Proceedings - Interdisciplinary Center for Nanotoxicity

More documents

Recommendations

Info

26 Conference on Current Trends in Computational Chemistry 2009 An Analysis of MMB‐4 Reactivating Cholinesterases Inhibited by Nerve Agents Manikanthan Bhavaraju and Steven R. Gwaltney Department of Chemistry, Center for Environmental Health Sciences, and HPC 2 Center for Computational Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762 MMB‐4 (1, 1’‐methylene‐bis [(4‐hydroxyiminomethyl) pyridinium] dichloride can reactivate the enzymes acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and butrylcholinesterase (BChE) when they have been inhibited by a nerve agent such as sarin and tabun. AChE hydrolyzes the neurotransmitter acetylcholine (ACh) into acetic acid and choline. The nerve agent inhibits the active site of the enzyme by phosphonylating the active site serine, which prevents the breakdown of the ACh. MMB‐4 reacts with the nerve agent and removes it, reactivating the enzyme. In order to study the role of MMB‐4 as a reactivator, its interactions with the enzymes AChE and BChE and the nerve agents sarin and tabun were modeled. An AM1 conformation analysis for MMB4 was performed using Spartan’06. In order to generate atomic charges consistent with the AMBER ff99 force field, the lowest energy conformers were optimized using Hartree‐Fock and the 6‐31G* basis set. RESP electrostatic potential charges were generated from the HF/6‐31G* calculations on the lowest energy conformer. Using Autodock 4, MMB‐4 was then docked in to the active site of AChE and BChE, along with AChE and BChE inhibited with sarin and AChE and BChE inhibited with tabun. Starting from the most appropriate docked structure, molecular dynamics simulations using explicit solvent method was carried out for each of the six systems. The simulations were run for at least 10 ns using AMBER 8 and the ff99 force field. In this poster we present an analysis of the MD simulations.
Conference on Current Trends in Computational Chemistry 2009 Predictive Catalysis Based on the Activation Strain Model Matthias Bickelhaupt Department of Theoretical Chemistry and Amsterdam Center for Multiscale Modeling, Scheikundig Laboratorium der Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1083, NL1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands fm.bickelhaupt@few.vu.nl Reactivity is one of the central issues, if not the core business, of chemistry. Yet, our understanding of chemical reactivity, in particular, the height of reaction barriers, still lags behind the minute understanding that we have today of molecular structure and stability. What is missing is a general model that provides physical insight into why a particular reaction has a higher or lower barrier than another (competing) reaction. Here, we present the Activation Strain model (or Activation Strain/TS Interaction model) which aims at providing such insight into chemical reactivity, in terms of the reactants. In the Activation Strain model, the potential energy surface ∆E(ζ) along the reaction coordinate ζ is decomposed into the strain energy ∆Estrain(ζ) associated with the geometrical deformation that the reactants undergo, plus the interaction energy ∆Eint(ζ) between the deformed reactants: ∆E(ζ) = ∆Estrain(ζ) + ∆Eint(ζ). Figure 1. Activation‐Strain analysis of palladium‐catalyzed C–H versus C–C bond activation. In this talk, various phenomena and tuning parameters in catalytic bond activation are addressed. What determines the course of oxidative addition via direct insertion or an SN2 pathway? Why is activation of the weaker C–C bond more difficult than that of the stronger C– H bond? (The clue is contained in Figure 1). And how does catalytic activity vary in general as one varies along different carbon‐element C–X bonds? The main focus of this talk will however be on the nature of the bite angle in catalysts with bridged biphosphine ligands. It will be shown that, at variance with common text book knowledge, the mechanism behind bite angle tuning is primarily steric (i.e., steric hindrance between ligands and substrate) and not so much electronic (i.e., d orbital energies tuned by ligand orbitals). Literature 1. W.‐J. van Zeist, R. Visser, F. M. Bickelhaupt, Chem. Eur. J. 2009, 15, 6112. 2. A. P. Bento, F. M. Bickelhaupt, J. Org. Chem. 2008, 73, 7290. 3. G. Th. de Jong, F. M. Bickelhaupt, ChemPhysChem 2007, 8, 1170. 4. M. A. van Bochove, M. Swart, F. M. Bickelhaupt, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 10738. 5. F. M. Bickelhaupt, J. Comput. Chem. 1999, 20, 114. 27
Page 2: Organizing Committee Shonda Allen-H
Page 6 and 7: Schedule of Events Conference on Cu
Page 8: Table of Contents Conference on Cur
Page 11 and 12: 12 Conference on Current Trends in
Page 22 and 23: 22 Figure 1. The structure of artif
Page 66 and 67: 66 : au : au Conference on Curren
Page 68 and 69: 68 Ag 36 (D 3d) Ag 42 (D 3) Ag 48 (
Page 76 and 77:
76 Table 2. Calculated scale factor
Page 78 and 79:
78 Conference on Current Trends in
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
86 Isodesmic Model Conference on Cu
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148:
List of Participants Conference on
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Author Index Conference on Current
show all

Proceedings - Interdisciplinary Center for Nanotoxicity

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?