Characterization Of Blood–Brain Barrier Crossing And Tumor Homing Peptides By Molecular Dynamics Simulations

References

• Strong MJ, Garces J, Vera JC, Mathkour M, Emerson N, Ware ML. Brain tumors: epidemiology and current trends in treatment. Brain Tumors Neurooncol. 2015;1(1):1–21. doi:10.4172/jbtn.1000102
   Google Scholar
• Opoku-Damoah Y, Wang R, Zhou J, Ding Y. Versatile nanosystem-based cancer theranostics: design inspiration and predetermined routing. Theranostics. 2016;6(7):986–1003. doi:10.7150/thno.1486027217832
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oliveira Silva C, Oliveira Pinho J, Margarida Lopes J, Almeida AJ, Gaspar MM, Reis C. Current trends in cancer nanotheranostics: metallic, polymeric, and lipid-based systems. Pharmaceutics. 2019;11(1):22. doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics11010022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ding F, Chen Z, Kim WY, et al. A nano-cocktail of an NIR-II emissive fluorophore and organoplatinum(II) metallacycle for efficient cancer imaging and therapy. Chem Sci. 2019;10(29):7023–7028. doi:10.1039/C9SC02466B31588269
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sun Y, Ding F, Zhou Z, et al. Rhomboidal Pt(II) metallacycle-based NIR-II theranostic nanoprobe for tumor diagnosis and image-guided therapy. PNAS. 2019;116(6):1968–1973. doi:10.1073/pnas.181702111630670648
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sun Y, Ding F, Chen Z, et al. Melanin-dot–mediated delivery of metallacycle for NIR-II/photoacoustic dual-modal imaging-guided chemo-photothermal synergistic therapy. PNAS. 2019;116(34):16729–16735. doi:10.1073/pnas.190876111631391305
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gao H. Progress and perspective on targeting nanoparticles for brain drug delivery. APBS. 2016;6(4):268–286. doi:10.1016/j.apsb.2016.05.013
   Google Scholar
• Oller-Salvia B, Sànchez-Navarro M, Teixidò M. Blood-brain barrier: an emerging paradigm for brain delivery. Shuttle. Chem Soc Rev. 2016;45(17):4690–4707. doi:10.1039/C6CS00076B27188322
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Joncour V, Laakkonen P. Seek & destroy, use of targeting peptides for cancer detection and drug delivery. Bioorg Med Chem. 2018;26(10):2797–2806. doi:10.1016/j.bmc.2017.08.05228893601
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao H, Zhang S, Cao S, Yang Pang Z, Jiang X. Angiopep-2 and activable cell-penetrating peptide dual-functionalized nanoparticles for systemic glioma-targeting delivery. Mol Pharm. 2014;11(8):2755–2763. doi:10.1021/mp500113p24983928
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang S, Zhao C, Liu P, Wang Z, Ding J, Zhou W. Facile construction of dual-targeting delivery system by using lipid capped polymer nanoparticles for anti-glioma therapy. RSC Adv. 2018;8(1):444–453. doi:10.1039/C7RA12376K
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao H, Qian J, Cao S, et al. Precise glioma targeting of and penetration by aptamer and peptide dual-functioned nanoparticles. Biomaterials. 2012;33(20):5115–5123. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.03.05822484043
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li J, Feng L, Fan L, et al. Targeting the brain with PEG-PLGA nanoparticles modified with phage-displayed peptides. Biomaterials. 2011;32(21):4943–4950. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.03.03121470674
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li J, Zhang C, Li J, et al. Brain delivery of NAP with PEG-PLGA nanoparticles modified with phage-display peptides. Pharm Res. 2013;30(7):1813–1823. doi:10.1007/s11095-013-1025-423549751
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Feng X, Gao X, Kang T, et al. Mammary-derived growth inhibitor targeting peptide-modified PEG-PLA nanoparticles for enhanced targeted glioblastoma therapy. Bioconjug Chem. 2015;26(8):1850–1861. doi:10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.5b0037926222392
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang B, Shen S, Liao Z. Targeting fibronectins of glioma extracellular matrix by CLT1 peptide-conjugated nanoparticles. Biomaterials. 2014;35(13):4088–4098. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.01.04624513320
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu Q, Gu G, Liu Z, et al. F3 peptide-functionalized PEG-PLA nanoparticles co-administrated with tLyp-1 peptide for anti-glioma drug delivery. Biomaterials. 2013;34(4):1135–1145. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.10.04823146434
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen Y, Maupetit J, Derreumaux P, Tufféry P. Improved PEP-FOLD approach for peptide and miniprotein structure predictor. J Chem Theor Comput. 2014;10(10):4745–4758. doi:10.1021/ct500592m
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thévenet P, Shen Y, Maupetit J, Guyon F, Derreumaux P, Tufféry P. PEP-FOLD: an updated de novo structure prediction server for both linear and disulfide bonded cyclic peptides. Nucleic Acid Res. 2012;40(W1):W288–W293. doi:10.1093/nar/gks41922581768
