Nicola Piasentin1,2, Guoping Lian1,2, Qiong Cai1. 1. Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford GU27XH, U.K.. 2. Unilever R&D Colworth, Unilever, Sharnbrook MK441LQ, U.K..
Abstract
Recently, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations have been utilized to investigate the barrier properties of human skin stratum corneum (SC) lipid bilayers. Different MD methods and force fields have been utilized, with predicted permeabilities varying by few orders of magnitude. In this work, we compare constrained MD simulations with restrained MD simulations to obtain the potential of the mean force and the diffusion coefficient profile for the case of a water molecule permeating across an SC lipid bilayer. Corresponding permeabilities of the simulated lipid bilayer are calculated via the inhomogeneous solubility diffusion model. Results show that both methods perform similarly, but restrained MD simulations have proven to be the more robust approach for predicting the potential of the mean force profile. Critical to both methods are the sampling of the whole trans-bilayer axis and the following symmetrization process. Re-analysis of the previously reported free energy profiles showed that some of the discrepancies in the reported permeability values is due to misquotation of units, while some are due to the inaccurately obtained potential of the mean force. By using the existing microscopic geometrical models via the intercellular lipid pathway, the permeation through the whole SC is predicted from the MD simulation results, and the predicted barrier properties have been compared to experimental data from the literature with good agreement.
Recently, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations have been utilized to investigate the barrier properties of human skin stratum corneum (SC) lipid bilayers. Different MD methods and force fields have been utilized, with predicted permeabilities varying by few orders of magnitude. In this work, we compare constrained MD simulations with restrained MD simulations to obtain the potential of the mean force and the diffusion coefficient profile for the case of a water molecule permeating across an SC lipid bilayer. Corresponding permeabilities of the simulated lipid bilayer are calculated via the inhomogeneous solubility diffusion model. Results show that both methods perform similarly, but restrained MD simulations have proven to be the more robust approach for predicting the potential of the mean force profile. Critical to both methods are the sampling of the whole trans-bilayer axis and the following symmetrization process. Re-analysis of the previously reported free energy profiles showed that some of the discrepancies in the reported permeability values is due to misquotation of units, while some are due to the inaccurately obtained potential of the mean force. By using the existing microscopic geometrical models via the intercellular lipid pathway, the permeation through the whole SC is predicted from the MD simulation results, and the predicted barrier properties have been compared to experimental data from the literature with good agreement.
Skin
is the main barrier for protecting the human body from external
agents. It regulates the body temperature and maintains the body homeostasis.[1] The skin is subjected to a large variety of mechanical
and chemical stresses, such as temperature, shear friction and pressure,
airborne chemicals, and biological hazards like bacteria and viruses.
The thickness of the human skin can be of more than 1 mm. However,
most of its barrier ability resides in the outermost layer, namely
the stratum corneum (SC), which consists of a thin (ca. 20 μm)
layer of terminally differentiated cells, named corneocytes, embedded
in a heterogeneous lipid matrix.[2] The current
state of the art indicates that the rate regulating step in percutaneous
absorption is related to the characteristics of the lipid matrix where
corneocytes are embedded.[3]Electron
microscopy (EM) studies show that intercorneocytes lipids
are organised as stacked sheets parallelly surrounding the corneocyte
cells with repeating lamellar patterns, known as the long and the
short periodicity phases.[4,5] These sheets contain
mainly three lipid family types: ceramides, free fatty acids, and
cholesterol, in roughly equimolar ratios.[6,7] Despite
the progress in exploiting different techniques, such as early X-ray
diffraction[8] or more recently cryo-EM,[9] due to its complexity, the precise structure
of the lipid lamellae is only partially known. In the last 50 years
many models have been proposed to explain the low permeability and
high flexibility of the SC lipid matrix.[10−14] Lately, a combined approach of in silico simulations
and experimental cryo-EM imaging suggested that the sheets are organised
in lamellae with splayed ceramides and very low water content.[15]The molecular mechanisms underlying the
SC barrier property and
how to regulate the permeation of selected chemicals have received
wide attention from the scientific and industrial community in applications
such as drug delivery, skin care, and environmental safety.[16,17] Barrier properties, such as lipid/water partition coefficients and
SC permeability to chemicals are studied extensively in vitro, ex
vivo, and in vivo.[18,19]Recently, molecular dynamics
(MD) simulations have been used to
simulate the SC lipid bilayer structure and investigate the role of
the different lipid families. Ceramides have been found to be responsible
for the low permeability and high rigidity of SC lipid bilayers.[20−22] Free fatty acids favor tighter packing, increasing h-bonding especially
among ceramides, while cholesterol fluidizes the membrane and increases
the bilayer’s phase transition temperature.[23]A main interest of MD simulation is to understand
the molecular
basis of skin barrier property. For this purpose, MD simulations have
been exploited to obtain the potential of the mean force (ΔG), the trans-membrane diffusion coefficient (D), and the permeability (P) across lipid bilayer systems.[20,24] In reported
studies, both the simulated lipid bilayers and the simulation approaches
varied, and significantly different values of predicted permeability
have been reported.Das et al.[24] first
used constrained
MD simulations to predict the permeability of water across SC lipid
bilayers. The bilayers of varying composition with ceramides in a
hairpin conformation were simulated via a combination of the united-atom
force field GROMOS-87[25] and an additional
set of force field parameters for the lipids.[26,27] ΔG and D of water across the lipid bilayer were calculated via the
potential of the mean constraint force (PMcF)[28,29] and the Kubo relation,[29,30] respectively. They
also calculated the lateral diffusion coefficient of the permeating
water molecule via the Einstein’s mean squared displacements
(MSD) relation.[31] They reported a value
of permeability of P = 1.1 × 10–8 cm s–1 for a pure ceramide bilayer and a significantly
