Aromatic amino acid residues are often present in carbohydrate-binding sites of proteins. These binding sites are characterized by a placement of a carbohydrate moiety in a stacking orientation to an aromatic ring. This arrangement is an example of CH/pi interactions. Ab initio interaction energies for 20 carbohydrate-aromatic complexes taken from 6 selected ultra-high resolution X-ray structures of glycosidases and carbohydrate-binding proteins were calculated. All interaction energies of a pyranose moiety with a side chain of an aromatic residue were calculated as attractive with interaction energy ranging from -2.8 to -12.3 kcal/mol as calculated at the MP2/6-311+G(d) level. Strong attractive interactions were observed for a wide range of orientations of carbohydrate and aromatic ring as present in selected X-ray structures. The most attractive interaction was associated with apparent combination of CH/pi interactions and classical H-bonds. The failure of Hartree-Fock method (interaction energies from +1.0 to -6.9 kcal/mol) can be explained by a dispersion nature of a majority of the studied complexes. We also present a comparison of interaction energies calculated at the MP2 level with those calculated using molecular mechanics force fields (OPLS, GROMOS, CSFF/CHARMM, CHEAT/CHARMM, Glycam/AMBER, MM2 and MM3). For a majority of force fields there was a strong correlation with MP2 values. RMSD between MP2 and force field values were 1.0 for CSFF/CHARMM, 1.2 for Glycam/AMBER, 1.2 for GROMOS, 1.3 for MM3, 1.4 for MM2, 1.5 for OPLS and to 2.3 for CHEAT/CHARMM (in kcal/mol). These results show that molecular mechanics approximates interaction energies very well and support an application of molecular mechanics methods in the area of glycochemistry and glycobiology.

Department of Biochemistry Institute of Chemical Technology Prague Technická 5 166 28 Prague 6 Czech Republic

See more in PubMed

Biochemistry. 2002 Apr 2;41(13):4246-54 PubMed

Structure. 2003 Jul;11(7):855-64 PubMed

J Am Chem Soc. 2005 May 25;127(20):7379-86 PubMed

Electrophoresis. 1997 Dec;18(15):2714-23 PubMed

Biochemistry. 2000 Jan 18;39(2):292-9 PubMed

J Am Chem Soc. 1988 Mar 1;110(6):1657-66 PubMed

J Phys Chem B. 1998 Apr 30;102(18):3586-616 PubMed

Proteins. 2004 Nov 1;57(2):225-42 PubMed

Biochemistry. 2003 Feb 18;42(6):1796-803 PubMed

Carbohydr Res. 2004 Sep 13;339(13):2275-80 PubMed

J Mol Biol. 2002 Mar 8;316(5):1061-9 PubMed

J Mol Biol. 1998 Oct 9;282(5):1043-59 PubMed

Chemistry. 2002 May 03;8(9):2047-56 PubMed

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Aug 3;101(31):11275-80 PubMed

Carbohydr Res. 2004 Apr 2;339(5):1015-20 PubMed

Biochemistry. 2005 Jun 14;44(23):8554-62 PubMed

J Comput Chem. 2002 Oct;23(13):1236-43 PubMed

J Mol Biol. 2001 Mar 16;307(1):357-77 PubMed

Proteins. 2004 Apr 1;55(1):44-65 PubMed

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Oct 29;99(22):14077-82 PubMed

J Mol Biol. 2001 Jul 20;310(4):875-84 PubMed

J Am Chem Soc. 2001 Apr 11;123(14):3323-31 PubMed

J Comput Chem. 2004 Sep;25(12):1463-73 PubMed

Chem Rev. 2000 Nov 8;100(11):4253-4264 PubMed

Protein Sci. 2004 Sep;13(9):2502-14 PubMed

Protein Pept Lett. 2002 Jun;9(3):195-209 PubMed

Chem Biol. 1996 Dec;3(12):973-80 PubMed

J Am Chem Soc. 2004 Feb 4;126(4):1047-54 PubMed

Carbohydr Res. 2004 Apr 2;339(5):937-48 PubMed

Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 1999 Oct 18;38(20):2978-2996 PubMed

Structural Basis of the Function of Yariv Reagent-An Important Tool to Study Arabinogalactan Proteins

CH/π Interactions in Carbohydrate Recognition