Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 215–232 | Cite as

Energetic basis for drug resistance of HIV-1 protease mutants against amprenavir

Article

Abstract

Amprenavir (APV) is a high affinity (0.15 nM) HIV-1 protease (PR) inhibitor. However, the affinities of the drug resistant protease variants V32I, I50V, I54V, I54M, I84V and L90M to amprenavir are decreased 3 to 30-fold compared to the wild-type. In this work, the popular molecular mechanics Poisson-Boltzmann surface area method has been used to investigate the effectiveness of amprenavir against the wild-type and these mutated protease variants. Our results reveal that the protonation state of Asp25/Asp25′ strongly affects the dynamics, the overall affinity and the interactions of the inhibitor with individual residues. We emphasize that, in contrast to what is often assumed, the protonation state may not be inferred from the affinities but requires pKa calculations. At neutral pH, Asp25 and Asp25′ are ionized or protonated, respectively, as suggested from pKa calculations. This protonation state was thus mainly considered in our study. Mutation induced changes in binding affinities are in agreement with the experimental findings. The decomposition of the binding free energy reveals the mechanisms underlying binding and drug resistance. Drug resistance arises from an increase in the energetic contribution from the van der Waals interactions between APV and PR (V32I, I50V, and I84V mutant) or a rise in the energetic contribution from the electrostatic interactions between the inhibitor and its target (I54M and I54V mutant). For the V32I mutant, also an increased free energy for the polar solvation contributes to the drug resistance. For the L90M mutant, a rise in the van der Waals energy for APV-PR interactions is compensated by a decrease in the polar solvation free energy such that the net binding affinity remains unchanged. Detailed understanding of the molecular forces governing binding and drug resistance might assist in the design of new inhibitors against HIV-1 PR variants that are resistant against current drugs.

