30.08.2013 Views

Mesoscopic models of lipid bilayers and bilayers with embedded ...

Mesoscopic models of lipid bilayers and bilayers with embedded ...

Mesoscopic models of lipid bilayers and bilayers with embedded ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

7.3 Results <strong>and</strong> discussion 107<br />

ted (see gray <strong>and</strong> white rectangular areas). The best fit is obtained <strong>with</strong> the values <strong>of</strong><br />

the fitting parameters given in Table 7.2, for the three chosen protein sizes, <strong>and</strong> for<br />

varying values <strong>of</strong> mismatch, i.e. protein hydrophobic thickness.<br />

Table 7.2: Values <strong>of</strong> the decay length, ξP, the pure <strong>lipid</strong> bilayer hydrophobic thickness d o L (both<br />

derived from fitting the thickness pr<strong>of</strong>iles dL(r) by using Eq. 7.3), the protein hydrophobic<br />

length, dP, <strong>and</strong> the effective protein hydrophobic length, d eff<br />

P (both calculated from the simulations)<br />

given for different values <strong>of</strong> hydrophobic mismatch, ∆d, <strong>and</strong> for the three protein sizes<br />

corresponding to NP=4, 7 <strong>and</strong> 43. The data refer to simulations made at the reduced temperature<br />

T ∗ =0.7, well above the main-transition temperature <strong>of</strong> the pure <strong>lipid</strong> bilayer system. The<br />

pure <strong>lipid</strong> bilayer hydrophobic thickness calculated at this temperature is d o L =(23.6±0.2) ˚A. In<br />

the case <strong>of</strong> approximately zero mismatch (∆d=-1 ˚A), the values <strong>of</strong> ξP <strong>and</strong> d o L are not calculated.<br />

∆d [˚A] ξP [˚A] d o L [˚A] dP [˚A] d eff<br />

P [˚A]<br />

Protein fitted fitted computed computed<br />

NP=4 -10 9.3 ± 0.3 24.0 ± 0.1 15 ± 1 15 ± 1<br />

-6 11.9 ± 0.3 23.9 ± 0.1 20 ± 1 19 ± 1<br />

-1 * * 24 ± 1 24 ± 1<br />

8 9.6 ± 0.7 23.4 ± 0.1 34 ± 1 32 ± 1<br />

17 9.7 ± 0.7 23.4 ± 0.2 43 ± 1 35 ± 3<br />

26 12.3 ± 0.6 23.2 ± 0.1 53 ± 1 36 ± 3<br />

NP= 7 -10 10.1 ± 0.4 24.2 ± 0.1 15 ± 1 14 ± 1<br />

-6 12.4 ± 0.7 24.0 ± 0.1 19 ± 1 19 ± 1<br />

-1 * * 24 ± 1 23 ± 1<br />

8 9.4 ± 0.8 23.5 ± 0.1 33 ± 1 32 ± 1<br />

17 11.8 ± 0.7 23.2 ± 0.2 42 ± 1 39 ± 2<br />

28 12.4 ± 0.8 23.3 ± 0.2 51 ± 1 39 ± 3<br />

NP= 43 -10 12.8 ± 0.8 24.2 ± 0.1 14 ± 1 14 ± 1<br />

-6 17 ± 2 24.3 ± 0.2 19 ± 1 19 ± 1<br />

-1 * * 24 ± 1 24 ± 1<br />

8 10 ± 1 23.2 ± 0.3 33 ± 1 33 ± 1<br />

17 12 ± 1 22.5 ± 0.6 43 ± 1 43 ± 1<br />

26 12 ± 1 22.1 ± 0.8 52 ± 1 51 ± 2<br />

At negative mismatch, no difference is observed between dP <strong>and</strong> deff P , as can be<br />

seen by looking at figure 7.4(a,c,e). This means that the orientation <strong>of</strong> the protein is<br />

perpendicular to the bilayer plane, hence dP=deff P . However, for a positive mismatch<br />

too large to be compensated for by fully stretching the <strong>lipid</strong>s in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the<br />

protein, another effect can be observed; the peptide tilts in order to decrease its effective<br />

hydrophobic length. The effect is much more pronounced in the case <strong>of</strong> the<br />

skinny protein (NP=4) than for the larger protein, as can be seen by comparing figures<br />

is much shorter than the ac-<br />

7.4b,d <strong>with</strong> figure 7.4(f); where in the former cases deff P<br />

tual protein hydrophobic length. The values <strong>of</strong> deff P <strong>and</strong> dP shown in Table 7.2 confirm

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!