ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Quantitative Prediction of Protein–Polyelectrolyte Binding Thermodynamics: Adsorption of Heparin-Analog Polysulfates to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein RBD
My Activity
  • Open Access
Article

Quantitative Prediction of Protein–Polyelectrolyte Binding Thermodynamics: Adsorption of Heparin-Analog Polysulfates to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein RBD
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

JACS Au

Cite this: JACS Au 2025, XXXX, XXX, XXX-XXX
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/jacsau.4c00886
Published January 6, 2025

© 2025 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Interactions of polyelectrolytes (PEs) with proteins play a crucial role in numerous biological processes, such as the internalization of virus particles into host cells. Although docking, machine learning methods, and molecular dynamics (MD) simulations are utilized to estimate binding poses and binding free energies of small-molecule drugs to proteins, quantitative prediction of the binding thermodynamics of PE-based drugs presents a significant obstacle in computer-aided drug design. This is due to the sluggish dynamics of PEs caused by their size and strong charge–charge correlations. In this paper, we introduce advanced sampling methods based on a force-spectroscopy setup and theoretical modeling to overcome this barrier. We exemplify our method with explicit solvent all-atom MD simulations of the interactions between anionic PEs that show antiviral properties, namely heparin and linear polyglycerol sulfate (LPGS), and the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD). Our prediction for the binding free-energy of LPGS to the wild-type RBD matches experimentally measured dissociation constants within thermal energy, kBT, and correctly reproduces the experimental PE-length dependence. We find that LPGS binds to the Delta-variant RBD with an additional free-energy gain of 2.4 kBT, compared to the wild-type RBD, due to the additional presence of two mutated cationic residues contributing to the electrostatic energy gain. We show that the LPGS–RBD binding is solvent dominated and enthalpy driven, though with a large entropy–enthalpy compensation. Our method is applicable to general polymer adsorption phenomena and predicts precise binding free energies and reconfigurational friction as needed for drug and drug-delivery design.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
© 2025 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society

Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Understanding the interaction of polyelectrolytes (PEs) with proteins is important for interpreting structure formation in biology, e.g., in nucleosomes, (1−3) intracellular condensates, (4) and the brain, (5,6) as well as elucidating different biological processes including viral infections or inhibitions. (7−9) The cell entry of many viruses is mediated by the interaction of anionic heparan sulfate proteoglycans (HSPGs) present on the extracellular matrix of the host cell with positively charged viral surface glycoproteins. (10) Due to this nonspecific electrostatic attraction, the concentration of virions at the cell surface is increased, making it more likely for them to bind to the host cell receptor proteins, which often includes multivalent interactions (11) and eventually leads to viral invasion. (12) This mechanism has been observed for different viruses such as Hepatitis B and C, herpes simplex virus, etc. (10) and more recently for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. (13,14) In the case of SARS-CoV-2, a cationic patch present on the spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) binds to HSPGs, (15) which makes it more feasible for the RBD to specifically interact with the host cell receptor, the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). (16)
The study of PE–protein interaction is also of major importance for the development of new drugs. Heparin, a naturally occurring anionic PE for which the chemical structure is shown in Figure 1a has been the subject of intense research in the last few decades due to its ability to adsorb at positively charged surfaces and thereby modulate biological processes. (17−19)

Figure 1

Figure 1. Simulation details. Chemical structures of (a) heparin and (b) linear polyglycerol sulfate (LPGS). (c) Structure of the spike protein trimer in the secondary structure representation (PDB ID: 7DK3). (32) Monomers are shown in purple, cyan, and yellow. The receptor binding domain (RBD) of one monomer (cyan) is present in the up conformation and is shown in red. (d) Zoomed-in view of the RBD. (e) Simulation unit cell (blue box) for equilibrium adsorption of a polymer to the RBD (red). An LPGS undecamer is shown in the space-filling representation with color coding for the different atom types: hydrogen in white, carbon in cyan, oxygen in red, and sulfur in yellow. Water and ions are present but not shown for clarity. The x, y, and z axes are indicated with red, green, and blue arrows, respectively. (f) Simulation snapshot after 1000 ns of equilibration representing adsorption of the LPGS (shown in orange) to the Delta-variant RBD surface (shown in gray). Protein cationic residues are pointed out in blue, whereas mutated residues R452 and L478 are in red. (g) Dynamic pulling simulation protocol in which a spring connected to one of the terminal atoms of the polymer is pulled away from the protein surface with a constant velocity ν along the z-axis. The spring is free to move along the lateral direction. (h) Static pulling simulation protocol in which one of the terminal atoms of the polymer is allowed to freely move in a plane at constant z-separation (distance projected along the normal to the plane) from the protein center-of-mass (red circle).

More recently it has been used to treat patients with SARS CoV-2 infections. (15,16,20,21) By binding to the cationic patch of the RBD, heparin can compete with HSPGs and block the first step of the cell-entry process. However, heparin-based drugs come with anticoagulatory side effects, which can be a disadvantage for the treatment of specific diseases. (20,22) Therefore, there is great interest in developing heparin analogs that share the same characteristic for adsorbing to cationic surfaces but with fewer side effects. Linear polyglycerol sulfate (LPGS), the chemical structure of which is shown in Figure 1b, has recently been tested to show excellent inhibitory activity against SARS-CoV-2, with significantly reduced cytotoxicity. (15) LPGS, compared to heparin, shows larger binding affinities to the RBD of wild-type SARS-CoV-2 and its different variants, (15,23) though having a lower linear charge density than heparin, details are provided in Figure S4 in the Supporting Information.
Computational methods developed in the last few decades have been quite successful in predicting binding poses and binding free-energies of small-molecule drugs with proteins. (24−28) However, quantitative prediction of polymer–protein binding thermodynamics remains challenging because of the limited length scales and time scales accessible by atomistic simulations using present-day computational power. (29,30) Specifically, PE-based viral inhibitors tested in experiments typically are 100–1000mers long with molecular weights of 10–100 kDa (15,31) and the binding–unbinding equilibrium relaxation time for interactions between a charged monomeric unit and an oppositely charged protein residue can be a few microseconds.
In this article, we combine advanced sampling techniques and theoretical modeling to investigate the interaction of LPGS and heparin with the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein RBD using explicit solvent all-atom molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. Adapting a simulation setup that mimics atomic force microscopy experiments, (33,34) we determine the PE–protein adsorption free energy from measuring the force to pull one terminus of the adsorbed PE away from the protein surface. By pulling this way, the intermolecular contacts are broken sequentially, overcoming a small free-energy barrier for each breakage, which leads to rather fast equilibration. The adsorption free energy thus obtained is compared with that computed using umbrella sampling simulations for validation. To obtain the standard binding free-energy of PEs, we add two correction terms: the PE stretching free energy due to the applied force and an entropic term accounting for its binding volume. For comparing the simulation results with experiments where longer PEs have been considered, we add the polymer translational entropy contribution in the bound state, which scales logarithmically in the degree of polymerization N, and find good agreement for the interaction of LPGS with the wild-type RBD compared with recent experimental measurements. (15,35) Moreover, we decompose the free energy into enthalpic and entropic contributions arising from solute–solute and solute–solvent interactions and determine the PE–protein relative friction in the bound state, for a deeper understanding of the PE–protein binding thermodynamics and relaxation dynamics.

Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Due to the large size of the trimeric SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, we consider in simulations only one monomer’s RBD (Figure 1c,d). The RBD binds to not only the HSPGs on the cell surfaces but also to the cell receptor protein ACE2. Thus, it plays a central role in the cell entry process of the virion and constitutes a suitable target for new drugs. Moreover, dissociation constants for PEs binding to a monomeric RBD have been reported from microscale thermophoresis experiments, (15,35) making a meaningful comparison with the simulations possible. It should be noted that in vivo, there are glycans attached to the RBD, (36,37) but far away from the cationic patch (the putative sulfate binding sites on the RBD), (15,23) and hence these are not expected to affect the binding of anionic PEs to the RBD. We test this in a simulation (see Methods section for details) by attaching a glycan on top of the cationic patch and find LPGS to readily bind to the RBD, as shown in Figure S5 in the Supporting Information. This demonstrates that the entropic cost of replacing surface glycans is small compared to other interactions. Thus, we have excluded any glycan in our simulations for the results presented in the main text.
We perform simulations of LPGS interacting with both the wild-type RBD and the Delta-variant RBD with L452R and T478 K mutations. We take an LPGS undecamer in the simulations, much shorter than that used in experiments, to ensure fast equilibration. Additionally, we conduct simulations of a heparin pentamer interaction with the wild-type RBD, for which we observe a very long equilibration time, as will be discussed in Figure 6b,d. Therefore, we primarily focus in this study on simulation results involving LPGS binding and their quantitative comparison with experiments.
We start with unrestrained simulations (the setup shown in Figure 1e), where a polymer can move freely in the simulation box and interact with the protein surface. We observe that LPGS binds to the cationic patch of both the wild-type and Delta-variant RBD (shown in Figure 1f in blue). To validate that the adsorption to the cationic patch corresponds to the optimal binding position and is not an artifact of the starting position, we conduct six independent simulations, where we place LPGS at different starting positions as shown in Figure S6a in the Supporting Information. We find that within 400 ns LPGS binds to the same cationic patch in all six simulations, as shown in Figures S6b and S7 in the Supporting Information. Moreover, we calculate pairwise root-mean-square deviations (see eq 10 for the definition) of the RBD-bound LPGS conformations sampled in the different simulations and find significant overlaps among the corresponding distributions as shown in Figure S8. Therefore, the observed binding conformations are expected to be the minimum free-energy configurations and are suitable as starting structures for subsequent pulling simulations.

Polymer Desorption Free Energy

To obtain the LPGS desorption free-energy profile as a function of the reaction coordinate ξ, defined as the distance of the pulled polymer terminus from the protein surface (see Figure 1h), we use three different sampling techniques: dynamic pulling, static pulling, and umbrella sampling (see simulation details in Methods section). In the dynamic pulling simulations, a harmonic spring attached to one of the polymer’s terminal atoms is moved away from the protein surface along ξ at speed ν (see Figure 1g) and the force f acting on the spring is measured. Starting with the system configuration of LPGS adsorbed to the wild-type RBD, simulations are conducted with six different speeds ranging ν = 0.006 to 1.2 m/s. To make sampling comparable for different ν, we perform multiple simulations such that a total simulation time of at least 1 μs is reached for each ν. Mean desorption force profiles f(ξ) for different ν are shown in Figure 2a. We find that the most distinct force peaks are situated at ξ in the range of 2–4 nm and the desorption forces are higher for faster pulling speeds. The latter observation can be rationalized by friction effects originating from the force-induced breaking of hydrogen bonds and salt bridges. (38−40) Free energy profiles F(ξ), obtained by integrating over the force profile as
F(ξ)=0ξf(ξ)dξ
(1)
are shown for different pulling speeds in Figure 2b. We find that apart from the higher free energy values for faster ν, the profiles for higher ν (= 1.2 and 0.6 m/s) do not reach plateau values, even after the complete desorption of the polymer. This shows that simulations are far from equilibrium for higher ν. As the friction contribution to the desorption force f in the viscous (i.e., low-velocity) regime is linear in v, the free-energy difference between the desorbed and adsorbed state, ΔF = F(ξ → ∞), increases linearly with ν according to ΔF(ν) = ΔF(ν = 0) + γνL0, where L0 = 4.03 nm (see Methods section) is the unstretched contour length of the polymer. (38) We use this linear relationship to determine the equilibrium free energy of polymer desorption, ΔF(ν = 0), and the friction coefficient γ. Linear regression, using ΔF data for only the three lowest ν, leads to an excellent fit (Figure 2c), resulting in ΔF(ν = 0) = 9.7 ± 1.6 kBT and γ = 4.05 × 10–10 Ns/m (for results from fitting the whole data set, see Figure S9 in the Supporting Information). This is equivalent to a diffusion constant of D = kBT/γ = 10.23 nm2/μs, from which we obtain the diffusion time τD = L02/2D = 0.8 μs. We see that the bound polymer diffuses over its contour length in about a microsecond, allowing for rather quick equilibration of the bound state.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Simulation results for the desorption of an LPGS undecamer from the wild-type (WT) and, only if mentioned, Delta-variant RBD surface. (a) Force f and (b) free energy F profiles from dynamic pulling simulations, results for only four out of the six pulling velocities are displayed for visual clarity. Error bars are displayed as shaded colored areas in panel b. (c) Free-energy difference ΔF between the desorbed and adsorbed states as a function of the pulling velocity ν. The equilibrium free-energy difference ΔF (ν = 0) is obtained from linear extrapolation of the data for the three slowest pulling rates to zero velocity. (d) Force and (e) free-energy profiles from static pulling simulations. (f) Comparison of free energy profiles obtained from umbrella sampling and static pulling simulations with the dynamic pulling simulation result using the slowest pulling velocity ν = 0.006 m/s.

