What is a Conformer?

 

This is a message that I posted to the United Devices Member Message Board on April 10, 2001, to help other volunteers in United Devices’ distributed computing project understand what was meant by the term “conformer” that was appearing on their display screens.  I’ve included a few messages that appeared just ahead of mine.

 

From:  http://forum.ud.com/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000042

 

Blue Lion

posted 04-04-2001 06:20 PM

 

I've read the FAQ and it's still not clear. Can someone who knows please explain...what, exactly, is a conformer?

 

Rob M

posted 04-05-2001 03:36 PM

 

Ok, some quick molecular mechanics...

 

For the simplest molecule with two atoms (a diatomic) we only need to describe one parameter, the bond length between the two.

 

For a linear triatomic we need two bond lengths and for a non-linear triatomic we need two bond lengths and a dihedral angle .

 

For a four atom molecule we need: Three bond lengths, two dihedral angles and a torsion angle. And for each further atom beyond 4 we need another bond length, dihedral and torsion angle.

 

So for 20 atoms we need 6 + 3*16 = 54 parameters to describe the conformation. Now consider how small changes in bonding angles can add up to change the shape of the molecule and how complicated searching through the parametric space is...

 

And this is all before you get to the binding evaluation...

 

Halon50

posted 04-05-2001 08:13 PM

 

*blinks slowly*

 

So, uh, you're saying that the molecule thingy gets attached to the protein thingy, and something happens?

 

*scratches head*

 

-Tex

 

Nadim

posted 04-06-2001 02:20 AM

 

Wow, Rob... I thought that simply signing up for an Organic Chemistry class was a sign of masochism. And to think that you actually went to class, and even more impressively, stayed awake!

 

My background apparently hasn't prepared my brain to "conform" (sorry...) to the paradigms of this field...I'm still trying to figure out which symbol on the 3d model represents a transistor.

 

Rob M

posted 04-06-2001 03:17 AM

 

Okay, maybe a bit too technical

 

As for the organic chemistry masochism, I totally agree. Which was why I slacked off in computational chemistry instead!

 

So the next question is why do I now work as an organic chemist...

 

Wayne Farmer

posted 04-10-2001 10:41 PM

 

Rob, although I'm a computer scientist, not a molecular biologist, I'd like to also try to help folks understand. Please correct me if I make mistakes!

 

Let me begin by suggesting a way to imagine what is happening when you're creating conformers of a molecule. Imagine that you're holding a model of the molecule in your hands, just as it looks on your THINK screen. Now, imagine that the little colored balls in the model (the atoms of the molecule) are really magnets that may repel certain balls, but may attract others. Then imagine that the little sticks that join the colored balls (the molecular bonds) are little coiled springs like the kind you find in a ball point pen.

 

Hold this whole mess in your hands, and start to squeeze and fold it in different ways, or hold part of it while waving the rest around like a flag. Guess what -- some of your squeezings and jigglings will pop back into the original position, but some will clump together into a new position that will want to retain its new shape. Congratulations! You've just created a new conformer!

 

You can see that, for a large molecule with many atoms, there can be a lot of new positions that will want to retain their new shape. (I guess Rob would call these "stable configurations".) Each different shape will therefore have a different "fit" when it is placed up against the superoxide dismutase protein. THINK is trying to find a molecule that will have a really good fit against that protein, especially a fit so good that the protein would prefer to grab and hold on to that molecule instead of grabbing and holding on to the one it would in a human body not receiving any of our molecules in chemotherapy. A good fit is a "hit"!

 

Why are we doing this? We're trying to "jam up" the superoxide dismutase proteins throughout the cells in the human body, and make them inactive. Those proteins do a major part of the "garbage collection" in human cells, and if the garbage collectors go on strike, you know what happens: the cell fills with garbage and soon becomes a place where nothing can get done. This can be a good thing, though, because cancer cells make garbage faster than normal cells, so they're the first to die if the garbage collectors go on strike. So the idea is to feed our "hit" molecules as part of a chemotherapy medication to cancer victims. We keep feeding the person these molecules (and yes, it makes the person weak and sick, because the molecules cause garbage to accumulate in all the cells in the body) until the cancer cells are all dead. Then we stop feeding the person the molecules, and let their body gradually recover, their hair grow back, etc. If all goes well, the result is that we've cured the person of their cancer.

 

Imagine all that coming from the use of your spare CPU cycles. Pretty nice, huh?