Keywords

HIV-1 PR Drug resistance Amprenavir MM-PBSA Normal mode analysis 

Supplementary material

References

  1. 1.
    Darke PL, Leu CT, Davis LJ, Heimbach JC, Diehl RE, Hill WS, Dixon RA, Sigal IS (1989) Human immunodeficiency virus protease. Bacterial expression and characterization of the purified aspartic protease. J Biol Chem 264:2307–2312Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Seelmeir S, Schmidt H, Turk V, VonDer Helm K (1988) Human immunodeficiency virus has an aspartic-type protease that can be inhibited by pepstatin A. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 85:6612–6616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mous J, Heimer EP, Le Grice SJJ (1988) Processing protease and reverse transcriptase from human immunodeficiency virus type I polyprotein in Escherichia coli. J Virol 62:1433–1436Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hornak V, Okur A, Rizzo RC, Simmerling C (2006) HIV-1 protease flaps spontaneously open and reclose in molecular dynamics simulations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:915–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang CA, Trylska J, Tozzini V, McCammon JA (2007) Binding pathways of ligands to HIV-1 protease: corase-grained and atomistic simulations. Chem Biol Drug Des 69:5–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wood E, Hogg RS, Yip B, Moore D, Harringan PR, Montaner JS (2007) Superior virological response to boosted protease inhibitor-based highly active antiretroviral therapy in an observational treatment programme. HIV Med 8:80–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Walker BD, Burton DR (2008) Toward an AIDS vaccine. Science 320:760–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Foulkes-Murzycki JE, Scott WR, Schiffer CA (2007) Hydrophobic sliding: a possible mechanism for drug resistance in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease. Structure 15:225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shafer RW, Schapiro JM (2008) HIV-1 drug resistance mutations: an updated framework for the second decade of HAART. AIDS Rev 10:67–84Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vergne L, Peeters M, Mpoudi-Ngole E, Bourgeois A, Liegeois F, Toure-Kane C, Mboup S, Mulanga-Kabeya C, Saman E, Jourdan J, Reynes J, Delaporte E (2000) Genetic diversity of protease and reverse transcriptase sequences in non-subtype-B human immunodeficiency virus type 1 strains: evidence of many minor drug resistance mutations in treatment-naive patients. J Clin Microbiol 38:3919–3925Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shen C-H, Wang Y-F, Kovalevsky AY, Harrison RW, Weber IT (2010) Amprenavir complexes with HIV-1 protease and its drug-resistant mutants altering hydrophobic clusters. FEBS J 277:3699–3714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brik A, Wong CH (2003) HIV-1 protease: mechanism and drug discovery. Org Biomol Chem 1:5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith R, Brereton IM, Chai RY, Kent SBH (1996) Ionization states of the catalytic residues in HIV-1 protease. Nat Struct Biol 3:946–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen J, Yang M, Hu G, Shi S, Yi C, Zhang Q (2009) Insights into the functional role of protonation states in the HIV-1 protease-BEA369 complex: molecular dynamics simulations and free energy calculations. J Mol Model 15:1245–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen X, Tropsha A (1995) Relative binding free energies of peptide inhibitors of HIV-1 protease: the influence of the active site protonation state. J Med Chem 38:42–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wittayaranakul K, Aruksakunwong O, Saen-oon S, Chantratita W, Parasuk V, Sompornpisut P, Hannongbua S (2005) Insights into saquinavir resistance in the G48V HIV-1 protease: quantum calculations and molecular dynamic simulations. Biophys J 88:867–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wittayanarakul K, Hannongbua S, Feig M (2008) Accurate prediction of protonation state as a prerequisite for reliable MM-PB(GB)SA binding free energy calculations of HIV-1 protease inhibitors. J Comput Chem 29:673–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yamazaki T, Nicholson LK, Wingfield P, Stahl SJ, Kaufman JD, Eyermann CJ, Hodge CN, Lam PYS, Torchia DA (1994) NMR and X-ray evidence that the HIV protease catalytic aspartyl groups are protonated in the complex formed by the protease and a non-peptide cyclic urea-based inhibitor. J Am Chem Soc 116:10791–10792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang W, Kollman PA (2000) Free energy calculations on dimer stability of the HIV protease using molecular dynamics and a continuum solvent model. J Mol Biol 303:567–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen J, Zhang S, Liu X, Zhang Q (2010) Insights into drug resistance of mutations D30N and I50V to HIV-1 protease inhibitor TMC-114: free energy calculation and molecular dynamic simulation. J Mol Model 16:459–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clavel F, Hance AJ (2004) HIV drug resistance. New Engl J Med 350:1023–1035Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wu TD, Schiffer CA, Gonzales MJ, Taylor J, Kantor R, Chou S, Israelski D, Zolopa AR, Fessel WJ, Shafer RW (2003) Mutation patterns and structural correlates in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease following different protease inhibitor treatments. J Virol 77:4836–4847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Johnson VA, Brun-Vezinet F, Clotet B, Gunthard HF, Kuritzkes DR, Pillay D, Schapiro JM, Richman DD (2008) Update of the drug resistance mutations in HIV-1. Top HIV Med 16:138–145Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang W, Kollman PA (2001) Computational study of protein specificity: the molecular basis of HIV-1 protease drug resistance. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:14937–14942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kollman PA (1993) Free energy calculations: applications to chemical and biochemical phenomena. Chem Rev 93:2395–2417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lybrand T, McCammon JA, Wipff G (1986) Theoretical calculation of relative binding affinity in host-guest systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 83:833–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jayaram B, Sprous D, Young MA, Beveridge DL (1998) Free energy analysis of the conformational preferences of A and B forms of DNA in solution. J Am Chem Soc 120:10629–10633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vorobjev YN, Almagro JC, Hermans J (1998) Discrimination between native and intentionally misfolded conformations of proteins: ES/IS, a new method for calculating conformational free energy that uses both dynamics simulations with an explicit solvent and an implicit solvent continuum model. Proteins 32:399–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kollman PA, Massova I, Reyes C, Kuhn B, Huo S, Chong L, Lee M, Lee T, Duan Y, Wang W, Donini O, Cieplak P, Srinivasan J, Case DA, Cheatham TE (2000) Calculating structures and free energies of complex molecules: combining molecular mechanics and continuum models. Acc Chem Res 33:889–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kuhn B, Kollman PA (2000) Binding of a diverse set of ligands to avidin and streptavidin: an accurate quantitative prediction of their relative affinities by a combination of molecular mechanics and continuum solvent models. J Med Chem 43:3786–3791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rastelli G, Rio AD, Degliesposti G, Sgobba M (2010) Fast and accurate predictions of binding free energies using MM-PBSA and MM-GBSA. J. Comput. Chem. 31:797–810Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reyes