Calculations of the free energy of interaction of the c-Fos−c-Jun coiled coil: Effects of the solvation model and the inclusion of polarization effects

The leucine zipper region of activator protein-1 (AP-1) comprises the c-Jun and c-Fos proteins and constitutes a well-known coiled coil protein−protein interaction motif. We have used molecular dynamics (MD) simulations in conjunction with the molecular mechanics/Poisson−Boltzmann generalized-Born surface area [MM/PB(GB)SA] methods to predict the free energy of interaction of these proteins. In particular, the influence of the choice of solvation model, protein force field, and water potential on the stability and dynamic properties of the c-Fos−c-Jun complex were investigated. Use of the AMBER polarizable force field ff02 in combination with the polarizable POL3 water potential was found to result in increased stability of the c-Fos−c-Jun complex. MM/PB(GB)SA calculations revealed that MD simulations using the POL3 water potential give the lowest predicted free energies of interaction compared to other nonpolarizable water potentials. In addition, the calculated absolute free energy of binding was predicted to be closest to the experimental value using the MM/GBSA method with independent MD simulation trajectories using the POL3 water potential and the polarizable ff02 force field, while all other binding affinities were overestimated.

Free energy calculations of the interactions of c-Jun-based synthetic peptides with the c-Fos protein

The c-Fos–c-Jun complex forms the activator protein 1 transcription factor, a therapeutic target in the treatment of cancer. Various synthetic peptides have been designed to try to selectively disrupt the interaction between c-Fos and c-Jun at its leucine zipper domain. To evaluate the binding affinity between these synthetic peptides and c-Fos, polarizable and nonpolarizable molecular dynamics (MD) simulations were conducted, and the resulting conformations were analyzed using the molecular mechanics generalized Born surface area (MM/GBSA) method to compute free energies of binding. In contrast to empirical and semiempirical approaches, the estimation of free energies of binding using a combination of MD simulations and the MM/GBSA approach takes into account dynamical properties such as conformational changes, as well as solvation effects and hydrophobic and hydrophilic interactions. The predicted binding affinities of the series of c-Jun-based peptides targeting the c-Fos peptide show good correlation with experimental melting temperatures. This provides the basis for the rational design of peptides based on internal, van der Waals, and electrostatic interactions.

Clinical Accuracy of the MedGem Indirect Calorimeter for Measuring Resting Energy Expenditure in Cancer Patients

OBJECTIVE: To compare, in patients with cancer and in healthy subjects, measured resting energy expenditure (REE) from traditional indirect calorimetry to a new portable device (MedGem) and predicted REE. DESIGN: Cross-sectional clinical validation study. SETTING: Private radiation oncology centre, Brisbane, Australia. SUBJECTS: Cancer patients (n = 18) and healthy subjects (n = 17) aged 37-86 y, with body mass indices ranging from 18 to 42 kg/m(2). INTERVENTIONS: Oxygen consumption (VO(2)) and REE were measured by VMax229 (VM) and MedGem (MG) indirect calorimeters in random order after a 12-h fast and 30-min rest. REE was also calculated from the MG without adjustment for nitrogen excretion (MGN) and estimated from Harris-Benedict prediction equations. Data were analysed using the Bland and Altman approach, based on a clinically acceptable difference between methods of 5%. RESULTS: The mean bias (MGN-VM) was 10% and limits of agreement were -42 to 21% for cancer patients; mean bias -5% with limits of -45 to 35% for healthy subjects. Less than half of the cancer patients (n = 7, 46.7%) and only a third (n = 5, 33.3%) of healthy subjects had measured REE by MGN within clinically acceptable limits of VM. Predicted REE showed a mean bias (HB-VM) of -5% for cancer patients and 4% for healthy subjects, with limits of agreement of -30 to 20% and -27 to 34%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Limits of agreement for the MG and Harris Benedict equations compared to traditional indirect calorimetry were similar but wide, indicating poor clinical accuracy for determining the REE of individual cancer patients and healthy subjects.