| Literature DB >> 24456893 |
Annfrid Sivertsen, Johan Isaksson, Hanna-Kirsti S Leiros, Johan Svenson, John-Sigurd Svendsen, Bjørn Olav Brandsdal1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many biologically active compounds bind to plasma transport proteins, and this binding can be either advantageous or disadvantageous from a drug design perspective. Human serum albumin (HSA) is one of the most important transport proteins in the cardiovascular system due to its great binding capacity and high physiological concentration. HSA has a preference for accommodating neutral lipophilic and acidic drug-like ligands, but is also surprisingly able to bind positively charged peptides. Understanding of how short cationic antimicrobial peptides interact with human serum albumin is of importance for developing such compounds into the clinics.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24456893 PMCID: PMC3907362 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6807-14-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Struct Biol ISSN: 1472-6807
Figure 1The molecular structure of CAPs and reference ligands used in this study.
Minimal inhibitory concentration values in μM towards selected bacteria
| | >499 | >499 | - | >499 | - | - | |
| [ | 83 | 50 | 25 | - | - | - | |
| [ | 7.8, 11 | 11 | 3 | - | - | - | |
| [ | 3.2 | 3.2 | 1.3 | 9.7 | 6.5 | 3.2 | |
| >523 | >523 | - | >523 | - | - |
aStaphylococcus aureus strain ATCC 25923.
bMethicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 33591.
cMethicillin resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis ATCC 27626.
dEscherichia coli ATCC 25922.
ePseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853.
fGlycopeptides intermediate-resistant Staphylococcus aureus CCUG 43315.
Thermodynamic ITC data for CAPs and reference ligands Wrf and Dgly
| - | - | - | - | - | |
| 23 ± 8 | 0.67 ± 0.07 | -6.32 ± 0.18 | -3.7 ± 0.5 | 2.6 ± 0.7 | |
| 22 ± 9 (99 ± 6)b | 0.77 ± 0.07 (0.36 ± 0.03)b | -6.36 ± 0.19 (-5.46 ± 0.04)b | -2.8 ± 0.4 (-16.7 ± 1.3)b | 3.5 ± 0.6 (-11.2 ± 1.4)b | |
| 25 ± 9 | 0.57 ± 0.08 | -6.28 ± 0.19 | -5.2 ± 1.0 | 1.1 ± 1.1 | |
| (100 ± 13) | (1.01 ± 0.05) | (-5.46 ± 0.07) | (-3.0 ± 0.2) | (2.5 ± 0.3) | |
| 9 ± 4 (28 ± 4) | 1.15 ± 0.04 (1.02 ± 0.02) | -6.87 ± 0.19 (-6.21 ± 0.07) | -2.4 ± 0.1 (-3.3 ± 0.1) | 4.4 ± 0.3 (2. ± 0.) | |
| 11 ± 4 (40 ± 2) | 1.08 ± 0.05 (1.16 ± 0.01) | -6.78 ± 0.20 (-6.00 ± 0.02) | -4.5 ± 0.3 (-5.5 ± 0.1) | 2.3 ± 0.5 (0.5 ± 0.1) |
CSC 5300 Nano-Isothermal Titration Calorimeter III data, values obtained by MicroCal iTC200 presented in parenthesis. (Kd in μM, ΔG, ΔH and TΔS in kcal/mol, n denotes the stoichiometric ratio).
aThree parallels.
bTwo parallels.
cError limits taken as the average of the maximal difference between Kd and calculated Kd ± error limits 95% confidence interval from Ka CSC 5300 Nano-Isothermal Titration Calorimeter III, default error calculations based on least square fit and χ2 with iTC200.
dError limits are the averages of ± 95% confidence interval of the parallels CSC 5300 Nano-Isothermal Titration Calorimeter III, default error calculations based on least square fit and χ2 with iTC200.
eError limits taken as the average of the maximal difference between ΔG and calculated of ΔG ± error limits 95% confidence interval from Ka CSC 5300 Nano-Isothermal Titration Calorimeter III, default error calculations based on least square fit and χ2 with iTC200.
f Error limits are the averages of ± 95% confidence interval of the parallels CSC 5300 Nano-Isothermal Titration Calorimeter III, default error calculations based on least square fit and χ2 with iTC200.
gError limits by cumulative addition of error limits of ΔG and ΔH.
