4.5 Article

Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Membrane-Sugar Interactions

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B
卷 117, 期 22, 页码 6667-6673

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp402385d

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council (VR)
  2. Carl Trygger Foundation
  3. Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing via PDC [SNAC 001-12-102]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is well documented that disaccharides in general and trehalose (TRH) in particular strongly affect physical properties and functionality of lipid bilayers. We investigate interactions between lipid membranes formed by 1,2-dimyristoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DMPC) and TRH by means of molecular dynamics (MD) computer simulations. Ten different TRH concentrations were studied in the range W-TRH = 0-0.20 (w/w). The potential of mean force (PMF) for DMPC bilayer TRH interactions was determined using two different force fields, and was subsequently used in a simple analytical model for description of sugar binding at the membrane interface. The MD results were in good agreement with the predictions of the model. The net affinities of TRH for the DMPC bilayer derived from the model and MD simulations were compared with experimental results. The area per lipid increases and the membrane becomes thinner with increased TRH concentration, which is interpreted as an intercalation effect of the TRH molecules into the polar part of the lipids, resulting in conformational changes in the chains. These results are consistent with recent experimental observations. The compressibility modulus related to the fluctuations of the membrane increases dramatically with increased TRH concentration, which indicates higher order and rigidity of the bilayer. This is also reflected in a decrease (by a factor of 15) of the lateral diffusion of the lipids. We interpret these observations as a formation of a glassy state at the interface of the membrane, which has been suggested in the literature as a hypothesis for the membrane sugar interactions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据