Metallofullerenol Gd@C₈₂(OH)₂₂ distracts the proline-rich-motif from putative binding on the SH3 domain.

Biocompatibility is often regarded as one important aspect of de novo designed nanomaterials for biosafety. However, the toxicological effect, appearing along with its latency, is much more difficult to address by linearly mapping physicochemical properties of related nanomaterials with biological effects such as immune or cellular regulatory responses due to the complicated protein-protein interactions. Here, we investigate a potential interference of a metallofullerenol, Gd@C82(OH)22, on the function of SH3 domain, a highly promiscuous protein-protein interaction mediator involved in signaling and regulatory pathways through its binding with the proline-rich motif (PRM) peptides, using the atomistic molecular dynamics simulation. Our study shows that when only Gd@C82(OH)22 and the SH3 domain are present (without the PRM ligand), Gd@C82(OH)22 can interact with the SH3 domain by either directly blocking the hydrophobic active site or binding with a hydrophilic off-site with almost equal probability, which can be understood from its intrinsic amphiphilic nature. In a binding competition with the PRM onto the SH3 domain, however, the on-site binding mode is depleted while Gd@C82(OH)22 effectively intercepts the PRM from the putative binding site of the SH3 domain, implying that Gd@C82(OH)22 can disturb protein-protein interactions mediated by the SH3 domain. Despite a successful surface modification in an aqueous biological medium and a more recent demonstration as potential de novo cancer therapeutics, our study indicates that greater attention is needed in assessing the potential cytotoxicity of these nanomaterials.

[1]  Yuliang Zhao,et al.  Biosafety assessment of Gd@C82(OH)22 nanoparticles on Caenorhabditis elegans. , 2011, Nanoscale.

[2]  Yi Zhang,et al.  A map of WW domain family interactions , 2004, Proteomics.

[3]  T. Xia,et al.  Toxic Potential of Materials at the Nanolevel , 2006, Science.

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

[5]  Yan Song,et al.  Potent angiogenesis inhibition by the particulate form of fullerene derivatives. , 2010, ACS nano.

[6]  L. Castagnoli,et al.  Protein Interaction Networks by Proteome Peptide Scanning , 2004, PLoS biology.

[7]  Electronic Transport, Structure, and Energetics of Endohedral Gd@C82 Metallofullerenes , 2004, cond-mat/0409062.

[8]  R C Wade,et al.  Electrostatic steering and ionic tethering in enzyme-ligand binding: insights from simulations. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  H. Shinohara,et al.  Lanthanoid endohedral metallofullerenols for MRI contrast agents. , 2003, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[10]  S. Li.  Specificity and versatility of SH3 and other proline-recognition domains: structural basis and implications for cellular signal transduction. , 2005, The Biochemical journal.

[11]  Joseph M. DeSimone,et al.  Strategies in the design of nanoparticles for therapeutic applications , 2010, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[12]  T. Pawson,et al.  Assembly of Cell Regulatory Systems Through Protein Interaction Domains , 2003, Science.

[13]  H. Shinohara,et al.  Paramagnetic water-soluble metallofullerenes having the highest relaxivity for MRI contrast agents. , 2001, Bioconjugate chemistry.

[14]  B. Berne,et al.  The free energy landscape for β hairpin folding in explicit water , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  Nathan A. Baker,et al.  Electrostatics of nanosystems: Application to microtubules and the ribosome , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  Gary D Bader,et al.  A Combined Experimental and Computational Strategy to Define Protein Interaction Networks for Peptide Recognition Modules , 2001, Science.

[17]  M. Dobrovolskaia,et al.  Immunological properties of engineered nanomaterials , 2007, Nature Nanotechnology.

[18]  R. Reithmeier,et al.  Topology of transmembrane segments 1-4 in the human chloride/bicarbonate anion exchanger 1 (AE1) by scanning N-glycosylation mutagenesis. , 2005, The Biochemical journal.

[19]  Mazen Ahmad,et al.  Mechanism of fast peptide recognition by SH3 domains. , 2008, Angewandte Chemie.

[20]  T. Pawson,et al.  Protein-protein interactions define specificity in signal transduction. , 2000, Genes & development.

[21]  C. Chothia,et al.  Hydrophobic bonding and accessible surface area in proteins , 1974, Nature.

