Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conformational Preferences of π–π Stacking Between Ligand and Protein, Analysis Derived from Crystal Structure Data Geometric Preference of π–π Interaction

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Interdisciplinary Sciences: Computational Life Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

π–π Interaction is a direct attractive non-covalent interaction between aromatic moieties, playing an important role in DNA stabilization, drug intercalation, etc. Aromatic rings interact through several different conformations including face-to-face, T-shaped, and offset stacked conformation. Previous quantum calculations indicated that T-shaped and offset stacked conformations are preferred for their smaller electron repulsions. However, substitution group on aromatic ring could have a great impact on π–π interaction by changing electron repulsion force between two rings. To investigate π–π interaction between ligand and aromatic side chain of protein, Brookhaven Protein Data Bank was analyzed. We extracted isolated dimer pairs with the aim of excluding multiple π–π stacking effects and found that T-shaped conformation is prevalent among aromatic interaction between phenyl ring of ligand and protein, which corresponds with the phenomenon of Phe–Phe interactions in small peptide. Specifically, for the non-substitution model, both Phe–Phe and Phenyl–Phe exhibit a favored T-shaped conformation whose dihedral angle is around 50°–70° and centroid distance is between 5.0 and 5.6 Å. However, it could be changed by substituent effect. The hydroxyl group could contact in the case of Tyr–Tyr pairs, while they point away from phenyl plane in Phe–Tyr pairs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hunter CA, Lawson KR, Perkins J, Urch CJ (2001) Aromatic interactions. J Chem Soc Perkin Trans 2:651–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Saenger W (1984) Principles of nucleic acid structure. Springer, New York, pp 132–140

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Wakelin LPG (1986) Polyfunctional DNA intercalating agents. Med Res Rev 6(3):275–340

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Brana MF, Cacho M, Gradillas A, Pascual-Teresa B, Ramos A (2001) Intercalators as anticancer drugs. Curr Pharm Des 7(17):1745–1780

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kryger G, Silman I, Sussman JL (1999) Structure of acetylcholinesterase complexed with E2020 (Aricept): implications for the design of new anti-Alzheimer drugs. Structure 7(3):297–307

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Desiraju GR, Gavezzotti A (1989) From molecular to crystal structure; polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. J Chem Soc Chem Commun 10:621–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Burley SK, Petsko GA (1988) Weakly polar interactions in proteins. Adv Protein Chem 39:125–189

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang YZ, Wu AX (2008) π–π interaction in aromatic supramolecular system. Chin J Org Chem 28(6):997–1011

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Waters ML (2002) Aromatic interactions in model systems. Curr Opin Chem Biol 6(6):736–741

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hunter CA, Sanders JKM (1990) The nature of π–π interactions. J Am Chem Soc 112(14):5525–5534

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Meyer EA, Castellano RK, Diederich F (2003) Interactions with aromatic rings in chemical and biological recognition. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 42(11):1210–1250

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ye XY, Li ZH, Wang WN, Fan KN, Xu W, Hua ZY (2004) The parallel π–π stacking: a model study with MP2 and DFT methods. Chem Phys Lett 397(1):56–61

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Tsuzuki S, Honda K, Uchimaru T, Mikami M, Tanabe K (2002) Origin of attraction and directionality of the π/π interaction: model chemistry calculations of benzene dimer interaction. J Am Chem Soc 124(1):104–112

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Boehr DD, Farley AR, Wright GD, Cox JR (2002) Analysis of the π–π stacking interactions between the aminoglycoside antibiotic kinase APH(3′)-IIIa and its nucleotide ligands. Chem Biol 9(11):1209–1217

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Wu JI, Puhlhofer FG, Schleyer PV, Puchta R, Kiran B, Mauksch M, Hommes NJRV, Alkorta I, Elguero J (2009) The effect of perfluorination on the aromaticity of benzene and heterocyclic six-membered rings. J Phys Chem A 113(24):6789–6794

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Rashkin MJ, Waters ML (2002) Unexpected substituent effects in offset π–π stacked interactions in water. J Am Chem Soc 124(9):1860–1861

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tsuzuki S, Honda K, Azumi R (2002) Model chemistry calculations of thiophene dimer interactions: origin of π-stacking. J Am Chem Soc 124(41):12200–12209

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wheeler SE, Houk KN (2008) Substituent effects in the benzene dimer are due to direct interactions of the substituents with the unsubstituted benzene. J Am Chem Soc 130(33):10854–10855

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cockroft SL, Hunter CA (2009) Desolvation and substituent effects in edge-to-face aromatic interactions. Chem Commun 26:3961–3963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hunter CA, Singh J, Thornton JM (1991) π–π interactions: the geometry and energetics of phenylalanine-phenylalanine interactions in proteins. J Mol Biol 218(4):837–846

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Burley SK, Petsko GA (1985) Aromatic–aromatic interaction: a mechanism of protein-structure stabilization. Science 229(4708):23–28

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. McGaughey GB, Gagne M, Rappe AK (1998) π-stacking interactions. Alive and well in proteins. J Biol Chem 273(25):15458–15463

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Thomas A, Meurisse R, Brasseur R (2002) Aromatic side-chain interactions in proteins II. Near- and far-sequence Phe-X pairs. Proteins Struct Funct Genet 48(4):635–644

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Hendlich M, Bergner A, Gunther J, Klebe G (2003) Relibase: design and development of a database for comprehensive analysis of protein-ligand interactions. J Mol Biol 326(2):607–620

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gunther J, Bergner A, Hendlich M, Klebe G (2003) Utilising structural knowledge in drug design strategies: applications using relibase. J Mol Biol 326(2):621–636

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Bergner A, Gunther J, Endlich M, Lebe G, Erdonk M (2001) Use of Relibase for retrieving complex three-dimensional interaction patterns including crystallographic packing effects. Biopolymers 61(2):99–110

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Arunan E, Gutowsky HS (1993) The rotational spectrum, structure and dynamics of a benzene dimer. J Chem Phys 98(5):4294–4296

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Meurisse R, Brasseur R, Thomas A (2003) Aromatic side-chain interactions in proteins. Near- and far-sequence His-X pairs. Biochim Biophys Acta 1649(1):85–96

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Dahl T (1994) The nature of stacking interactions between organic molecules elucidated by analysis of crystal structures. Acta Chem Scand 48:95–106

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Tauer TP, Sherrill CD (2005) Beyond the benzene dimer: an investigation of the additivity of π–π interactions. J Phys Chem A 109(46):10475–10478

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Dr. En Li of China Novartis for his support and encouragement. Financial support from the Educational Office of Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research is gratefully acknowledged. We also wish to thank Timothy Yu for his re-checking of the data reported in some of the Tables during his internship day at Fudan University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemistry, China Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research Co. Ltd., Shanghai, 201203, China

    Yuan Zhao, Yao-chang Xu & Zhengtian Yu

  2. College of Life Science and Biotechnology and State Key Laboratory of Microbial Metabolism, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, China

    Jue Li, Hui Gu & Dongqing Wei

  3. Department of Medicinal Chemistry, School of Pharmacy, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Wei Fu

Authors
  1. Yuan Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jue Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hui Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dongqing Wei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yao-chang Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wei Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Zhengtian Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Wei Fu or Zhengtian Yu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, Y., Li, J., Gu, H. et al. Conformational Preferences of π–π Stacking Between Ligand and Protein, Analysis Derived from Crystal Structure Data Geometric Preference of π–π Interaction. Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci 7, 211–220 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12539-015-0263-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12539-015-0263-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation