Adamantane derivatives, such as amantadine and rimantadine, have been reported to block the transmembrane domain (TM) of the M2 protein of influenza A virus (A/M2) but their clinical use has been discontinued due to evolved resistance in humans. Although experiments and simulations have provided adequate information about the binding interaction of amantadine or rimantadine to the M2 protein, methods for predicting binding affinities of whole series of M2 inhibitors have so far been scarcely applied. Such methods could assist in the development of novel potent inhibitors that overcome A/M2 resistance. Here we show that alchemical free energy calculations of ligand binding using the Bennett acceptance ratio (BAR) method are valuable for determining the relative binding potency of A/M2 inhibitors of the aminoadamantane type covering a binding affinity range of only ∼2 kcal mol(-1). Their binding affinities measured by isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) against the A/M2TM tetramer from the Udorn strain in its closed form at pH 8 were used as experimental probes. The binding constants of rimantadine enantiomers against M2TMUdorn were measured for the first time and found to be equal. Two series of alchemical free energy calculations were performed using 1,2-dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DPPC) and 1,2-dimyristoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DMPC) lipids to mimic the membrane environment. A fair correlation was found for DPPC that was significantly improved using DMPC, which resembles more closely the DPC lipids used in the ITC experiments. This demonstrates that binding free energy calculations by the BAR approach can be used to predict relative binding affinities of aminoadamantane derivatives toward M2TM with good accuracy.

Recently, the binding kinetics of a ligand-target interaction, such as the residence time of a small molecule on its protein target, are seen as increasingly important for drug efficacy. Here, we investigate these concepts to explain binding and proton blockage of rimantadine variants bearing progressively larger alkyl groups to influenza A virus M2 wild type (WT) and M2 S31N protein proton channel. We showed that resistance of M2 S31N to rimantadine analogues compared to M2 WT resulted from their higher rates compared to the rates according to electrophysiology (EP) measurements. This is due to the fact that, in M2 S31N, the loss of the V27 pocket for the adamantyl cage resulted in low residence time inside the M2 pore. Both rimantadine enantiomers have similar channel blockage and binding and against M2 WT. To compare the potency between the rimantadine variants against M2, we applied approaches using different mimicry of M2, i.e., isothermal titration calorimetry and molecular dynamics simulation, EP, and antiviral assays. It was also shown that a small change in an amino acid at site 28 of M2 WT, which does not line the pore, seriously affects M2 WT blockage kinetics.

While aminoadamantanes are well-established inhibitors of the influenza A M2 proton channel, the mechanisms by which they are rendered ineffective against M2 S31N are unclear. Solid state NMR, isothermal titration calorimetry, electrophysiology, antiviral assays, and molecular dynamics simulations suggest stronger binding interactions for aminoadamantanes to M2 WT compared to negligible or weak binding to M2 S31N . This is due to reshaping of the M2 pore when N31 is present, which, in contrast to wild-type (WT), leads (A) to the loss of the V27 pocket for the adamantyl cage and to a predominant orientation of the ligand's ammonium group toward the N-terminus and (B) to the lack of a helical kink upon ligand binding. The kink, which reduces the tilt of the C-terminal helical domain relative to the bilayer normal, includes the W41 primary gate for proton conductance and may prevent the gate from opening, representing an alternative view for how these drugs prevent proton conductance.

No abstract

This review is focused on methods for detecting small molecules and, in particular, the characterisation of their interaction with natural proteins (e.g. receptors, ion channels). Because there are intrinsic advantages to using label-free methods over labelled methods (e.g. fluorescence, radioactivity), this review only covers label-free techniques. We briefly discuss available techniques and their advantages and disadvantages, especially as related to investigating the interaction between small molecules and proteins. The reviewed techniques include well-known and widely used standard analytical methods (e.g. HPLC-MS, NMR, calorimetry, and X-ray diffraction), newer and more specialised analytical methods (e.g. biosensors), biological systems (e.g. cell lines and animal models), and in-silico approaches.