4.6 Article

Investigation of Molecular Details of Keap1-Nrf2 Inhibitors Using Molecular Dynamics and Umbrella Sampling Techniques

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 24, 期 22, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules24224085

关键词

Keap1-NRF2 inhibitors; PPI inhibition; molecular modeling; MD simulations; US simulation; binding free energy

资金

  1. National Research Council of Science & Technology by the Korea government (MSIP) [CRC-15-04-KIST]
  2. Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (KISTI) [KSC-2016-C2-0040]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we investigate the atomistic details of Keap1-Nrf2 inhibitors by in-depth modeling techniques, including molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, and the path-based free energy method of umbrella sampling (US). The protein-protein interaction (PPI) of Keap1-Nrf2 is implicated in several neurodegenerative diseases like cancer, diabetes, and cardiomyopathy. A better understanding of the five sub-pocket binding sites for Nrf2 (ETGE and DLG motifs) inside the Kelch domain would expedite the inhibitor design process. We selected four protein-ligand complexes with distinct co-crystal ligands and binding occupancies inside the Nrf2 binding site. We performed 100 ns of MD simulation for each complex and analyzed the trajectories. From the results, it is evident that one ligand (1VV) has flipped inside the binding pocket, whereas the remaining three were stable. We found that Coulombic (Arg483, Arg415, Ser363, Ser508, and Ser602) and Lennard-Jones (Tyr525, Tyr334, and Tyr572) interactions played a significant role in complex stability. The obtained binding free energy values from US simulations were consistent with the potencies of simulated ligands. US simulation highlight the importance of basic and aromatic residues in the binding pocket. A detailed description of the dissociation process brings valuable insight into the interaction of the four selected protein-ligand complexes, which could help in the future to design more potent PPI inhibitors.

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