increased P = 8.2 × 10–8 cm
s–1 for an equimolar ceramide/cholesterol/lignoceric
acid lipid bilayer, both at T = 350 K. Their pioneering
study also suggests a decrease of 2 orders of magnitude of the permeability
from 350 to 300 K, that is, a predicted permeability for an SC lipid
bilayer of ca. 10–9 to 10–10 cm
s–1 at physiologic temperature (ca. 305 K).The same lipid bilayer system, forcefield, and simulation method
were used by Del Regno and Notman,[32] who
studied the water permeation pathway through the SC lipid bilayers
of equimolar composition at different hydration levels, and by Gupta
et al.,[33] who simulated the permeation
of water across SC lipid bilayers of pure ceramides with different
tail lengths. Del Regno and Notman[32] reported
a permeability P = 3.3 × 10–10 cm s–1 at T = 305 K for an equimolar
SC lipid bilayer, coherently with the latterly reported permeability
value from Das et al. However, Gupta et al.[33] reported a value of P = 1.12 × 10–6 cm s–1 for a pure ceramide bilayer at T = 310 K.Later, Gupta et al. extended their MD simulation
to the permeation
of other chemicals[34] described via GROMOS-54a6/54a7
parameters.[35] They predicted a permeability
of P = 7.08 × 10–5 cm s–1 for water across an equimolar lipid bilayer in hairpin
geometry at T = 310 K. The reported permeability
values from Gupta et al. are 4 to 5 orders of magnitude higher than
the values reported by Das et al. and by Del Regno and Notman.Recently, Wang and Klauda[36] reported
MD simulations of ethanol permeation across pure ceramide bilayers
of different tail lengths in a hairpin configuration using the all-atom
CHARMM36 forcefield.[37,38] ΔG and D were derived from restrained
MD simulations via the weighted histogram analysis method (WHAM)[39,40] and the position autocorrelation function (pACF) relation,[41,42] respectively. They predicted permeability coefficient of P = 6.3 × 10–6 cm s–1 at T = 305 K for an ethanol molecule. Much of the
reported MD simulations considered the short periodicity phase. Wang
and Klauda[43] also modeled the long periodicity
phase of SC lipids, using the same forcefield and methods they reported
earlier. The authors obtained a permeability value for an ethanol
molecule of ca. P = 2 × 10–5 cm s–1 at T = 305 K. Their values
agreed reasonably with that from Gupta et al.[34] of P = 1.12 × 10–5 cm s–1 at T = 310 K despite the
different techniques, system, and forcefield adopted.The CHARMM36
forcefield was also used by Lundborg et al. to predict
the permeability of water[15] and other chemicals[44] across several lipid bilayer systems with varying
lipid ratios and hairpin or splayed ceramides. They used the forward–reverse
method[45,46] in steered MD simulations to derive both
ΔG and D. For a water molecule at T = 303.15 K, they
predicted the permeability value of P = 1.1 ×
10–5 cm s–1 for an equimolar lipid-ratio
hairpin bilayer, of the same order of magnitude of that of Gupta et
al.,[33,34] and of P = 8.8 × 10–9 cm s–1 for a splayed SC lipid bilayer
model, albeit the lower permeability of the latter can be related
to its different geometry and low water content.These differences
in predicted barrier properties motivated us
to evaluate the MD methods for the prediction of permeability by using
the same bilayer system. It is worth pointing out that many methods
have been developed over the years to simulate a lipid bilayer, differing
in the type of bias applied and in how the solute crosses the bilayer.
Examples include steered MD methods based on the fluctuation theorem,[47,48] nonequilibrium relationships,[45] and accelerated
sampling techniques.[49] Notably, with the
growing computational power simulations have been also reported on
the permeability with unbiased MD simulations, based on induced concentration
gradients and/or particular counting techniques.[50,51] In this work, we focused on two of the most common approaches, the
constrained and restrained MD simulations, reported for the SC lipid
bilayer permeability prediction.We first compared two different
approaches to calculate ΔG, namely (i) the
PMcF method and (ii) the WHAM. The Bennett
acceptance ratio (BAR)[52] is used as a benchmark
to evaluate free energy profiles’ convergence. We then compared
two methods for calculating the trans-lipid bilayer diffusion coefficient D, namely (i) the Kubo relation
and (ii) the pACF relation. In addition, we tested the MSD method
for the lateral diffusion coefficient. Results are obtained for the
same reference system of a water molecule permeating across an equimolar
SC lipid bilayer with hairpin ceramides described in CHARMM36.
Methods
Generation
of the Starting Bilayer System
The SC lipid
bilayer is modeled as an equimolar system of lignoceric acid (FFA),
ceramide CER [NS] 24:0/18:1 (CER), and cholesterol (CHOL). This configuration
has been extensively used in previous modeling studies.[24,32,34,53,54] Ceramides are in a hairpin configuration.
The system has water molecules on both sides of the hydrophilic heads
at the ratio of roughly 30 water molecules per lipid.All MD
simulations are carried out using GROMACS2018.3.[55] The CHARMM36 forcefield is used for lipid molecules.[37,38] CHARMM TIP3P (mTIP3P)[56] parameters are
used for water. The initial configuration is built using CHARMM-GUI,[57] and it is composed of 150 lipids (50 CER, 50
FFA, and 50 CHOL), equally divided in two leaflets, and 4500 water
molecules. The final size of the box after equilibration is ca. 5
× 5 × 11 nm3.3D periodic boundary conditions
are used. The time step is 2 fs.
Electrostatic and van der Waals interactions are calculated via the
PME method[58] with a cutoff distance of
1.2 nm and a smooth force-switch from 1 nm to 1.2 nm for van der Waals
interactions. Energy and pressure long-range dispersion corrections
are off. H-bonds are constrained using the LINCS algorithm.[59] Temperature is set to T = 303.15
K and is controlled via a Berendsen thermostat[60] with a time constant of 0.2 ps during equilibration runs.
It is then changed to a Nose–Hoover thermostat[61] for production runs with a time constant of 2.0 ps. Lipids
and water are coupled separately to the thermostat. Pressure is controlled
by a semi-isotropic Berendsen barostat with a time constant of 1 ps
during equilibration and then by a Parrinello–Rahman semi-isotropic
barostat[62] during the production run with
a time constant of 5 ps, compressibility of 4.5 × 10–5 bar –1, and pressure of 1 atm.The first
equilibration runs are provided by CHARMM-GUI and run
in GROMACS. They consist of an energy minimization via a steepest
descent algorithm and a series of short (2.5–5 ns) NVT and NpT runs where the position restraints
on lipids are gradually turned off. Finally, a NpT unconstrained production run of 250 ns is executed at T = 303.15 K and 1 atm. The obtained system configuration is compared
with the literature to assess the reach of equilibrium (Figure S1). The last frame of the production
run, shown in Figure , is used as the starting configuration for the different computational
methods tested.
