Next Article in Journal
The Regulated Secretion and Models of Intracellular Transport: The Goblet Cell as an Example
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Chemical Chaperones on the Stability of Proteins during Heat– or Freeze–Thaw Stress
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring the Therapeutic Potential of Targeting GH and IGF-1 in the Management of Obesity: Insights from the Interplay between These Hormones and Metabolism
Previous Article in Special Issue
Coarse-Grained Molecular Simulations and Ensemble-Based Mutational Profiling of Protein Stability in the Different Functional Forms of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Trimers: Balancing Stability and Adaptability in BA.1, BA.2 and BA.2.75 Variants
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Molecular Dynamics Simulations of HPr Proteins from a Thermophilic and a Mesophilic Organism: A Comparative Thermal Study

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24(11), 9557; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24119557
by Ana K. Gómez-Flores 1, Edgar López-Pérez 2 and Salomón J. Alas-Guardado 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24(11), 9557; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24119557
Submission received: 26 April 2023 / Revised: 23 May 2023 / Accepted: 24 May 2023 / Published: 31 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Protein Stability Research)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Summary:

The manuscript submitted by Gómez-Flores et al. presents a comparative analysis of mesophilic and thermophilic histidine-containing phosphocarrier (HPr). Using 1 us molecular dynamic simulation data, authors present temperature-dependent changes in protein secondary structure, intermolecular interaction, salt bridges, SASA (polar and non-polar), and others. The paper is recommended for publication after the author addresses the queries listed below and has made the required changes in the manuscript.

 

Comments

1)      Given the melting temperature of mesophilic protein (74 C) being lower than that of thermophile (89 C). I would like the authors to explain the loss of the α-2 structure of BstHPr at 333 K (60 C) much below its melting temperature.

 

2)      For the simulation at 362 K (90 C),  the BsHPr shows that most of the protein secondary structure doesn’t change, despite the simulation temperature being 15 C higher than the melting temperature.

 

3)      Why does the radius of gyration and native contact for BsHPr not change significantly at 362 K (90 C) despite being 15 C higher than the melting temperature?

 

4)      For BsHPr, the secondary structure shows a major change at 400 K, however, SASAnp does not reflect a major change going from 362K to 400 K (Table 6). I would suggest the author show this SASAnp in the 3D structure of both proteins.

 

5)      Moreover, I would also recommend analysing the presence of ILV clusters (https://proteintools.uni-bayreuth.de/) in both the protein and how this cluster changes with temperature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work focuses on the thermal stability of the thermophilic protein BstHPr using molecular dynamics simulations at five different temperatures. Their work found mesophilic protein is the most affected one. The conclusion is well-supported by the analysis. I recommend this work to be accepted in its present form.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer.

Back to TopTop