For the static pulling simulations, we select initial configurations from the dynamic pulling simulation at nine different ξ values with a spacing of 0.4 nm. At each ξ value, the polymer terminal atom is allowed only to freely move on a plane, maintaining a constant z-separation (distance projected along the normal to the plane) from the protein surface, see Figure 1h. The average force needed to keep the LPGS terminal atom at different ξ values is shown in Figure 2d for the wild-type and Delta-variant RBD. Compared to dynamic pulling results shown in Figure 2a, the peak force here is significantly lower. Also, the ξ value corresponding to the complete desorption of the polymer, represented by the force dropping to zero, is smaller than that observed in the dynamic pulling simulations. This is because the polymer is stretched more due to the larger pulling forces in the latter case. These deviations illustrate that even for the slowest pulling rate, the dynamic pulling simulation is far from equilibrium. Moreover, it is observed that forces for the Delta variant are significantly higher than the wild-type RBD at ξ = 0.8 nm. To understand this, we investigate the interaction of LPGS with individual protein residues as shown in Figure S10 in the Supporting Information, noting that conformational dynamics of wild-type and Delta-variant RBDs, whether free in solution or bound to LPGS, are very similar (see Figure S11 in the Supporting Information). For both RBD types, we find that LPGS forms a higher number of contacts with cationic residues such as R346 and R466. For the Delta variant, there is however an extra charged residue on the cationic patch (R452), which makes additional, electrostatically favorable contacts with LPGS simultaneously possible (Figure S10d in the Supporting Information), giving rise to the increased force. Free energy profiles show that the complete desorption of LPGS from the Delta-variant RBD, compared to the wild-type, requires an extra free energy of 2 kBT (Figure 2e). This demonstrates that cationic mutations in proteins lead to an increase in their binding affinities to anionic polymers, which supports the hypothesis of Nie et al. (23) that the increased infectivities of Delta and Omicron variants are caused by additional cationic residues of the RBD that interact strongly with cellular HSPGs.
We also calculate the free energy profile of LPGS desorption from the wild-type RBD using umbrella sampling simulations with the weighted histogram analysis method (for details, see Methods section). (41,42) Free energy profiles F(ξ) obtained from all three methods are compared in Figure 2f. F(ξ) from the dynamic pulling simulation using even the slowest pulling velocity, ν = 0.006 m/s, deviates significantly from the other two methods, while the extrapolated free-energy difference ΔF(ν = 0) to zero velocity exhibits less deviation from the umbrella sampling result, ΔF = 5.8 ± 0.5 kBT, and the static pulling result, ΔF = 5.6 ± 0.6 kBT.

Dissociation Constant and Standard Binding Free Energy

The dissociation constant KD for a complexation reaction between protein P and polymeric ligand L,
P+LPL
determines the ratio of concentrations of free, [P], [L], and bound, [PL], species in solution and is related to the free-energy change upon binding, ΔFb, and the ligand-binding volume Vb according to (43)
KD=[P][L][PL]=1VbeΔFb/kBT=1V0eΔFb0/kBT
(2)
Here, Vb represents the limited volume available for the polymer to move in the protein-bound state (for the procedure to obtain Vb from simulations, see the Supporting Information text and Figures S2 and S3). V0 = 1.661 nm3 is the standard-state volume corresponding to the concentration of 1 M and the standard free-energy of binding is given by ΔFb0 = ΔFbkBT ln (Vb/ V0). ΔFb is obtained from the polymer desorption free-energy ΔF by removing the polymer stretching free-energy due to the applied force, resulting in
ΔFb=ΔFΔFstretch
(3)
ΔFstretch, in eq 3, describes the change in free energy to stretch the polymer from its relaxed state and is not present in the experiments and hence its contribution is subtracted from the simulated free energy. ΔFstretch is obtained from constant-force stretching simulations of the polymer in free solution (details given in Methods section), by measuring the average end-to-end distances, zete, projected along the direction of external force at different stretching forces, fstretch, applied to each end of the polymer. We fit the force–extension relation of the inhomogeneous partially freely rotating chain (iPFRC) model (44) (for details, see Methods section) to the simulation values and find an excellent fitting as shown in Figure 3a. By integrating the force–extension relation from the relaxed end-to-end distance zete0 = 0 to a stretched end-to-end distance zetestretch,
ΔFstretch=zete0zetestretchfstretch(zete)dzete
(4)
we obtain the stretching free energy profile as a function of fstretch, shown in Figure 3b. To obtain ΔFstretch, we compute the average force experienced by a strained LPGS bound to the RBD (see the force plateau in Figure 2d from 1.2 to 2.4 nm) and take the stretching free energy at the average forces of fstretch = 11.7 pN and 13.5 pN for the wild-type and Delta RBD, respectively (see Figure 3b, green points). Note that the resulting polymer stretching free-energy contribution, ΔFstretch ≃ 2–2.5 kBT, is sizable.

Figure 3

Figure 3. (a) Stretching force fstretch versus the average end-to-end distance zete of an LPGS undecamer along the direction of applied force. Data points are fitted to the iPFRC model force–extension relation eq 8. (b) Stretching free-energy profile Fstretch as a function of fstretch, obtained by integrating the fitted curve in panel a.

Finally, the standard binding free-energy ΔFb0 as a function of the degree of polymerization, N, for longer polymers used in the experiments, (15,35) compared to the simulations, N > Nsim, can be extrapolated from simulations data as (for a derivation, see Section S1 in the Supporting Information)
ΔFb0(N)=ΔF(Nsim)ΔFstretch(Nsim)kBTln(Vb(Nsim)V0)kBTln(NNsim)
(5)
Here, the last term represents the avidity entropy contribution, −TΔSavidity, to the binding, as explained in the following. (31,45,46) The direct polymer–protein interaction energy contribution to the binding free energy is limited to the number of binding sites nb ≃ 5 on the protein, estimated to be the number of charged residues on the cationic patch of the RBD. Thus, LPGS longer than a critical length, equivalent to the size of the cationic patch, do not contribute to this direct interaction. There is, however, a combinatorial entropy contribution for a longer polymer with N > nb, because of the different ways the polymer can bind to the protein, given by Savidity = kB ln (N – nb + 1). As this entropy contribution, Saviditysim = kB ln (Nsimnb + 1), is already accounted for in our simulations, we obtain in the limit of N > Nsimnb, ΔSavidity = kB ln (N/Nsim).
For the binding of the simulated LPGS undecamer to the wild-type and Delta-variant RBD, values of ΔFb0 (Nsim) = −ΔF – ΔFstretchkBT ln (Vb/V0), noting that the avidity entropy term in eq 5 vanishes for N = Nsim, and its different contributions are provided in Table 1 based on the static pulling results. The LPGS undecamer binds to the Delta RBD more strongly than the wild-type with an additional free-energy gain of around 2.4 kBT, as expected from the favorable electrostatic interaction discussed before.
Table 1. Values for the Standard Free-Energy of Binding ΔFb0 of an LPGS undecamer, Nsim = 11, to the Wild-Type and Delta-Variant RBD Based on the Static Pulling Simulation Results, Along with the Contributions in eq 5 to Calculate ΔFb0
contributionsWTDelta
ΔF5.59 ± 0.63 kBT7.46 ± 1.17 kBT
ΔFstretch2.06 ± 0.29 kBT2.51 ± 0.41 kBT
Vb11.32 ± 2.02 nm311.89 ± 4.91 nm3
kBT ln (Vb/ V0)1.92 ± 0.11 kBT1.97 ± 0.25 kBT
ΔFb0–9.57 ± 0.72 kBT–11.94 ± 1.30 kBT
The standard binding free energy ΔFb0 and dissociation constant KD for different polymer lengths predicted according to eqs 5 and 2 match nicely with the corresponding experimental values, as shown in Figure 4 and Table 2. The theoretical and experimental ΔFb0 values differ only within 1 kBT (the thermal energy), consequently KD differ by a factor of roughly two.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Theoretical prediction for (a) the standard binding free-energy ΔFb0 and (b) dissociation constant KD for the complexation reaction of the wild-type RBD and LPGS as a function of its degree of polymerization N. Experimental values are reproduced from publications by Nie et al. (15) (Available under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license. Copyright 2021 The Authors.) and Page et al. (35) (Available under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license. Copyright 2023 The Authors.). Shaded regions in panels a and b represent simulation errors of propagation coming from the first three terms in eq 5 and from ΔFb0, respectively.

Table 2. Comparison of ΔFb0 and KD Values from Experiments and Theoretical Predictions for the Wild-Type RBD and LPGS Binding for Different Experimental Degrees of Polymerization Nexpa
NexpΔFb0 (exp.)bΔFb0 (theory)bKD (exp.)cKD (theory)c
110 (Page et al.)–11.11 ± 0.37–11.87 ± 0.7215.0 ± 5.57.0 ± 5.0
274 (Nie et al.)–12.17 ± 0.69–12.78 ± 0.725.2 ± 3.62.8 ± 2.0
a

Experimental values are reproduced from publications by Nie et al., ref. (15) (Available under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license. Copyright 2021 The Authors.) and Page et al., ref. (35) (Available under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license. Copyright 2023 The Authors).

b

Standard binding free-energy, ΔFb0 in kBT.

c

Dissociation constant, KD in μM.

Enthalpy–Entropy Decomposition

To understand the underlying contributions to the binding free energy ΔFb = ΔUbTΔSb, we decompose it into its enthalpic ΔUb and entropic TΔSb parts, see Figure 5a,b. From the simulation trajectories (see Methods section), we calculate the net change in interaction energy, ΔUb = ΔUPP + ΔUPL + ΔUPW + ΔULL + ΔULW + ΔUWW, for the transition of the polymer from the desorbed to the adsorbed state from interactions among different components of the system: protein P, polymeric ligand L, and solvent (water molecules and ions) W. In the polymer adsorption process, we find favorable intersolute direct interaction (ΔUPL < 0) and solvent reorganization energy (ΔUWW < 0) and unfavorable solute–solvent interactions (ΔUPW > 0 and ΔULW > 0). ΔUb is quite small compared to the different contributions. Thus, there are huge cancellations among the different interaction energy contributions, as seen for other receptor–ligand systems, (33) calling for highly accurate calculations of the solvent contribution. (47)

Figure 5

Figure 5. (a) Snapshots from the static pulling simulations for the desorbed state (at the pulling distance ξ = 3.6 nm) and the adsorbed state (ξ = 0 nm). (b) Enthalpic, ΔUb, and entropic, TΔSb, contributions to the binding free-energy ΔFb of the wild-type RBD–LPGS complex, along with the different internal energy contributions to ΔUb (see text). The average number of (c) water molecules and (d) ions, Na+ and Cl, bound to the RBD or LPGS as a function of ξ.

We obtain the entropy contribution to the binding using the thermodynamic relation ΔSb = (ΔUb – ΔFb)/T. By observing that ΔUb < TΔSb < 0, we conclude that the adsorption process is entropically unfavorable and enthalpy driven. In the adsorption process, we find that 50–60 water molecules and only one ion are released as shown in Figure 5c,d (for the definition of bound water and ions, see Methods section). Thus, water release is expected to contribute significantly to the entropy as gain, while the contribution due to counterion release is minimal. The latter is not surprising though, as the linear charge density of LPGS is just above the counterion condensation limit by Manning, (48) the length of the simulated LPGS is short, thus leading to end effects, (49) and the simulated salt concentration of 150 mM is high. (50) However, the net change in the binding entropy is negative (Figure 5b), which has to arise from the restricted conformational, translational, and rotational degrees of freedom of the polymer and protein in the bound state, overcompensating the entropy gain due to water and ion release. (50−53) As the release of a single water molecule from a typical protein surface leads to an entropy gain of ∼1 kBT, (54) the entropic loss due to conformational transformations of the protein and polymer is suggested to be greater than 60 kBT.

