4.7 Article

A Theoretical Elucidation of Glucose Interaction with HSA's Domains

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/07391102.2010.10507354

关键词

Human Serum Albumin; Glucose; Molecular Dynamics Simulation; Simulated annealing; NBO Analysis

资金

  1. Research Council of Shahid Beheshti University
  2. Research council of the University of Tehran
  3. Iran National Science Foundation (INSF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The interaction of different domains belonging to Human Serum Albumin (HSA) with open form of glucose have been investigated using molecular dynamics simulation methods. Applying docking, primary structures involving interaction of some residues with glucose have been obtained. Subsequently, equilibrium geometries at 300 K and minimum geometries have been determined for each of aforementioned structures by employing MD simulation and simulated annealing. The stability of species has been evaluated using a SAWSA v2.0 model. Ultimately. NBO analysis has been carried out to specify possible hydrogen bonding regarding the HSA interaction with glucose. Results obtained show that glucose can interact with Lys195. Lys199, and Glu153. In these interactions, each lysine forms an H-bonding with glucose. The H-bonding is obtained by stretching of N-H bond belonging to NH3+ group of lysine along an oxygen atom of glucose. In addition, the above mentioned lysines are protonated, and there is an electrostatic interaction between glucose with Lys195 or Lys199. In addition, an H-bonding is formed between 0 atom of 000 group belonging to Glu153 and H atom of OH group belonging to glucose. Because, the N-H group of Lys195 interacts with the 0 atom of latter OH group, reaction of Lys195 is more desirable than that of Lys199. In fact, glucose is placed in the vicinity of Lys195 along with electrostatic interaction and H-bonding to Lys195 and Lys199 as well as H-bonding with Glu153, which subsequently reacts with Lys195. Thus, Lys195 is the primary site in reaction of glucose with HSA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据