4.5 Article

Assessment of Hydration Thermodynamics at Protein Interfaces with Grid Cell Theory

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B
卷 120, 期 40, 页码 10442-10452

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.6b07993

关键词

-

资金

  1. University Research Fellowship from the Royal Society
  2. BBSRC [BB/K001558/1]
  3. EPSRC
  4. BBSRC [BB/K001558/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/K001558/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [1130709] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Molecular dynamics simulations have been analyzed with the Grid Cell Theory (GCT) method to spatially resolve the binding enthalpies and entropies of water molecules at the interface of 17 structurally diverse proteins. Correlations between computed energetics and structural descriptors have been sought to facilitate the development of simple models of protein hydration. Little correlation was found between GCT-computed binding enthalpies and continuum electrostatics calculations. A simple count of contacts with functional groups in charged amino acids correlates well with enhanced water stabilization, but the stability of water near hydrophobic and polar residues depends markedly on its coordination environment. The positions of Xray-resolved water molecules correlate with computed high-density hydration sites, but many unresolved waters are significantly stabilized at the protein surfaces. A defiling characteristic of ligand-binding pockets compared to nonbinding pockets was a greater solvent-accessible volume, but average water thermodynamic properties were not distinctive from other interfacial regions. Interfacial water molecules are frequently stabilized by enthalpy and destabilized entropy with respect to bulk, but counter-examples occasionally occur. Overall detailed inspection of the local coordinating environment appears necessary to gauge the thermodynamic stability of water in protein structures.

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