,1214-1218. 4 Onufriev A. et al. (2000) J. Phys. Chem. B 2000, 104, 3712-3720. © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 6
  7. 7. Protein Ionization and pK: Solution • New method1 to ‘Calculate Protein Ionization and pK’ – Predicts pK1/2 and titration curves for each titratable residue using 3D environment of protein – Automatically protonates the residues at a given pH according to predicted pK1/2. • For HIS, ASP, and GLU residues the hydrogens are added to yield the lowest CHARMm energy • The N and O atoms on the side-chain of ASN and GLN residues are flipped if necessary to give the lower energy conformation – Calculates the following as a function of pH • Electrostatic contribution to the free energy • Estimate of relative folding energy (electrostatic contribution) • Total charge of system – Based on CHARMm Generalized-Born methods • Strength of Solution – More accurate and rigorous than rule-based methods – Faster and more accurate than existing Poison-Boltzmann/Monte Carlo methods – Consistent CHARMm force field used throughout 1.2 *:GLU23 *:GLU38 *:GLU77 1 *:GLU97 *:GLU104 0.8 *:GLU107 *:GLU119 *:GLU129 0.6 *:GLU133 *:GLU135 0.4 *:GLU140 *:GLU145 *:GLU165 0.2 *:GLU183 *:GLU186 0 *:GLU219 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 *:GLU239 © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 1. Spassov, et al, Protein Sci. 2008, 17, 1955-1969) 7
  8. 8. Model Compounds MEAD, UHBD and others DS Protein Ionization Structure: Monopeptide Structure: Blocked Pentapeptides pK data: standard set Ala-Ala-X-Ala-Ala Nozaki Y, Tanford C. 1967. Examination of titration pK data: behavior. Methods Enzymol 11:715–734. Thurlkill et al. 2006. Protein Science,15,1214-1218. © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 8
  9. 9. IMC (Iterative Mobile Clustering) Approach Mean-field approach to protein ionization: Spassov V.Z., Bashford, D. (1999) J..Comput. Chem.,20,1091-1111 One site/Single conformer Tanford C., Roxby R (1972),11,2192-2198. IMC: Ntot(cluster) = Nglobal 3Nclstr2Nclstr Clustering/distance criterion/single conformer Yang A.S. et al. (1993) Proteins,15,252-265. Gilson M.K. (1993) Proteins,15,266-282. ρ (C , X ) = f g (k ) f Γ (c, x | k ) f out (c' , x' | k ) Clustering/energy criterion/single or multiple conformers Spassov & Bashford (1999) © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 9
  10. 10. Protein Ionization and pK: Method • Electrostatic interaction energies are calculated using an implementation of Generalized Born solvation model in CHARMm – atomic parameters from either CHARMm or CHARMM polar hydrogen forcefields • The energies of the protonated and deprotonated states are calculated and the percentage of protonation of each residue is predicted at given pH based on Boltzmann distribution • Relative folding energy estimated based on energy of protonation of the protein and the protonation energy of the model compounds • Current implementation treats protein as a single conformer embedded in a dielectric medium – A dielectric constant of 10-11 for the protein interior gives the lowest RMSD compared to experimentally obtained pK data. – This dielectric constant is the only parametrized variable in the method © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 10
  11. 11. Parameterization of the model In contrast to some popular pK prediction programs based on multi-parameter empirical models, the only fitting parameter in our method is the value of intra-molecular dielectric constant, εm, while all other parameters are kept at their standard CHARMm force-field values. qi q j 1 D( I , α i , α j ) qi q j ∆Gelec = 332∑∑ − 166 ( − )∑∑ j >i ε m ri , j εm ε slv r + α iα j exp(−rij2 / 4α iα j ) 2 i i j ij Hen-egg lyzozyme 2lzt.pdb pK1/2 Residue Experimental* CHARMM CHARMM polar H 1.2 LYS1_NTR 7.9 7.81 8.00 LYS1 10.6 10.01 10.01 GLU7 2.9 3.17 3.39 1 LYS13 10.3 10.49 10.56 HIS15 5.4 6.20 5.87 ASP18 2.7 2.87 3.11 0.8 TYR20 10.3 10.85 11.18 TYR23 9.8 10.16 10.87 RMSD LYS33 10.4 10.58 10.79 0.6 GLU35 6.2 5.05 5.90 ASP48 2.5 2.96 2.91 ASP52 3.7 4.32 4.67 0.4 TYR53 >12 11.71 >12 ASP66 <2.0 2.15 2.87 ASP87 2.1 2.43 2.97 0.2 LYS96 10.7 11.18 11.42 LYS97 10.1 10.79 10.85 ASP101 4.1 3.89 3.92 0 LYS116 10.2 10.12 10.09 0 5 10 15 20 25 ASP119 3.2 3.08 3.28 LEU129_CTR 2.8 2.73 2.83 dielectric constant rmsd 0.45 0.57 * Bartik et al., 1994, Kuramitsu and Hamaguchi 1980. © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 11