Figure 1
Last frame of the equimolar lipid bilayer system at a
250 ns unconstrained
MD simulation. Molecules are represented via their van der Waals radii.
Colour legend: oxygen (red), hydrogen (white), nitrogen (blue), and
carbon atoms for CHOL (orange), CER (green), and FFA (violet).
Last frame of the equimolar lipid bilayer system at a
250 ns unconstrained
MD simulation. Molecules are represented via their van der Waals radii.
Colour legend: oxygen (red), hydrogen (white), nitrogen (blue), and
carbon atoms for CHOL (orange), CER (green), and FFA (violet).
Set-Up of Starting Configurations
Using the equilibrated
bilayer system (Figure ) as the starting configuration, a number of MD simulations using
the constrained and restrained MD approaches have been conducted,
as summarised in Figure . The reaction coordinate (RC) is the trans-bilayer axis z with the origin at bilayer’s center of mass (COM).
In both constrained and restrained MD simulations, the RC is first
split into sections or windows. In each simulation, a water molecule
is inserted in a window, and its COM is constrained or restrained
along the RC. Following an initial equilibration run, the force acting
on the permeant’s COM and its position are collected. In postprocessing,
the results from sampling all the windows are combined into global
ΔG and D profiles.
Figure 2
Schematic of the different approaches used to calculate
ΔG, D, and Dlat. The molecules are represented
via their
van der Waals radii. Colour legend: oxygen (red), hydrogen (white),
nitrogen (blue), and carbon atoms for CHOL (orange), CER (green),
and FFA (violet). The system is partially transparent to better show
the inserted water molecules (in cyan), which are at different depths.
Schematic of the different approaches used to calculate
ΔG, D, and Dlat. The molecules are represented
via their
van der Waals radii. Colour legend: oxygen (red), hydrogen (white),
nitrogen (blue), and carbon atoms for CHOL (orange), CER (green),
and FFA (violet). The system is partially transparent to better show
the inserted water molecules (in cyan), which are at different depths.In this work, the total RC length sampled is 9
nm which corresponds
to ninety 0.1 nm equally spaced windows. This length is enough to
ensure that the whole bilayer and bulk water regions are explored.
To speed up the sampling, each simulation contains six inserted water
molecules. The distance among these molecules is at least 1.5 nm,
which is greater than the real space electrostatics cutoff. To achieve
better statistics, the whole trans-bilayer axis is sampled.[63] A set of 30 simulation configurations is built
in total to cover the RC twice while maintaining the minimum 1.5 nm
distance among the positioned permeant molecules.Water molecules
are inserted at a given z position
and displaced on x and y by scaling
their van der Waals radii to 25% via GROMACS command gmx insert-molecules.
Coulomb and van der Waals interactions are turned on in four sets
of 50 ps energy minimization/NVT/NpT batch simulations with a coupling constant λ = 0.25, 0.5,
0.75, and 1.0, respectively, where λ = 1 corresponds to fully
restored interactions.
Constrained MD Simulations
In constrained
MD simulations,
the COM of the inserted water molecules is constrained by specifying
constraint as a pull coordinate type in GROMACS. The constrained MD
simulations are conducted for the whole set of 30 lipid bilayer configurations,
and each one is run for 40 ns. The z component of
the force acting on the COM of the water molecules is collected every
step (0.002 ps), and the force average is calculated every five steps
(0.01 ps). The system coordinates are stored every 100 steps (0.2
ps). To investigate the effect of longer equilibrium times, an additional
simulation set of 40 ns length is collected using as a starting point
the simulations’ final frames after 100 ns of restrained MD
equilibration run (see next section).ΔG is derived via the PMcF method using the equation as below[28,29]where
⟨F(z)⟩ is the time average of the
force acting on the permeant’s COM at z. The
integral is computed by starting from a reference point zout outside the membrane in a bulk solution.Because
the force average ⟨F(z)⟩ can be noisy in the first
nanoseconds, the value is estimated by discarding the first half of
the curve and averaging on the second half. The procedure is repeated
for every window in each simulation. Eventually, all the values are
collected and binned, and errors are estimated by taking average and
standard deviation of the mean of values falling in the same bin.
Finally, ΔG is derived via eq by numerically integrating the
obtained curve via the trapezium rule. The error on ΔG is calculated by propagating the variance of the average
force profile through the integration.D is derived from
the Kubo relation via the following equation[29,30,64]where δF(z0, t) = F(z0, t) – ⟨F(z0)⟩ is the force ACF and R is the universal gas constant.The force ACF is calculated over the first 5 ns of a production
run via the GROMACS′ tool gmx analyze and then numerically
integrated with the trapezium rule. As for ΔG, the calculated values are binned, and errors are estimated by taking
the average and the standard deviation of the mean of values falling
in the same bin.ΔG and D are calculated as reported for both
the collected data sets,
that is, with and without longer equilibration times.
Restrained
MD Simulations
In restrained MD simulations,
the COM of the inserted water molecules is restrained via a harmonic
potential with a force constant of k = 1000 kJ mol–1 nm–2. The restrained MD simulations
are conducted for the whole set of 30 lipid bilayer configurations.
Each configuration of the lipid bilayer systems set is run for 140
ns. The z component of the force acting on the COM
of the water molecules and their z positions are
collected every five steps (0.01 ps). The coordinates of the system
are stored every 100 steps (0.2 ps).ΔG is derived via the weighted histogram method (WHAM).[65,66] The first 100 ns of data are discarded as equilibration and the
profile is eventually derived from the last 40 ns via the GROMACS
tool gmx wham[67] (Figures S5 and S6). Errors are calculated by bootstrapping the data
100 times.D is
derived via
the pACF method as[41,42]where δz(t) = z(t) – ⟨z⟩ is the position ACF
and var(z) is the variance of z position
data.The Kubo relation from eq have been used in SC MD studies only with constrained
MD
simulations.[24,32−34] In this work,
we investigate its applicability also to restrained MD studies.To study the effect of long equilibration times on D profiles, two data sets are extracted
from the 140 ns restrained MD simulations. The first one is extracted
from the first 5 ns (0 to 5 ns) and the second one is extracted after
100 ns of additional equilibrium time (100 to 105 ns). Both Kubo and
position-ACF methods are applied on these data sets. Force and position
ACFs are calculated via the GROMACS′ tool gmx analyze and numerically
integrated with the trapezium rule to derive D via eqs and 3, respectively.To
investigate the effect of the magnitude of the force constant
k, two additional simulations are conducted by changing the constant
to k = 4184 kJ mol–1 nm–2. The starting point is the first frame of the two extracted subsets.
The run length is extended to 6 ns, where the first nanosecond is
discarded as equilibration time. Values are then binned, and errors
are estimated by taking the average and standard deviation of the
mean of values falling in the same bin.The lateral diffusion
coefficient Dlat is derived via the MSD
relations[31] aswhere N is the system’s
dimension and r(t) the position of the
permeant’s COM at time t. The average ⟨−⟩
is carried out over different molecules.Dlat is calculated over the last 40
ns of the restrained MD production run. To achieve better statistics,
the data of each molecule in each window is split into eight 5 ns
sub-runs of which the last 10% is discarded to statistically decorrelate
succeeding sub-runs. The time limit in eq can be initially quite noisy, therefore,
the first half of the MSD data is discarded, and the coefficient is
calculated by averaging the second half. Calculated values are then
binned, and errors estimated by taking the average and the standard
deviation of the mean of values falling in the same bin.
BAR Simulations
To calculate the decoupling free energy
of mTIP3P water, a cubic box of 4 nm edge is filled with 2200 water
molecules circa. The box is energy minimized, followed by 100 ps NVT and 1 ns NpT simulations at T = 303.15 K and 1 atm to fully equilibrate the box. The
Coulomb and van der Waals interactions of a single water molecule
are then turned off by using the free energy module of GROMACS with
a λ parameter switched from 1 (interactions on) to 0 (interactions
off) in 20 subsequent steps of Δλ = 0.05. For every λ,
the system is equilibrated before a 1 ns NpT production
run.[68] To calculate the decoupling energy
of mTIP3P water from the lipid bilayer center, a water molecule is
inserted at the position of the bilayer’s COM and restrained
along z with a spring potential with k = 100 kJ mol–1 nm–2. The same
procedure of decoupling water in the water box is followed. Additionally,
the applied restraint is also turned off. The free energy difference
is computed via the GROMACS gmx bar analysis module, which is based
on the BAR method.[52]
Barrier Property
Calculations
The permeability P of permeant
across the lipid bilayer is calculated via
the inhomogeneous solubility diffusion model as[28,29]where L is the thickness
of the lipid bilayer. Errors on P are calculated
by propagating the variance of ΔG and D through the integration.To calculate the lipid/water partition coefficient Klip/wat into the lipid bilayer, the system is split along
the RC into n = 90 slices, which correspond to the
equispaced simulation windows. The contribution of each volume slice
to the total partition coefficient is calculated from the free energy
difference as[69]where nlip and nwat are the total number of slices containing
the lipid and the water phase, respectively, with n = nlip + nwat, and ΔG(z) is the free energy difference at the RC position z. The lipid/water phase separation
is set for a threshold of |ΔG| > 0.2 kJ
mol–1.[69] The exact derivation
of eq is discussed
in the Supporting Information.The
average diffusion coefficient across the lipid bilayer ⟨D⟩ is calculated as[70]where L = 5 nm is the thickness
of the lipid bilayer, here defined as the distance among the density
peaks of the nitrogen atoms in the ceramide heads (Figure S1).
Analysis and Visualization Tools
An in-house python
script code has been developed to calculate ΔG via PMcF, D via the
Kubo and position-ACF relations, Dlat via
MSD relation, and the resulting permeability P. The
code is freely available for download and its usage is covered in
the Supporting Information.The lipid
bilayer are visualized with VMD[71] and images
rendered via Tachyon.[72] Data analysis of
the bilayer structure is carried out using GROMACS, VMD, or MEMBLUGIN.[73] Plots are prepared and exported via gnuplot[74] or matplotlib in python3.[75]
Results and Discussion
Diffusion Coefficient Profiles
The Kubo relation has
been tested on constrained MD simulations and restrained MD simulations
with different harmonic force constants k. The relation,
reported in eq , is
based on the integration of the force ACF acting on the COM of the
restrained/constrained water molecule. Figure shows that the convergence of the force
ACF depends on whether the water molecule is constrained or restrained
and whether it is surrounded by water or lipids. In bulk water, the
force ACF fully converged in less than 5 ps. However, it converged
much more slowly in the bilayer region. In the restrained case with k = 1000 kJ mol–1 nm–2, the ACF convergence time reached 50 ps.
Figure 3
Rate of convergence of
the force ACFs for the Kubo relation from
constrained and restrained MD simulations in (a) bulk water, (b) at
the head region of the bilayer, and (c) between the two leaflets.
The lines represent the normalized values of the force ACF for a water
molecule restrained with a spring force constant of 1000 kJ mol–1 nm–2 (blue, dotted), 4184 kJ mol–1 nm–2 (orange, dashed), and constrained
(green, dash-dotted).
Rate of convergence of
the force ACFs for the Kubo relation from
constrained and restrained MD simulations in (a) bulk water, (b) at
the head region of the bilayer, and (c) between the two leaflets.
The lines represent the normalized values of the force ACF for a water
molecule restrained with a spring force constant of 1000 kJ mol–1 nm–2 (blue, dotted), 4184 kJ mol–1 nm–2 (orange, dashed), and constrained
(green, dash-dotted).Generally, higher spring
constants lead to shorter convergence
times. The force constraint can be seen, in fact, as the restraint
limit for k → ∞, which has the fastest
convergence rate and is the least noisy. A similar trend is expressed
by the position ACF (results not reported), indicating that both forces
and positions are similarly perturbed. All force and position ACFs
decrease to 5% or less of their initial values after tint = 50 ps and are therefore considered as converged.Figure shows how
the total integration time tint of the
ACFs affects the D profiles
calculated with both Kubo and pACF methods. No large significant differences
have been found by comparing the perpendicular diffusion profiles
obtained from different ACF-based methods, provided that the ACF integration
reached the point of full ACF convergence. The same holds for the D profiles calculated on different
data sets, that is, after 100 ns of equilibration (Figure S2).