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiser A, Sali A. Modeller: generation and refinement of homology-based protein structure models. Methods Enzymol. 2003;374:461–491. doi:10.1016/S0076-6879(03)74020-814696385
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Der Spoel D, Lindahl E, Hess B, Groenhof G, Mark AE, Berendsen HJC. Gromacs: fast, flexible, and free. J Comput Chem. 2005;26(16):1701–1718. doi:10.1002/jcc.2029116211538
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorgensen WL, Maxwell DS, Tirado-Rives J. Development and testing of the OPLS All-Atom force field on conformational energetics and properties of organic liquids. J Am Chem Soc. 1996;118(45):11225–11236. doi:10.1021/ja9621760
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaminski GA, Friesner RA, Tirado-Rives J, Jorgensen WL. Evaluation and reparameterization of the OPLS-AA force field for proteins via comparison with accurate quantum chemical calculations on peptides. J Phys Chem B. 2001;105(28):6474–6487. doi:10.1021/jp003919d
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tzanov A, Cuendet MA, Tuckerman ME. How accurately do current force fields predict experimental peptide conformations? An adiabatic free energy dynamics study. J Phys Chem B. 2014;118(24):6539−6552. doi:10.1021/jp500193w24620905
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lindorff-Larsen K, Piana S, Palmo K, et al. Improved side-chain torsion potentials for the Amber ff99SB protein force field. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinform. 2010;78(8):1950–1958. doi:10.1002/prot.22711
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorgensen WL, Chandrasekhar J, Madura JD, Impey RW, Klein ML. Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J Chem Phys. 1983;79(2):926–935. doi:10.1063/1.445869
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berendsen HJC, Grigera JR, Straatsma TP. The missing term in effective pair potentials. J Phys Chem. 1987;91(24):6269−6271. doi:10.1021/j100308a038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bussi G, Donadio D, Parrinello M. Canonical sampling through velocity rescaling. J Chem Phys. 2007;126(1):014101. doi:10.1063/1.240842017212484
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parrinello M, Rahman A. Polymorphic transitions in single crystals: a new molecular dynamics method. J Appl Phys. 1981;52(12):7182–7190. doi:10.1063/1.328693
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nose S, Klein M. Constant pressure molecular dyncamics for molecular systems. Mol Phys. 1983;50(5):1055–1076. doi:10.1080/00268978300102851
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hockney RW, Eastwood JW. Computer Simulation Using Particles. 1st ed. Hill M, ed Taylor & Francis Group (NY);1988. doi:10.1201/9780367806934
   Google Scholar
• Essmann U, Perera L, Berkowitz ML, Darten T, Lee H, Pederson LGA. Smooth particle mesh ewald method. J Chem Phys. 1995;103(19):8577–8592. doi:10.1063/1.470117
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess B, Bekker H, Berendsen HJC, Fraaije J. LINCS: a linear constraint solver for molecular simulations. J Comput Chem. 1997;18(12):1463–1472. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(199709)18:12<1463::AID-JCC4>3.0.CO;2-H
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daura X, Gademann K, Jaun B, Seebach D, van Gunsteren W, Mark A. Peptide folding: when simulation meets experiments. Angew Chem Int Ed. 1999;38(1–2):236−240. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1521-3773
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amadei A, Linssen AB, Berendsen HJC. Essential dynamics of proteins. Proteins. 1993;17(4):412–425. doi:10.1002/prot.3401704088108382
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess B. Similarities between principal components of protein dynamics and random diffusion. Phys Rev E Stat Phys Plasmas Fluids Relat Interdiscip Topics. 2000;62(6Pt B):8438–8448. doi:10.1103/physreve.62.843811138145
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eisenhaber F, Lijnzaad P, Argos P, Sander C, Scharf M. The double cubic lattice method: efficient approaches to numerical integration of surface area and volume to dot surface contouring of molecular assemblies. J Comput Chem. 1995;16(3):273–284. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1096-987X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphrey W, Dalke A, Schulten K. VMD: visual molecular dynamics. J Mol Graph. 1996;14(1):33–38. doi:10.1016/0263-7855(96)00018-58744570
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Rossum G, Drake JFL. Python Tutorial. The Netherlands: Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica Amsterdam; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Hollingsworth SA, Dror RO. Molecular dynamics simulations for all. Neuron. 2018;99(6):1129–1143. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2018.08.01130236283
