How Hydrophobic Drying Forces Impact the Kinetics of Molecular Recognition

Overview

Journal Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A

Specialty Science

Date 2013 Aug 1

PMID 23901110

Citations 19

Authors

Jagannath Mondal

Joseph A Morrone

B J Berne

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

A model of protein-ligand binding kinetics, in which slow solvent dynamics results from hydrophobic drying transitions, is investigated. Molecular dynamics simulations show that solvent in the receptor pocket can fluctuate between wet and dry states with lifetimes in each state that are long enough for the extraction of a separable potential of mean force and wet-to-dry transitions. We present a diffusive surface hopping model that is represented by a 2D Markovian master equation. One dimension is the standard reaction coordinate, the ligand-pocket separation, and the other is the solvent state in the region between ligand and binding pocket which specifies whether it is wet or dry. In our model, the ligand diffuses on a dynamic free-energy surface which undergoes kinetic transitions between the wet and dry states. The model yields good agreement with results from explicit solvent molecular dynamics simulation and an improved description of the kinetics of hydrophobic assembly. Furthermore, it is consistent with a "non-Markovian Brownian theory" for the ligand-pocket separation coordinate alone.

Citing Articles

Molecular simulation approaches to probing the effects of mechanical forces in the actin cytoskeleton.

Mukadum F, Ccoa W, Hocky G Cytoskeleton (Hoboken). 2024; 81(8):318-327.

PMID: 38334204 PMC: 11310368. DOI: 10.1002/cm.21837.

Unexpected large impact of small charges on surface frictions with similar wetting properties.

Wang C, Yang H, Wang X, Qi C, Qu M, Sheng N Commun Chem. 2023; 3(1):27.

PMID: 36703380 PMC: 9814279. DOI: 10.1038/s42004-020-0271-8.

Assessing models of force-dependent unbinding rates via infrequent metadynamics.

Ccoa W, Hocky G J Chem Phys. 2022; 156(12):125102.

PMID: 35364872 PMC: 8957391. DOI: 10.1063/5.0081078.

A new approach to estimate atomic energies.

Zadeh D J Mol Model. 2019; 25(12):366.

PMID: 31776795 DOI: 10.1007/s00894-019-4259-1.

Recovering superhydrophobicity in nanoscale and macroscale surface textures.

Giacomello A, Schimmele L, Dietrich S, Tasinkevych M Soft Matter. 2019; 15(37):7462-7471.

PMID: 31512709 PMC: 8751625. DOI: 10.1039/c9sm01049a.

References

Shan Y, Kim E, Eastwood M, Dror R, Seeliger M, Shaw D . How does a drug molecule find its target binding site?. J Am Chem Soc. 2011; 133(24):9181-3. PMC: 3221467. DOI: 10.1021/ja202726y. View

Humphrey W, Dalke A, Schulten K . VMD: visual molecular dynamics. J Mol Graph. 1996; 14(1):33-8, 27-8. DOI: 10.1016/0263-7855(96)00018-5. View

Young T, Abel R, Kim B, Berne B, Friesner R . Motifs for molecular recognition exploiting hydrophobic enclosure in protein-ligand binding. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007; 104(3):808-13. PMC: 1783395. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0610202104. View

Baron R, McCammon J . Molecular recognition and ligand association. Annu Rev Phys Chem. 2013; 64:151-75. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-physchem-040412-110047. View

Li J, Morrone J, Berne B . Are hydrodynamic interactions important in the kinetics of hydrophobic collapse?. J Phys Chem B. 2012; 116(37):11537-44. DOI: 10.1021/jp307466r. View

Hummer G, Rasaiah J, Noworyta J . Water conduction through the hydrophobic channel of a carbon nanotube. Nature. 2001; 414(6860):188-90. DOI: 10.1038/35102535. View

Liu P, Huang X, Zhou R, Berne B . Observation of a dewetting transition in the collapse of the melittin tetramer. Nature. 2005; 437(7055):159-62. DOI: 10.1038/nature03926. View

Pande V, Beauchamp K, Bowman G . Everything you wanted to know about Markov State Models but were afraid to ask. Methods. 2010; 52(1):99-105. PMC: 2933958. DOI: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2010.06.002. View

Berne B, Weeks J, Zhou R . Dewetting and hydrophobic interaction in physical and biological systems. Annu Rev Phys Chem. 2008; 60:85-103. PMC: 3898792. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.physchem.58.032806.104445. View

10.

Sharma S, Debenedetti P . Evaporation rate of water in hydrophobic confinement. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012; 109(12):4365-70. PMC: 3311341. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1116167109. View

11.

Chandler D . Interfaces and the driving force of hydrophobic assembly. Nature. 2005; 437(7059):640-7. DOI: 10.1038/nature04162. View

12.

Bussi G, Donadio D, Parrinello M . Canonical sampling through velocity rescaling. J Chem Phys. 2007; 126(1):014101. DOI: 10.1063/1.2408420. View

13.

Copeland R, Pompliano D, Meek T . Drug-target residence time and its implications for lead optimization. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006; 5(9):730-9. DOI: 10.1038/nrd2082. View

14.

Hess B, Kutzner C, van der Spoel D, Lindahl E . GROMACS 4: Algorithms for Highly Efficient, Load-Balanced, and Scalable Molecular Simulation. J Chem Theory Comput. 2015; 4(3):435-47. DOI: 10.1021/ct700301q. View

15.

Gu C, Chang H, Maibaum L, Pande V, Carlsson G, Guibas L . Building Markov state models with solvent dynamics. BMC Bioinformatics. 2013; 14 Suppl 2:S8. PMC: 3549830. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-14-S2-S8. View

16.

Tully J . Perspective: Nonadiabatic dynamics theory. J Chem Phys. 2012; 137(22):22A301. DOI: 10.1063/1.4757762. View

17.

Morrone J, Li J, Berne B . Interplay between hydrodynamics and the free energy surface in the assembly of nanoscale hydrophobes. J Phys Chem B. 2011; 116(1):378-89. DOI: 10.1021/jp209568n. View

18.

Willard A, Chandler D . The role of solvent fluctuations in hydrophobic assembly. J Phys Chem B. 2008; 112(19):6187-92. DOI: 10.1021/jp077186+. View

19.

Baron R, Setny P, McCammon J . Water in cavity-ligand recognition. J Am Chem Soc. 2010; 132(34):12091-7. PMC: 2933114. DOI: 10.1021/ja1050082. View

20.

Setny P, Baron R, Kekenes-Huskey P, McCammon J, Dzubiella J . Solvent fluctuations in hydrophobic cavity-ligand binding kinetics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110(4):1197-202. PMC: 3557044. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1221231110. View