4.7 Article

Predicting NMR relaxation of proteins from molecular dynamics simulations with accurate methyl rotation barriers

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 152, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.5135379

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany's Excellence Strategy-EXC-2033 [390677874]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The internal dynamics of proteins occurring on time scales from picoseconds to nanoseconds can be sensitively probed by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spin relaxation experiments, as well as by molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. This complementarity offers unique opportunities, provided that the two methods are compared at a suitable level. Recently, several groups have used MD simulations to compute the spectral density of backbone and side chain molecular motions and to predict NMR relaxation rates from these. Unfortunately, in the case of methyl groups in protein side chains, inaccurate energy barriers to methyl rotation were responsible for a systematic discrepancy in the computed relaxation rates, as demonstrated for the AMBER ff99SB(*)-ILDN force field (and related parameter sets), impairing quantitative agreement between simulations and experiments. However, correspondence could be regained by emending the MD force field with accurate coupled cluster quantum chemical calculations. Spurred by this positive result, we tested whether this approach could be generally applicable, in spite of the fact that different MD force fields employ different water models. Improved methyl group rotation barriers for the CHARMM36 and AMBER ff15ipq protein force fields were derived, such that the NMR relaxation data obtained from the MD simulations even now display very good agreement with the experiment. Results herein showcase the performance of present-day MD force fields and manifest their refined ability to accurately describe internal protein dynamics. Published under license by AIP Publishing.

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