English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Gleevec, a well-known cancer therapeutic agent, is an effective inhibitor of several tyrosine kinases, including Abl and c-Kit, but displays less potency to inhibit closely homologous tyrosine kinases, such as Lck and c-Src. Because many structural features of the binding site are highly conserved in these homologous kinases, the molecular determinants responsible for the binding specificity of Gleevec remain poorly understood. To address this issue, free energy perturbation molecular dynamics (FEP/MD) simulations with explicit solvent was used to compute the binding affinity of Gleevec to Abl, c-Kit, Lck, and c-Src. The results of the FEP/MD calculations are in good agreement with experiments, enabling a detailed and quantitative dissection of the absolute binding free energy in terms of various thermodynamic contributions affecting the binding specificity of Gleevec to the kinases. Dominant binding free energy contributions arises from the van der Waals dispersive interaction, compensating about two-thirds of the unfavorable free energy penalty associated with the loss of translational, rotational, and conformational freedom of the ligand upon binding. In contrast, the contributions from electrostatic and repulsive interactions nearly cancel out due to solvent effects. Furthermore, the calculations show the importance of the conformation of the kinase activation loop. Among the kinases examined, Abl provides the most favorable binding environment for Gleevec via optimal protein-ligand interactions and a small free energy cost for loss of the translational, rotational, and conformational freedom upon ligand binding. The FEP/MD calculations additionally reveal that Lck and c-Src provide similar nonbinding interactions with the bound-Gleevec, but the former pays less entropic penalty for the ligand losing its translational, rotational, and conformational motions to bind, examining the empirically observed differential binding affinities of Gleevec between the two Src-family kinases.

Computational Analysis of the Binding Specificity of Gleevec to Abl, c-Kit, Lck, and c-Src Tyrosine Kinases