CM, Kollman PA (2000) Investigating the binding specificity of U1A-RNA by computational mutagenesis. J Mol Biol 295:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reyes CM, Kollman PA (2000) Structure and thermodynamics of RNA-protein binding: using molecular dynamics and free energy analyses to calculate the free energies of binding and conformational change. J Mol Biol 297:1145–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chen X, Weber IT, Harrison RW (2004) Molecular dynamics simulations of 14 HIV protease mutants in complexes with indinavir. J Mol Model 10:373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hou T, McLaughlin WA, Wang W (2007) Evaluating the potency of HIV-1 protease drugs to combat resistance. Proteins 71:1163–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stoica I, Sadiq SK, Coveney PV (2008) Rapid and accurate prediction of binding free energies for saquinavir-bound HIV-1 proteases. J Am Chem Soc 130:2639–2648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hu GD, Zhu T, Zhang SL, Wang D, Zhang QG (2010) Some insights into mechanism for binding and drug resistance of wild type and I50V V82A and I84V mutations in HIV-1 protease with GRL-98065 inhibitor from molecular dynamic simulations. Eur J Med Chem 45:227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cai Y, Schiffer CA (2010) Decomposing the energetic impact of drug resistant mutations in HIV-1 protease on binding DRV. J Chem Theory Comput 6:1358–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hou T, Yu R (2007) Molecular dynamics and free energy studies on the wild-type and double mutant HIV-1 protease complexed with amprenavir and two amprenavir-related inhibitors: mechanism for binding and drug resistance. J Med Chem 50:1177–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang J, Morin P, Wang W, Kollman PA (2001) Use of MM-PBSA in reproducing the binding free energies to HIV-1 RT of TIBO derivatives and predicting the binding mode to HIV-1 RT of efavirenz by docking and MM-PBSA. J Am Chem Soc 123:5221–5230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Worch R, Bökel C, Höfinger S, Schwille P, Weidemann T (2010) Focus on composition and interaction potential of single-pass transmembrane domains. Proteomics 10:4196–4208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kar P, Seel M, Weidemann T, Höfinger S (2009) Theoretical mimicry of biomembranes. FEBS Lett 583:1909–1915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hornak V, Abel R, Okur A, Strockbine B, Roitberg A, Simmerling C (2006) Comparison of multiple amber force fields and development of improved protein backbone parameters. Proteins 65:712–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wang J, Wolf RM, Caldwell JW, Kollman PA, Case DA (2004) Development and testing of a general AMBER force field. J Comput Chem 25:1157–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jakalian A, Jack DB, Bayly CI (2002) Fast, efficient generation of high-quality atomic charges. AM1-BCC model: II. Parameterization and validation. J Comput Chem 23:1623–1641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wang J, Wang W, Kollman PA, Case DA (2006) Automatic atom type and bond type perception in molecular mechanical calculations. J Mol Gra Model 25:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Case DA, Cheatham T, Darden T, Gohlke H, Luo R, Merz KM Jr, Onufriev A, Simmerling C, Wang B, Woods R (2005) The Amber biomolecular simulation programs. J Computat Chem 26:1668–1688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kar P, Lipowsky R, Knecht V (2011) Importance of polar solvation for cross-reactivity of antibody and its variants with steroids. J Phys Chem B 115:7661–7669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jorgensen WL, Chandrasekar J, Madura JD, Impey R, Klein K (1983) Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J Chem Phys 79:926–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ryckaert J-P, Ciccotti G, Berendsen HJC (1977) Numerical integration of the cartesian equations of motion of a system with constraints: molecular dynamics of n-alkanes. J Comput Phys 23:327–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Darden T, York D, Pedersen L (1993) Particle mesh Ewald—an Nlog(N) method for Ewald sums in large systems. J Chem Phys 98:10089–10092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sitkoff D, Sharp KA, Honig B (1994) Accurate calculation of hydration free energies using macroscopic solvent models. J Phys Chem 98:1978–1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Weise J, Shenkin PS, Still WC (1999) Fast, approximate algorithm for detection of solvent-inaccessible atoms. J Comput Chem 20:217–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Swanson JM, Henchman RH, McCammon JA (2004) Revisiting free energy calculations: a theoretical connection to MM/PBSA and direct calculation of the association free energy. Biophys J 86:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kongsted J, Ryde U (2009) An improved method to predict the entropy term with the MM/PBSA approach. J Comput Aided Mol Des 23:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Massova I, Kollman PA (1999) Computational alanine scanning to probe protein-protein interactions: a novel approach to evaluate binding free energies. J Am Chem Soc 36:8133–8143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gohlke H, Kiel C, Case DA (2003) Insights into protein-protein binding by free energy calculation and free energy decomposition for the Ras–Raf and Ras–RalGDS complexes. J Mol Biol 330:891–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Li H, Robertson AD, Jensen JH (2005) Very fast empirical prediction and interpretation of protein pKa values. Proteins 61:704–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bas DC, Rogers DM, Jensen JH (2008) Very fast prediction and rationalization of pKa values for protein–ligand complexes. Proteins 73:765–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Davies MN, Toseland CP, Moss DS, Flower DR (2006) Benchmarking pKa prediction. BMC Biochem 7:18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Khandogin J, Brooks CL III (2005) Constant pH molecular dynamics with proton tautomerism. Biophys J 89:141–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Lee AC, Crippen GM (2009) Predicting pKa J. Chem Inf Model 49:2013–2033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Adachi M, Ohhara T, Kurihara K, Tamada T, Honjo E, Okazaki N, Arai S, Shoyama Y, Kimura K, Maatsumura H, Sugiyama S, Adachi H, Takano K, Mori Y, Hidaka K, Kimura T, Hayashi Y, Kiso Y, Kuroki R (2009) Structure of HIV-1 protease in complex with potent inhibitor KNI-272 determined by high-resolution X-ray and neutron crystallography. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:4641–4646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Suguna K, Padlan EA, Smith CW, Carlson WD, Davies DR (1987) Binding of a reduced peptide inhibitor to the aspartic proteinase from Rhizopus chinensis: implications for a mechanism of action. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 84:7009–7013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Chong LT, Duan Y, Wang L, Massova I, Kollman PA (1999) Molecular dynamics and free-energy calculations applied to affinity maturation in antibody 48G7. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:14330–14335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Knecht V (2010) Model amyloid peptide B18 monomer and dimer studied by replica exchange molecular dynamics simulations. J Phys Chem B 114:12701–12707CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Theory and Bio-SystemsMax Planck Institute of Colloids and InterfacesPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations