4.4 Article

Coarse Grained Normal Mode Analysis vs. Refined Gaussian Network Model for Protein Residue-Level Structural Fluctuations

Journal

BULLETIN OF MATHEMATICAL BIOLOGY
Volume 75, Issue 1, Pages 124-160

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11538-012-9797-y

Keywords

Protein structural fluctuation; Normal mode analysis; Gaussian Network Model; Atomic B-factors; Atomic mean-square-fluctuations; Residue mean-square-fluctuations

Funding

  1. NIH/ /NIGMS [R01GM081680]
  2. NSF/ /DMS [DMS0914354]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigate several approaches to coarse grained normal mode analysis on protein residual-level structural fluctuations by choosing different ways of representing the residues and the forces among them. Single-atom representations using the backbone atoms C (alpha) , C, N, and C (beta) are considered. Combinations of some of these atoms are also tested. The force constants between the representative atoms are extracted from the Hessian matrix of the energy function and served as the force constants between the corresponding residues. The residue mean-square-fluctuations and their correlations with the experimental B-factors are calculated for a large set of proteins. The results are compared with all-atom normal mode analysis and the residue-level Gaussian Network Model. The coarse-grained methods perform more efficiently than all-atom normal mode analysis, while their B-factor correlations are also higher. Their B-factor correlations are comparable with those estimated by the Gaussian Network Model and in many cases better. The extracted force constants are surveyed for different pairs of residues with different numbers of separation residues in sequence. The statistical averages are used to build a refined Gaussian Network Model, which is able to predict residue-level structural fluctuations significantly better than the conventional Gaussian Network Model in many test cases.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available