Difference between revisions of "Team:Virginia/Model"

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(LeuS) 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. The following is a PyMol visualization of the protein.

AMS vs AMP

As stated in its documentation, 4aq7 used a leucyl-adenelyte analogue in order to measure the crystal structure of the protein. By analysing the file contents in PDBest, a pdb editor software, we were able to identify the analogue as leucyl-AMS.

We constructed six different molecules with ChemSketch in order to determine whether the analogue significantly altered the conformation of LeuS. The constructed molecules were AMS and AMP adenylations of Cbz-Leu, N-Methoxycarbonyl-Leu, and Leu. By testing these molecules in CSM-lig, Autodock Vina, and iGEMDOCK, we were able to confirm that AMS and AMP were similar, and that the pdb 4aq7 could be used to accurately model the LeuS.

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

Virginia iGEM designed a Linux-based protein engineering tool called MUT. This program is used to screen protein-ligand docking across possible protein mutants. It is written from a Centros shell, but is designed to be portable across distributions. MUT generates mutant structures, subjects the resultant proteins to stability testing, and ranks the results based on protein-ligand docking data. Three programs are used to accomplish this task: PyRosetta conducts computational mutagenesis, FoldX tests protein stability, and AutoDock Vina performs protein-ligand docking. All three of these programs are available for free with an educational license, and MUT is hosted on an open source site. MUT is designed to be configurable to any iGEM team’s needs. The user inputs to MUT a protein’s PDB file, residues of interest for mutation, a binding pocket, and a ligand. After the simulation runs, the program outputs a top ten list of mutant structures along with their files.

Components
Output
Source
MUT on GitHub Pepsin Modeling

Purpose
Results
Conclusions
Programs Used