Computational and experimental studies of the interaction between phospho-peptides and the C-terminal domain of BRCA1

The C-terminal domain of BRCA1(BRCT) is involved in the DNA repair pathway by recognizing the pSXXF motif in interacting proteins. It has been reported that short peptides containing this motif bind to BRCA1(BRCT) in the micromolar range with high specificity. In this work, the binding of pSXXF peptides has been studied computationally and experimentally in order to characterize their interaction with BRCA1(BRCT). Elucidation of the contacts that drive the protein–ligand interaction is critical for the development of high affinity small-molecule BRCA1 inhibitors. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations revealed the key role of threonine at the peptide P+2 position in providing structural rigidity to the ligand in the bound state. The mutation at P+1 had minor effects. Peptide extension at the N-terminal position with the naphthyl amino acid exhibited a modest increase in binding affinity, what could be explained by the dispersion interaction of the naphthyl side-chain with a hydrophobic patch. Three in silico end-point methods were considered for the calculation of binding free energy. The Molecular Mechanics Poisson–Boltzmann Surface Area and the Solvated Interaction Energy methods gave reasonable agreement with experimental data, exhibiting a Pearlman predictive index of 0.71 and 0.78, respectively. The MM-quantum mechanics-surface area method yielded improved results, which was characterized by a Pearlman index of 0.78. The correlation coefficients were 0.59, 0.61 and 0.69, respectively. The ability to apply a QM level of theory within an end-point binding free energy protocol may provide a way for a consistent improvement of accuracy in computer-aided drug design.

[1]  P. Johnston,et al.  The role of BRCA1 in the cellular response to chemotherapy. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[2]  Gustavo E. Scuseria,et al.  Geometry Optimization of Kringle 1 of Plasminogen Using the PM3 Semiempirical Method , 2000 .

[3]  A. Varma,et al.  Structural basis for cell cycle checkpoint control by the BRCA1-CtIP complex. , 2005, Biochemistry.

[4]  Yigong Shi,et al.  Structure of the BRCT repeats of BRCA1 bound to a BACH1 phosphopeptide: implications for signaling. , 2004, Molecular cell.

[5]  Kenneth M. Merz,et al.  Importance of dispersion and electron correlation in ab initio protein folding. , 2009, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[6]  Imran Siddiqi,et al.  Solvated Interaction Energy (SIE) for Scoring Protein-Ligand Binding Affinities, 1. Exploring the Parameter Space , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[7]  V. Hornak,et al.  Comparison of multiple Amber force fields and development of improved protein backbone parameters , 2006, Proteins.

[8]  K Schulten,et al.  VMD: visual molecular dynamics. , 1996, Journal of molecular graphics.

[9]  A. Caflisch,et al.  Is quantum mechanics necessary for predicting binding free energy? , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[10]  Junjie Chen,et al.  CCDC98 is a BRCA1-BRCT domain–binding protein involved in the DNA damage response , 2007, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[11]  Richard H. Henchman,et al.  Revisiting free energy calculations: a theoretical connection to MM/PBSA and direct calculation of the association free energy. , 2004, Biophysical journal.

[12]  J Andrew McCammon,et al.  Optimized Radii for Poisson-Boltzmann Calculations with the AMBER Force Field. , 2005, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[13]  Claudio N. Cavasotto and Narender Singh Docking and High Throughput Docking: Successes and the Challenge of Protein Flexibility , 2008 .

[14]  Pavel Hobza,et al.  A reliable docking/scoring scheme based on the semiempirical quantum mechanical PM6-DH2 method accurately covering dispersion and H-bonding: HIV-1 protease with 22 ligands. , 2010, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[15]  I. H. Hillier,et al.  Semi-empirical molecular orbital methods including dispersion corrections for the accurate prediction of the full range of intermolecular interactions in biomolecules. , 2007, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[16]  Drew M. Lowery,et al.  Structure and mechanism of BRCA1 BRCT domain recognition of phosphorylated BACH1 with implications for cancer , 2004, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[17]  Eric A. Kumar,et al.  Structure-activity relationship studies to probe the phosphoprotein binding site on the carboxy terminal domains of the breast cancer susceptibility gene 1. , 2011, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[18]  S. J. Campbell,et al.  Comparison of the structures and peptide binding specificities of the BRCT domains of MDC1 and BRCA1. , 2010, Structure.