Relaxation Time for Binding of Charged Groups

The validity of the binding free energy obtained from the static pulling simulations depends on whether the binding–unbinding equilibrium for interactions between the charged groups of the protein and polymer has been reached within the simulation time. The time-series data shows that anionic sulfate groups of LPGS bind intermittently to various cationic residues of the RBD (see Figure 6a). To quantify the time required to attain binding–unbinding equilibrium, we calculate the intermittent survival probability (SP) defined as (55)
SP(t)=ijsij(t)sij(t+t)ijsij(t)t
(6)
where
sij(t)={0ifNCij(t)=01ifNCij(t)>0,
(7)
with NCij(t) being the number of close contacts (defined by an interatomic distance cutoff of 3.5 Å) between a polymer charge group i and a protein residue j at time t. SP(t) represents the probability of finding a polymer group that is bound to a protein residue at time t′ to be bound to the same residue at time t′ + t and is shown for LPGS interactions with the wild-type and Delta-variant RBD in Figures 6c and S12, respectively. The relaxation time τ refers to the largest time scale involved and is obtained by fitting a biexponential function (= aet0 + bet + c) to the SP data. τ values for LPGS bound to the wild-type and Delta-variant RBD are similar, around 250 ns, which is an order of magnitude smaller than the total simulation time of 5 μs at each ξ, ensuring sufficient sampling. Moreover, we check the convergence of the free-energy profile F(ξ) by splitting the simulation into five blocks, each of duration 1 μs, and calculating F(ξ) for each block, for LPGS binding to the wild-type or Delta-variant RBD (see Figure S13 in the Supporting Information).

Figure 6

Figure 6. Time series for the binding of (a) LPGS’s and (b) heparin’s anionic groups (highlighted in red in Figure 1a,b) to cationic residues of the wild-type RBD that exhibit a significant number of close contacts with the polymers. Binding for LPGS (heparin) to the residues R346 (R346), K444 (R356) and R466 (R357) are visualized in red, green, and orange, respectively. The survival probability (defined in eq 6), averaging over all binding–unbinding time series data, is shown for (c) LPGS and (d) heparin. The dashed line in panel c or d represents the double exponential fit to the data, with the value of the largest decay time τ provided in the legend.

For heparin, the time-series data in Figure 6b shows that charged groups of heparin stay bound to a single protein residue for almost the whole simulation time. From the SP function in Figure 6d we estimate a relaxation time of 7.1 μs, which suggests that an order of magnitude-longer simulation (∼50 μs) would be required to achieve heparin binding–unbinding equilibrium. The significantly slower relaxation dynamics of heparin bound to the RBD surface, despite having a lower binding affinity than LPGS in experiments, is reflected by the slower conformational dynamics of heparin free in solution (see Figure S14 in the Supporting Information). Besides, heparin is significantly stiffer than LPGS and has a persistence length of about 1.4 nm that is roughly three times longer than the one of LPGS, as we have shown in our recent paper. (15) Thus, any reconfiguration of a protein-bound conformation of heparin involves large-scale rigid body rotations compared to the small-scale bending available to LPGS, which additionally is expected to slow down the relaxation of the RBD-bound heparin. Furthermore, to study the binding mechanism of heparin to the RBD we calculate contact maps of sulfate, carboxyl, and hydroxyl groups with the RBD residues. We find that heparin primarily interacts with the same set of cationic residues of the RBD, as the sulfates of LPGS, as shown in Figure S15a–d in the Supporting Information. Carboxyl groups form a greater number of close contacts with the RBD, primarily to its cationic residues, as shown in Figure S15e, whereas hydroxyl groups form hydrogen bonds with both cationic and polar residues, as shown in Figure S15f.

Protein Conformational Transitions

When LPGS is present near the wild-type RBD surface, we observe transitions between different protein conformations, which adds further complexity to the quantitative prediction of the binding thermodynamics. The RBD has a loop region (residues 470–490) that exhibits higher root-mean-square positional fluctuations (see eq 11 for the definition) and is highly flexible (see Figure 7a). Due to this, the loop region can switch between multiple states and thus modify the overall protein structure significantly, as seen from the time-series plot of the distance between the center-of-mass of the loop region and the remaining part of the protein in Figure 7b. From the autocorrelation function (defined in eq 12) of this center-of-mass distance, we find for the RBD conformational dynamics a relaxation time of 590 ns as shown in Figure 7c (for further details, see Methods section). As our simulation time is an order of magnitude larger than the relaxation time, sufficient sampling of different protein configurations is ensured. However, the error in the desorption force for the Delta-variant RBD is large (see Figure 2d, e.g., at ξ = 0.4 nm) since the bound polymer attracts the flexible loop of the protein toward it (see snapshots in Figure S16 in the Supporting Information).

Figure 7

Figure 7. Conformational fluctuations of the wild-type RBD and dynamics of its loop region (residues 470 to 490) from the static simulation at ξ = 1.6 nm. (a) Root-mean-square fluctuation (RMSF) of the protein backbone atoms for different residues. The shaded region represents residues corresponding to the RBD’s loop region. (b) Time series of the distance between the center-of-mass of the loop region and the remaining part of the RBD. Snapshots for two different states at the start and after 2700 ns of the simulation are displayed above. The RBD surface is shown in gray except for its loop region in red, whereas LPGS is shown in the ball–stick representation in orange. (c) The center-of-mass distance autocorrelation function. The dashed line represents a double exponential fit to the data, with the value of the largest decay time τ given in the legend.

Due to these protein structural transitions, also the error in the hydration number is large (Figure 5c, e.g., at ξ = 2.8 nm). Because the loop region occasionally adsorbs on the protein surface itself, multiple water molecules are released during this process (see Figure S17 in the Supporting Information). This accounts for large fluctuations in the number of bound water within a single simulation window, making a quantitative estimate of the entropic contribution due to water release difficult. Note that as the loop region is part of the receptor binding motif that forms direct contact with the host cell receptor protein ACE2, its flexibility might help in adapting the viral spike protein structure for binding to other cell receptors and thus improve viral infectivity.

Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

We demonstrate a method to obtain the binding free energy of long polymers (10–100 kDa) typically considered in experiments, from the simulated free-energy profile of shorter polymer desorption from a protein. This requires correctly accounting for (i) the binding volume of the polymer, (ii) the polymer stretching free energy, and (iii) the avidity entropy due to the different possible ways the polymer can bind to the protein (cf. eq 5). We validate our method by favorable comparison with the experimental free-energy of binding between LPGS and the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 spike protein RBD and reproducing accurately the polymer-length dependence. We find that anionic LPGS binds more strongly to the Delta-variant RBD (with extra 2 mutated cationic residues) than the wild-type RBD, underlining the role of electrostatic interactions. The LPGS–RBD binding at T = 300 K is found to be enthalpy driven with a large enthalpy–entropy compensation. Decomposing the enthalpy of binding, we find significant cancellation between the polymer–protein, the solute–solvent, and the solvent–solvent interaction energy contributions. These observations signify the importance of solvent and entropic effects in molecular binding. (33,54,56)
We identify a highly flexible loop region of the RBD, which transitions between different states with a relaxation time of 600 ns. Thus, slow protein conformation transitions can add complications in predicting the binding thermodynamics accurately. Moreover, we show that modeling the adsorption of a highly charged polymer, e.g., the drug heparin to RBD, requires a high computational effort as the relaxation time for the charged-group binding equilibrium is ∼7 μs.
Comparing three different simulation protocols (see additional discussion in Section S2 in the Supporting Information) for obtaining the polymer adsorption free-energy difference, we find that the extrapolation method using the dynamic pulling data, as shown in Figure 2, gives larger values than umbrella sampling and static pulling results. This hints at the relevance of dissipative chain reconfiguration effects when pulling a polymer from an absorbing surface, as is relevant in force spectroscopy experiments (57) and biological nonequilibrium scenarios. Thus, the dynamic pulling method is not only useful in generating initial configurations for the static pulling method but also for understanding friction and diffusion in the bound protein–polymer complex, which is important for the kinetics of the binding process.
We have developed a theoretical method to predict the dissociation constant for a multivalent linear polymer binding to a monovalent receptor, i.e., a single RBD in solution, mimicking recent experiments where the binding of polymers to monomeric RBDs in solution was studied. (15,35) A long polymer, however, can simultaneously bind to three RBDs (either in the up or down configuration) of a single trimeric spike protein or can bridge between multiple trivalent spike-protein receptors on the virion. Predicting multivalent dissociation constants in these two scenarios is possible with our recently developed multiscale modeling approach, (11,58) for which the monovalent dissociation constant calculated in this paper is the essential input parameter.

Methods

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

MD Simulations

Models, Parameters, and Simulation Set-Up

The coordinates for the wild-type RBD of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein are obtained from the deposited crystal structure (PDB ID: 6M0J). (21) The Delta-variant RBD with L452R and T478 K mutations is built using PyMOL. The structure of the heparin pentamer is built using CHARMM-GUI Glycan Reader & Modeler. (59−62) The structure of the LPGS undecamer is built using Avogadro software. (63) CHARMM36m (64) and CHARMM Carbohydrates (65,66) force field parameters are used to model the protein and heparin, respectively. Parameters and partial atomic charges for LPGS are modeled with the CHARMM General force field (67,68) and obtained using the CGenFF program. (69,70) CHARMM-compatible TIP3P water (71,72) and ion parameters (73) are used. RBD/LPGS and RBD/heparin are arranged and solvated in boxes of sizes 7 × 7 × 9.5 and 7 × 7 × 10 nm3, respectively. Enough Na+ ions are added to charge neutralize each system, then Na+/Cl ion pairs are added to obtain a 150 mm NaCl solution estimated from the mole fraction of ion pairs and water.
Before starting pulling simulations, unconstrained simulations are performed for at least 1 μs in the NpT ensemble at T = 300 K and p = 1 bar with periodic boundary conditions in xyz directions, using the GROMACS 2020.6 package. (74) During the simulations, backbone atoms of three residues of the RBD are fixed to stop its center-of-mass translation and its rotation around the principal axes. The stochastic velocity rescaling thermostat (75) with a time constant of τ = 0.1 ps is used to control the temperature, while for the pressure control an isotropic Parrinello–Rahman barostat (76) is used with a time constant of τ = 2 ps and a compressibility of κ = 4.5 × 10–5/bar. The LINCS algorithm (77) is used to constrain the bonds involving H-atoms, allowing a time step of Δt = 2 fs. Electrostatic interactions are computed using the particle mesh Ewald method (78) with a real-space cutoff distance of 1.2 nm, while van der Waals interactions are modeled using Lennard-Jones potentials with a cutoff distance of 1.2 nm where the resulting forces smoothly switch to zero between of 1 and 1.2 nm. A data saving frequency of 100 ps is used.

Glycan-Conjugated RBD

A glycan (chemical details in Figure S5a in the Supporting Information) conjugated to the residue N354 of the wild-type RBD is built using the CHARMM-GUI Glycan Reader & Modeler. (60−62) Parameters for the glycan are taken from the CHARMM Carbohydrates (65,66) force field.

