Consistent Calculations of pK_a's of Ionizable Residues in Proteins:  Semi-microscopic and Microscopic Approaches

Abstract

One of the most direct benchmarks for electrostatic models of macromolecules is provided by the pK a's of ionizable groups in proteins. Obtaining accurate results for such a benchmark presents a major challenge. Microscopic models involve very large opposing contributions and suffer from convergence problems. Continuum models that consider the protein permanent dipoles as a part of the dielectric constant cannot reproduce the correct self-energy. Continuum models that treat the local environment in a semi-microscopic way do not take into account consistently the protein relaxation during the charging process. This work describes calculations of pK a's in protein in an accurate yet consistent way, using the semi-microscopic version of the protein dipoles Langevin dipoles (PDLD) model, which treats the protein relaxation in the microscopic framework of the linear response approximation. This approach allows one to take into account the protein structural reorganization during formation of charges, thus reducing the problems with the use of the so-called “protein dielectric constant”, εp. The model is used in calculations of pK a's of the acidic groups of lysozyme, and the calculated results are compared to the corresponding results of discretized continuum (DC) studies. It is found that the present approach is more consistent than current DC models and also provides improved accuracies. Significant emphasis is given to the self-energy term, which has been pointed out in our early works but has been sometimes overlooked or presented as a small effect. The meaning of the dielectric constant εp used in DC models is clarified and illustrated, establishing the finding (e.g. King et. al., J. Phys. Chem. 1991, 95, 4366) that this parameter represents the contributions that are not treated explicitly in the given model, rather than the “true” dielectric constant. It is pointed out that recent suggestions to use large εp to obtain improved DC results might not be much different than our earlier suggestion to use a large effective dielectric for charge−charge interactions. This εp reduces the overestimate of charge−charge interactions relative to models that use small εp while not considering the protein relaxation explicitly. Unfortunately, the use of large εp does not reproduce consistently the self-energies of isolated ionized groups in protein interiors. The recent interest in taking protein flexibility into account in pK a calculations is addressed. It is pointed out that running MD over protein configurations will not by itself lead to a more consistent value of εp. It is clarified that a smaller value of εp, which is not really more (or less) consistent with the physics of the proteins, will be obtained if one uses our LRA (linear response approximation) formulation, generating configurations of both neutral and ionized states of the protein. It is also stated that such studies have been a standard part of our approach for some time. The present model involves a consecutive running of all-atom MD simulations of solvat...

Dielectric relaxation of cytochrome c oxidase: Comparison of the microscopic and continuum models

“…The nonlinear effects in the medium which include water were observed in many earlier studies. 16,23,24,27,34,38 In our system, the effect is mainly due to reorientation of one particular water molecule located between the two propionates of heme a 3 ; this water molecule forms different types of hydrogen bonds with His291 in its protonated and deprotonated states, and in the process of charging needs to change orientation. The orientation flipping of that water molecule occurs around = 0.75, which apparently breaks the linearity of the response, see Fig.…”

“…Thus, the free energy change due to introduced charges consists of two parts: The protein field term, representing the work needed to transfer charges ⌬q i from infinity to the corresponding atomic positions of the solute at fixed ͑equilibrium͒ nuclear positions of the latter, and the reaction-field term, representing the free energy change due to the relaxation of the equilibrium atomic positions in response to the introduced charges. In the literature, ⌬G prot and ⌬G rf are also called as the protein field and Born term, 3,21,35,36 static and relaxation term, 14,15,17 or as the interaction and self-energy terms, 4,25,27 respectively. In this paper, we will be interested only in ⌬G rf term which reflects the dielectric relaxation of the protein medium.…”

“…many authors before. 4,10,13,23,[25][26][27] One of the difficulties that one encounters here is related to the issue of electronic polarization in microscopic simulations. The conventional force fields ͓e.g., AMBER99 ͑Refs.…”

“…In low-dielectric environments, such as interior of a protein, the standard MD approach produces poor results; therefore, the missing electronic polarization, the cause of the problem, needs to be treated explicitly. [31][32][33] Another problem is that in many cases, especially when the polarizable medium includes water, the microscopic dielectric response ͑or relaxation͒ of the system can be nonlinear 16,23,24,27,34 while the continuum models assume linearity of the dielectric response. The computation analysis presented in this work addresses both of the above problems.…”

Development of constant-pH simulation methods in implicit solvent and applications in biomolecular systems

“…This sphere is immersed in a medium with high dielectric permittivity ( s ), the electrolyte solution. At this point, proposing a dielectric interface, they introduced a rather polemical and controversial model choice under intense debate in the literature (Demchuk and Wade 1996;Penfold et al 1998;Warshel andÅqvist 1991;King et al 1991;Antonsiewicz et al 1994Antonsiewicz et al , 1996Simonson and Perahia 1995;Simonson and Brooks 1996;Löffler et al 1997;Sham et al 1997;Warwicker 1999 A dielectric constant is a macroscopic parameter related to the movement of microscopic charges. It describes the reorientation of the electronic cloud around a nucleus and/or the reorientation of permanent dipoles in the presence of an electric field (Böttcher 1973).…”