The molecular basis of urokinase inhibition: from the nonempirical analysis of intermolecular interactions to the prediction of binding affinity
- 147 Downloads
Urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) is a trypsin-like serine protease that plays a crucial role in angiogenesis process. In addition to its physiological role in healthy organisms, angiogenesis is extremely important in cancer growth and metastasis, resulting in numerous attempts to understand its control and to develop new approaches to anticancer therapy. The α-aminoalkylphosphonate diphenyl esters are well known as highly efficient serine protease inhibitors. However, their mode of binding has not been verified experimentally in details. For a group of average and potent phosphonic inhibitors of urokinase, flexible docking calculations were performed to gain an insight into the active site interactions responsible for observed enzyme inhibition. The docking results are consistent with the previously suggested mode of inhibitors binding. Subsequently, rigorous ab initio study of binding energy was carried out, followed by its decomposition according to the variation–perturbation procedure to reveal stabilization energy constituents with clear physical meaning. Availability of the experimental inhibitory activities and comparison with theoretical binding energy allows for the validation of theoretical models of inhibition, as well as estimation of the possible potential for binding affinity prediction. Since the docking results accompanied by molecular mechanics optimization suggested that several crucial active site contacts were too short, the optimal distances corresponding to the minimum ab initio interaction energy were also evaluated. Despite the deficiencies of force field-optimized enzyme-inhibitor structures, satisfactory agreement with experimental inhibitory activity was obtained for the electrostatic interaction energy, suggesting its possible application in the binding affinity prediction.
KeywordsUrokinase uPA inhibitor Docking FlexX Interaction energy Electrostatic interactions
This work was supported by the Wrocław University of Technology. Calculations were performed in Wrocław (WCSS) and Poznań (PCSS) Centers for Supercomputing and Networking as well as Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modeling (ICM) in Warsaw.
- 5.Birkedal-Hansen H, Moore WG, Bodden MK, Windsor LJ, Birkedal-Hansen B, DeCarlo A, Engler JA (1993) Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 4:197–250Google Scholar
- 7.Nagase H, Suzuki K, Enghild JJ, Salvesen G (1991) Biomed Biochim Acta 50:749–754Google Scholar
- 11.Oleksyszyn J, Subotkowska L, Mastalerz P (1979) Synthesis 985–986Google Scholar
- 13.Oleksyszyn J, Powers JC (1994) Amino acid and peptide phosphonate derivatives as specific inhibitors of serine peptidases. In: Barret AJ (ed) Methods in Enzymology, Vol. 244. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 423–441Google Scholar
- 15.Oleksyszyn J (2000) Aminophosphonic and aminophosphinic acid derivatives in the design of transition state analogue inhibitors: biomedical opportunities and limitations. In: Kukhar VP, Hudson HR (eds) Aminophosphonic and aminophosphinic acids. Chemistry and biological activity. Wiley, Chichester, pp 537–558Google Scholar
- 22.Sieńczyk M Doctoral thesis (2006) WrocławGoogle Scholar
- 23.Moreira IS, Fernandes PA, Ramos MJ (2007) Computational determination of the relative free energy of binding. In: Sokalski WA (ed) Molecular materials with specific interactions - modeling and design, series: challenges and advances in computational chemistry and physics, vol. 4. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 305–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Frisch MJ, Trucks GW, Schlegel HB, Scuseria GE, Robb MA, Cheeseman JR, Montgomery JR, Vreven T, Kudin KN, Burant JC, Millam JM, Iyengar SS, Tomasi J, Barone V, Mennucci B, Cossi M, Scalmani G, Rega N, Petersson GA, Nakatsuji H, Hada M, Ehara M, Toyota K, Fukuda R, Hasegawa J, Ishida M, Nakajima T, Honda Y, Kitao O, Nakai H, Klene M, Li X, Knox JE, Hratchian HP, Cross JB, Adamo C, Jaramillo J, Gomperts R, Stratmann RE, Yazyev O, Austin AJ, Cammi R, Pomelli C, Ochterski JW, Ayala PY, Morokuma K, Voth GA, Salvador P, Dannenberg JJ, Zakrzewski VG, Dapprich S, Daniels AD, Strain MC, Farkas O, Malick DK, Rabuck AD, Raghavachari K, Foresman JB, Ortiz JV, Cui Q, Baboul AG, Clifford S, Cioslowski J, Stefanov BB, Liu G, Liashenko A, Piskorz P, Komaromi I, Martin RL, Fox DJ, Keith T, Al-Laham MA, Peng CY, Nanayakkara A, Challacombe M, Gill PMW, Johnson B, Chen W, Wong MW, Gonzalez C, Pople JA (2004) Gaussian 03. Gaussian, Wallingford CTGoogle Scholar
- 27.SYBYL 7.1, Tripos, 1699 South Hanley Rd., St. Louis, Missouri, 63144, USAGoogle Scholar
- 31.Zesławska E, Schweinitz A, Karcher A, Sondermann P, Sperl S, Sturzebecher J, Jacob U (2000) J Med Biol 301:465–475Google Scholar