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arcangeli C, Cantale C, Galeffi P, Rosato V. Structure and dynamics of the anti-AMCV scFv(F8): effects of selected mutations on the antigen combining site. J Struct Biol. 2008;164(1):119–133. doi:10.1016/j.jsb.2008.06.01318662789
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Arcangeli C, Circelli P, Donini M, et al. Structure-based design and experimental engineering of a plant virus nanoparticle for the presentation of immunogenic epitopes and as a drug carrier. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2014;32(4):630–647. doi:10.1080/07391102.2013.78592023672348
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polimeni M, Petridis L, Smith JC, Arcangeli C. Dynamics at a peptide-TiO2 anatase (101) interface. J Phys Chem B. 2017;121(38):8869–8877. doi:10.1021/acs.jpcb.7b0470728851213
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Demeule M, Règina A, Ché C, et al. Identification and design of peptides as a new drug delivery system for the brain. JPET. 2008;324(3):1064–1072. doi:10.1124/jpet.107.131318
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang D, El-Amour SS, Dai M, et al. Engineering a lysosomal enzyme with a derivative of receptor binding domain of apoE enables delivery across the blood brain barrier. PNAS. 2013;110(8):2999–3004. doi:10.1073/pnas.122274211023382178
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oswald M, Geissler S, Goepferich A. Targeting the central nervous system (CNS): a review of rabies virus-targeting strategies. Mol Pharm. 2017;14(7):2177–2196. doi:10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.7b0015828514853
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hyvönen M, Enbäck J, Huhtala T. Novel target for peptide-based imaging and treatment of brain tumors. Mol Cancer Ther. 2014;13(4):996–1007. doi:10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-13-068424493698
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhan C, Gu B, Xie C, Li J, Liu Y, Lu W. Cyclic RGD conjugated poly(ethylene glycol)-co-poly(lactic acid) micelle enhances paclitaxel anti-glioblastoma effect. J Control Release. 2010;143(1):136–142. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2009.12.02020056123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimura RH, Levin AM, Cochran FV, Cochran JR. Engineered cysteine knot peptides that bind αʋβ3, αʋβ5 and α5β1 integrins with low-nanomolar affinity. Proteins. 2009;77(2):359–369. doi:10.1002/prot.2244119452550
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pilch J, Brown DM, Komatsu M, et al. Peptides selected for binding to clotted plasma accumulate in tumor stroma and wounds. PNAS. 2006;103(8):2800–2804. doi:10.1073/pnas.051121910316476999
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roth L, Agemy L, Kotamraju VR, et al. Transtumoral targeting enabled by a novel neuropilin-binding peptide. Oncogene. 2012;31:3754–3763. doi:10.1038/onc.2011.53722179825
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsieh Y-H, Chou C-Y. Structural and functional characterization of human apoliprotein E 72-166 peptides in both aqueous and lipid environments. J Biomed Sci. 2011;18:4. doi:10.1186/1423-0127-18-421219628
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Heitz A, Avrutina O, Le-Nguyen D, et al. Knottin cyclization: impact on structure and dynamics. BMC Struct Biol. 2008;8:54. doi:10.1186/1472-6807-8-5419077275
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang X, Wang F, Shen Q, et al. Structure reconstruction of LyP-1: lc(LyP-1) coupling by amide bond inspires the brain metastatic tumor targeted drug delivery. Mol Pharm. 2018;15(2):430–436. doi:10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.7b0080129215294
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Timur SS, Yalçın G, Çevik Ö, Andaç C, Gürsoy RN. Molecular dynamics, thermodynamic, and mutational binding studies for tumor-specific LyP-1 in complex with p32. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2018;36(5):1134–1144. doi:10.1080/07391102.2017.131377928427307
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cino EA, Choy W-Y, Karttunen M. Comparison of secondary structure formation using 10 different force fields in microsecond molecular dynamics simulations. J Chem Theory Comput. 2012;8(8):2725–2740. doi:10.1021/ct300323g22904695
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy Y, Jortner J, Becker OM. Solvent effects on the energy landscapes and folding kinetics of polyarginine. PNAS. 2001;98(5):2188–2193. doi:10.1073/pnas.04161199811226214
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Agthoven JF, Shams H, Cochran FV, et al. Structural basis of the differential binding of engineered knottins 2.5F and 2.5D to integrins αʋβ3 and α5β1. Structure. 2019;27(9):1443–1451. doi:10.1016/j.str.2019.06.011
   Google Scholar
• Vermeer LS, Lan Y, Abbate V, et al. Conformational flexibility determines selectivity and antibacterial, antiplasmodial, and anticancer potency of cationic α-helical peptides. J Biol Chem. 2012;287(41):120–133. doi:10.1074/jbc.M112.359067
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar