4.7 Article

Optimal Coarse-Grained Site Selection in Elastic Network Models of Biomolecules

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL THEORY AND COMPUTATION
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 648-664

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00654

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [CHE 1464926, CHE 1764257]
  2. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program [758588]
  3. CINECA supercomputing facility [INF18_biophys]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Elastic network models, simple structure-based representations of biomolecules where atoms interact via short-range harmonic potentials, provide great insight into a molecule's internal dynamics and mechanical properties at extremely low computational cost. Their efficiency and effectiveness have made them a pivotal instrument in the computer-aided study of proteins and, since a few years, also of nucleic acids. In general, the coarse-grained sites, i.e. those effective force centers onto which the all-atom structure is mapped, are constructed based on intuitive rules: a typical choice for proteins is to retain only the C-alpha atoms of each amino acid. However, a mapping strategy relying only on the atom type and not the local properties of its embedding can be suboptimal compared to a more careful selection. Here, we present a strategy in which the subset of atoms, each of which is mapped onto a unique coarse-grained site of the model, is selected in a stochastic search aimed at optimizing a cost function. The latter is taken to be a simple measure of the consistency between the harmonic approximation of an elastic network model and the harmonic model obtained through exact integration of the discarded degrees of freedom. The method is applied to two representatives of structurally very different types of biomolecules: the protein adenylate kinase and the RNA molecule adenine riboswitch. Our analysis quantifies the substantial impact that an algorithm-driven selection of coarse-grained sites can have on a model's properties.

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