4.7 Article

Maximum likelihood estimation of protein kinetic parameters under weak assumptions from unfolding force spectroscopy experiments

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW E
卷 80, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.80.061916

关键词

biomechanics; maximum likelihood estimation; molecular biophysics; proteins

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Single molecule force spectroscopy (SMFS) is extensively used to characterize the mechanical unfolding behavior of individual protein domains under applied force by pulling chimeric polyproteins consisting of identical tandem repeats. Constant velocity unfolding SMFS data can be employed to reconstruct the protein unfolding energy landscape and kinetics. The methods applied so far require the specification of a single stretching force increase function, either theoretically derived or experimentally inferred, which must then be assumed to accurately describe the entirety of the experimental data. The very existence of a suitable optimal force model, even in the context of a single experimental data set, is still questioned. Herein, we propose a maximum likelihood (ML) framework for the estimation of protein kinetic parameters which can accommodate all the established theoretical force increase models. Our framework does not presuppose the existence of a single force characteristic function. Rather, it can be used with a heterogeneous set of functions, each describing the protein behavior in the stretching time range leading to one rupture event. We propose a simple way of constructing such a set of functions via piecewise linear approximation of the SMFS force vs time data and we prove the suitability of the approach both with synthetic data and experimentally. Additionally, when the spontaneous unfolding rate is the only unknown parameter, we find a correction factor that eliminates the bias of the ML estimator while also reducing its variance. Finally, we investigate which of several time-constrained experiment designs leads to better estimators.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据