Figure 4
Effect of integration time tint on the transmembrane
diffusion profile D obtained
from restrained and constrained MD simulations. (a) Kubo relation
from constrained, (b) Kubo relation from restrained, and (c) pACF
method from restrained MD. Colour legend: tint = 10 ps (blue squares), 30 ps (orange circles), and 50 ps (green
triangles). In the restrained cases k = 1000 kJ mol–1 nm–2.
Effect of integration time tint on the transmembrane
diffusion profile D obtained
from restrained and constrained MD simulations. (a) Kubo relation
from constrained, (b) Kubo relation from restrained, and (c) pACF
method from restrained MD. Colour legend: tint = 10 ps (blue squares), 30 ps (orange circles), and 50 ps (green
triangles). In the restrained cases k = 1000 kJ mol–1 nm–2.Thus, ACFs do not require long equilibration times to be properly
sampled. The force constant does not perturb the profile obtained
but affects the rate of convergence of the ACFs. Both Kubo and pACF
methods returned similar results. The Kubo relation can also be applied
in restrained MD simulations, provided that the fully converged force
ACF is integrated.Figure shows D for all the methods tested.
All the profiles share the same quantitative behavior, that is, a
steep reduction inside the leaflets (|z| ≤
3 nm) that reaches a minimum in the ordered tail region (|z| ≈ 2 nm), followed by an increase in proximity
of the bilayer’s center (z ≈ 0 nm).
Figure 5
Transmembrane
diffusion profile D obtained
from the Kubo relation in constrained MD
(blue squares), the Kubo relation in restrained MD (yellow circles),
and the pACF relation in restrained MD (green triangles). ACFs are
integrated for 50 ps and are derived from the first data set. The
force constant of the spring restraint is k = 1000
kJ mol–1 nm–2.
Transmembrane
diffusion profile D obtained
from the Kubo relation in constrained MD
(blue squares), the Kubo relation in restrained MD (yellow circles),
and the pACF relation in restrained MD (green triangles). ACFs are
integrated for 50 ps and are derived from the first data set. The
force constant of the spring restraint is k = 1000
kJ mol–1 nm–2.The reason why Kubo and pACF methods in restrained MD simulations
are similar is twofold. First, as discussed before, the force constant k has no influence on the diffusion values calculated for
restrained MD simulations. The constrained can be regarded as a special
case of the restrained MD simulations with k →
∞. Second, forces and positions are naturally correlated following
the second Newton’s law in MD simulations. It is therefore
expected that the corresponding force and position ACFs lead to the
same qualitative behavior.Figure a shows
the time course of the lateral diffusion coefficient in bulk water,
at the ordered tail region and at the tails from eq . The resulting Dlat profile obtained from restrained MD via the MSD method is shown
in Figure b. Remarkably,
the lateral diffusion profile Dlat resembles
qualitatively the perpendicular diffusion profiles presented in Figure . The lateral diffusion
coefficients in bulk regions are similar to the D from Kubo and pACF methods. In the
bilayer region from the interface (|z| = 3 nm) to
the head regions (|z| ≈ 2.5 nm), Dlat decreases and reaches a minimum in the ordered tails
region (|z| ≈ 1.5 to 2 nm). Once in the interleaflet
region (|z| ≈ 0 nm), which is in a liquid-crystalline
disordered state, the lateral diffusion recovers the same order of
magnitude of diffusion in bulk water.
Figure 6
(a) Instantaneous Dlat values calculated
from eq for selected
examples, in bulk water (blue), at bilayer’s COM (green), and
in the ordered tail region (orange). Data before t = 2 ns is discarded as equilibration. (b) Full Dlat profile symmetrized and with error bars (standard
deviation).
(a) Instantaneous Dlat values calculated
from eq for selected
examples, in bulk water (blue), at bilayer’s COM (green), and
in the ordered tail region (orange). Data before t = 2 ns is discarded as equilibration. (b) Full Dlat profile symmetrized and with error bars (standard
deviation).The experimental value for the
self-diffusion of water is D ≈ 2.6 ×
10–5 cm2 s–1 at T = 303.15 K[76] but the mTIP3P
water model adopted is known
to overpredict it. The reported value for the self-diffusion of mTIP3P
water at the same temperature is D ≈ 6.5 ×
10–5 cm2 s–1[77] more than twice higher than the experimental
value.The average diffusion values in bulk water (|z| > 4 nm) for the methods tested are reported in Figure a. In general, Kubo
and pACF
methods give slightly lower values but compare well with the expected
value for the selected water model in both constrained and restrained
MD simulations.
Figure 7
(a) Water self-diffusion constant DH obtained for the methods tested by averaging
the profiles
reported in Figures and 6 for bulk water regions (|z| > 4 nm). The dashed black line is the self-diffusion for the
mTIP3P
water model.[77] (b) Average perpendicular
diffusion coefficient ⟨D⟩ from Figures and 6 for the methods tested. The
dashed black line is the value estimated with the model of Mitragotri.[70]
(a) Water self-diffusion constant DH obtained for the methods tested by averaging
the profiles
reported in Figures and 6 for bulk water regions (|z| > 4 nm). The dashed black line is the self-diffusion for the
mTIP3P
water model.[77] (b) Average perpendicular
diffusion coefficient ⟨D⟩ from Figures and 6 for the methods tested. The
dashed black line is the value estimated with the model of Mitragotri.[70]Recently, the self-diffusion
of this same water model with the
same forcefield via the pACF method was also compared to self-diffusion
obtained via MSD, and the results were in excellent agreement.[41] The value calculated via MSD in this work is
slightly lower probably because of the small number of molecules used
to compute the average in eq .Experimental NMR measurements in phospholipids[78] and mechanistic models of SC[79−81] suggest that
the lateral
diffusion coefficient of water among lipid bilayers is lower than
bulk water and higher than the perpendicular one. This is the case
for all the perpendicular diffusion profiles obtained in this study
with the different methods with respect to the lateral diffusion profile
obtained via the MSD method.For small solutes (<500 Da),
Mitragotri proposed a model based
on the scaled particle theory to calculate the average diffusion coefficient
⟨D⟩ across
an SC lipid bilayer.[70] For a water molecule
(18.015 Da), the model predicts the value ⟨D⟩ ≈ 6.4 × 10–6 cm2 s–1. The values
calculated via eq by
averaging D from Figure for the different
methods are shown in Figure b. Both the results calculated by constrained and restrained
MD methods are lower but of the same order of magnitude with respect
to the predicted value of Mitragotri’s model, indicating that
the diffusive behavior is well represented by the MD simulation in
the bilayer system. The values are lower because in Mitragotri’s
model all directions are being averaged, while the MD results are
obtained only in the trans-bilayer direction.It is also worth
noting from the next section that all ΔG profiles
are flat at the bilayer center (see Figure ), suggesting that
in this region the lateral and perpendicular diffusion coefficients
are similar. The condition is met by D for both Kubo and pACF methods.
