4.3 Article

Identification of putative, stable binding regions through flexibility analysis of HIV-1 gp120

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/prot.22196

关键词

FIRST; flexibility index; graph theory rigidity; HIV entry inhibition; gp120 binding; consensus-rigid region

资金

  1. IUPUI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The acquired-immunodeficiency syndrome has evolved into a major worldwide epidemic. Significant effort has been made in the development of antiviral therapies. A new strategy for vaccine and drug design that complements the existing cocktail therapy is to target entry of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Such an approach provides the advantage of interfering with multi pie intermediates in this multi-step process. The extraordinary conformational flexibility, glycosylation, and strain variations of viral glycoprotein gp120 cause general viral evasion of humoral immune response and thus complicate the development of an effective vaccine. Especially difficult to define are the conformation of gp120 before CD4 engagement as well as the relative orientations of the V1/V2 and V3 loops with respect to the inner and outer domains. In this study, we used Floppy Inclusion and Rigid Substructure Topography (FIRST), a program based on graph theory, to analyze the flexibility and rigidity of all known HIV-1 gp120 structures. A flexibility index is used to describe and compare the spatial distribution of protein flexibility and rigidity of these structures in isolation and in complex with CD4, CD4-mimics, and neutralizing antibodies. Using this flexibility analysis, we identified a universal rigid region (the alpha 2 helix) as well as the consensus largest rigid cluster involving a P-sheet located on the coreceptor binding face. Both of these regions may serve as stable targets for vaccine design and drug discovery. Detailed comparisons of the changes in flexibility based on strain variations, stabilizing mutations, binding features of CD4 mimics, and impact of b12 binding are reported.

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

4.3
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