  12. 12. Results: pK Prediction of Selected Proteins Sites with CHARMm CHARMm • Comparison of experimental PDB code experimantal pK data polar all hydrogens hydrogens PROPKA MCCE pK1/2 with calculated values for ε=8 select PDB files 1 4pti 14 0.36 0.36 0.6 0.47 2 2lzt 21 0.45 0.57 0.66 0.74 • All computations about 1 3 2rn2 25 0.59 0.68 0.72 0.87 4 3rn3 16 0.47 0.71 0.67 0.66 minute per system on a single 5 1pga 15 0.50 0.57 0.72 0.63 CPU 6 7 3icb 1hng 10 14 0.33 0.55 0.35 0.53 0.9 0.83 0.38 0.76 8 1a2p 12 0.60 0.49 0.68 0.89 9 1omu 15 0.64 0.70 0.44 1.10 10 9rnt 14 0.54 0.65 1.51 11 1bi6-heavy chain 18 0.54 0.53 0.56 12 1bi6-light chain 4 0.18 0.27 0.38 13 1rgg 24 0.84 0.89 0.97 14 1igd 16 0.35 0.36 0.62 15 135l 11 0.63 0.65 0.66 PROPKA: Li et al. (2005) Proteins, 16 1div 6 0.26 0.32 0.74 17 1xnb* 13 0.70 1.09 0.62 61, 704-721. 18 1kxi 3 0.57 0.50 0.66 19 1beo 10 0.46 0.56 0.98 MCCE: Georgescu et al. (2002) 20 1trs 17 0.88 0.86 0.94 Biophysical Journal, 83, 1731-1748. 21 1qbs 16 0.34 0.34 0.78 22 1de3 25 0.66 0.70 1.33 23 2bus 4 0.46 0.49 0.23 24 1egf 9 0.49 0.53 0.49 Total sites 331 331 331 331 141 Average RMSD 0.508 0.548 0.742 0.720 © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 12
  13. 13. Results: pK Prediction of Selected Proteins 14 y = 0.9868x + 0.0282 6 12 R2 = 0.9672 Intel Pentium4 3.0 GHz machine 5 10 8 4 pK calc Time [min] 6 3 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 pK exp residues • Predicted results well correlate with the experimental measurements • Computation time scales roughly linearly with residue number • Most systems take about 1 to 2 minutes on a single CPU © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 13
  14. 14. The Comparison of the accuracy of pK predictions with other methods sites GB/IMC MCCE Const. pH FD/DH SCP PROPKA 4pti 14 0.36 0.47 NA 0.35 0.33 0.6 2lzt 21 0.45 0.76 0.6 0.47 0.49 0.66 2rn2 25 0.59 0.87 0.9 1.17 0.57 0.72 3rn3 16 0.44 0.66 1.2 0.87 0.55 0.94 1pga 15 0.42 0.63 NA 0.80 0.59 0.72 3icb 10 0.33 0.38 NA 0.37 0.39 0.9 3rnt 4 0.28 0.54 NA NA 0.41 NA Average 0.41 0.63 - 0.67 0.49 0.76 © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 14
  15. 15. pK1/2 Prediction – Applications • Application 1: Optimize the protonation state of proteins and hydrogen coordinates – Prepare the protein for other calculations, such as more stable Molecular Dynamics simulations • Application 2: Estimate maximum stability by studying the pH dependent folding energy of proteins • Application 3: Calculate the electrostatic component of protein-ligand binding energies or protein-protein binding energy • Application 4: Use unusual tritation curves to find relevant functional residues • Application 5: Estimate the effect of mutation – pK and titration curve changes on other titratible sites when a residues is mutated – Shift of the stability of the protein to different pH when a residue is mutated 1.2 1 *:HIS26 His 95 0.8 *:HIS95 *:HIS100 *:HIS115 0.6 *:HIS185 *:HIS195 0.4 *:HIS224 *:HIS248 0.2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 15
  16. 16. Application – Protonation and Hydrogen Coordinates Rubredoxin from Pyrococcus Furiosus at pH 8; 1vcx.pdb Comparison of the predicted hydrogen positions with neutron diffraction structure © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 16