Dynamic and Static Pulling Simulations

For performing pulling simulations, the z-distance between the center-of-mass of the protein and one terminal atom of the polymer is chosen as a reaction coordinate ξ, which is shifted such that ξ = 0 when the terminal atom is bound to the surface. Constant velocity pulling simulations (which we refer to as dynamic pulling) are conducted in the NVT ensemble. Here, a spring with spring constant k = 1660 pN/nm is attached to a terminal polymer atom and pulled with a constant velocity v, and the pulling force f is obtained from the extension of the spring from its equilibrium position. The used pulling speed v ranges from 0.006 to 1.2 m/s. To ensure that the whole polymer is desorbed from the protein surface, a simulation time in the range of 5 to 1000 ns is used so that at the end, a pulling distance of roughly 6 nm is reached. For each pulling speed, simulations are repeated until the combined simulation time reaches 1000 ns or more. The coordinates of the system are saved every 100 ps and pulling forces are recorded every 100 fs.
For the static simulations, the starting configurations are generated from multiple configurations from the dynamic pulling simulations with a 0.4 nm spacing of the reaction coordinate. The time for each static simulation window is set to 5 μs, summing up to a total simulation time of 45 μs. The free-energy profile from the static simulations is calculated by first computing the average force for each simulation window using the last 4.5 μs data and then integrating over the average force profile, see eq 1.

Umbrella Sampling Simulations

Taking configurations from the dynamic pulling simulations for the wild-type RBD–LPGS system, we have conducted 30 simulations for 100 ns each where umbrella or harmonic potentials are applied to restrain the system at different values of the reaction coordinate ξ (the same as defined before), from 0.1 to 3.0 nm with a window spacing of 0.1 nm. The same spring constant as in the dynamic pulling is used for each umbrella window. The weighted histogram analysis method, (41) implemented in the GROMACS module wham, (74) is used to obtain the free-energy landscape F(ξ) for LPGS desorption from the RBD surface, shown in Figure 2f. The first 20 ns data for each umbrella window is discarded in the calculation of F(ξ). The overlapping of histograms for consecutive umbrella windows needed for the accurate computation of F(ξ) and its convergence check by taking different lengths of the simulation data are shown in Figure S18 in the Supporting Information. Note that the simulation time for each umbrella window is shorter than the RBD loop relaxation time reported in Figure 7c. However, the good comparison with the free-energy profile obtained from the static pulling simulations, each of a much longer duration of 5 μs, demonstrates that the umbrella simulations are converged (see Figure 2f).

Constant-Force Stretching of LPGS

An LPGS undecamer, placed in a rectangular simulation box of size 5 × 5 × 9 nm3, charge-neutralized by adding counterions (Na+) and solvated with water in a 150 mM NaCl solution, is taken for the simulations. The simulation-related parameters coincide with the ones of the unconstrained RBD/LPGS simulation in the NpT ensemble except, that the GROMACS 2021.3 package (74) and ion parameters of Loche et al. (79) are used. Additionally, we have chosen a higher trajectory saving frequency of 10 ps. The equilibration process starts with employing the steepest descent algorithm for the initial energy minimization. This is followed by two stages of simulation: a 500 ps NVT simulation and a 2 ns NpT simulation, during which the polymer atom positions are restrained.
To determine the stretching free-energy ΔFstretch of LPGS, we have performed in the NpT ensemble several production simulations in each of which a constant force between 1 and 1000 pN is applied to the polymer ends in opposite directions along the z-axis. The anchor points for the constant force are the first (C1) and last (C22) carbon atoms of the LPGS undecamer along its backbone, as depicted in Figure 8. The average extension ⟨zete⟩ for ten monomers, defined as the distance between the carbon atoms C1 and C21 in the pulling direction, is measured. This ensures the inclusion of all relevant monomers under strain. We have performed NpT production simulations for different durations from 200 ns (at higher forces) to 2000 ns (at lower forces), depending on the relaxation time of the ion distribution around the polymer and the polymer end-to-end distance at different applied forces. For data analysis, the initial part (20–50 ns depending on the applied force) of a production run is discarded for the equilibration which accounts for initial stretching or shortening of LPGS.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Stretching protocol showing the LPGS undecamer at an applied force f = 800 pN. Color coding for the different atom types: hydrogen in white, carbon in cyan, oxygen in red, and sulfur in yellow.

Simulation Data Analysis

Simulation data are visualized and analyzed with VMD (80) and the software package MDAnalysis, (81,82) respectively.

iPFRC Model and Stretching Free Energy of LPGS

The force f versus extension zete profile obtained from constant-force stretching of LPGS is depicted in Figure 3a (for the complete range of forces used in this study, the profile is shown in Figure S19 in the Supporting Information). To interpolate the data points, we use the heuristic force–extension relation of the iPFRC model (44)
f=kBTzeteL(3aKuhn+1ca0zete/L1zete/L)
(8)
Here, L is the contour length of the polymer, and a0 is the equilibrium monomer length. The Kuhn length aKuhn is defined by the linear stretching response at low applied forces and c is a free parameter, whose choice accounts for restricted backbone dihedral rotation and side chain interactions. The iPFRC model has been shown to describe the force–extension relation of various polypeptides quite well, (83) when a force-dependent contour length L(f) is introduced additionally
L(f)=L0(1+γ12+4γ2fγ12γ2)
(9)
In eq 9, L0 denotes the unstretched contour length of the polymer. The linear stretching modulus γ1 and the nonlinear coefficient γ2 describe the force-dependent extension of a monomer at zero temperature in vacuum. The variables a0, aKuhn, c, γ1, and γ2 have been used as free fitting parameters and their values corresponding to the shown line in Figure 3a are reported in Table 3. The stretching free energy ΔFstretch follows by integrating the fitted force–extension curve eq 4 and is shown in Figure 3b. The choice of setting the lower bound of the integral in eq 4 to zero is grounded on the premise that, in the absence of an applied force, the expected value of the average extension is zero.
Table 3. Fitting Parameters of the iPFRC Model
parametervalue
a0366.82 ± 0.67 pm
aKuhn0.873 ± 0.033 nm
c0.793 ± 0.018
γ196 ± 36 nN
γ2500 ± 2000 nN

Internal Energy Decomposition

Interaction energy calculations are done using the GROMACS module energy. (74) The average energy is calculated for the adsorbed state, ξ = 0 nm, and the desorbed state, ξ = 3.6 nm, for interactions between different components of the system: protein, polymer, and solvent (water and ions), and the energy differences are computed. Only the short-range part of the Coulomb interaction with a cutoff distance 1.2 nm is included in these calculations, as the full, long-range electrostatic energy of a subsystem with a nonzero net charge with periodic boundary conditions diverges. However, calculation of the net change in interaction energy, ΔUb, for the whole system includes also the long-range electrostatic contribution. Simulation data of 2.5 μs (25,000 frames) and 5 μs (50,000 frames) are used for calculating the interaction energies for adsorbed and desorbed states, respectively.

Distance Criteria for Close Contacts and Bound Water and Ions

For calculating the number of close contacts, we define a contact by an atom of LPGS falling within 3.5 Å of any atom of a protein residue. The same cutoff distance (of 3.5 Å) criterion is used to calculate the protein-bound water molecules and ions.

Root-Mean-Square Deviation

The root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) of a molecular conformation is calculated using the GROMACS module rmsd (74) and is defined as
RMSD(t)=1Ni=1N(rj(t)rjref)2
(10)
where N is the total number of atoms, rj(t) is the position of atom j at time t, and rjref is the position the same atom in the reference state.

Root-Mean-Square Fluctuation of the RBD Structure

The root-mean-square fluctuation (RMSF) of the backbone atom positions for each RBD residue is calculated using the GROMACS module rmsf (74) and is defined as
RMSF(i)=1Ntt=1Nt(ri(t)riref)2
(11)
where Nt is the total number of frames in a trajectory, ri(t) is the position of residue i at time t, and riref is the position the same residue in the reference state (the native state of RBD).

Relaxation Time for the RBD’s Loop Region Movement

The movement of the flexible loop region (residues 470–490) of the RBD is tracked by calculating the center-of-mass (COM) distance between the loop region and the rest of the protein. To get an estimate of the relaxation time, we calculate the COM distance autocorrelation function C(t) defined as
C(t)=(A(t)A¯)(A(t+t)A¯)t(A(t)A¯)2t
(12)
where A(t′) is an observable at an initial time t′, A is the time average of observable A, ⟨·⟩t represents the time-origin averaging. The relaxation time is estimated by fitting a biexponential function (= aet0 + bet) to the COM distance autocorrelation C(t) and refers to the longest time scale involved τ.

Error Estimations

Errors for the static pulling, the average extension of LPGS, internal energy calculations, and the number of protein-bound water molecules and ions are estimated by using the block averaging method by Flyvbjerg and Petersen. (84) The number of blocks is changed until the standard error of the different blocks converges to a constant value. In case the standard error does not converge, the maximum standard error is used as an error estimate. For the dynamic pulling, the error is estimated by calculating the standard error of ΔF for each pulling rate.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacsau.4c00886.

  • Derivation of the standard free-energy of binding from a polymer desorption free-energy profile; additional figures (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Authors
  • Authors
    • Lenard Neander - Department of Physics, Freie Universität Berlin, Arnimallee 14, Berlin 14195, GermanyInstitute of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Freie Universität Berlin, Takustraße 3, Berlin 14195, Germany
    • Cedric Hannemann - Department of Physics, Freie Universität Berlin, Arnimallee 14, Berlin 14195, GermanyOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0009-0005-2467-168X
  • Author Contributions

    A.K.S. and R.R.N.: Designed research. L.N., C.H., and A.K.S.: Performed research. L.N., C.H., and A.K.S.: Analyzed data. A.K.S. and R.R.N.: Wrote the paper with inputs from all authors.

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

We acknowledge support provided by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Grant No. IRTG-2662 Project No. 434130070 “Charging into the future,” and by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program Grant Agreement No. 835117. We gratefully acknowledge computing time on the HPC clusters at the Physics department, Freie Universität Berlin.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 84 other publications.

