Abstract

In the numerous molecular recognition and catalytic processes across biochemistry involving adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the common bioactive form is its magnesium chelate, ATP.Mg2+. In aqueous solution, two chelation geometries predominate, with Mg contacting either the terminal beta and gamma phosphate groups (bidentate) or all three (tridentate). These subforms are approximately isoenergetic, but separated by a high energy barrier. Force field-based atomistic simulation studies of this complex require an accurate representation of its structure and energetics. Here we focused on the energetics of ATP.Mg2+ coordination. With unbiased molecular dynamics simulation showing prohibitively slow interconversion, we devised an enhanced sampling scheme to calculate free energy differences between different Mg2+-phosphate configurations. We observed striking contradictions between Amber and CHARMM force field descriptions, most prominently in opposing predictions of the favoured coordination mode. Through further configurational free energy calculations, conducted against a diverse set of ATP.Mg2+-protein complex structures to supplement otherwise limited experimental data, we observed systematic biases for each force field. However, the force field calculations were strongly predictive of experimentally observed coordination modes, enabling additive corrections to the coordination free energy that deliver close agreement with experiment. Reassessing the applicability of the corrected force field descriptions of ATP.Mg2+ for biomolecular simulation, we observe that calculated properties broadly agree with experimental measurements of solution geometry and the distribution of ATP.Mg2+ structures found in the Protein Data Bank. However, while the corrected Amber force field appears to reproduce both bidentate and tridentate configurations, CHARMM displays an erroneous preference triphosphate overextension. This will affect the interpretation of simulations of bidentate ATP.Mg2+, which comprises the majority of PDB structures.

Full Text
Paper version not known

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