Cargando…
Efficient Quantification of Lipid Packing Defect Sensing by Amphipathic Peptides: Comparing Martini 2 and 3 with CHARMM36
[Image: see text] In biological systems, proteins can be attracted to curved or stretched regions of lipid bilayers by sensing hydrophobic defects in the lipid packing on the membrane surface. Here, we present an efficient end-state free energy calculation method to quantify such sensing in molecula...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Chemical Society
2022
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9281404/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35709386 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00222 |
_version_ | 1784746872814960640 |
---|---|
author | van Hilten, Niek Stroh, Kai Steffen Risselada, Herre Jelger |
author_facet | van Hilten, Niek Stroh, Kai Steffen Risselada, Herre Jelger |
author_sort | van Hilten, Niek |
collection | PubMed |
description | [Image: see text] In biological systems, proteins can be attracted to curved or stretched regions of lipid bilayers by sensing hydrophobic defects in the lipid packing on the membrane surface. Here, we present an efficient end-state free energy calculation method to quantify such sensing in molecular dynamics simulations. We illustrate that lipid packing defect sensing can be defined as the difference in mechanical work required to stretch a membrane with and without a peptide bound to the surface. We also demonstrate that a peptide’s ability to concurrently induce excess leaflet area (tension) and elastic softening—a property we call the “characteristic area of sensing” (CHAOS)—and lipid packing sensing behavior are in fact two sides of the same coin. In essence, defect sensing displays a peptide’s propensity to generate tension. The here-proposed mechanical pathway is equally accurate yet, computationally, about 40 times less costly than the commonly used alchemical pathway (thermodynamic integration), allowing for more feasible free energy calculations in atomistic simulations. This enabled us to directly compare the Martini 2 and 3 coarse-grained and the CHARMM36 atomistic force fields in terms of relative binding free energies for six representative peptides including the curvature sensor ALPS and two antiviral amphipathic helices (AH). We observed that Martini 3 qualitatively reproduces experimental trends while producing substantially lower (relative) binding free energies and shallower membrane insertion depths compared to atomistic simulations. In contrast, Martini 2 tends to overestimate (relative) binding free energies. Finally, we offer a glimpse into how our end-state-based free energy method can enable the inverse design of optimal lipid packing defect sensing peptides when used in conjunction with our recently developed evolutionary molecular dynamics (Evo-MD) method. We argue that these optimized defect sensors—aside from their biomedical and biophysical relevance—can provide valuable targets for the development of lipid force fields. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9281404 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | American Chemical Society |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92814042022-07-15 Efficient Quantification of Lipid Packing Defect Sensing by Amphipathic Peptides: Comparing Martini 2 and 3 with CHARMM36 van Hilten, Niek Stroh, Kai Steffen Risselada, Herre Jelger J Chem Theory Comput [Image: see text] In biological systems, proteins can be attracted to curved or stretched regions of lipid bilayers by sensing hydrophobic defects in the lipid packing on the membrane surface. Here, we present an efficient end-state free energy calculation method to quantify such sensing in molecular dynamics simulations. We illustrate that lipid packing defect sensing can be defined as the difference in mechanical work required to stretch a membrane with and without a peptide bound to the surface. We also demonstrate that a peptide’s ability to concurrently induce excess leaflet area (tension) and elastic softening—a property we call the “characteristic area of sensing” (CHAOS)—and lipid packing sensing behavior are in fact two sides of the same coin. In essence, defect sensing displays a peptide’s propensity to generate tension. The here-proposed mechanical pathway is equally accurate yet, computationally, about 40 times less costly than the commonly used alchemical pathway (thermodynamic integration), allowing for more feasible free energy calculations in atomistic simulations. This enabled us to directly compare the Martini 2 and 3 coarse-grained and the CHARMM36 atomistic force fields in terms of relative binding free energies for six representative peptides including the curvature sensor ALPS and two antiviral amphipathic helices (AH). We observed that Martini 3 qualitatively reproduces experimental trends while producing substantially lower (relative) binding free energies and shallower membrane insertion depths compared to atomistic simulations. In contrast, Martini 2 tends to overestimate (relative) binding free energies. Finally, we offer a glimpse into how our end-state-based free energy method can enable the inverse design of optimal lipid packing defect sensing peptides when used in conjunction with our recently developed evolutionary molecular dynamics (Evo-MD) method. We argue that these optimized defect sensors—aside from their biomedical and biophysical relevance—can provide valuable targets for the development of lipid force fields. American Chemical Society 2022-06-16 2022-07-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9281404/ /pubmed/35709386 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00222 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Permits the broadest form of re-use including for commercial purposes, provided that author attribution and integrity are maintained (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | van Hilten, Niek Stroh, Kai Steffen Risselada, Herre Jelger Efficient Quantification of Lipid Packing Defect Sensing by Amphipathic Peptides: Comparing Martini 2 and 3 with CHARMM36 |
title | Efficient Quantification of Lipid Packing Defect Sensing
by Amphipathic Peptides: Comparing Martini 2 and 3 with CHARMM36 |
title_full | Efficient Quantification of Lipid Packing Defect Sensing
by Amphipathic Peptides: Comparing Martini 2 and 3 with CHARMM36 |
title_fullStr | Efficient Quantification of Lipid Packing Defect Sensing
by Amphipathic Peptides: Comparing Martini 2 and 3 with CHARMM36 |
title_full_unstemmed | Efficient Quantification of Lipid Packing Defect Sensing
by Amphipathic Peptides: Comparing Martini 2 and 3 with CHARMM36 |
title_short | Efficient Quantification of Lipid Packing Defect Sensing
by Amphipathic Peptides: Comparing Martini 2 and 3 with CHARMM36 |
title_sort | efficient quantification of lipid packing defect sensing
by amphipathic peptides: comparing martini 2 and 3 with charmm36 |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9281404/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35709386 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00222 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vanhiltenniek efficientquantificationoflipidpackingdefectsensingbyamphipathicpeptidescomparingmartini2and3withcharmm36 AT strohkaisteffen efficientquantificationoflipidpackingdefectsensingbyamphipathicpeptidescomparingmartini2and3withcharmm36 AT risseladaherrejelger efficientquantificationoflipidpackingdefectsensingbyamphipathicpeptidescomparingmartini2and3withcharmm36 |