Structural and binding insights into HIV-1 protease and P2-ligand interactions through molecular dynamics...

HIV-1 protease (HIV-1-pr) plays an important role in viral replication and maturation, making it one of the most attractive targets for anti-retroviral therapy. To design new effective inhibitors able to combat drug resistance in mutant HIV-1-pr variants, it is essential to gain further understanding about the mechanisms by which the recently proposed inhibitors deactivate the mutant HIV-1-pr variants. In the present work, we explored the interactions between two P2-ligands (DRV, and one new derivative, 4UY) with wild type (WT) and two multiple mutant HIV-1-pr variants (p20 and p51) with all atom molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, binding free energy calculations, and principal component analysis (PCA). The trajectories of MD simulations show that both 4UY and DRV primarily bind with the active sites, flap and 80s loop regions of HIV-1-pr variants through either hydrogen bonds or hydrophobic interactions. More hydrogen bonds and hydrophobic interactions were located for 4UY/HIV-1-pr complexes than for DRV/HIV-1-pr counterparts. More importantly, 4UY was found to have an extra hydrogen bond with the backbone of Gly48' in the flap region of the HIV-1-prs. The flap tip-tip distance (I50-I50') and flap tip-active site distance (I50-D25 and I50'-D25') indicate that the flaps turn more closed in 4UY bound HIV-1-prs than DRV bound ones, and the former also have more compact hydrophobic cavities than the latter. Further, the vector projections from PCA indicate that 4UY/DRV inhibitor binding projects the closing of flap in HIV-1-pr variants. In line with the above trajectory analysis, the thermodynamics calculation with MM-PBSA method suggests much stronger binding affinity for 4UY/HIV-1-pr than DRV/HIV-1-pr by 4.3-6.4 kcal/mol. Although p20 and p51 also induce weaker binding due to multiple mutants for 4UY inhibitor by 1.9-1.8 kcal/mol, their bindings to the new P2 ligand (4UY) are indeed significantly enhanced as compared to DRV. The thermodynamic components responsible for the binding differences and the contribution from key residues to the binding were also discussed in detail.