4.6 Article

On the ability of molecular dynamics force fields to recapitulate NMR derived protein side chain order parameters

期刊

PROTEIN SCIENCE
卷 25, 期 6, 页码 1156-1160

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/pro.2922

关键词

protein motion; side chain motion; molecular dynamics; NMR relaxation; force field; accuracy

资金

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [GM102447]
  2. NIH [GM008275]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations have become a central tool for investigating various biophysical questions with atomistic detail. While many different proxies are used to qualify MD force fields, most are based on largely structural parameters such as the root mean square deviation from experimental coordinates or nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) chemical shifts and residual dipolar couplings. NMR derived Lipari-Szabo squared generalized order parameter (O-2) values of amide NAH bond vectors of the polypeptide chain were also often employed for refinement and validation. However, with a few exceptions, side chain methyl symmetry axis order parameters have not been incorporated into experimental reference sets. Using a test set of five diverse proteins, the performance of several force fields implemented in the NAMDD simulation package was examined. It was found that simulations employing explicit water implemented using the TIP3 model generally performed significantly better than those using implicit water in reproducing experimental methyl symmetry axis O-2 values. Overall the CHARMM27 force field performs nominally better than two implementations of the Amber force field. It appeared that recent quantum mechanics modifications to side chain torsional angles of leucine and isoleucine in the Amber force field have significantly hindered proper motional modeling for these residues. There remained significant room for improvement as even the best correlations of experimental and simulated methyl group Lipari-Szabo generalized order parameters fall below an R-2 of 0.8.

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

4.6
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