  1. 1
    Kornberg, R. D.; Lorch, Y. Twenty-five years of the nucleosome, fundamental particle of the eukaryote chromosome. Cell 1999, 98, 285294,  DOI: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81958-3
  2. 2
    Kunze, K.-K.; Netz, R. Complexes of semiflexible polyelectrolytes and charged spheres as models for salt-modulated nucleosomal structures. Phys. Rev. E 2002, 66, 011918  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.66.011918
  3. 3
    Parsaeian, A.; De La Cruz, M. O.; Marko, J. F. Binding-rebinding dynamics of proteins interacting nonspecifically with a long DNA molecule. Phys. Rev. E 2013, 88, 040703  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.88.040703
  4. 4
    Shin, Y.; Brangwynne, C. P. Liquid phase condensation in cell physiology and disease. Science 2017, 357, eaaf4382  DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf4382
  5. 5
    Goedert, M.; Jakes, R.; Spillantini, M.; Hasegawa, M.; Smith, M.; Crowther, R. Assembly of microtubule-associated protein tau into Alzheimer-like filaments induced by sulphated glycosaminoglycans. Nature 1996, 383, 550553,  DOI: 10.1038/383550a0
  6. 6
    Fichou, Y.; Lin, Y.; Rauch, J. N.; Vigers, M.; Zeng, Z.; Srivastava, M.; Keller, T. J.; Freed, J. H.; Kosik, K. S.; Han, S. Cofactors are essential constituents of stable and seeding-active tau fibrils. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2018, 115, 1323413239,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1810058115
  7. 7
    Achazi, K.; Haag, R.; Ballauff, M.; Dernedde, J.; Kizhakkedathu, J. N.; Maysinger, D.; Multhaup, G. Understanding the interaction of polyelectrolyte architectures with proteins and biosystems. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2021, 60, 38823904,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.202006457
  8. 8
    Kayitmazer, A. B.; Seeman, D.; Minsky, B. B.; Dubin, P. L.; Xu, Y. Protein–polyelectrolyte interactions. Soft Matter 2013, 9, 25532583,  DOI: 10.1039/c2sm27002a
  9. 9
    Nandy, B.; Saurabh, S.; Sahoo, A. K.; Dixit, N. M.; Maiti, P. K. The SPL7013 dendrimer destabilizes the HIV-1 gp120-CD4 complex. Nanoscale 2015, 7, 1862818641,  DOI: 10.1039/C5NR04632G
  10. 10
    Cagno, V.; Tseligka, E. D.; Jones, S. T.; Tapparel, C. Heparan sulfate proteoglycans and viral attachment: true receptors or adaptation bias?. Viruses 2019, 11, 596  DOI: 10.3390/v11070596
  11. 11
    Liese, S.; Netz, R. R. Quantitative prediction of multivalent ligand-receptor binding affinities for influenza, cholera, and anthrax inhibition. ACS Nano 2018, 12, 41404147,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.7b08479
  12. 12
    Lauster, D.; Osterrieder, K.; Haag, R.; Ballauff, M.; Herrmann, A. Respiratory viruses interacting with cells: The importance of electrostatics. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1169547  DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1169547
  13. 13
    Chu, H.; Hu, B.; Huang, X.; Chai, Y.; Zhou, D.; Wang, Y.; Shuai, H.; Yang, D.; Hou, Y.; Zhang, X. Host and viral determinants for efficient SARS-CoV-2 infection of the human lung. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 134  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-20457-w
  14. 14
    Kim, S. H.; Kearns, F. L.; Rosenfeld, M. A.; Votapka, L.; Casalino, L.; Papanikolas, M.; Amaro, R. E.; Freeman, R. SARS-CoV-2 evolved variants optimize binding to cellular glycocalyx. Cell Rep. Phys. Sci. 2023, 4, 101346  DOI: 10.1016/j.xcrp.2023.101346
  15. 15
    Nie, C.; Pouyan, P.; Lauster, D.; Trimpert, J.; Kerkhoff, Y.; Szekeres, G. P.; Wallert, M.; Block, S.; Sahoo, A. K.; Dernedde, J.; Pagel, K.; Kaufer, B. B.; Netz, R. R.; Ballauff, M.; Haag, R. Polysulfates block SARS-CoV-2 uptake via electrostatic interactions. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2021, 60, 1587015878,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.202102717
  16. 16
    Clausen, T. M.; Sandoval, D. R.; Spliid, C. B.; Pihl, J.; Perrett, H. R.; Painter, C. D.; Narayanan, A.; Majowicz, S. A.; Kwong, E. M.; McVicar, R. N. SARS-CoV-2 infection depends on cellular heparan sulfate and ACE2. Cell 2020, 183, 10431057,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.033
  17. 17
    Lever, R.; Page, C. P. Non-Anticoagulant Effects of Heparin: An Overview. In Heparin - A Century of Progress; Lever, R.; Mulloy, B.; Page, C. P., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012; pp 281305.
  18. 18
    Page, C. Heparin and related drugs: beyond anticoagulant activity. ISRN Pharmacol. 2013, 1, 910743  DOI: 10.1155/2013/910743
  19. 19
    Oates, J. A.; Wood, A. J. J.; Hirsh, J. Heparin. N. Engl. J. Med. 1991, 324, 15651574,  DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199105303242206
  20. 20
    Cate, H. T. Surviving Covid-19 with Heparin?. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 385, 845846,  DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe2111151
  21. 21
    Lan, J.; Ge, J.; Yu, J.; Shan, S.; Zhou, H.; Fan, S.; Zhang, Q.; Shi, X.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, L.; Wang, X. Structure of the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain bound to the ACE2 receptor. Nature 2020, 581, 215220,  DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2180-5
  22. 22
    Pishko, A. M.; Lefler, D. S.; Gimotty, P.; Paydary, K.; Fardin, S.; Arepally, G. M.; Crowther, M.; Rice, L.; Vega, R.; Cines, D. B. The risk of major bleeding in patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. J. Thromb. Haemostasis 2019, 17, 19561965,  DOI: 10.1111/jth.14587
  23. 23
    Nie, C.; Sahoo, A. K.; Netz, R. R.; Herrmann, A.; Ballauff, M.; Haag, R. Charge matters: Mutations in omicron variant favor binding to cells. ChemBioChem 2022, 23, e202100681  DOI: 10.1002/cbic.202100681
  24. 24
    Wang, L.; Wu, Y.; Deng, Y.; Kim, B.; Pierce, L.; Krilov, G.; Lupyan, D.; Robinson, S.; Dahlgren, M. K.; Greenwood, J. Accurate and reliable prediction of relative ligand binding potency in prospective drug discovery by way of a modern free-energy calculation protocol and force field. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 26952703,  DOI: 10.1021/ja512751q
  25. 25
    Cournia, Z.; Allen, B.; Sherman, W. Relative binding free energy calculations in drug discovery: recent advances and practical considerations. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2017, 57, 29112937,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00564
  26. 26
    Mobley, D. L.; Gilson, M. K. Predicting binding free energies: frontiers and benchmarks. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 2017, 46, 531558,  DOI: 10.1146/annurev-biophys-070816-033654
  27. 27
    Zhao, J.; Cao, Y.; Zhang, L. Exploring the computational methods for protein-ligand binding site prediction. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2020, 18, 417426,  DOI: 10.1016/j.csbj.2020.02.008
  28. 28
    Gapsys, V.; Yildirim, A.; Aldeghi, M.; Khalak, Y.; Van der Spoel, D.; de Groot, B. L. Accurate absolute free energies for ligand–protein binding based on non-equilibrium approaches. Commun. Chem. 2021, 4, 61  DOI: 10.1038/s42004-021-00498-y
  29. 29
    Xu, X.; Angioletti-Uberti, S.; Lu, Y.; Dzubiella, J.; Ballauff, M. Interaction of proteins with polyelectrolytes: Comparison of theory to experiment. Langmuir 2019, 35, 53735391,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b01802
  30. 30
    Paiardi, G.; Ferraz, M.; Rusnati, M.; Wade, R. C. The accomplices: Heparan sulfates and N-glycans foster SARS-CoV-2 spike: ACE2 receptor binding and virus priming. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2024, 121, e2404892121  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2404892121
  31. 31
    Bhatia, S.; Lauster, D.; Bardua, M.; Ludwig, K.; Angioletti-Uberti, S.; Popp, N.; Hoffmann, U.; Paulus, F.; Budt, M.; Stadtmüller, M. Linear polysialoside outperforms dendritic analogs for inhibition of influenza virus infection in vitro and in vivo. Biomaterials 2017, 138, 2234,  DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.05.028
  32. 32
    Xu, C.; Wang, Y.; Liu, C.; Zhang, C.; Han, W.; Hong, X.; Wang, Y.; Hong, Q.; Wang, S.; Zhao, Q. Conformational dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 trimeric spike glycoprotein in complex with receptor ACE2 revealed by cryo-EM. Sci. Adv. 2021, 7, eabe5575  DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abe5575
  33. 33
    Horinek, D.; Serr, A.; Geisler, M.; Pirzer, T.; Slotta, U.; Lud, S. Q.; Garrido, J.; Scheibel, T.; Hugel, T.; Netz, R. R. Peptide adsorption on a hydrophobic surface results from an interplay of solvation, surface, and intrapeptide forces. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2008, 105, 28422847,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0707879105
  34. 34
    Schwierz, N.; Horinek, D.; Liese, S.; Pirzer, T.; Balzer, B. N.; Hugel, T.; Netz, R. R. On the relationship between peptide adsorption resistance and surface contact angle: a combined experimental and simulation single-molecule study. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 1962819638,  DOI: 10.1021/ja304462u
  35. 35
    Page, T. M.; Nie, C.; Neander, L.; Povolotsky, T. L.; Sahoo, A. K.; Nickl, P.; Adler, J. M.; Bawadkji, O.; Radnik, J.; Achazi, K. Functionalized Fullerene for Inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 Variants. Small 2023, 19, 2206154  DOI: 10.1002/smll.202206154
  36. 36
    Woo, H.; Park, S.-J.; Choi, Y. K.; Park, T.; Tanveer, M.; Cao, Y.; Kern, N. R.; Lee, J.; Yeom, M. S.; Croll, T. I. Developing a fully glycosylated full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike protein model in a viral membrane. J. Phys. Chem. B 2020, 124, 71287137,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.0c04553
  37. 37
    Casalino, L.; Gaieb, Z.; Goldsmith, J. A.; Hjorth, C. K.; Dommer, A. C.; Harbison, A. M.; Fogarty, C. A.; Barros, E. P.; Taylor, B. C.; McLellan, J. S. Beyond shielding: the roles of glycans in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. ACS Cent. Sci. 2020, 6, 17221734,  DOI: 10.1021/acscentsci.0c01056
  38. 38
    Erbaş, A.; Netz, R. R. Confinement-dependent friction in peptide bundles. Biophys. J. 2013, 104, 12851295,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2013.02.008
  39. 39
    Erbaş, A.; Horinek, D.; Netz, R. R. Viscous friction of hydrogen-bonded matter. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 623630,  DOI: 10.1021/ja209454a
  40. 40
    Patil, S. P.; Xiao, S.; Gkagkas, K.; Markert, B.; Gräter, F. Viscous friction between crystalline and amorphous phase of dragline silk. PLoS One 2014, 9, e104832  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104832
  41. 41
    Kumar, S.; Rosenberg, J. M.; Bouzida, D.; Swendsen, R. H.; Kollman, P. A. The weighted histogram analysis method for free-energy calculations on biomolecules. I. The method. J. Comput. Chem. 1992, 13, 10111021,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.540130812
  42. 42
    Torrie, G. M.; Valleau, J. P. Nonphysical sampling distributions in Monte Carlo free-energy estimation: Umbrella sampling. J. Comput. Phys. 1977, 23, 187199,  DOI: 10.1016/0021-9991(77)90121-8
  43. 43
    Phillips, R.; Kondev, J.; Theriot, J.; Garcia, H. Physical Biology of the Cell, 2nd ed.; Garland Science: New York, 2012; p 1088.
  44. 44
    Hanke, F.; Serr, A.; Kreuzer, H. J.; Netz, R. R. Stretching single polypeptides: The effect of rotational constraints in the backbone. Europhys. Lett. 2010, 92, 53001  DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/92/53001
  45. 45
    Kitov, P. I.; Bundle, D. R. On the nature of the multivalency effect: a thermodynamic model. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 1627116284,  DOI: 10.1021/ja038223n
  46. 46
    Zumbro, E.; Witten, J.; Alexander-Katz, A. Computational insights into avidity of polymeric multivalent binders. Biophys. J. 2019, 117, 892902,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2019.07.026
  47. 47
    Qiao, B.; Jiménez-Ángeles, F.; Nguyen, T. D.; Olvera de la Cruz, M. Water follows polar and nonpolar protein surface domains. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2019, 116, 1927419281,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1910225116
  48. 48
    Manning, G. S. Limiting laws and counterion condensation in polyelectrolyte solutions I. Colligative properties. J. Chem. Phys. 1969, 51, 924933,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1672157
  49. 49
    Fenley, M. O.; Manning, G. S.; Olson, W. K. Approach to the limit of counterion condensation. Biopolymers 1990, 30, 11911203,  DOI: 10.1002/bip.360301305
  50. 50
    Walkowiak, J. J.; Ballauff, M. Interaction of polyelectrolytes with proteins: quantifying the role of water. Adv. Sci. 2021, 8, 2100661  DOI: 10.1002/advs.202100661
  51. 51
    Irudayam, S. J.; Henchman, R. H. Entropic cost of protein- ligand binding and its dependence on the entropy in solution. J. Phys. Chem. B 2009, 113, 58715884,  DOI: 10.1021/jp809968p
  52. 52
    Xu, X.; Ran, Q.; Dey, P.; Nikam, R.; Haag, R.; Ballauff, M.; Dzubiella, J. Counterion-release entropy governs the inhibition of serum proteins by polyelectrolyte drugs. Biomacromolecules 2018, 19, 409416,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.biomac.7b01499
  53. 53
    Caro, J. A.; Harpole, K. W.; Kasinath, V.; Lim, J.; Granja, J.; Valentine, K. G.; Sharp, K. A.; Wand, A. J. Entropy in molecular recognition by proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2017, 114, 65636568,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1621154114
  54. 54
    Sahoo, A. K.; Schreiber, F.; Netz, R. R.; Maiti, P. K. Role of entropy in determining the phase behavior of protein solutions induced by multivalent ions. Soft Matter 2022, 18, 592601,  DOI: 10.1039/D1SM00730K
  55. 55
    Rapaport, D. Hydrogen bonds in water: Network organization and lifetimes. Mol. Phys. 1983, 50, 11511162,  DOI: 10.1080/00268978300102931
  56. 56
    Malicka, W.; Haag, R.; Ballauff, M. Interaction of heparin with proteins: hydration effects. J. Phys. Chem. B 2022, 126, 62506260,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.2c04928
  57. 57
    Geisler, M.; Xiao, S.; Puchner, E. M.; Gräter, F.; Hugel, T. Controlling the structure of proteins at surfaces. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 1727717281,  DOI: 10.1021/ja107212z
  58. 58
    Liese, S.; Netz, R. R. Influence of length and flexibility of spacers on the binding affinity of divalent ligands. Beilstein J. Org. Chem. 2015, 11, 804816,  DOI: 10.3762/bjoc.11.90
  59. 59
    Jo, S.; Kim, T.; Iyer, V. G.; Im, W. CHARMM-GUI: a web-based graphical user interface for CHARMM. J. Comput. Chem. 2008, 29, 18591865,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.20945
  60. 60
    Park, S.-J.; Lee, J.; Qi, Y.; Kern, N. R.; Lee, H. S.; Jo, S.; Joung, I.; Joo, K.; Lee, J.; Im, W. CHARMM-GUI Glycan Modeler for modeling and simulation of carbohydrates and glycoconjugates. Glycobiology 2019, 29, 320331,  DOI: 10.1093/glycob/cwz003
  61. 61
    Jo, S.; Song, K. C.; Desaire, H.; MacKerell, A. D., Jr; Im, W. Glycan Reader: automated sugar identification and simulation preparation for carbohydrates and glycoproteins. J. Comput. Chem. 2011, 32, 31353141,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.21886
  62. 62
    Park, S.-J.; Lee, J.; Patel, D. S.; Ma, H.; Lee, H. S.; Jo, S.; Im, W. Glycan Reader is improved to recognize most sugar types and chemical modifications in the Protein Data Bank. Bioinformatics 2017, 33, 30513057,  DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx358
  63. 63
    Hanwell, M. D.; Curtis, D. E.; Lonie, D. C.; Vandermeersch, T.; Zurek, E.; Hutchison, G. R. Avogadro: an advanced semantic chemical editor, visualization, and analysis platform. J. Cheminf. 2012, 4, 117,  DOI: 10.1186/1758-2946-4-17
  64. 64
    Huang, J.; Rauscher, S.; Nawrocki, G.; Ran, T.; Feig, M.; De Groot, B. L.; Grubmüller, H.; MacKerell, A. D. CHARMM36m: an improved force field for folded and intrinsically disordered proteins. Nat. Methods 2017, 14, 7173,  DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.4067
  65. 65
    Guvench, O.; Mallajosyula, S. S.; Raman, E. P.; Hatcher, E.; Vanommeslaeghe, K.; Foster, T. J.; Jamison, F. W.; MacKerell, A. D., Jr CHARMM additive all-atom force field for carbohydrate derivatives and its utility in polysaccharide and carbohydrate-protein modeling. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2011, 7, 31623180,  DOI: 10.1021/ct200328p
  66. 66
    Mallajosyula, S. S.; Guvench, O.; Hatcher, E.; MacKerell, A. D., Jr CHARMM additive all-atom force field for phosphate and sulfate linked to carbohydrates. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2012, 8, 759776,  DOI: 10.1021/ct200792v
  67. 67
    Vanommeslaeghe, K.; Hatcher, E.; Acharya, C.; Kundu, S.; Zhong, S.; Shim, J.; Darian, E.; Guvench, O.; Lopes, P.; Vorobyov, I.; Mackerell, A. D. CHARMM general force field: A force field for drug-like molecules compatible with the CHARMM all-atom additive biological force fields. J. Comput. Chem. 2010, 31, 671690,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.21367
  68. 68
    Yu, W.; He, X.; Vanommeslaeghe, K.; MacKerell, A. D., Jr Extension of the CHARMM general force field to sulfonyl-containing compounds and its utility in biomolecular simulations. J. Comput. Chem. 2012, 33, 24512468,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.23067
  69. 69
    Vanommeslaeghe, K.; MacKerell, A. D., Jr Automation of the CHARMM General Force Field (CGenFF) I: bond perception and atom typing. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2012, 52, 31443154,  DOI: 10.1021/ci300363c
  70. 70
    Vanommeslaeghe, K.; Raman, E. P.; MacKerell, A. D., Jr Automation of the CHARMM General Force Field (CGenFF) II: assignment of bonded parameters and partial atomic charges. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2012, 52, 31553168,  DOI: 10.1021/ci3003649
  71. 71
    Jorgensen, W. L.; Chandrasekhar, J.; Madura, J. D.; Impey, R. W.; Klein, M. L. Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J. Chem. Phys. 1983, 79, 926935,  DOI: 10.1063/1.445869
  72. 72
    MacKerell, A. D., Jr; Bashford, D.; Bellott, M.; Dunbrack, R. L., Jr; Evanseck, J. D.; Field, M. J.; Fischer, S.; Gao, J.; Guo, H.; Ha, S. All-atom empirical potential for molecular modeling and dynamics studies of proteins. J. Phys. Chem. B 1998, 102, 35863616,  DOI: 10.1021/jp973084f
  73. 73
    Venable, R. M.; Luo, Y.; Gawrisch, K.; Roux, B.; Pastor, R. W. Simulations of anionic lipid membranes: development of interaction-specific ion parameters and validation using NMR data. J. Phys. Chem. B 2013, 117, 1018310192,  DOI: 10.1021/jp401512z
  74. 74
    Abraham, M. J.; Murtola, T.; Schulz, R.; Páll, S.; Smith, J. C.; Hess, B.; Lindahl, E. GROMACS: High performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX 2015, 1-2, 1925,  DOI: 10.1016/j.softx.2015.06.001
  75. 75
    Bussi, G.; Donadio, D.; Parrinello, M. Canonical sampling through velocity rescaling. J. Chem. Phys. 2007, 126, 014101  DOI: 10.1063/1.2408420
  76. 76
    Parrinello, M.; Rahman, A. Polymorphic transitions in single crystals: A new molecular dynamics method. J. Appl. Phys. 1981, 52, 71827190,  DOI: 10.1063/1.328693
  77. 77
    Hess, B. P-LINCS: A A parallel linear constraint solver for molecular simulation. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2008, 4, 116122,  DOI: 10.1021/ct700200b
  78. 78
    Darden, T.; York, D.; Pedersen, L. Particle mesh Ewald: An N · log(N) method for Ewald sums in large systems. J. Chem. Phys. 1993, 98, 1008910092,  DOI: 10.1063/1.464397
  79. 79
    Loche, P.; Steinbrunner, P.; Friedowitz, S.; Netz, R. R.; Bonthuis, D. J. Transferable Ion Force Fields in Water from a Simultaneous Optimization of Ion Solvation and Ion–Ion Interaction. J. Phys. Chem. B 2021, 125, 85818587,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.1c05303
  80. 80
    Humphrey, W.; Dalke, A.; Schulten, K. VMD: visual molecular dynamics. J. Mol. Graphics 1996, 14, 3338,  DOI: 10.1016/0263-7855(96)00018-5
  81. 81
    Gowers, R. J.; Linke, M.; Barnoud, J.; Reddy, T. J.; Melo, M. N.; Seyler, S. L.; Domanski, J.; Dotson, D. L.; Buchoux, S.; Kenney, I. M.; Beckstein, O. MDAnalysis: A Python Package for the Rapid Analysis of Molecular Dynamics Simulations; Proceedings of the 15th Python in Science Conference; Office of Scientific and Technical Information: Los Alamos, NM, 2016; p 105.
  82. 82
    Michaud-Agrawal, N.; Denning, E. J.; Woolf, T. B.; Beckstein, O. MDAnalysis: a toolkit for the analysis of molecular dynamics simulations. J. Comput. Chem. 2011, 32, 23192327,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.21787
  83. 83
    Schwarzl, R.; Liese, S.; Brünig, F. N.; Laudisio, F.; Netz, R. R. Force Response of Polypeptide Chains from Water-Explicit MD Simulations. Macromolecules 2020, 53, 46184629,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.0c00138
  84. 84
    Flyvbjerg, H.; Petersen, H. G. Error estimates on averages of correlated data. J. Chem. Phys. 1989, 91, 461466,  DOI: 10.1063/1.457480