Figure 8
Potential of the mean
force ΔG calculated
via PMcF from constrained MD simulations (PMcF, blue squares) and
via WHAM from restrained MD simulations (WHAM, orange triangles).
The PMcF profile is taken from the second data set (longer equilibration
time), both are symmetrized, and the bulk reference energy is set
to zero. The arrow represents the free energy difference ΔGBAR calculated via BAR analysis.
Potential of the mean
force ΔG calculated
via PMcF from constrained MD simulations (PMcF, blue squares) and
via WHAM from restrained MD simulations (WHAM, orange triangles).
The PMcF profile is taken from the second data set (longer equilibration
time), both are symmetrized, and the bulk reference energy is set
to zero. The arrow represents the free energy difference ΔGBAR calculated via BAR analysis.
Potential of the Mean Force Profiles
In general, the
computational time needed to sample a smooth free energy profile is
much longer than that required to sample the corresponding perpendicular
diffusion coefficient. Here, the total run time of the restrained
approach is ca. 4.5 μs exceeding that for the constrained simulation
ca. 1.5 μs. Figure reports ΔG for all the methods tested
in this study. The total energy difference calculated via BAR is ΔGBAR = 30.48 ± 0.12 kJ mol–1 and is shown by the black arrow.Both profiles via the PMcF
method from constrained MD and WHAM from restrained MD share the same
qualitative behavior, as in the previously cited literature. They
have a global flat minimum in the bulk water region (|z| ≥ 3 nm), then sharply increase in the ordered tail region
(|z| ≈ 1.5 nm) and decrease again in the interleaflet
region (z ≈ 0 nm), reaching a local minimum.
The trend of the ΔG profiles is the exact opposite
of that of D and Dlat profiles (see Figures and 6).However,
with respect to the bilayer’s COM (z ≈
0 nm), ΔG calculated via the WHAM
(ΔG(0) = 29.8 ± 1.7 kJ mol–1) in restrained MD simulations compares well with the value obtained
via BAR analysis (ΔGBAR = 30.48
± 0.12 kJ mol–1), but the PMcF method from
the constrained MD simulations returned a systematically lower value
(ca. −2.6 kJ mol–1 at |z| < 1 nm) of the free energy profile inside the bilayer.It is worth noting that in this work the ΔG profile computed via the PMcF method largely depends on the symmetrization
of the average force profile (Figures S3 and S4). In principle one could directly symmetrize ΔG but in this case it seems more appropriate to symmetrize the force
average versus position curve and then integrate. Directly symmetrizing
later ΔG would mean that eventual defects in
the sampled windows are weighted throughout the integration of eq .Moreover, the profile
calculated via PMcF in constrained MD from
the first data set (without equilibrium) shows a large skewness of
ca. 10 kJ mol–1, which is not present anymore in
the second data set after the equilibration (Figure S4). This means that, although the average values of force
have reached a constant value, and therefore the sampling is deemed
sufficient, there are still long-time relaxation mechanisms hindering
the symmetry of the profile. The starting points of the second set
for the constrained MD simulations are extracted after 100 ns of restrained
MD, where the inserted water molecules had more freedom to rearrange
in the bilayer and in turn the bilayer better adapted to the presence
of the permeants. In this case, the obtained profile is reasonably
symmetric, pointing at a better sampling of the underlying energy
profile.Another consideration which is seldomly overlooked
is the inhomogeneity
of the bilayer. In this work, several molecules have been placed at
different xy positions for a given z (in different sampling windows) to better collect and then depict
the average profiles along the transmembrane axis. This is a trade-off
that must be accepted when using the inhomogeneous solubility diffusion
model, which requires a homogeneous system along the xy plane for a given z, condition which is just a
crude approximation in such mixed bilayers. In light of this, symmetrization
seems even more appropriate to aid the statistics and average the
properties sampled better. Nevertheless, it should be used reasonably
and not as a tool to flat out unwanted details.These criticalities
also widely support why the whole RC should
be explored before symmetrization. For example, if one had collected
only half of the RC length from the first data set of constrained
equilibrium simulations and then symmetrized to obtain the full profile,
the resulting ΔG would be considerably different
depending on which of the two halves was sampled.
Permeability
and Partition Predictions
The permeability
values P for a water molecule across the simulated
SC lipid bilayer are derived by numerically integrating eq , where the lipid/water partition
coefficients Klip/watMD are derived via eq . Both ΔG and D profiles are symmetrized.
The second data set is used wherever applicable. The predicted values
are collected in Table .
Table 1
Permeability P for
a Water Molecule Across a SC Lipid Bilayer and Lipid/Water Partition
Coefficient log10Klip/watMD Predicted by Different
MD Simulation Methods
MD method
methods: ΔG + Dz
P (10–5 cm s–1)
log10Klip/watMD
constrained
PMcF + Kubo
2.79 ± 0.52
–0.88 ± 0.24
restrained
WHAM + Kubo – 1k
2.10 ± 0.39
–0.86 ± 0.24
restrained
WHAM + pACF – 1k
1.89 ± 0.34
–0.86 ± 0.24
Although the
ΔG profiles are different inside
the lipid bilayer, the predicted permeabilities are comparable, with
the result from constrained MD higher than the restrained one coherently
with its lower energy profile. This is due to the small energy difference
(<1 kBT) in the highest
energy regions of the lipid ordered tails (at |z|
< 1 to 2 nm), which have the largest weight in the integration
of eq , and the fact
that restrained MD simulations predict on average slightly lower trans-bilayer D values (see Figure b).Experimental lipid/water
partition coefficient Klip/watexp in
the SC have been reported in the literature and the data showed good
correlation with its octanol/water partition coefficient Kow aswith α = 0.69[18] or α = 0.70,[70] where the multiplicative
factor 0.9 keeps into account that water and lipids have different
densities and that the partition is based on mass ratios.[18]By considering that for water log10KOW = −1.38,[82] from eq follows that log10Klip/watexp ≈
−1.0. The predicted MD results
from Table are all
higher but compatible with the expected partition coefficient. Note
that the partition coefficients from the MD simulations in eq scale as the inverse exponential
of the free energy profile. Therefore, most of the contribution comes
from the head region of the leaflets, that is from water molecules
bound to the hydrophilic heads of the lipids. The ΔG profiles from both methods are identical in this region, leading
to similar predicted partition coefficients.Reported experimental
values of the SC permeability to water PSC varied in the literature[19,83] and the averaged value
corresponds to ca. PSC ≈ 10–7 cm s–1. It should be made clear
that it is not possible to directly compare
lipid bilayers’ permeability from Table to the permeability of the whole SC tissue.One idealized assumption is to consider transdermal permeation
happens only through the lipid matrix, which is composed by stacked
bilayers of the same periodicity and without geometrical defects,
and that bilayers are only crossed transversally. By taking into account
an average of 80 lipid bilayers across the SC,[36] the SC permeability P80 can
be estimated from the MD simulation results by dividing the bilayer
permeability P by a factor of 80. The values of P80 predicted by both restrained and constrained
MD methods are reported in Table .
