| Literature DB >> 28752073 |
Maryam Sharifi1, Jafar Ezzati Nazhad Dolatabadi2, Farzaneh Fathi2,3, Mostafa Zakariazadeh4, Abolfazl Barzegar4, Mohammad Rashidi2, Habib Tajalli1, Mohammad-Reza Rashidi2.
Abstract
Introduction: The interactions between biomacromolecules such as serum albumin (SA) and various drugs have attracted increasing research attention in recent years. However, the study of SA with those drugs that have relatively high hydrophilicity and a lower affinity for SA could be a challenging issue. At the present study, the interaction of bovine SA (BSA) with neomycin as a hydrophilic drug has been investigated using surface plasmon resonance (SPR) and molecular docking methods.Entities:
Keywords: Enthalpy; Entropy; Equilibrium constants (KD); Surface plasmon resonance; Thermodynamic
Year: 2017 PMID: 28752073 PMCID: PMC5524990 DOI: 10.15171/bi.2017.12
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioimpacts ISSN: 2228-5652
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4Association rate (ka), dissociation rate (kd) and equilibrium constant (KD) values of neomycin interaction with BSA
|
|
|
|
|
| 298 | 4.05×102 | 8.96×10-3 | 2.21×10-5 |
| 303 | 1.84×103 | 9.95×10-3 | 5.41×10-6 |
| 308 | 6.53×103 | 2.58×10-2 | 3.94×10-6 |
| 313 | 5.54×104 | 2.75×10-2 | 4.96×10-7 |
Thermodynamic parameters of BSA interaction with neomycin at four different temperatures (298, 303, 308, 313°K)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 298 | 2.21×10-5 | 3.83×102 | ||
| 303 | 5.41×10-6 | -1.81×102 | -6.97×102 | 4.33×102 |
| 308 | 3.94×10-6 | 4.83×102 | ||
| 313 | 4.96×10-7 | 5.34×102 |
Number of distinct conformational clusters out of 200 runs. LEbinding and MEbinding correspond to the lowest and mean binding energy in each clustera
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | 114 | -7.81 | -4.27 |
| 2 | 7 | -7.15 | -4.09 |
| 3 | 17 | -6.85 | -4.23 |
| 4 | 11 | -5.35 | -3.68 |
| 5 | 4 | -5.06 | -2.86 |
| 6 | 4 | -3.72 | -1.28 |
| 7 | 2 | -3.6 | -2.16 |
| 8 | 2 | -3.56 | -3.44 |
| 9 | 1 | -3.41 | -3.41 |
| 10 | 9 | -3.29 | -1.18 |
| 11 | 1 | -3.09 | -3.09 |
| 12 | 1 | -2.71 | -2.71 |
| 13 | 1 | -2.49 | -2.49 |
| 14 | 1 | -2.22 | -2.22 |
| 15 | 2 | -2.17 | -1.93 |
| 16 | 1 | -2.01 | -2.01 |
| 17 | 1 | -1.93 | -1.93 |
| 18 | 2 | -1.93 | -1.72 |
| 19 | 3 | -1.83 | 0.05 |
| 20 | 1 | -1.8 | -1.8 |
| 21 | 1 | -1.77 | -1.77 |
| 22 | 1 | -1.69 | -1.69 |
| 23 | 1 | -1.43 | -1.43 |
| 24 | 1 | -1.32 | -1.32 |
| 25 | 1 | -1.27 | -1.27 |
| 26 | 1 | -1.24 | -1.24 |
| 27 | 1 | -1.15 | -1.15 |
| 28 | 1 | -1.07 | -1.07 |
| 29 | 1 | -0.36 | -0.36 |
| 30 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 31 | 1 | 0.03 | 0.03 |
| 32 | 1 | 0.09 | 0.09 |
| 33 | 1 | 0.15 | 0.15 |
| 34 | 1 | 0.72 | 0.72 |
| 35 | 1 | 1.46 | 1.46 |
aThe lowest docking-energy conformation was included in the largest cluster found. The rmsd-tolerance was applied at 5.0 Å.
Fig. 5
Fig. 6