†Deviation between parallels < 16%, except Wrf with 39%. ‡ Deviation between parallels < 21%. § Deviation between parallels < 3%. # Deviation between parallels < 12%. $Deviation between parallels < 20%, except CAP 4 with 63%. The symbol “-“denotes no measured binding.
Figure 2ITC binding data of CAP 4 titrated into HSA. (A) Raw data as μcal/sec is plotted against time in min with the control buffer experiments shown in bold line. In (B) the fitted independent model is shown as dotted line to isotherm data point presented as open circles. The first data point is omitted from the analysis. The data was obtained with the CSC 5300 Nano-Isothermal Titration Calorimeter III. Figures made in GrapPad Prism v5.00.
Figure 3ITC raw data and integrated heats of CAP 3 titration into HSA. (A) CAP 3 titrated into HSA solution (reference data) and (B) competitive experiments of HSA incubated 1:3 molar ratio with drug site I reference ligand Wrf, (C) with drug site II reference ligand Dgly and (D) with control peptide CAP 5. Control buffer titration is shown in red line in the upper panel and open squares in the lower panel. (The molar ratio in the buffer control was set to the same as the protein ligand ratio merely for the purpose of interpretation). Data collected with MicroCal iTC200. Figures made in Origin® 7.0.
Figure 4Competetive WaterLOGSY between CAP 3 and Dgly (A) and Wrf (B). (A) shows how Dgly perturbs 1:1 linear buildup of the WaterLOGSY effect which is proportional to protein binding, in CAP 3 relative to the concentration of added Dgly, whereas (B) shows that Wrf does not produce the same effect. Ligand:protein ratio was 20:1.
Figure 5Protein mediated ligand-ligand contacts. (A) trNOESY spectra of CAP 3 versus Dgly acquired using 100 ms mixing time for INPHARMA analysis. Green rectangles indicate groups that transfers signal to each other mediated by the protein. (B) Labeling of CAP 3 and the drug site II reference ligand Dgly in the INPHARMA experiments. The same notation was also used in Table 3.
NMR-INPHARMA results of CAP 3 versus Dgly
| | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | 19 | + | - | - | n/a | - | - | +++ | ++ |
| 21 | + | n/a | + | n/a | n/a | ++ | +++ | ++ | |
| 22 | ++ | n/a | ++ | n/a | n/a | ++ | +++ | ++ | |
| 25 | ++ | n/a | ++ | n/a | n/a | n/a | +++ | ++ | |
| 26 | ++ | n/a | ++ | n/a | n/a | - | +++ | + | |
| 27 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | +++ | n/a | |
| | 36 | + | + | - | + | + | - | +++ | + |
| | 38 | - | - | - | ++ | ++ | ++ | +++ | + |
| | 39 | + | n/a | + | n/a | n/a | ++ | +++ | ++ |
| 40 | + | n/a | + | n/a | n/a | ++ | +++ | + | |
+, ++, and +++ denotes transferred signals and strength between groups in the two ligands (see Figure 5 for labeling), - indicate no signal transferred between groups and n/a denotes not available signals.
Figure 6Protein contact mapping of ligands. (A) STD spectra of CAP 3, Dgly and HSA in 100:1 ratio (red) superimposed on a dpfgse proton spectra acquired with a 10 ms T2 filter for protein suppression (grey). In (B) the exited hydrophobic parts of CAP 3 are indicated in green, and in (C) the entire molecule of drug site II reference ligand Dgly was exited.
Figure 7Molecular models of ligand binding to human albumin obtained with docking. (A) Docking poses of CAP 3 in yellow (docking score -8.1 kcal/mol) superimposed on Dgly in magenta (docking score -9.0 kcal/mol) with target 2XW1. (B) Docking poses of CAP 4 in orange (docking score -6.6 kcal/mol) superimposed on Dgly in magenta (docking score -9.0 kcal/mol) with target 2XW1. The calculated electrostatic potential surface of 2XW1 is shown. CAP 3 is interacting with drug site II with the biphenyl, whereas CAP 4 is binding with the C-terminal capping benzyl. The lipophilic group in each peptide is comprising the volume occupied by the docked Dgly conformation. Arg410 is omitted in the figures merely for the purpose of clarification, as it would partly cover the bound Dgly and CAPs.