Table 2
Permeabilities for a Water Molecule
Across the Whole SC Predicted by Different MD Simulation Methods
MD method
methods: ΔG + Dz
P80 (× 10–7 cm s–1)
PMitra (× 10–7 cm s–1)
constrained
PMcF + Kubo
3.49 ± 0.65
1.07 ± 0.57
restrained
WHAM + Kubo – 1k
2.63 ± 0.49
1.91 ± 1.11
restrained
WHAM + pACF – 1k
2.36 ± 0.43
1.62 ± 0.94
A step further can be made by considering
the mechanistic model
of permeation proposed by Mitragotri[70]which
relates the skin permeability P of a small (<500
Da) solute with its lipid/water partition
coefficient Klip/wat and the diffusion
coefficient ⟨D⟩ across an SC lipid bilayer. Here, the product hτ* takes into account the SC lipid pathway tortuosity, and
has been estimated to be ca. hτ* = 3.6 cm for
the human skin.[70] The values PMitra predicted by the different MD approaches are collected
in Table and are
obtained by plugging in eq the averaged diffusion coefficient from Figure b and the lipid/water partition
coefficient from Table .Despite the very crude approximations, the predicted permeabilities
compare well with respect to the experimental value. Interestingly,
the two results also compare well with each other, although the permeation
processes considered are different. In the case of P80, the water molecule is crossing perpendicularly all
the SC lipid bilayer to reach the viable epidermis. In the other case,
the main diffusion process is parallel to the lipids, that is, the
water molecule partitions into lipids and then follows the tortuous
intercorneocyte lipid path described by the term hτ* in eq .
Comparison with the Previous Literature
As reported
in the introduction, values in the MD computational literature for
the permeability of a SC lipid bilayer to a water molecule span several
orders of magnitude. To draw a meaningful comparison with previous
published results, in Table we collected the published values of permeability of a water
molecule for a lipid bilayer system similar to that used in this work.
All values are reported for the same temperature of T = 303 K (see also Table S1).
Table 3
Permeability Coefficients P for a
Water Molecule Across a Hairpin SC Lipid Bilayer
Collected from the Literaturea
model
P [cm s–1]
method
forcefield
ref
1:0:0
5.4 × 10–10
C
GR87 + BR
(24)
1:0:0
5.9 × 10–7
C
GR87 + BR
(33)
1:1:1b
1.1 × 10–5
S
CHARMM36
(15)
1:1:1
4.0 × 10–9
C
GR87 + BR
(24)
1:1:1
2.7 × 10–10
C
GR87 + BR
(32)
1:1:1
3.7 × 10–5
C
GR54a6/a7+BR
(34)
2:2:1
4.9 × 10–9
C
GR87 + BR
(24)
All values are reported for T =
303 K by applying a temperature correction as in[15,84] if needed (see Table S1 and related section
for further comments). The model indicates system’s composition
in terms of the molar ratio CER/CHOL/FFA, with CER [NS] 24:0/18:1,
cholesterol, and protonated lignoceric acid. The method indicates
the MD method used, constrained MD (C, PMcF + Kubo) and steered MD
(S, forward–reverse method [43]). Forcefield abbreviations
are: GROMOS-87 (GR87,[25]), GROMOS-54a6/a7
(GR54a6/a7,[35]), CHARMM36,[37,38] and the Berger set for lipids (BR[26]),
which also includes the parameters set for free fatty acids and cholesterol
from ref (27).
Ceramide is CER [NP] 24:0/18:0.
All values are reported for T =
303 K by applying a temperature correction as in[15,84] if needed (see Table S1 and related section
for further comments). The model indicates system’s composition
in terms of the molar ratio CER/CHOL/FFA, with CER [NS] 24:0/18:1,
cholesterol, and protonated lignoceric acid. The method indicates
the MD method used, constrained MD (C, PMcF + Kubo) and steered MD
(S, forward–reverse method [43]). Forcefield abbreviations
are: GROMOS-87 (GR87,[25]), GROMOS-54a6/a7
(GR54a6/a7,[35]), CHARMM36,[37,38] and the Berger set for lipids (BR[26]),
which also includes the parameters set for free fatty acids and cholesterol
from ref (27).Ceramide is CER [NP] 24:0/18:0.The results can be split in
two main groups. Das et al.[24] and Del regno
and Notman[32] predicted permeabilities of
ca. 10–9 to
10–10 cm s–1 for hairpin mixed
bilayers. They both used constrained MD simulations to obtain both
ΔG and D profiles. On the other hand, the same methods used by Gupta
et al.[34] and other steered MD methods exploited
by Lundborg et al.[15] led both groups to
predicted permeabilities of ca. 10–5 cm s–1 for the same systems, that is, 4 to 5 orders of magnitude higher.By assuming 80 stacked lipid bilayers across the SC as in foregoing
section and by using the MD results for the 1:1:1 hairpin system from
Gupta et al. and Lundborg et al., the corresponding SC permeabilities P80 are ca. P80 =
4.6 × 10–7 cm s–1 and P80 = 1.4 × 10–7 cm s–1, respectively. These results compare well with the
experimental value of skin permeability of ca. 10–7 cm s–1. On the contrary, by using the MD simulation
results for the 1:0:0 pure ceramide system of Gupta et al.,[33] the obtained permeability is P80 = 7.4 × 10–9 cm s–1. It is worth noting that pure ceramide bilayers could be used as
a limiting case because it is well known that intercorneocyte SC lipids
also include cholesterol and free fatty acids in roughly equimolar
ratios.[3,5−7,85]The reported permeability results from Das et al.[24] and Del Regno and Notman[32] for
a single 1:1:1 lipid bilayer are already lower than the experimental
value of the whole SC. Use of their reported lipid bilayer permeability
values of P ≈ 10–9 cm s–1 (Das et al.) and P = 3.3 ×
10–10 cm s–1 (Del Regno and Notman),
leads to P80 ≈ 10–11 cm s–1 and P80 = 3.4
× 10–12 cm s–1, respectively.