[22]  Scott E McNeil,et al.  Nanotechnology for the biologist , 2005, Journal of leukocyte biology.

[23]  Volker Wagner,et al.  The emerging nanomedicine landscape , 2006, Nature Biotechnology.

[24]  A. Sali,et al.  Structural basis for the specific interaction of lysine-containing proline-rich peptides with the N-terminal SH3 domain of c-Crk. , 1995, Structure.

[25]  T. Woolf,et al.  Indoles at interfaces: Calculations of electrostatic effects with density functional and molecular dynamics methods , 1999 .

[26]  Clemens Burda,et al.  The unique role of nanoparticles in nanomedicine: imaging, drug delivery and therapy. , 2012, Chemical Society reviews.

[27]  R. Zhou,et al.  Amino acid analogues bind to carbon nanotube via π-π interactions: comparison of molecular mechanical and quantum mechanical calculations. , 2012, The Journal of chemical physics.

[28]  Ruhong Zhou,et al.  Non-destructive Inhibition of Metallofullerenol Gd@C82(OH)22 on WW domain: Implication on Signal Transduction Pathway , 2012, Scientific Reports.

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

[30]  Laxmikant V. Kalé,et al.  Scalable molecular dynamics with NAMD on the IBM Blue Gene/L system , 2008, IBM J. Res. Dev..

[31]  Tony Pawson,et al.  Specificity in Signal Transduction From Phosphotyrosine-SH2 Domain Interactions to Complex Cellular Systems , 2004, Cell.

[32]  Adam J. Makarucha,et al.  Nanomaterials in biological environment: a review of computer modelling studies , 2011, European Biophysics Journal.

[33]  M. Sakata,et al.  Anomalous endohedral structure of Gd@C 82 metallofullerenes , 2004 .

[34]  Ruhong Zhou,et al.  Molecular mechanism of pancreatic tumor metastasis inhibition by Gd@C82(OH)22 and its implication for de novo design of nanomedicine , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  S. Schreiber,et al.  Specific interactions outside the proline-rich core of two classes of Src homology 3 ligands. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[36]  T. Xia,et al.  Potential health impact of nanoparticles. , 2009, Annual review of public health.

[37]  Stephanie E. A. Gratton,et al.  Imparting size, shape, and composition control of materials for nanomedicine. , 2006, Chemical Society reviews.

[38]  F. Calvo,et al.  Theoretical study of the hydrated Gd3+ ion: structure, dynamics, and charge transfer. , 2006, The Journal of chemical physics.

[39]  Ruhong Zhou,et al.  Plugging into proteins: poisoning protein function by a hydrophobic nanoparticle. , 2010, ACS nano.

[40]  Gaurav Sahay,et al.  Endocytosis of nanomedicines. , 2010, Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society.

[41]  Subinoy Rana,et al.  Surface functionalization of nanoparticles for nanomedicine. , 2012, Chemical Society reviews.

[42]  B. Nemery,et al.  Do Nanomedicines Require Novel Safety Assessments to Ensure their Safety for Long-Term Human Use? , 2009, Drug safety.

[43]  R. Zhou,et al.  Binding of blood proteins to carbon nanotubes reduces cytotoxicity , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[44]  Feng Zhao,et al.  Multihydroxylated [Gd@C82(OH)22]n nanoparticles: antineoplastic activity of high efficiency and low toxicity. , 2005, Nano letters.

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

[46]  J. Ladbury,et al.  Searching for specificity in SH domains. , 2000, Chemistry & biology.

[47]  T. Darden,et al.  Particle mesh Ewald: An N⋅log(N) method for Ewald sums in large systems , 1993 .

[48]  Burke,et al.  Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple. , 1996, Physical review letters.

[49]  D. A. Dougherty,et al.  Cation-π interactions in structural biology , 1999 .

[50]  S. Schreiber,et al.  Two binding orientations for peptides to the Src SH3 domain: development of a general model for SH3-ligand interactions. , 1995, Science.

[51]  I. Tuñón,et al.  Molecular surface area and hydrophobic effect. , 1992, Protein engineering.

[52]  Erik Van Lenthe,et al.  Optimized Slater‐type basis sets for the elements 1–118 , 2003, J. Comput. Chem..