| Literature DB >> 35268786 |
Victoria T Adeleke1, Nkosinathi E Madlala1, Adebayo A Adeniyi2,3, David Lokhat1.
Abstract
The removal of organic pollutants is a major challenge in wastewater treatment technologies. Coagulation by plant proteins is a promising technique for this purpose. The use of these proteins has been experimentally investigated and reported in the literature. However, the determination of the molecular interactions of these species is experimentally challenging and the computational approach offers a suitable alternative in gathering useful information for this system. The present study used a molecular dynamic simulation approach to predict the potentials of using Moringa oleifera (MO), Arachis hypogaea, Bertholletia excelsa, Brassica napus, and Helianthus annuus plant proteins for the coagulation of organic pollutants and the possible mechanisms of coagulation of these proteins. The results showed that the physicochemical and structural properties of the proteins are linked to their performance. Maximum coagulation of organic molecules to the proteins is between 50-100%. Among five proteins studied for coagulation, Brassica napus and Helianthus annuus performed better than the well-known MO protein. The amino acid residues interacting with the organic molecules play a significant role in the coagulation and this is peculiar with each plant protein. Hydrogen bond and π-interactions dominate throughout the protein-pollutants molecular interactions. The reusability of the proteins after coagulation derived from their structural quality analysis along with the complexes looks promising and most of them are better than that of the MO. The results showed that the seed proteins studied have good prediction potentials to be used for the coagulation of organic pollutants from the environment, as well as the insights into their molecular activities for bioremediation.Entities:
Keywords: bioremediation; mechanisms; molecular dynamic simulations; organic molecules; protein quality; protein-ligand interaction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35268786 PMCID: PMC8912086 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27051685
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1The 2S albumin of plant proteins for coagulation study.
Physicochemical properties of the proteins that include amino acid length (aa), molecular weight (MW), instability index, aliphatic index, Gravy, and their structural qualities with those of the complexes that include Z score, Errat, and Ramachandran plot.
| Plant | Complex Formed | aa | MW (kDa) | Instability Index | Aliphatic Index | GRAVY | Z Score | Errat (%) | Ramachandran (Favoured Region) (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 127 | 14.96 | 68.66 | 44.49 | −1.216 | −3.40 | 88.34 | 87.0 | ||
| AH-Dic | −3.91 | 86.67 | 87.0 | ||||||
| AH-Nbb | −3.61 | 89.69 | 85.2 | ||||||
| AH-Sls | −4.54 | 95.23 | 88.7 | ||||||
| AH-Sum | −3.80 | 95.24 | 90.4 | ||||||
| 114 | 13.63 | 77.74 | 27.46 | −1.016 | −3.7 | 91.25 | 88.9 | ||
| BE-Dic | −4.33 | 90.24 | 90.90 | ||||||
| BE-Nbb | −4.69 | 92.21 | 92.9 | ||||||
| BE-Sls | −4.35 | 100.0 | 90.9 | ||||||
| BE-Sum | −4.49 | 87.34 | 87.9 | ||||||
| 109 | 12.53 | 59.38 | 61.74 | −0.761 | −3.98 | 93.83 | 87.1 | ||
| BN-Dic | −3.94 | 96.43 | 86.0 | ||||||
| BN-Nbb | −5.84 | 100.0 | 87.1 | ||||||
| BN-Sls | −4.72 | 94.87 | 87.1 | ||||||
| BN-Sum | −4.95 | 80.7 | 80.6 | ||||||
| 103 | 12.16 | 67.95 | 53.98 | −0.586 | −4.78 | 92.19 | 84.6 | ||
| HA-Dic | −4.52 | 100.00 | 83.5 | ||||||
| HA-Nbb | −5.56 | 87.10 | 90.1 | ||||||
| HA-Sls | −4.87 | 90.00 | 85.7 | ||||||
| HA-Sum | −5.66 | 94.74 | 91.2 | ||||||
| 90 | 10.59 | 81.42 | 59.56 | −0.768 | −6.35 | 100.00 | 93.4 | ||
| MO-Dic | −5.41 | 100.00 | 93.4 | ||||||
| MO-Nbb | −5.17 | 98.21 | 88.2 | ||||||
| MO-Sls | −5.32 | 100.00 | 88.2 | ||||||
| MO-Sum | −4.20 | 98.33 | 85.5 | ||||||
The predominant (glutamic and aspartic acid) and basic side chains (lysine, arginine, and histidine) amino acid present in the seed legumes, theoretical isoelectric point (PI), number of negatively charged residues, and number of positively charged residues.
