Quantifying the Mechanism of Phosphate Monoester Hydrolysis
in Aqueous Solution by Evaluating the Relevant Ab Initio QM/MM Free-Energy
Surfaces
- Publication date
- Publisher
Abstract
Understanding
the nature of the free-energy surfaces for phosphate
hydrolysis is a prerequisite for understanding the corresponding key
chemical reactions in biology. Here, the challenge has been to move
to careful ab initio QM/MM (QM(ai)/MM) free-energy calculations, where
obtaining converging results is very demanding and computationally
expensive. This work describes such calculations, focusing on the
free-energy surface for the hydrolysis of phosphate monoesters, paying
special attention to the comparison between the one water (1W) and
two water (2W) paths for the proton-transfer (PT) step. This issue
has been explored before by energy minimization with implicit solvent
models and by nonsystematic QM/MM energy minimization, as well as
by nonsystematic free-energy mapping. However, no study has provided
the needed reliable 2D (3D) surfaces that are necessary for reaching
concrete conclusions. Here we report a systematic evaluation of the
2D (3D) free-energy maps for several relevant systems, comparing the
results of QM(ai)/MM and QM(ai)/implicit solvent surfaces, and provide
an advanced description of the relevant energetics. It is found that
the 1W path for the hydrolysis of the methyl diphosphate (MDP) trianion
is 6–9 kcal/mol higher than that the 2W path. This difference
becomes slightly larger in the presence of the Mg<sup>2+</sup> ion
because this ion reduces the p<i>K</i><sub>a</sub> of the
conjugated acid form of the phosphate oxygen that accepts the proton.
Interestingly, the BLYP approach (which has been used extensively
in some studies) gives a much smaller difference between the 1W and
2W activation barriers. At any rate, it is worth pointing out that
the 2W transition state for the PT is not much higher that the common
plateau that serves as the starting point of both the 1W and 2W PT
paths. Thus, the calculated catalytic effects of proteins based on
the 2W PT mechanistic model are not expected to be different from
the catalytic effects predicted using the 1W PT mechanistic model,
which was calibrated on the observed barrier in solution and in which
the TS charge distribution was similar to the that of the plateau
(as was done in all of our previous EVB studies)