Skip to main content
. 2020 Feb 18;25(4):904. doi: 10.3390/molecules25040904

Table 1.

Thermodynamic analysis: Comparisons of binding energy between wild type and mutated DHFR–pyrimethamine complexes. Energy values in parenthesis represent the sd (standard deviation). Key: van der Waals: ΔEvdW, Electrostatic: ΔEelec, polar solvation: ΔGpolar, nonpolar: ΔGnonpolar.

Systems ΔEvdW ΔEelec ΔGpolar ΔGnonpolar ΔG binding (kJ mol−1)
WT −145.40 (0.20) −5.97 (0.06) 38.76 (0.10) −14.58 (0.02) −127.20 (0.21)
S108N −136.80 (0.19) −7.32 (0.06) 50.06 (0.15) −14.21 (0.02) −108.26 (0.21)
N51I_S108N −124.09 (0.19) −6.63 (0.06) 32.05 (0.11) −14.46 (0.02) −113.12 (0.20)
C59R_S108N −127.74 (0.21) −5.28 (0.07) 62.50 (0.16) −13.90 (0.02) −84.40 (0.23)
N51I_ C59R_S108N −130.53 (0.24) −4.29 (0.06) 47.76 (0.18) −13.82 (0.02) −100.87 (0.26)
C59R_S108N_I164L −105.48 (0.26) −2.59 (0.06) 28.69 (0.11) −13.40 (0.02) −92.77 (0.25)
N51I_C59R_S108N_I164L −116.49 (0.18) −6.98 (0.08) 53.07 (0.21) −14.49 (0.02) −84.90 (0.25)