4.8 Review

Balancing solvation and intramolecular interactions: Toward a consistent generalized born force field

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 128, 期 11, 页码 3728-3736

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ja057216r

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR12255, P41 RR012255, P41 RR012255-108418] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM048807-13, GM48807, R01 GM048807] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The efficient and accurate characterization of solvent effects is a key element in the theoretical and computational study of biological problems. Implicit solvent models, particularly generalized Born (GB) continuum electrostatics, have emerged as an attractive tool to study the structure and dynamics of biomolecules in various environments. Despite recent advances in this methodology, there remain limitations in the parametrization of many of these models. In the present work, we demonstrate that it is possible to achieve a balanced implicit solvent force field by further optimizing the input atomic radii in combination with adjusting the protein backbone torsional energetics. This parameter optimization is guided by the potentials of mean force (PMFs) between amino acid polar groups, calculated from explicit solvent free energy simulations, and by conformational equilibria of short peptides, obtained from extensive folding and unfolding replica exchange molecular dynamics (REX-MD) simulations. Through the application of this protocol, the delicate balance between the competing solvation forces and intramolecular forces appears to be better captured, and correct conformational equilibria for a range of both helical and beta-hairpin peptides are obtained. The same optimized force field also successfully folds both beta-hairpin trpzip2 and mini-protein Trp-Cage, indicating that it is quite robust. Such a balanced, physics-based force field will be highly applicable to a range of biological problems including protein folding and protein structural dynamics.

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

4.8
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