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

JACS Au

Cite this: JACS Au 2025, XXXX, XXX, XXX-XXX
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/jacsau.4c00886
Published January 6, 2025

© 2025 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Article Views

266

Altmetric

-

Citations

-
Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Simulation details. Chemical structures of (a) heparin and (b) linear polyglycerol sulfate (LPGS). (c) Structure of the spike protein trimer in the secondary structure representation (PDB ID: 7DK3). (32) Monomers are shown in purple, cyan, and yellow. The receptor binding domain (RBD) of one monomer (cyan) is present in the up conformation and is shown in red. (d) Zoomed-in view of the RBD. (e) Simulation unit cell (blue box) for equilibrium adsorption of a polymer to the RBD (red). An LPGS undecamer is shown in the space-filling representation with color coding for the different atom types: hydrogen in white, carbon in cyan, oxygen in red, and sulfur in yellow. Water and ions are present but not shown for clarity. The x, y, and z axes are indicated with red, green, and blue arrows, respectively. (f) Simulation snapshot after 1000 ns of equilibration representing adsorption of the LPGS (shown in orange) to the Delta-variant RBD surface (shown in gray). Protein cationic residues are pointed out in blue, whereas mutated residues R452 and L478 are in red. (g) Dynamic pulling simulation protocol in which a spring connected to one of the terminal atoms of the polymer is pulled away from the protein surface with a constant velocity ν along the z-axis. The spring is free to move along the lateral direction. (h) Static pulling simulation protocol in which one of the terminal atoms of the polymer is allowed to freely move in a plane at constant z-separation (distance projected along the normal to the plane) from the protein center-of-mass (red circle).

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Simulation results for the desorption of an LPGS undecamer from the wild-type (WT) and, only if mentioned, Delta-variant RBD surface. (a) Force f and (b) free energy F profiles from dynamic pulling simulations, results for only four out of the six pulling velocities are displayed for visual clarity. Error bars are displayed as shaded colored areas in panel b. (c) Free-energy difference ΔF between the desorbed and adsorbed states as a function of the pulling velocity ν. The equilibrium free-energy difference ΔF (ν = 0) is obtained from linear extrapolation of the data for the three slowest pulling rates to zero velocity. (d) Force and (e) free-energy profiles from static pulling simulations. (f) Comparison of free energy profiles obtained from umbrella sampling and static pulling simulations with the dynamic pulling simulation result using the slowest pulling velocity ν = 0.006 m/s.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. (a) Stretching force fstretch versus the average end-to-end distance zete of an LPGS undecamer along the direction of applied force. Data points are fitted to the iPFRC model force–extension relation eq 8. (b) Stretching free-energy profile Fstretch as a function of fstretch, obtained by integrating the fitted curve in panel a.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Theoretical prediction for (a) the standard binding free-energy ΔFb0 and (b) dissociation constant KD for the complexation reaction of the wild-type RBD and LPGS as a function of its degree of polymerization N. Experimental values are reproduced from publications by Nie et al. (15) (Available under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license. Copyright 2021 The Authors.) and Page et al. (35) (Available under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license. Copyright 2023 The Authors.). Shaded regions in panels a and b represent simulation errors of propagation coming from the first three terms in eq 5 and from ΔFb0, respectively.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. (a) Snapshots from the static pulling simulations for the desorbed state (at the pulling distance ξ = 3.6 nm) and the adsorbed state (ξ = 0 nm). (b) Enthalpic, ΔUb, and entropic, TΔSb, contributions to the binding free-energy ΔFb of the wild-type RBD–LPGS complex, along with the different internal energy contributions to ΔUb (see text). The average number of (c) water molecules and (d) ions, Na+ and Cl, bound to the RBD or LPGS as a function of ξ.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. Time series for the binding of (a) LPGS’s and (b) heparin’s anionic groups (highlighted in red in Figure 1a,b) to cationic residues of the wild-type RBD that exhibit a significant number of close contacts with the polymers. Binding for LPGS (heparin) to the residues R346 (R346), K444 (R356) and R466 (R357) are visualized in red, green, and orange, respectively. The survival probability (defined in eq 6), averaging over all binding–unbinding time series data, is shown for (c) LPGS and (d) heparin. The dashed line in panel c or d represents the double exponential fit to the data, with the value of the largest decay time τ provided in the legend.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7. Conformational fluctuations of the wild-type RBD and dynamics of its loop region (residues 470 to 490) from the static simulation at ξ = 1.6 nm. (a) Root-mean-square fluctuation (RMSF) of the protein backbone atoms for different residues. The shaded region represents residues corresponding to the RBD’s loop region. (b) Time series of the distance between the center-of-mass of the loop region and the remaining part of the RBD. Snapshots for two different states at the start and after 2700 ns of the simulation are displayed above. The RBD surface is shown in gray except for its loop region in red, whereas LPGS is shown in the ball–stick representation in orange. (c) The center-of-mass distance autocorrelation function. The dashed line represents a double exponential fit to the data, with the value of the largest decay time τ given in the legend.