Those values are ca. 3 orders of magnitude lower than the experimental
value. It is probably the unit was misquoted in the reported permeability
results of Das et al.[24] and Del Regno and
Notman.[32] We further performed digitization
of the originally reported ΔG and D profiles and obtained lipid bilayer
permeability of P = 4 × 10–5 cm s–1 for Das et al. and P =
3 × 10–3 cm s–1 for Notman
and Del Regno, respectively (Table S1 and corresponding paragraph
in the Supporting Information). The recalculated
permeability values for both the mixed system (1:1:1) of Das et al.
now agree with those reported by Gupta et al., Lundborg et al., and
this work. However, the recalculated value of P =
2.7 × 10–3 cm s–1 of Del
Regno and Notman is now 2 orders of magnitude higher. This mismatch
might be due to the predicted ΔG, which in
its higher regions is ca. 10 kJ mol–1 lower than
those predicted by Das et al.,[24] Gupta
et al.[34] and this work. This indicates
the importance of the accuracy of the predicted ΔG profiles from MD simulations in predicting skin barrier property.
Conclusions
Several MD simulations of skin lipid bilayer
systems have been
reported but the corresponding reported values of trans-bilayer permeability
varied by several orders of magnitude. In this work, we compared constrained
and restrained MD simulation methods for predicting the barrier property
of the skin lipid bilayer. An SC lipid bilayer with equimolar lipid
ratios and hairpin ceramides is used and the permeability of the simulated
bilayer system is examined for a water molecule via the inhomogeneous
solubility diffusion model.For the prediction of trans-bilayer
water diffusion coefficients,
restrained MD methods returned results in close agreement with the
constrained MD ones. Notably, the Kubo relation has proved to be applicable
in both constrained and restrained MD simulations. In general, the
resulting profiles are not affected by the choice of the force constant k, provided that the fully converged ACF is integrated.The potential of the mean force ΔG via the
WHAM from restrained MD is generally higher than that via PMcF from
constrained MD inside the bilayer region, although the shape is similar.
Both profiles have tall thin peaks in correspondence of the high ordered
tail region and significantly decrease among the leaflets. Direct
comparison with BAR calculations indicate WHAM as the most precise
approach for ΔG prediction, but computationally
is also the most expensive.A detailed analysis of permeability
values from the MD literature
have been conducted, and re-analysis of the reported profiles solved
some of the discrepancies previously found. Overall, the predicted
permeabilities from this work are in good agreement with other reported
results, despite differences in the water model, forcefield, and/or
MD approach.The predicted partition and average diffusion coefficients
agree
with those expected from QSAR[18] and mechanistic
modeling.[70] Strikingly, by considering
the “brick-and-mortar” microstructure of the SC, the
resulting permeabilities for the whole SC from MD simulation also
compare well with the experimental results. However, it should be
noted that the comparison with experimental data has been obtained
for a hairpin lipid bilayer with a ternary lipid mixture in a fully
hydrated configuration. Although the mixture is surely more realistic
than a pure ceramide bilayer, the restricted lipid type pool necessarily
constitutes a simplification of the real SC lipid composition, most
notably with the absence of long-chained ceramides, e.g., CER [EOS],
which play a role in the formation of SC inter-corneocyte lipid structures.[86] The structure investigated, that is, the one
of a classic lipid bilayer, is a good approximation of the short periodicity
phase of SC lipids, but not of the long one, which is assumed to be
in a splayed conformation and with a low water content,[9,15,87] well below the fully hydrated
limit implemented. Both lipid composition and structure could play
a role in the final value of permeability obtained, and further studies
with more complex structures and more realistic lipid compositions
are needed to better unravel the complex mechanism behind SC lipid
permeability.In conclusion, although both constrained and restrained
MD methods
predicted similar permeabilities, this study suggests WHAM is the
more robust for ΔG calculation. Recently, WHAM
was found to give better predictions also with respect to other methods
based on nonequilibrium thermodynamical relationships.[88] Restrained MD data can then be equally coupled
with the Kubo or the position ACF relations to evaluate D, and the bilayer’s permeability
via the inhomogeneous solubility diffusion model.
Authors: David Van Der Spoel; Erik Lindahl; Berk Hess; Gerrit Groenhof; Alan E Mark; Herman J C Berendsen Journal: J Comput Chem Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 3.376
Authors: Magnus Lundborg; Ali Narangifard; Christian L Wennberg; Erik Lindahl; Bertil Daneholt; Lars Norlén Journal: J Struct Biol Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 2.867
Authors: Jeffery B Klauda; Richard M Venable; J Alfredo Freites; Joseph W O'Connor; Douglas J Tobias; Carlos Mondragon-Ramirez; Igor Vorobyov; Alexander D MacKerell; Richard W Pastor Journal: J Phys Chem B Date: 2010-06-17 Impact factor: 2.991
Authors: Christopher T Lee; Jeffrey Comer; Conner Herndon; Nelson Leung; Anna Pavlova; Robert V Swift; Chris Tung; Christopher N Rowley; Rommie E Amaro; Christophe Chipot; Yi Wang; James C Gumbart Journal: J Chem Inf Model Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 4.956
Authors: Nisa Magalhães; Guilherme M Simões; Cristiana Ramos; Jaime Samelo; Alexandre C Oliveira; Hugo A L Filipe; João P Prates Ramalho; Maria João Moreno; Luís M S Loura Journal: Molecules Date: 2022-02-19 Impact factor: 4.411