  17. 17. Application – Protonation and Hydrogen Coordinates • Protonation state of HEWL: Comparison with neutron diffraction data at pH 4.7 • Asn and Gln flips: 13 sucessfully predicted out 17 residues in the structure (77%) Comparison between the predicted protonation state of HEWL and neutron diffraction data at pH 4.7 File: 1lzn.pdb protonation pK1.2 Residue Neutron Predicted Experimental Calculated diffraction NMR* LYS1_NTR P P 7.9 8.172 LYS1 P P 10.6 10.840 GLU7 P D 2.9 3.701 LYS13 P P 10.3 11.120 HIS15 P P 5.4 7.380 ASP18 D D 2.7 3.674 TYR20 P P 10.3 11.271 TYR23 P P 9.8 10.886 LYS33 P P 10.4 11.669 GLU35 P P 6.2 5.691 ASP48 D D 2.5 2.818 ASP52 D D 3.7 4.604 TYR53 P P >12 12.000 ASP66 D D <2.0 3.526 ASP87 D D 2.1 3.389 LYS96 P P 10.7 11.456 LYS97 P P 10.1 10.933 ASP101 D D 4.1 3.916 LYS116 P P 10.2 10.220 ASP119 D D 3.2 3.456 LEU129_CTR D D 2.8 2.984 * Bartik et al., 1994, Kuramitsu and Hamaguchi 1980. © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 17
  18. 18. Myoglobin 1l2k.pdb: Neutron Diffraction Structure at pH 6.8 The protonation and tautomeric states of histidine residues. A B A. Predicted structure. B. Neutron-diffraction structure © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 18
  19. 19. Application – Protonation and Hydrogen Coordinates 1lzn, pH 4.7 1l2k, pH 6.8 2gve, pH 8.0 6rsa, pH 6.6 ASP18 3.66 NTR1 7.30 NTR1 7.6 NTR1 7.40 0.13 D 0.75 NA 0.30 P* 0.86 P Comparison between calculated and ASP48 2.80 HIS12 6.76 HIS49 6.17 HIS12 6.86 0.03 D 0.48 D 0.02 D 0.62 P experimental protonation states in ASP52 4.54 HIS24 6.69 HIS54 7.6 HIS48 8.70 neutron-diffraction structures. 0.47 D 0.47 D 0.30 P* 0.99 P First row - computed pKhalf values; ASP66 3.67 HIS36 7.19 HIS71 7.03 HIS105 6.95 second row – the fractional 0.13 D 0.69 P 0.11 D 0.68 P ASP87 3.33 HIS48 6.22 HIS96 5.13 HIS119 6.50 protonations of residues. 0.07 D 0.22 P** 0.03 D 0.43 P* P – residue protonated in crystal ASP101 3.90 HIS64 4.47 HIS198 6.64 1vcx, pH 8 structure; D – deprotonated; NA – 0.18 D 0.02 D 0.06 P** more than one polar hydrogen is ASP119 3.45 HIS81 6.37 HIS220 7.08 NTR1 9.22 missing. 0.08 D 0.31 NA 0.15 P** 0.94 P In bold – accurately predicted GLU7 3.70 HIS82 6.41 HIS230 6.67 0.13 P** 0.33 D 0.06 P** structures; ** -completely incorrect GLU35 5.67 HIS97 6.28 HIS243 6.40 prediction; * - underpredicted, but 0.89 P 0.26 D 0.07 D close. HIS15 7.50 HIS113 5.60 HIS285 9.35 0.99 P 0.10 NA 0.93 P CTR129 2.90 HIS116 6.71 HIS382 7.54 0.03 D 0.46 NA 0.29 P* HIS119 4.94 0.19 D © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 19
  20. 20. Application - Optimized Protonation for Stable Molecular Dynamics • HIV Protease dimer has two Asp 25 residues in binding pocket • Run CHARMm MD (100pS, GBSW solvent model) on two forms of the protein (PDB ID 1kzk) – Protein with default protonation – Protein with pK-optimized protonation (Asp 25 B protonated) Optimized-protonation of Asp 25’s in HIV protease leads to more stable MD trajectories RMSD of select residues to starting RMSD of select residues to starting conformation, default protonation of Asp 25’s conformation, optimized protonation © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 20
  21. 21. Application – Unfolding Energy • HIV Protease apo form; 1hhp.pdb β-model • Folding energy calculated using zero model and beta-model Extended conformation Zero model ∆G(unfld) = - (Relative Folding Energy) ∆G(unfld) = ∆G0 – ∆G(fld) ∆G0: pKint,I = pKmod Wij = 0 1HHP- predicted unfolding energy Unfolding in urea 15 14 13 12 ∆ G(unfold) 11 10 9 8 7 6 2 3 4 5 6 pH Todd et al. (1998) J Mol Biol,283,475-488 © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 21
  22. 22. Application – Ligand Binding Energy Energy of binding of KNI-272 to HIV-1 protease – 1hpx.pdb 14 12 10 Energy [kcal/mol] 8 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 pH Calculated pH optimum of binding at pH ~ 5.0 The association constant is maximal between pH 5 and pH 6 Velazquez-Campoy et al. (2007) Protein Science, 9,1801-1809. © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 22
  23. 23. MEMBRANE PROTEINS Bacteriorhodopsin: 1c3w.pdb1 pK1/2 Calculated Calculated Calculate using MEAD GBIM d without with PB and Experiment membran membrane2 e ARG82 > 14 >14 >15 >13.8 ASP85 2.96 7.1 1.7 2.6 ASP96 8.80 8.7 >15 >12 ASP115 6.54 8.1 8.4 >9.5 GLU194 9.69 8.6 > 15 Proton GLU204 release 3.35 8.7 <0 group keeps one proton ASP212 <0.00 7.1 <0 <2.5 Schiff > 14 12.1 >15 >12 base216 1Luecke et al. (1999) J. Mol.Biol.,291,899-911. 2Spassov et al. (2001) J. Mol.Biol.,312,203-219 © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 23