    Figure 8

    Figure 8. Stretching protocol showing the LPGS undecamer at an applied force f = 800 pN. Color coding for the different atom types: hydrogen in white, carbon in cyan, oxygen in red, and sulfur in yellow.

  • References


    This article references 84 other publications.

    1. 1
      Kornberg, R. D.; Lorch, Y. Twenty-five years of the nucleosome, fundamental particle of the eukaryote chromosome. Cell 1999, 98, 285294,  DOI: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81958-3
    2. 2
      Kunze, K.-K.; Netz, R. Complexes of semiflexible polyelectrolytes and charged spheres as models for salt-modulated nucleosomal structures. Phys. Rev. E 2002, 66, 011918  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.66.011918
    3. 3
      Parsaeian, A.; De La Cruz, M. O.; Marko, J. F. Binding-rebinding dynamics of proteins interacting nonspecifically with a long DNA molecule. Phys. Rev. E 2013, 88, 040703  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.88.040703
    4. 4
      Shin, Y.; Brangwynne, C. P. Liquid phase condensation in cell physiology and disease. Science 2017, 357, eaaf4382  DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf4382
    5. 5
      Goedert, M.; Jakes, R.; Spillantini, M.; Hasegawa, M.; Smith, M.; Crowther, R. Assembly of microtubule-associated protein tau into Alzheimer-like filaments induced by sulphated glycosaminoglycans. Nature 1996, 383, 550553,  DOI: 10.1038/383550a0
    6. 6
      Fichou, Y.; Lin, Y.; Rauch, J. N.; Vigers, M.; Zeng, Z.; Srivastava, M.; Keller, T. J.; Freed, J. H.; Kosik, K. S.; Han, S. Cofactors are essential constituents of stable and seeding-active tau fibrils. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2018, 115, 1323413239,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1810058115
    7. 7
      Achazi, K.; Haag, R.; Ballauff, M.; Dernedde, J.; Kizhakkedathu, J. N.; Maysinger, D.; Multhaup, G. Understanding the interaction of polyelectrolyte architectures with proteins and biosystems. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2021, 60, 38823904,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.202006457
    8. 8
      Kayitmazer, A. B.; Seeman, D.; Minsky, B. B.; Dubin, P. L.; Xu, Y. Protein–polyelectrolyte interactions. Soft Matter 2013, 9, 25532583,  DOI: 10.1039/c2sm27002a
    9. 9
      Nandy, B.; Saurabh, S.; Sahoo, A. K.; Dixit, N. M.; Maiti, P. K. The SPL7013 dendrimer destabilizes the HIV-1 gp120-CD4 complex. Nanoscale 2015, 7, 1862818641,  DOI: 10.1039/C5NR04632G
    10. 10
      Cagno, V.; Tseligka, E. D.; Jones, S. T.; Tapparel, C. Heparan sulfate proteoglycans and viral attachment: true receptors or adaptation bias?. Viruses 2019, 11, 596  DOI: 10.3390/v11070596
    11. 11
      Liese, S.; Netz, R. R. Quantitative prediction of multivalent ligand-receptor binding affinities for influenza, cholera, and anthrax inhibition. ACS Nano 2018, 12, 41404147,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.7b08479
    12. 12
      Lauster, D.; Osterrieder, K.; Haag, R.; Ballauff, M.; Herrmann, A. Respiratory viruses interacting with cells: The importance of electrostatics. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1169547  DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1169547
    13. 13
      Chu, H.; Hu, B.; Huang, X.; Chai, Y.; Zhou, D.; Wang, Y.; Shuai, H.; Yang, D.; Hou, Y.; Zhang, X. Host and viral determinants for efficient SARS-CoV-2 infection of the human lung. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 134  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-20457-w
    14. 14
      Kim, S. H.; Kearns, F. L.; Rosenfeld, M. A.; Votapka, L.; Casalino, L.; Papanikolas, M.; Amaro, R. E.; Freeman, R. SARS-CoV-2 evolved variants optimize binding to cellular glycocalyx. Cell Rep. Phys. Sci. 2023, 4, 101346  DOI: 10.1016/j.xcrp.2023.101346
    15. 15
      Nie, C.; Pouyan, P.; Lauster, D.; Trimpert, J.; Kerkhoff, Y.; Szekeres, G. P.; Wallert, M.; Block, S.; Sahoo, A. K.; Dernedde, J.; Pagel, K.; Kaufer, B. B.; Netz, R. R.; Ballauff, M.; Haag, R. Polysulfates block SARS-CoV-2 uptake via electrostatic interactions. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2021, 60, 1587015878,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.202102717
    16. 16
      Clausen, T. M.; Sandoval, D. R.; Spliid, C. B.; Pihl, J.; Perrett, H. R.; Painter, C. D.; Narayanan, A.; Majowicz, S. A.; Kwong, E. M.; McVicar, R. N. SARS-CoV-2 infection depends on cellular heparan sulfate and ACE2. Cell 2020, 183, 10431057,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.033
    17. 17
      Lever, R.; Page, C. P. Non-Anticoagulant Effects of Heparin: An Overview. In Heparin - A Century of Progress; Lever, R.; Mulloy, B.; Page, C. P., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012; pp 281305.
    18. 18
      Page, C. Heparin and related drugs: beyond anticoagulant activity. ISRN Pharmacol. 2013, 1, 910743  DOI: 10.1155/2013/910743
    19. 19
      Oates, J. A.; Wood, A. J. J.; Hirsh, J. Heparin. N. Engl. J. Med. 1991, 324, 15651574,  DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199105303242206
    20. 20
      Cate, H. T. Surviving Covid-19 with Heparin?. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 385, 845846,  DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe2111151
    21. 21
      Lan, J.; Ge, J.; Yu, J.; Shan, S.; Zhou, H.; Fan, S.; Zhang, Q.; Shi, X.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, L.; Wang, X. Structure of the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain bound to the ACE2 receptor. Nature 2020, 581, 215220,  DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2180-5
    22. 22
      Pishko, A. M.; Lefler, D. S.; Gimotty, P.; Paydary, K.; Fardin, S.; Arepally, G. M.; Crowther, M.; Rice, L.; Vega, R.; Cines, D. B. The risk of major bleeding in patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. J. Thromb. Haemostasis 2019, 17, 19561965,  DOI: 10.1111/jth.14587
    23. 23
      Nie, C.; Sahoo, A. K.; Netz, R. R.; Herrmann, A.; Ballauff, M.; Haag, R. Charge matters: Mutations in omicron variant favor binding to cells. ChemBioChem 2022, 23, e202100681  DOI: 10.1002/cbic.202100681
    24. 24
      Wang, L.; Wu, Y.; Deng, Y.; Kim, B.; Pierce, L.; Krilov, G.; Lupyan, D.; Robinson, S.; Dahlgren, M. K.; Greenwood, J. Accurate and reliable prediction of relative ligand binding potency in prospective drug discovery by way of a modern free-energy calculation protocol and force field. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 26952703,  DOI: 10.1021/ja512751q
    25. 25
      Cournia, Z.; Allen, B.; Sherman, W. Relative binding free energy calculations in drug discovery: recent advances and practical considerations. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2017, 57, 29112937,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00564
    26. 26
      Mobley, D. L.; Gilson, M. K. Predicting binding free energies: frontiers and benchmarks. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 2017, 46, 531558,  DOI: 10.1146/annurev-biophys-070816-033654
    27. 27
      Zhao, J.; Cao, Y.; Zhang, L. Exploring the computational methods for protein-ligand binding site prediction. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2020, 18, 417426,  DOI: 10.1016/j.csbj.2020.02.008
    28. 28
      Gapsys, V.; Yildirim, A.; Aldeghi, M.; Khalak, Y.; Van der Spoel, D.; de Groot, B. L. Accurate absolute free energies for ligand–protein binding based on non-equilibrium approaches. Commun. Chem. 2021, 4, 61  DOI: 10.1038/s42004-021-00498-y
    29. 29
      Xu, X.; Angioletti-Uberti, S.; Lu, Y.; Dzubiella, J.; Ballauff, M. Interaction of proteins with polyelectrolytes: Comparison of theory to experiment. Langmuir 2019, 35, 53735391,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b01802
    30. 30
      Paiardi, G.; Ferraz, M.; Rusnati, M.; Wade, R. C. The accomplices: Heparan sulfates and N-glycans foster SARS-CoV-2 spike: ACE2 receptor binding and virus priming. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2024, 121, e2404892121  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2404892121
    31. 31
      Bhatia, S.; Lauster, D.; Bardua, M.; Ludwig, K.; Angioletti-Uberti, S.; Popp, N.; Hoffmann, U.; Paulus, F.; Budt, M.; Stadtmüller, M. Linear polysialoside outperforms dendritic analogs for inhibition of influenza virus infection in vitro and in vivo. Biomaterials 2017, 138, 2234,  DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.05.028
    32. 32
      Xu, C.; Wang, Y.; Liu, C.; Zhang, C.; Han, W.; Hong, X.; Wang, Y.; Hong, Q.; Wang, S.; Zhao, Q. Conformational dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 trimeric spike glycoprotein in complex with receptor ACE2 revealed by cryo-EM. Sci. Adv. 2021, 7, eabe5575  DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abe5575
    33. 33
      Horinek, D.; Serr, A.; Geisler, M.; Pirzer, T.; Slotta, U.; Lud, S. Q.; Garrido, J.; Scheibel, T.; Hugel, T.; Netz, R. R. Peptide adsorption on a hydrophobic surface results from an interplay of solvation, surface, and intrapeptide forces. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2008, 105, 28422847,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0707879105
    34. 34
      Schwierz, N.; Horinek, D.; Liese, S.; Pirzer, T.; Balzer, B. N.; Hugel, T.; Netz, R. R. On the relationship between peptide adsorption resistance and surface contact angle: a combined experimental and simulation single-molecule study. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 1962819638,  DOI: 10.1021/ja304462u
    35. 35
      Page, T. M.; Nie, C.; Neander, L.; Povolotsky, T. L.; Sahoo, A. K.; Nickl, P.; Adler, J. M.; Bawadkji, O.; Radnik, J.; Achazi, K. Functionalized Fullerene for Inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 Variants. Small 2023, 19, 2206154  DOI: 10.1002/smll.202206154
    36. 36
      Woo, H.; Park, S.-J.; Choi, Y. K.; Park, T.; Tanveer, M.; Cao, Y.; Kern, N. R.; Lee, J.; Yeom, M. S.; Croll, T. I. Developing a fully glycosylated full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike protein model in a viral membrane. J. Phys. Chem. B 2020, 124, 71287137,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.0c04553
    37. 37
      Casalino, L.; Gaieb, Z.; Goldsmith, J. A.; Hjorth, C. K.; Dommer, A. C.; Harbison, A. M.; Fogarty, C. A.; Barros, E. P.; Taylor, B. C.; McLellan, J. S. Beyond shielding: the roles of glycans in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. ACS Cent. Sci. 2020, 6, 17221734,  DOI: 10.1021/acscentsci.0c01056
    38. 38
      Erbaş, A.; Netz, R. R. Confinement-dependent friction in peptide bundles. Biophys. J. 2013, 104, 12851295,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2013.02.008
    39. 39
      Erbaş, A.; Horinek, D.; Netz, R. R. Viscous friction of hydrogen-bonded matter. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 623630,  DOI: 10.1021/ja209454a
    40. 40
