4.7 Article

Probing the mechanism of interaction between capsaicin and myofibrillar proteins through multispectral, molecular docking, and molecular dynamics simulation methods

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY-X
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fochx.2023.100734

关键词

Capsaicin; Myofibrillar proteins; Interaction mechanisms; Multispectral; Molecular docking; Molecular dynamics simulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The interaction between myofibrillar proteins (MPs) and capsaicin (CAP) was investigated using multispectral, molecular docking, and molecular dynamics simulation methods. The study found that the resulting complex increased the hydrophobicity of the tryptophan and tyrosine microenvironment as revealed by fluorescence spectral analysis. It was also discovered that the interaction between CAP and MPs was primarily facilitated by hydrogen bonding, van der Waals forces, and hydrophobic interactions, as suggested by molecular docking models and molecular dynamics simulations.
The interaction between myofibrillar proteins (MPs) and capsaicin (CAP) was investigated using multispectral, molecular docking, and molecular dynamics simulation methods. The resulting complex increased the hydrophobicity of the tryptophan and tyrosine microenvironment as revealed by fluorescence spectral analysis. The fluorescence burst mechanism study indicated that the fluorescence burst of CAP on the MPs was a static one (Kq = 1.386 x 1012 m-1s  1) and that CAP could bind with MPs well (Ka = 3.31 x 104 L/mol, n = 1.09). The analysis of circular dichroism demonstrated that the interaction between CAP and MPs caused a decrease in the & alpha;-helical structure of MPs. The complexes formed exhibited lower particle size and higher absolute & zeta; potential. Furthermore, hydrogen bonding, van der Waals forces, and hydrophobic interactions were found to be the primary factors facilitating the interaction between CAP and MPs, as suggested by molecular docking models and molecular dynamics simulations.

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

4.7
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