| Plant Proteins | Amino Acid Composition (%) | Isoelectric Point (PI) | Negatively Charged Residues (Asp + Glu) | Positively Charged Residues (Arg + Lys) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glutamic Acid (GLU) | Aspartic Acid (ASP) | Lysine (LYS) | Arginine (ARG) | Histidine (HIS) | ||||
| AH | 8.7 | 7.9 | 1.6 | 12.6 | 0.8 | 5.24 | 21.0 | 18.0 |
| BE | 14.0 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 13.2 | 1.8 | 6.20 | 17.0 | 16.0 |
| BN | 5.5 | 0.9 | 4.6 | 5.5 | 1.8 | 8.71 | 7.0 | 11.0 |
| HA | 9.7 | 2.9 | 3.9 | 6.8 | 2.9 | 5.91 | 13.0 | 11.0 |
| MO | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 15.6 | 2.2 | 11.61 | 0.0 | 14.0 |
Figure 2(a) Structural composition of the proteins under study. The stability of the proteins without the ligands at 100 ns simulation time derived from the plot of (b) RMSD (Å), (c) SASA (Å2), and (d) number of hydrogen bonds.
The percentage of coagulation of organic molecules by the proteins with individual organic molecules together with the types of interactions involved.
| Protein | Parameters | Organic Molecules | Average Coagulation (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dic | Nbb | Sls | Sum | |||
| AH | % of the ligands coagulated | 70 | 90 | 60 | 60 | 70.00 |
| Types of bonds/interactions | Halogen, hydrogen, alkyl, π-alkyl | Hydrogen, π-alkyl, π-lone pair, Amide-π-stacked, π-π-stacked, van der Waals, π-cation, π-anion | Hydrogen, alkyl | Hydrogen, alkyl, π-alkyl, π-lone pair, Amide-π -stacked, π-anion | ||
| BE | % of the ligands coagulated | 90 | 70 | 70 | 50 | 70.00 |
| Types of interaction | Hydrogen, alkyl, π-alkyl, π-sigma | Hydrogen, π-alkyl, Amide-π-stacked, π-cation, π-anion, π-sulfur | Hydrogen, alkyl | Hydrogen, alkyl, π-alkyl, π-lone pair | ||
| BN | % of the ligands coagulated | 100 | 100 | 90 | 80 | 92.50 |
| Types of interaction | Hydrogen, alkyl, π -alkyl | Hydrogen, alkyl, π-alkyl, π-lone pair, Amide- π-stacked, π-π-stacked, π-sulfur, π-anion | Hydrogen, alkyl, π -alkyl | Hydrogen, alkyl, π-alkyl, π-cation, π-sulfur, π-π -stacked | ||
| HA | % of the ligands coagulated | 100 | 90 | 90 | 60 | 85.00 |
| Types of interaction | Hydrogen, alkyl, π-alkyl | Hydrogen, π-alkyl, π-lone pair, Amide- π-stacked, π-π -stacked, π-cation, π-sulfur, π-anion | Hydrogen, alkyl, π-alkyl | Hydrogen, alkyl, π-alkyl, π-cation, π-sulfur, π-anion | ||
| MO | % of the ligands coagulated | 100 | 90 | 50 | 70 | 77.50 |
| Types of interaction | Hydrogen, alkyl, π-alkyl | Hydrogen, π-alkyl, π-lone pair, Amide- π-stacked, π-cation, π-anion | Hydrogen, alkyl, π-alkyl, π-sigma | Hydrogen, alkyl, π-alkyl, π-π -stacked, π-cation, π-sulfur | ||
Energy composition profile (kcal/mol) based on MM/GBSA for protein–pollutants complexes. ∆EVDW = van der Waals interaction energies, ∆EELE = electrostatic contribution, ∆EEGB = polar solvation contribution, ∆ESURF = non-polar solvation energy, ∆Ggas = gas phase energy, ∆Gsolv = solvation free energy, and ∆Ebind = binding free energy.