[19]  Junjie Chen,et al.  DNA Damage-Induced Cell Cycle Checkpoint Control Requires CtIP, a Phosphorylation-Dependent Binding Partner of BRCA1 C-Terminal Domains , 2004, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[20]  Walter Thiel,et al.  A semiempirical model for the two-center repulsion integrals in the NDDO approximation , 1977 .

[21]  Michael B Yaffe,et al.  BRCT Repeats As Phosphopeptide-Binding Modules Involved in Protein Targeting , 2003, Science.

[22]  W. L. Jorgensen,et al.  Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water , 1983 .

[23]  S. Macura,et al.  Structural basis of BACH1 phosphopeptide recognition by BRCA1 tandem BRCT domains. , 2004, Structure.

[24]  D. Beveridge,et al.  Free energy via molecular simulation: applications to chemical and biomolecular systems. , 1989, Annual review of biophysics and biophysical chemistry.

[25]  Jianpeng Ma,et al.  CHARMM: The biomolecular simulation program , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[26]  P. Kollman,et al.  Continuum Solvent Studies of the Stability of DNA, RNA, and Phosphoramidate−DNA Helices , 1998 .

[27]  J. Hermans,et al.  ES/IS: estimation of conformational free energy by combining dynamics simulations with explicit solvent with an implicit solvent continuum model. , 1999, Biophysical chemistry.

[28]  Mark A Olson,et al.  Calculation of absolute protein-ligand binding affinity using path and endpoint approaches. , 2006, Biophysical journal.

[29]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Androgen receptor mutations identified in prostate cancer and androgen insensitivity syndrome display aberrant ART-27 coactivator function. , 2005, Molecular endocrinology.

[30]  Eric A. Kumar,et al.  Structural characterization of BRCT-tetrapeptide binding interactions. , 2010, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

[31]  Alexander D. MacKerell Empirical force fields for biological macromolecules: Overview and issues , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[32]  Steven P Gygi,et al.  Abraxas and RAP80 Form a BRCA1 Protein Complex Required for the DNA Damage Response , 2007, Science.

[33]  D. Sgroi,et al.  BACH1, a Novel Helicase-like Protein, Interacts Directly with BRCA1 and Contributes to Its DNA Repair Function , 2001, Cell.

[34]  J. Stewart Optimization of parameters for semiempirical methods I. Method , 1989 .

[35]  Anselm H. C. Horn,et al.  AMBER force-field parameters for phosphorylated amino acids in different protonation states: phosphoserine, phosphothreonine, phosphotyrosine, and phosphohistidine , 2006, Journal of molecular modeling.

[36]  Peter V Coveney,et al.  Peptide recognition by the T cell receptor: comparison of binding free energies from thermodynamic integration, Poisson–Boltzmann and linear interaction energy approximations , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[37]  M. Gilson,et al.  Calculation of protein-ligand binding affinities. , 2007, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[38]  Marwen Naïm,et al.  Molecular dynamics-solvated interaction energy studies of protein-protein interactions: the MP1-p14 scaffolding complex. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

[39]  Eugene V. Koonin,et al.  …Functional motifs… , 1996, Nature Genetics.

[40]  Wei Zhang,et al.  A point‐charge force field for molecular mechanics simulations of proteins based on condensed‐phase quantum mechanical calculations , 2003, J. Comput. Chem..

[41]  R. Friesner,et al.  Ab initio quantum chemical and mixed quantum mechanics/molecular mechanics (QM/MM) methods for studying enzymatic catalysis. , 2005, Annual review of physical chemistry.

[42]  B. Roux,et al.  Calculation of absolute protein-ligand binding free energy from computer simulations. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[43]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Phosphorylation of Liver X Receptor α Selectively Regulates Target Gene Expression in Macrophages , 2008, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[44]  Bing Wang,et al.  The role of quantum mechanics in structure-based drug design. , 2007, Drug discovery today.

[45]  Jeremy C. Smith,et al.  Protein/ligand binding free energies calculated with quantum mechanics/molecular mechanics. , 2005, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[46]  F. J. Luque,et al.  Protein flexibility and ligand recognition: challenges for molecular modeling. , 2011, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[47]  Akash Khandelwal,et al.  A combination of docking, QM/MM methods, and MD simulation for binding affinity estimation of metalloprotein ligands. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[48]  L. Tong,et al.  Structural evidence for direct interactions between the BRCT domains of human BRCA1 and a phospho-peptide from human ACC1. , 2008, Biochemistry.

