help button home button Biophys. J.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Woolf, T. B.
Right arrow Articles by Tychko, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Woolf, T. B.
Right arrow Articles by Tychko, M.

Biophys J, February 2000, p. 608-625, Vol. 78, No. 2

Differences Between Apo and Three Holo Forms of the Intestinal Fatty Acid Binding Protein Seen by Molecular Dynamics Computer Calculations

Thomas B. Woolf,*dagger Alan Grossfield,dagger and Michael Tychko*

 *Departments of Physiology and of  dagger Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205

It is commonly believed that binding affinity can be estimated by consideration of local changes of ligand and protein. This paper discusses a set of molecular dynamics simulations of intestinal fatty acid binding protein addressing the protein's response to presence or absence of different ligands. A 5-ns simulation was performed of the protein without a ligand, and three simulations (one 5-ns and two 2-ns) were performed with different fatty acids bound. The results indicate that, although the basic protein structure is unchanged by the presence of the ligand, other properties are significantly affected by ligand binding. For example, zero-time covariance patterns between protein, bound waters, and ligand vary between the different simulations. Moreover, the interaction energies between ligand and specific residues indicate that different ligands are stabilized in different ways. In sum, the results suggest that binding thermodynamics within this system will need to be calculated not from a subset of nearby protein:ligand interactions, but will depend on a knowledge of the motions coupling together water, protein, and ligand.

Biophys J, February 2000, p. 608-625, Vol. 78, No. 2
© 2000 by the Biophysical Society   0006-3495/00/02/608/18  $2.00






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2000 by the Biophysical Society.