Abstract

BackgroundProtein/receptor explicit flexibility has recently become an important feature of molecular docking simulations. Taking the flexibility into account brings the docking simulation closer to the receptors’ real behaviour in its natural environment. Several approaches have been developed to address this problem. Among them, modelling the full flexibility as an ensemble of snapshots derived from a molecular dynamics simulation (MD) of the receptor has proved very promising. Despite its potential, however, only a few studies have employed this method to probe its effect in molecular docking simulations. We hereby use ensembles of snapshots obtained from three different MD simulations of the InhA enzyme from M. tuberculosis (Mtb), the wild-type (InhA_wt), InhA_I16T, and InhA_I21V mutants to model their explicit flexibility, and to systematically explore their effect in docking simulations with three different InhA inhibitors, namely, ethionamide (ETH), triclosan (TCL), and pentacyano(isoniazid)ferrate(II) (PIF).ResultsThe use of fully-flexible receptor (FFR) models of InhA_wt, InhA_I16T, and InhA_I21V mutants in docking simulation with the inhibitors ETH, TCL, and PIF revealed significant differences in the way they interact as compared to the rigid, InhA crystal structure (PDB ID: 1ENY). In the latter, only up to five receptor residues interact with the three different ligands. Conversely, in the FFR models this number grows up to an astonishing 80 different residues. The comparison between the rigid crystal structure and the FFR models showed that the inclusion of explicit flexibility, despite the limitations of the FFR models employed in this study, accounts in a substantial manner to the induced fit expected when a protein/receptor and ligand approach each other to interact in the most favourable manner.ConclusionsProtein/receptor explicit flexibility, or FFR models, represented as an ensemble of MD simulation snapshots, can lead to a more realistic representation of the induced fit effect expected in the encounter and proper docking of receptors to ligands. The FFR models of InhA explicitly characterizes the overall movements of the amino acid residues in helices, strands, loops, and turns, allowing the ligand to properly accommodate itself in the receptor’s binding site. Utilization of the intrinsic flexibility of Mtb’s InhA enzyme and its mutants in virtual screening via molecular docking simulation may provide a novel platform to guide the rational or dynamical-structure-based drug design of novel inhibitors for Mtb’s InhA. We have produced a short video sequence of each ligand (ETH, TCL and PIF) docked to the FFR models of InhA_wt. These videos are available at http://www.inf.pucrs.br/~osmarns/LABIO/Videos_Cohen_et_al_19_07_2011.htm.

Highlights

  • Protein/receptor explicit flexibility has recently become an important feature of molecular docking simulations

  • Each complex gave us a set of docking results composed of the average and standard deviations (SD) of the best free energy of binding (FEB) and its corresponding root-meansquare deviation (RMSD) with respect to the reference pose for the ligand (Table 2, columns A and B)

  • We obtained similar statistics for the set of FEB values matching the lowest RMSD with respect to the reference pose for the ligands (Table 2, columns C and D)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Protein/receptor explicit flexibility has recently become an important feature of molecular docking simulations. Molecular docking simulation constitutes one of the main stages of rational or structure-based drug design [1] It provides a prediction for a molecule binding to a protein in order to form a stable complex [2]. Molecular docking was compared to the classic “key-lock” theory of enzyme-substrate specificity postulated by Emil Fischer in 1894 (Reviewed by Koshland Jr., [3,4]) In this model, the three-dimensional (3-D) structure of both ligand and protein complement each other in the same way a key fits the corresponding lock [5]. Koshland Jr. in 1958 [3,4]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call