      Patil, S. P.; Xiao, S.; Gkagkas, K.; Markert, B.; Gräter, F. Viscous friction between crystalline and amorphous phase of dragline silk. PLoS One 2014, 9, e104832  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104832
    41. 41
      Kumar, S.; Rosenberg, J. M.; Bouzida, D.; Swendsen, R. H.; Kollman, P. A. The weighted histogram analysis method for free-energy calculations on biomolecules. I. The method. J. Comput. Chem. 1992, 13, 10111021,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.540130812
    42. 42
      Torrie, G. M.; Valleau, J. P. Nonphysical sampling distributions in Monte Carlo free-energy estimation: Umbrella sampling. J. Comput. Phys. 1977, 23, 187199,  DOI: 10.1016/0021-9991(77)90121-8
    43. 43
      Phillips, R.; Kondev, J.; Theriot, J.; Garcia, H. Physical Biology of the Cell, 2nd ed.; Garland Science: New York, 2012; p 1088.
    44. 44
      Hanke, F.; Serr, A.; Kreuzer, H. J.; Netz, R. R. Stretching single polypeptides: The effect of rotational constraints in the backbone. Europhys. Lett. 2010, 92, 53001  DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/92/53001
    45. 45
      Kitov, P. I.; Bundle, D. R. On the nature of the multivalency effect: a thermodynamic model. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 1627116284,  DOI: 10.1021/ja038223n
    46. 46
      Zumbro, E.; Witten, J.; Alexander-Katz, A. Computational insights into avidity of polymeric multivalent binders. Biophys. J. 2019, 117, 892902,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2019.07.026
    47. 47
      Qiao, B.; Jiménez-Ángeles, F.; Nguyen, T. D.; Olvera de la Cruz, M. Water follows polar and nonpolar protein surface domains. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2019, 116, 1927419281,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1910225116
    48. 48
      Manning, G. S. Limiting laws and counterion condensation in polyelectrolyte solutions I. Colligative properties. J. Chem. Phys. 1969, 51, 924933,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1672157
    49. 49
      Fenley, M. O.; Manning, G. S.; Olson, W. K. Approach to the limit of counterion condensation. Biopolymers 1990, 30, 11911203,  DOI: 10.1002/bip.360301305
    50. 50
      Walkowiak, J. J.; Ballauff, M. Interaction of polyelectrolytes with proteins: quantifying the role of water. Adv. Sci. 2021, 8, 2100661  DOI: 10.1002/advs.202100661
    51. 51
      Irudayam, S. J.; Henchman, R. H. Entropic cost of protein- ligand binding and its dependence on the entropy in solution. J. Phys. Chem. B 2009, 113, 58715884,  DOI: 10.1021/jp809968p
    52. 52
      Xu, X.; Ran, Q.; Dey, P.; Nikam, R.; Haag, R.; Ballauff, M.; Dzubiella, J. Counterion-release entropy governs the inhibition of serum proteins by polyelectrolyte drugs. Biomacromolecules 2018, 19, 409416,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.biomac.7b01499
    53. 53
      Caro, J. A.; Harpole, K. W.; Kasinath, V.; Lim, J.; Granja, J.; Valentine, K. G.; Sharp, K. A.; Wand, A. J. Entropy in molecular recognition by proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2017, 114, 65636568,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1621154114
    54. 54
      Sahoo, A. K.; Schreiber, F.; Netz, R. R.; Maiti, P. K. Role of entropy in determining the phase behavior of protein solutions induced by multivalent ions. Soft Matter 2022, 18, 592601,  DOI: 10.1039/D1SM00730K
    55. 55
      Rapaport, D. Hydrogen bonds in water: Network organization and lifetimes. Mol. Phys. 1983, 50, 11511162,  DOI: 10.1080/00268978300102931
    56. 56
      Malicka, W.; Haag, R.; Ballauff, M. Interaction of heparin with proteins: hydration effects. J. Phys. Chem. B 2022, 126, 62506260,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.2c04928
    57. 57
      Geisler, M.; Xiao, S.; Puchner, E. M.; Gräter, F.; Hugel, T. Controlling the structure of proteins at surfaces. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 1727717281,  DOI: 10.1021/ja107212z
    58. 58
      Liese, S.; Netz, R. R. Influence of length and flexibility of spacers on the binding affinity of divalent ligands. Beilstein J. Org. Chem. 2015, 11, 804816,  DOI: 10.3762/bjoc.11.90
    59. 59
      Jo, S.; Kim, T.; Iyer, V. G.; Im, W. CHARMM-GUI: a web-based graphical user interface for CHARMM. J. Comput. Chem. 2008, 29, 18591865,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.20945
    60. 60
      Park, S.-J.; Lee, J.; Qi, Y.; Kern, N. R.; Lee, H. S.; Jo, S.; Joung, I.; Joo, K.; Lee, J.; Im, W. CHARMM-GUI Glycan Modeler for modeling and simulation of carbohydrates and glycoconjugates. Glycobiology 2019, 29, 320331,  DOI: 10.1093/glycob/cwz003
    61. 61
      Jo, S.; Song, K. C.; Desaire, H.; MacKerell, A. D., Jr; Im, W. Glycan Reader: automated sugar identification and simulation preparation for carbohydrates and glycoproteins. J. Comput. Chem. 2011, 32, 31353141,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.21886
    62. 62
      Park, S.-J.; Lee, J.; Patel, D. S.; Ma, H.; Lee, H. S.; Jo, S.; Im, W. Glycan Reader is improved to recognize most sugar types and chemical modifications in the Protein Data Bank. Bioinformatics 2017, 33, 30513057,  DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx358
    63. 63
      Hanwell, M. D.; Curtis, D. E.; Lonie, D. C.; Vandermeersch, T.; Zurek, E.; Hutchison, G. R. Avogadro: an advanced semantic chemical editor, visualization, and analysis platform. J. Cheminf. 2012, 4, 117,  DOI: 10.1186/1758-2946-4-17
    64. 64
      Huang, J.; Rauscher, S.; Nawrocki, G.; Ran, T.; Feig, M.; De Groot, B. L.; Grubmüller, H.; MacKerell, A. D. CHARMM36m: an improved force field for folded and intrinsically disordered proteins. Nat. Methods 2017, 14, 7173,  DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.4067
    65. 65
      Guvench, O.; Mallajosyula, S. S.; Raman, E. P.; Hatcher, E.; Vanommeslaeghe, K.; Foster, T. J.; Jamison, F. W.; MacKerell, A. D., Jr CHARMM additive all-atom force field for carbohydrate derivatives and its utility in polysaccharide and carbohydrate-protein modeling. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2011, 7, 31623180,  DOI: 10.1021/ct200328p
    66. 66
      Mallajosyula, S. S.; Guvench, O.; Hatcher, E.; MacKerell, A. D., Jr CHARMM additive all-atom force field for phosphate and sulfate linked to carbohydrates. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2012, 8, 759776,  DOI: 10.1021/ct200792v
    67. 67
      Vanommeslaeghe, K.; Hatcher, E.; Acharya, C.; Kundu, S.; Zhong, S.; Shim, J.; Darian, E.; Guvench, O.; Lopes, P.; Vorobyov, I.; Mackerell, A. D. CHARMM general force field: A force field for drug-like molecules compatible with the CHARMM all-atom additive biological force fields. J. Comput. Chem. 2010, 31, 671690,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.21367
    68. 68
      Yu, W.; He, X.; Vanommeslaeghe, K.; MacKerell, A. D., Jr Extension of the CHARMM general force field to sulfonyl-containing compounds and its utility in biomolecular simulations. J. Comput. Chem. 2012, 33, 24512468,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.23067
    69. 69
      Vanommeslaeghe, K.; MacKerell, A. D., Jr Automation of the CHARMM General Force Field (CGenFF) I: bond perception and atom typing. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2012, 52, 31443154,  DOI: 10.1021/ci300363c
    70. 70
      Vanommeslaeghe, K.; Raman, E. P.; MacKerell, A. D., Jr Automation of the CHARMM General Force Field (CGenFF) II: assignment of bonded parameters and partial atomic charges. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2012, 52, 31553168,  DOI: 10.1021/ci3003649
    71. 71
      Jorgensen, W. L.; Chandrasekhar, J.; Madura, J. D.; Impey, R. W.; Klein, M. L. Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J. Chem. Phys. 1983, 79, 926935,  DOI: 10.1063/1.445869
    72. 72
      MacKerell, A. D., Jr; Bashford, D.; Bellott, M.; Dunbrack, R. L., Jr; Evanseck, J. D.; Field, M. J.; Fischer, S.; Gao, J.; Guo, H.; Ha, S. All-atom empirical potential for molecular modeling and dynamics studies of proteins. J. Phys. Chem. B 1998, 102, 35863616,  DOI: 10.1021/jp973084f
    73. 73
      Venable, R. M.; Luo, Y.; Gawrisch, K.; Roux, B.; Pastor, R. W. Simulations of anionic lipid membranes: development of interaction-specific ion parameters and validation using NMR data. J. Phys. Chem. B 2013, 117, 1018310192,  DOI: 10.1021/jp401512z
    74. 74
      Abraham, M. J.; Murtola, T.; Schulz, R.; Páll, S.; Smith, J. C.; Hess, B.; Lindahl, E. GROMACS: High performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX 2015, 1-2, 1925,  DOI: 10.1016/j.softx.2015.06.001
    75. 75
      Bussi, G.; Donadio, D.; Parrinello, M. Canonical sampling through velocity rescaling. J. Chem. Phys. 2007, 126, 014101  DOI: 10.1063/1.2408420
    76. 76
      Parrinello, M.; Rahman, A. Polymorphic transitions in single crystals: A new molecular dynamics method. J. Appl. Phys. 1981, 52, 71827190,  DOI: 10.1063/1.328693
    77. 77
      Hess, B. P-LINCS: A A parallel linear constraint solver for molecular simulation. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2008, 4, 116122,  DOI: 10.1021/ct700200b
    78. 78
      Darden, T.; York, D.; Pedersen, L. Particle mesh Ewald: An N · log(N) method for Ewald sums in large systems. J. Chem. Phys. 1993, 98, 1008910092,  DOI: 10.1063/1.464397
    79. 79
      Loche, P.; Steinbrunner, P.; Friedowitz, S.; Netz, R. R.; Bonthuis, D. J. Transferable Ion Force Fields in Water from a Simultaneous Optimization of Ion Solvation and Ion–Ion Interaction. J. Phys. Chem. B 2021, 125, 85818587,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.1c05303
    80. 80
      Humphrey, W.; Dalke, A.; Schulten, K. VMD: visual molecular dynamics. J. Mol. Graphics 1996, 14, 3338,  DOI: 10.1016/0263-7855(96)00018-5
    81. 81
      Gowers, R. J.; Linke, M.; Barnoud, J.; Reddy, T. J.; Melo, M. N.; Seyler, S. L.; Domanski, J.; Dotson, D. L.; Buchoux, S.; Kenney, I. M.; Beckstein, O. MDAnalysis: A Python Package for the Rapid Analysis of Molecular Dynamics Simulations; Proceedings of the 15th Python in Science Conference; Office of Scientific and Technical Information: Los Alamos, NM, 2016; p 105.
    82. 82
      Michaud-Agrawal, N.; Denning, E. J.; Woolf, T. B.; Beckstein, O. MDAnalysis: a toolkit for the analysis of molecular dynamics simulations. J. Comput. Chem. 2011, 32, 23192327,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.21787
    83. 83
      Schwarzl, R.; Liese, S.; Brünig, F. N.; Laudisio, F.; Netz, R. R. Force Response of Polypeptide Chains from Water-Explicit MD Simulations. Macromolecules 2020, 53, 46184629,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.0c00138
    84. 84
      Flyvbjerg, H.; Petersen, H. G. Error estimates on averages of correlated data. J. Chem. Phys. 1989, 91, 461466,  DOI: 10.1063/1.457480
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacsau.4c00886.

    • Derivation of the standard free-energy of binding from a polymer desorption free-energy profile; additional figures (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.