4.4 Article

Use of fast conformational sampling to improve the characterization of VEGF A-peptide interactions

期刊

JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY
卷 317, 期 -, 页码 293-300

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2012.10.021

关键词

Protein-peptide interaction; Conformational sampling; Binding affinity; Vascular endothelial growth factor A

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation Project of Chongqing CSTC [2009BA5068]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Protein-peptide interaction is fundamentally important for signal transduction, transcription regulation, protein degradation, cell regeneration, and immune response. Here, we report the use of a fast conformational sampling strategy to improve the prediction of protein-peptide binding affinity. This method generates hundreds of alternative conformers for a protein-peptide complex and then performs classical MM-PB/SA analysis over these conformers to derive a consistent binding energy expression for the complex. We show a proof-of-concept study on vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF A) interaction with its peptide ligands. The structures of VEGF A complexed with 13 peptides are modeled with a virtual mutagenesis protocol and their binding energies are subsequently calculated by using the conformational sampling-based method. A good linear correlation between the calculated and experimental values is observed, and we demonstrate that the correlation could be further improved by fitting the decomposed energy terms to experimentally measured affinity. Furthermore, the obtained results are discussed in detail in order to elucidate the structural basis and energetic implication underlying VEGF A-peptide recognition and association. We also give a detailed comparison between the proposed method and other widely used approaches, from which it is suggested that our method exhibits a good compromise between the effectiveness and efficiency in evaluating protein-peptide affinity. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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