  24. 24. MEMBRANE PROTEINS β2-adrenergic G Protein-coupled Receptor: 2rh1.pdb1 agonist: epinephrine antagonist: carazolol (adrenaline,a cateholeamine) Calculated pK1/2 carazolol adrenaline residue unbound bound unbound bound Asp 113 9.4 2.6 9.4 2.4 Asp 79 8.2 8.4 8.2 8.2 Glu 122 11.0 10.5 11.0 10.8 ligand: -NH2- 9.0 12.7 8.9 13. Ligand: catehol -OH 10.4 14. © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 24
  25. 25. MEMBRANE PROTEINS β2-adrenergic G Protein-coupled Receptor: Electrostatic contribution to the free energy of ligand binding. 8.00 6.00 adrenaline 4.00 ∆∆G binding 2.00 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 carazolol -2.00 -4.00 pH © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 25
  26. 26. MEMBRANE PROTEINS MD simulation of β2-adrenergic G Protein-coupled Receptor – adrenaline complex. Selected parameters of the production run : Preliminary preparation of the structure before MD simulations. Production Steps 500000 Production Time Step 0.002 1. Use the Discovery Studio Create and Edit Membrane tool to add a Production Target Temperature 300.0 membrane object to the input protein structure. Generalized Born with Implicit Membrane Implicit Solvent Model (GBIM) 2. Run the Discovery Studio Calculate Protein Ionization and Residue pK Dielectric Constant 2 protocol to assign the protonation state of all acidic and basic titratable Implicit Solvent Dielectric 80 groups at a selected pH. Constant Minimum Hydrogen Radius 1.0 Use Non-polar Surface Area True 3. Run Add Membrane and Orient Molecule protocol for a preliminary Non-polar Surface Constant 0 optimization of the position of the protein relative to membrane. Non-polar Surface Coefficient 0.00542 Nonbond List Radius 12.0 Steps 2 and 3 could be critical for the success of the MD simulations: When Nonbond Higher Cutoff Distance 11.0 using the default state of protonation, the simulation on 2rh1 structure was compromised in a early phase, because of a significant overheating Nonbond Lower Cutoff Distance 11.0 of the system. Dynamics Integrator Leapfrog Verlet Apply SHAKE Constraint False Random Number Seed 314159 Number of Processors 1 © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 26
  27. 27. MEMBRANE PROTEINS A 1 ns MD simulation of β2-adrenergic G Protein-coupled Receptor complex with adrenaline. RMSD values of CA atoms along the MD trajectory. all CA atoms CA atoms inside membrane (helix 1 excluded) The low dielectric environment of membrane stabilizes the structure of transmembrane helices. © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 27
  28. 28. Conclusions • The combination of the GB calculations with IMC approach increases dramatically the speed of calculations and makes it possible to treat very large structures of arbitrary shape which are difficult to calculate using methods based on grid techniques to solve Poisson-Boltzmann equation and Monte-Carlo sampling schemes. • The results of the tests indicate that the method returns very accurate pK values, comparable to the best results previously reported in the literature. • Compared to crystallographic data at given pH, the tests show a high accuracy of the predicted protonation and hydrogen coordinates. • The use of the GBIM CHARMm module makes it possible to study not only water soluble proteins but also protein-membrane complexes. • The Discovery Studio implementation provides an easy way to integrate the protein ionization calculations with many other molecular modeling protocols, such as pH-dependent MD simulations, ligand docking, protein docking, ion binding. It also made it easy to study the pH dependent protein stability and the effect of mutation on protein stability. © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 28
  29. 29. Acknowledgments Lisa Yan Paul Flook Don Bashford © 2008 Accelrys, Inc. 29
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×