[49]  Laxmikant V. Kalé,et al.  Scalable molecular dynamics with NAMD , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[50]  Georges Mer,et al.  The BRCT Domain Is a Phospho-Protein Binding Domain , 2003, Science.

[51]  Garrett M Morris,et al.  Assessing the role of polarization in docking. , 2008, The journal of physical chemistry. A.

[52]  Victor Guallar,et al.  Importance of accurate charges in molecular docking: Quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical (QM/MM) approach , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[53]  Piotr Cieplak,et al.  R.E.DD.B.: A database for RESP and ESP atomic charges, and force field libraries , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[54]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Quantum mechanical dynamics of charge transfer in ubiquitin in aqueous solution. , 2009, Chemphyschem : a European journal of chemical physics and physical chemistry.

[55]  Yong Duan,et al.  Distinguish protein decoys by Using a scoring function based on a new AMBER force field, short molecular dynamics simulations, and the generalized born solvent model , 2004, Proteins.

[56]  J. Glover,et al.  Molecular Basis of BACH1/FANCJ Recognition by TopBP1 in DNA Replication Checkpoint Control* , 2010, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[57]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Hydration free energies using semiempirical quantum mechanical Hamiltonians and a continuum solvent model with multiple atomic-type parameters. , 2011, Journal of Physical Chemistry B.

[58]  Francesco Aquilante,et al.  Calculation of protein-ligand interaction energies by a fragmentation approach combining high-level quantum chemistry with classical many-body effects. , 2009, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[59]  J A McCammon,et al.  Theoretical calculations of relative affinities of binding. , 1991, Methods in enzymology.

[60]  James J. P. Stewart,et al.  Application of the PM6 method to modeling proteins , 2009, Journal of molecular modeling.

[61]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  All-atom empirical potential for molecular modeling and dynamics studies of proteins. , 1998, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[62]  Jindřich Fanfrlík,et al.  Semiempirical Quantum Chemical PM6 Method Augmented by Dispersion and H-Bonding Correction Terms Reliably Describes Various Types of Noncovalent Complexes. , 2009, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[63]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Quantum mechanical binding free energy calculation for phosphopeptide inhibitors of the Lck SH2 domain , 2011, J. Comput. Chem..

[64]  C. Brooks,et al.  Recent advances in the development and application of implicit solvent models in biomolecule simulations. , 2004, Current opinion in structural biology.

[65]  A. Klamt,et al.  COSMO : a new approach to dielectric screening in solvents with explicit expressions for the screening energy and its gradient , 1993 .

[66]  D. Case,et al.  Theory and applications of the generalized born solvation model in macromolecular simulations , 2000, Biopolymers.

[67]  H. Scheraga,et al.  Monte Carlo-minimization approach to the multiple-minima problem in protein folding. , 1987, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[68]  P. Charifson,et al.  Are free energy calculations useful in practice? A comparison with rapid scoring functions for the p38 MAP kinase protein system. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[69]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Scalaradial, a Dialdehyde‐Containing Marine Metabolite That Causes an Unexpected Noncovalent PLA2 Inactivation , 2007, Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology.

[70]  M. E. Foster,et al.  Empirically corrected DFT and semi-empirical methods for non-bonding interactions. , 2010, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[71]  J. Glover,et al.  Structural basis of phosphopeptide recognition by the BRCT domain of BRCA1 , 2004, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[72]  J. Ponder,et al.  Force fields for protein simulations. , 2003, Advances in protein chemistry.

[73]  W. C. Still,et al.  The GB/SA Continuum Model for Solvation. A Fast Analytical Method for the Calculation of Approximate Born Radii , 1997 .

[74]  B. K. Muralidhara,et al.  Thermodynamics of phosphopeptide tethering to BRCT: the structural minima for inhibitor design. , 2007, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[75]  G. Ciccotti,et al.  Numerical Integration of the Cartesian Equations of Motion of a System with Constraints: Molecular Dynamics of n-Alkanes , 1977 .