Difference between revisions of "Team:Virginia/Model"

m
(Started Adding Text to modeling section - test formating)
Line 41: Line 41:
 
<p><span class="p">We modeled our system in silico to select a sterically feasible protecting group and to optimize a mutant leucyl-tRNA synthetase for complementarity of its catalytic site to protected leucine, and of its editing site to leucine. To select a protecting group, the team used protein-ligand docking software to compare binding affinities of several protected leucine/synthetase complexes. To perform mutagenesis on leucyl-tRNA synthetase, an integrated software script was written in the Linux shell, with inputs including a protein to mutate, a ligand, a list of residues of interest, and binding pocket location. The script runs mutagenesis, assesses mutant protein stability, then performs ligand docking. The program then ranks the outputs, acting as a streamlined mutagenesis optimization algorithm. We confirmed, using CSM software suites and iGEMDOCK, that AMP and AMS yield energetically comparable binding affinities. Lastly, we performed Michaelis-Menten modeling for the enzyme pepsin to gauge activity in nonspecific cleavage enzymes.
 
<p><span class="p">We modeled our system in silico to select a sterically feasible protecting group and to optimize a mutant leucyl-tRNA synthetase for complementarity of its catalytic site to protected leucine, and of its editing site to leucine. To select a protecting group, the team used protein-ligand docking software to compare binding affinities of several protected leucine/synthetase complexes. To perform mutagenesis on leucyl-tRNA synthetase, an integrated software script was written in the Linux shell, with inputs including a protein to mutate, a ligand, a list of residues of interest, and binding pocket location. The script runs mutagenesis, assesses mutant protein stability, then performs ligand docking. The program then ranks the outputs, acting as a streamlined mutagenesis optimization algorithm. We confirmed, using CSM software suites and iGEMDOCK, that AMP and AMS yield energetically comparable binding affinities. Lastly, we performed Michaelis-Menten modeling for the enzyme pepsin to gauge activity in nonspecific cleavage enzymes.
 
</span></p>
 
</span></p>
 +
 +
                <span class="ptitle">Leucine Synthetase Selection</span><br><br>
 +
                <span class="stitle">Synthetase File: 4aq7</span><br>
 +
                <p><span class="p">The Leucine tRNA Synthetase used in the following simulations was taken from the RCSB protein databank. The file used was 4aq7, a leucyl trna synthetase in its aminoacylation conformation.</span></p><br><br>
 +
                <span class="stitle">AMS vs AMP</span><br>
  
 
                 <span class="ptitle">Protecting Group</span><br><br>
 
                 <span class="ptitle">Protecting Group</span><br><br>
 
                 <span class="stitle">Selection - Modeling Considerations</span><br>
 
                 <span class="stitle">Selection - Modeling Considerations</span><br>
  
                 <span class="ptitle">Leucine Synthetase Selection</span><br><br>
+
                 <p><span class="p">Several programs were used to asses the viability of the different protecting groups in our system. The main programs used for this purpose were Autodock Vina, iGEMDOCK, and CSM-Lig.</span></p><br><br>
                <span class="stitle">Synthetase File: 4aq7</span><br>
+
 
 
                  
 
                  
 
                 <span class="ptitle">Residue Selection</span><br><br>
 
                 <span class="ptitle">Residue Selection</span><br><br>

Revision as of 20:57, 16 October 2016

Overview

We modeled our system in silico to select a sterically feasible protecting group and to optimize a mutant leucyl-tRNA synthetase for complementarity of its catalytic site to protected leucine, and of its editing site to leucine. To select a protecting group, the team used protein-ligand docking software to compare binding affinities of several protected leucine/synthetase complexes. To perform mutagenesis on leucyl-tRNA synthetase, an integrated software script was written in the Linux shell, with inputs including a protein to mutate, a ligand, a list of residues of interest, and binding pocket location. The script runs mutagenesis, assesses mutant protein stability, then performs ligand docking. The program then ranks the outputs, acting as a streamlined mutagenesis optimization algorithm. We confirmed, using CSM software suites and iGEMDOCK, that AMP and AMS yield energetically comparable binding affinities. Lastly, we performed Michaelis-Menten modeling for the enzyme pepsin to gauge activity in nonspecific cleavage enzymes.

Leucine Synthetase Selection

Synthetase File: 4aq7

The Leucine tRNA Synthetase used in the following simulations was taken from the RCSB protein databank. The file used was 4aq7, a leucyl trna synthetase in its aminoacylation conformation.



AMS vs AMP
Protecting Group

Selection - Modeling Considerations

Several programs were used to asses the viability of the different protecting groups in our system. The main programs used for this purpose were Autodock Vina, iGEMDOCK, and CSM-Lig.



Residue Selection

Literature
Autodock Vina and Ligplot
Final Selections
MUT

Purpose
Components
Output
Source
MUT on GitHub Pepsin Modeling

Purpose
Results
Conclusions