Electrostatic steering and ionic tethering in enzyme–ligand binding: Insights from simulations

To bind at an enzyme’s active site, a ligand must diffuse or be transported to the enzyme’s surface, and, if the binding site is buried, the ligand must diffuse through the protein to reach it. Although the driving force for ligand binding is often ascribed to the hydrophobic effect, electrostatic interactions also influence the binding process of both charged and nonpolar ligands. First, electrostatic steering of charged substrates into enzyme active sites is discussed. This is of particular relevance for diffusion-influenced enzymes. By comparing the results of Brownian dynamics simulations and electrostatic potential similarity analysis for triose-phosphate isomerases, superoxide dismutases, and β-lactamases from different species, we identify the conserved features responsible for the electrostatic substrate-steering fields. The conserved potentials are localized at the active sites and are the primary determinants of the bimolecular association rates. Then we focus on a more subtle effect, which we will refer to as “ionic tethering.” We explore, by means of molecular and Brownian dynamics simulations and electrostatic continuum calculations, how salt links can act as tethers between structural elements of an enzyme that undergo conformational change upon substrate binding, and thereby regulate or modulate substrate binding. This is illustrated for the lipase and cytochrome P450 enzymes. Ionic tethering can provide a control mechanism for substrate binding that is sensitive to the electrostatic properties of the enzyme’s surroundings even when the substrate is nonpolar.

Centrosome positioning and directionality of cell movements

In several cell types, an intriguing correlation exists between the position of the centrosome and the direction of cell movement: the centrosome is located behind the leading edge, suggesting that it serves as a steering device for directional movement. A logical extension of this suggestion is that a change in the direction of cell movement is preceded by a reorientation, or shift, of the centrosome in the intended direction of movement. We have used a fusion protein of green fluorescent protein (GFP) and γ-tubulin to label the centrosome in migrating amoebae of Dictyostelium discoideum, allowing us to determine the relationship of centrosome positioning and the direction of cell movement with high spatial and temporal resolution in living cells. We find that the extension of a new pseudopod in a migrating cell precedes centrosome repositioning. An average of 12 sec elapses between the initiation of pseudopod extension and reorientation of the centrosome. If no reorientation occurs within approximately 30 sec, the pseudopod is retracted. Thus the centrosome does not direct a cell’s migration. However, its repositioning stabilizes a chosen direction of movement, most probably by means of the microtubule system.