{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022222222222222223, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011594202898550725, 'mean_word_length': 5.14540059347181, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Structural Study of Cell Attachment Peptide Derived from Laminin by Molecular Dynamics Simulation

Peptides with cell attachment activity are beneficial component of biomaterials for tissue engineering. Conformational structure is one of the important factors for the biological activities. The EF1 peptide (DYATLQLQEGRLHFMFDLG) derived from laminin promotes cell spreading and cell attachment activity mediated by α2β1 integrin. Although the sequence of the EF2 peptide (DFATVQLRNGFPYFSYDLG) is homologous sequence to that of EF1, EF2 does not promote cell attachment activity. To determine whether there are structural differences between EF1 and EF2, we performed replica exchange molecular dynamics (REMD) simulations and conventional molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. We found that EF1 and EF2 had β-sheet structure as a secondary structure around the global minimum. However, EF2 had variety of structures around the global minimum compared with EF1 and has easily escaped from the bottom of free energy. The structural fluctuation of the EF1 is smaller than that of the EF2. The structural variation of EF2 is related to these differences in the structural fluctuation and the number of the hydrogen bonds (H-bonds). From the analysis of H-bonds in the β-sheet, the number of H-bonds in EF1 is larger than that in EF2 in the time scale of the conventional MD simulation, suggesting that the formation of H-bonds is related to the differences in the structural fluctuation between EF1 and EF2. From the analysis of other non-covalent interactions in the amino acid sequences of EF1 and EF2, EF1 has three pairs of residues with hydrophobic interaction, and EF2 has two pairs. These results indicate that several non-covalent interactions are important for structural stabilization. Consequently, the structure of EF1 is stabilized by H-bonds and pairs of hydrophobic amino acids in the terminals. Hence, we propose that non-covalent interactions around N-terminal and C-terminal of the peptides are crucial for maintaining the β-sheet structure of the peptides.