4.5 Article

Water Isotope Effect on the Phosphatidylcholine Bilayer Properties: A Molecular Dynamics Simulation Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B
卷 113, 期 8, 页码 2378-2387

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp8048235

关键词

-

资金

  1. Academy of Finland
  2. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada
  3. Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship [024612-Glychol]
  4. Adam Krzyzanowski Foundation
  5. Jagiellonian University, Poland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Physicochemical properties of heavy water (D2O) differ to some extent from those of normal water. Substituting D2O for H2O has been shown to affect the structural and dynamic properties of proteins, but studies of its effects on lipid bilayers are scarce. In this paper, the atomic level molecular dynamics (MD) simulation method was used to determine the effects of this substitution on the properties of a dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine (DPPC) bilayer and its hydrating water. MID simulations of two DPPC bilayers, one fully hydrated with H2O and the other with D2O, were carried out for over 50 ns. For H2O, the simple point charge (SPC) model was used, and for D2O, the extended SPC-HW model was employed. Analyses of the simulation trajectories indicate that several properties of the membrane core and the membrane/water interface are affected by replacing H2O by D2O. However, the time-averaged properties, such as membrane compactness, acyl chain order, and numbers of PC-water H (D)-bonds and PC-PC water bridges, are much less affected than time-resolved properties. In particular, the lifetimes of these interactions are much longer for D2O molecules than for H2O ones. These longer lifetimes results in a slightly better ordering of the D2O molecules and average self-diffusion, which is 50% slower compared with the H2O molecules. This large isotope effect has been assigned to the repercussions of the longer lived D-bonding to DPPC headgroups insofar as all water molecules sense the presence of the DPPC bilayer.

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

4.5
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