4.6 Article

The effect of water on the binding of glycosaminoglycan saccharides to hydroxyapatite surfaces: a molecular dynamics study

期刊

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 17, 期 34, 页码 22377-22388

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c5cp02630j

关键词

-

资金

  1. UK Medical Research Council
  2. UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
  3. EPSRC [EP/L000202]
  4. Office of Science and Technology through EPSRC's High End Computing Programme
  5. UCL
  6. EPSRC [EP/J008095/1, EP/J008095/2] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. MRC [G0700869] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [GR/R77711/02, EP/J008095/2, GR/S77714/02, EP/J008095/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Medical Research Council [G0700869] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Classical molecular dynamics (MD) simulations have been employed to study the interaction of the saccharides glucuronic acid (GlcA) and N-acetylgalactosamine (GalNAc) with the (0001) and (01 (1) over bar0) surfaces of the mineral hydroxyapatite (HAP). GlcA and GalNAc are the two constituent monosaccharides of the glycosaminoglycan chondroitin sulfate, which is commonly found in bone and cartilage and has been implicated in the modulation of the hydroxyapatite biomineralization process. MD simulations of the mineral surfaces and the saccharides in the presence of solvent water allowed the calculation of the adsorption energies of the saccharides on the HAP surfaces. The calculations show that GalNAc interacts with HAP principally through the sulfate and the carbonyl of acetyl amine groups, whereas the GlcA interacts primarily through the carboxylate functional groups. The mode and strength of the interaction depends on the orientation of the saccharide with respect to the surface and the level of disruption of the layer of water competing with the saccharide for adsorption sites on the HAP surface, suggesting that chondroitin 4-sulfate binds to the layer of solvent water rather than to HAP.

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

4.6
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