| Complex | Energy Component (kcal/mol) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ∆EVDW | ∆EELE | ∆EEGB | ∆ESURF | ∆Ggas | ∆Gsolv | ∆Ebind | |
| AH-Dic | −94.90 ± 0.67 | −10.70 ± 0.17 | 37.42 ± 0.25 | −13.47 ± 0.09 | −105.60 ± 0.75 | 23.95 ± 0.19 | −81.65 ± 0.64 |
| AH-Nbb | −154.12 ± 0.71 | −349.35 ± 1.66 | 401.03 ± 1.77 | −22.144 ± 0.09 | −503.47 ± 2.30 | 378.89 ± 1.69 | −124.58 ± 0.65 |
| AH-Sls | −101.87 ± 0.52 | −140.45 ± 1.05 | 167.04 ± 1.00 | −17.53 ± 0.09 | −242.32 ± 1.39 | 149.50 ± 0.94 | −92.81 ± 0.54 |
| AH-Sum | −94.80 ± 0.41 | −157.86 ± 1.01 | 194.04 ± 0.99 | −14.27 ± 0.06 | −252.66 ± 1.27 | 179.77 ± 0.94 | −72.99 ± 0.39 |
| BE-Dic | −142.58 ± 0.69 | −19.39 ± 0.19 | 54.88 ± 0.24 | −20.02 ± 0.09 | −161.97 ± 0.75 | 34.86 ± 0.20 | −127.10 ± 0.68 |
| BE-Nbb | −121.69 ± 0.65 | −236.03 ± 0.98 | 284.50 ± 0.09 | −17.72 ± 0.08 | −357.72 ± 1.44 | 266.78 ± 0.98 | −90.94 ± 0.50 |
| BE-Sls | −102.86 ± 0.60 | −117.03 ± 1.27 | 135.21 ± 1.09 | −16.95 ± 0.10 | −219.90 ± 1.75 | 118.26 ± 1.01 | −101.63 ± 0.79 |
| BE-Sum | −60.88 ± 0.39 | −121.11 ± 1.32 | 145.87 ± 1.25 | −9.56 ± 0.06 | −181.99 ± 1.55 | 136.31 ± 1.20 | −45.68 ± 0.39 |
| BN-Dic | −124.29 ± 0.47 | −21.99 ± 0.19 | 53.90 ± 0.22 | −17.07 ± 0.06 | −146.29 ± 0.56 | 36.83 ± 0.19 | −109.46 ± 0.44 |
| BN-Nbb | −167.18 ± 0.38 | −349.56 ± 1.48 | 409.71 ± 1.31 | −23.39 ± 0.05 | −516.74 ± 1.74 | 386.32 ± 1.26 | −130.42 ± 0.52 |
| BN-Sls | −170.54 ± 0.86 | −95.42 ± 0.87 | 145.10 ± 0.86 | −26.14 ± 0.13 | −265.97 ± 1.42 | 118.95 ± 0.78 | −147.02 ± 0.87 |
| BN-Sum | −109.00 ± 0.59 | −189.34 ± 1.35 | 237.59 ± 1.39 | −15.77 ± 0.9 | −298.34 ± 1.76 | 221.82 ± 1.32 | −76.52 ± 0.53 |
| HA-Dic | −138.76 ± 0.50 | −15.30 ± 0.19 | 48.69 ± 0.24 | −19.44 ± 0.07 | −154.06 ± 0.59 | 29.26 ± 0.20 | −124.80 ± 0.50 |
| HA-Nbb | −139.63 ± 0.34 | −251.35 ± 1.01 | 316.15 ± 0.99 | −20.90 ± 0.04 | −390.98 ± 1.17 | 295.26 ± 0.96 | −95.72 ± 0.28 |
| HA-Sls | −114.55 ± 0.57 | −155.87 ± 1.64 | 177.59 ± 1.49 | −19.00 ± 0.10 | −270.43 ± 2.08 | 158.59 ± 1.41 | −111.84 ± 0.72 |
| HA-Sum | −97.87 ± 0.52 | −153.42 ± 0.89 | 193.44 ± 0.91 | −14.40 ± 0.07 | −251.29 ± 1.17 | 179.04 ± 0.87 | −72.25 ± 0.41 |
| MO-Dic | −100.04 ± 0.40 | −28.87 ± 0.25 | 57.30 ± 0.29 | −13.99 ± 0.06 | −128.91 ± 0.55 | 43.30 ± 0.26 | −85.60 ± 0.36 |
| MO-Nbb | −169.10 ± 0.47 | −160.33 ± 0.85 | 248.02 ± 0.92 | −23.00 ± 0.06 | −329.43 ± 1.11 | 225.02 ± 0.87 | −104.41 ± 0.32 |
| MO-Sls | −123.97 ± 0.47 | −135.99 ± 1.29 | 167.30 ± 1.23 | −19.93 ± 0.08 | −259.97 ± 1.56 | 147.37 ± 1.17 | −112.60 ± 0.50 |
| MO-Sum | −97.12 ± 0.35 | −221.33 ± 1.54 | 257.84 ± 1.43 | −14.66 ± 0.05 | −318.44 ± 1.64 | 243.18 ± 1.41 | −75.27 ± 0.37 |
Figure 3The representative snapshots of the clustering of the Dic pollutant around HA protein (100% coagulation with −124.80 kcal/mol binding energy) (a) 0 ns and (b) 100 ns. The typical interactions and the bonds between Nbb and the two best binding affinities (c) Glu 68 and (d) GLU 19.
Figure 4RMSD plots of the complexes across the five proteins (a) protein-Dic (b) protein-Nbb (c) protein-Sls and (d) protein-Sum.
Figure 5Number of hydrogen bond plots of the complexes across the five proteins (a) protein-Dic (b) protein-Nbb (c) protein-Sls and (d) protein-Sum.
Figure 6SASA plots of the complexes across the five proteins (a) protein-Dic (b) protein-Nbb (c) protein-Sls, and (d) protein-Sum.