4.4 Article

Correlation between simulated physicochemical properties and hemolycity of protegrin-like antimicrobial peptides: Predicting experimental toxicity

期刊

PEPTIDES
卷 29, 期 7, 页码 1085-1093

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.peptides.2008.03.018

关键词

antimicrobial peptides; toxicity prediction; protegrin; molecular dynamics simulation; quantitative structure activity; relationship (QSAR)

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM 070989, R01 GM070989-03, R01 GM070989] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The therapeutic, antibiotic potential of antimicrobial peptides can be prohibitively diminished because of the cytotoxicity and hemolytic profiles they exhibit. Quantifying and predicting antimicrobial peptide toxicity against host cells is thus an important goal of AMP related research. In this work, we present quantitative structure activity relationships for toxicity of protegrin-like antimicrobial peptides against human cells (epithelial and red blood cells) based on physicochemical properties, such as interaction energies and radius of gyration, calculated from molecular dynamics simulations of the peptides in aqueous solvent. The hypothesis is that physicochemical properties of peptides, as manifest by their structure and interactions in a solvent and as captured by atomistic simulations, are responsible for their toxicity against human cells. Protegrins are beta-hairpin peptides with high activity against a wide variety of microbial species, but in their native state are toxic to human cells. Sixty peptides with experimentally determined toxicities were used to develop the models. We test the resulting relationships to determine their ability to predict the toxicity of several protegrin-like peptides. The developed QSARs provide insight into the mechanism of cytotoxic action of antimicrobial peptides. In a subsequent blind test, the QSAR correctly ranked four of five protegrin analogues newly synthesized and tested for toxicity. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. 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