Potential of mean force (PMF) profile for the unbinding of MTx from each DprE1-IN-2 channel along the channel axis. Based on the PMF profile, the IC50 for the toxin block can be calculated [42]. We use steered molecular dynamics to pull the toxin out from the binding site, and generate the ?starting 
structures of the umbrella windows spaced at 0.5 A intervals. The toxin backbone is maintained rigid during the pulling, whereas the backbone atoms of the channel are fixed. The center of mass (COM) of the toxin backbone is 1676428 restrained to the center of each umbrella window using a harmonic force ?constant of 20?0 kcal/mol/A2. The COM of the channel is at ?z = 0 A. The COM of the toxin backbone is maintained in a ?cylinder of 8 A in radius centered on the channel axis, using a flatbottom harmonic restraint. The radius of the cylinder is chosen such that the restraining potential is always zero when the toxin is bound, and only occasionally non-zero when the toxin is in the bulk. This allows all the degrees of freedom of the toxin to be adequately sampled without bias. Each umbrella window is simulated for at least 5 ns until the depth of the PMF profile changes by ,0.5 kT over the last 1 ns. The first 1 ns of each window is removed from data analysis. The z coordinate of the toxin COM is saved every 1 ps for analysis. The weighted histogram analysis method is used to construct 25837696 the PMF profile [43]. The IC50 value is derived using the following equation [20,42]:Selective Block of Kv1.2 by MaurotoxinFigure 3. Time evolution of the salt bridge lengths. The lengths of the salt bridges Arg14-Asp355 and Lys7-Asp363 formed in the MTxKv1.2 complexes as a function of the simulation time over the last 15 ns. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.Alprenolol site 0047253.gthat predicted from biased MD. Therefore, we select a different structure of MTx, namely, the 21st NMR structure in 1TXM [32], and submit this structure to ZDOCK. The top-ranked correct docking pose is then equilibrated for 10 ns using MD without restraints. The MTx-Kv1.2 complex after the 10-ns equilibration is shown in Figure S2 of the Supporting Information. The MTxKv1.2 complex predicted by ZDOCK is virtually identical to that shown in Figure 2, indicating that the MTx-Kv1.2 complex obtained from biased MD is reliable.Binding to Kv1.1 and Kv1.Figure 2. MTx bound to Kv1.2. In (A), two key residue pairs Lys23Tyr377 and Arg14-Asp355 are highlighted. Two channel subunits are shown for clarity. (B) The MTx-Kv1.2 complex rotated by approximately ?90 clockwise from that of (A). The third key residue pair Lys7-Asp363 is highlighted in (B). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047253.gobservations, our binding mode shows that Tyr32 interacts intimately with residues near the entrance of the selectivity filter (Figure 2A). The minimum inter-residue distance of Tyr32-Val381 ?is 2.761.1 A on average, indicating the strong coupling of this residue pair. Double mutant cycle analysis has also suggested that Arg14 may be coupled with Asp355 [5]. Our model displayed in Figure 2 is consistent with mutagenesis experiments [5], which suggest that Arg14 is coupled with Asp355, and Lys7 is coupled with Asp363. We note that two acidic residues Asp352 and Glu353 are in close proximity to Asp355. These two residues could form salt bridges with MTx if Asp355 is mutated to a neutral or basic amino acid. This would explain the minimal effect on MTx binding affinity caused by the alanine mutation of Asp355 observed experimentally [5]. Thus, our model of MTx-Kv1.Potential of mean force (PMF) profile for the unbinding of MTx from each channel along the channel axis. Based on the PMF profile, the IC50 for the toxin block can be calculated [42]. We use steered molecular dynamics to pull the toxin out from the binding site, and generate the ?starting structures of the umbrella windows spaced at 0.5 A intervals. The toxin backbone is maintained rigid during the pulling, whereas the backbone atoms of the channel are fixed. The center of mass (COM) of the toxin backbone is 1676428 restrained to the center of each umbrella window using a harmonic force ?constant of 20?0 kcal/mol/A2. The COM of the channel is at ?z = 0 A. The COM of the toxin backbone is maintained in a ?cylinder of 8 A in radius centered on the channel axis, using a flatbottom harmonic restraint. The radius of the cylinder is chosen such that the restraining potential is always zero when the toxin is bound, and only occasionally non-zero when the toxin is in the bulk. This allows all the degrees of freedom of the toxin to be adequately sampled without bias. Each umbrella window is simulated for at least 5 ns until the depth of the PMF profile changes by ,0.5 kT over the last 1 ns. The first 1 ns of each window is removed from data analysis. The z coordinate of the toxin COM is saved every 1 ps for analysis. The weighted histogram analysis method is used to construct 25837696 the PMF profile [43]. The IC50 value is derived using the following equation [20,42]:Selective Block of Kv1.2 by MaurotoxinFigure 3. Time evolution of the salt bridge lengths. The lengths of the salt bridges Arg14-Asp355 and Lys7-Asp363 formed in the MTxKv1.2 complexes as a function of the simulation time over the last 15 ns. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047253.gthat predicted from biased MD. Therefore, we select a different structure of MTx, namely, the 21st NMR structure in 1TXM [32], and submit this structure to ZDOCK. The top-ranked correct docking pose is then equilibrated for 10 ns using MD without restraints. The MTx-Kv1.2 complex after the 10-ns equilibration is shown in Figure S2 of the Supporting Information. The MTxKv1.2 complex predicted by ZDOCK is virtually identical to that shown in Figure 2, indicating that the MTx-Kv1.2 complex obtained from biased MD is reliable.Binding to Kv1.1 and Kv1.Figure 2. MTx bound to Kv1.2. In (A), two key residue pairs Lys23Tyr377 and Arg14-Asp355 are highlighted. Two channel subunits are shown for clarity. (B) The MTx-Kv1.2 complex rotated by approximately ?90 clockwise from that of (A). The third key residue pair Lys7-Asp363 is highlighted in (B). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047253.gobservations, our binding mode shows that Tyr32 interacts intimately 
with residues near the entrance of the selectivity filter (Figure 2A). The minimum inter-residue distance of Tyr32-Val381 ?is 2.761.1 A on average, indicating the strong coupling of this residue pair. Double mutant cycle analysis has also suggested that Arg14 may be coupled with Asp355 [5]. Our model displayed in Figure 2 is consistent with mutagenesis experiments [5], which suggest that Arg14 is coupled with Asp355, and Lys7 is coupled with Asp363. We note that two acidic residues Asp352 and Glu353 are in close proximity to Asp355. These two residues could form salt bridges with MTx if Asp355 is mutated to a neutral or basic amino acid. This would explain the minimal effect on MTx binding affinity caused by the alanine mutation of Asp355 observed experimentally [5]. Thus, our model of MTx-Kv1.
