4.4 Article

Cutoff size need not strongly influence molecular dynamics results for solvated polypeptides

期刊

BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 44, 期 2, 页码 609-616

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/bi0486381

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM 50789, 5 T32 GM 08268] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The correct treatment of van der Waals and electrostatic nonbonded interactions in molecular force fields is essential for performing realistic molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of solvated polypeptides. The most computationally tractable treatment of nonbonded interactions in MD utilizes a spherical distance cutoff (typically, 8-12 Angstrom) to reduce the number of pairwise interactions. In this work, we assess three spherical atom-based cutoff approaches for use with all-atom explicit solvent MD: abrupt truncation. a CHARMM-style electrostatic shift truncation, and our own force-shifted truncation. The chosen system for this study is an end-capped 17-residue alanine-based alpha-helical peptide, selected because of its use in previous computational and experimental studies. We compare the time-averaged helical content calculated from these MD trajectories with experiment. We also examine the effect of varying the cutoff treatment and distance on energy conservation. We find that the abrupt truncation approach is pathological in its inability to conserve energy. The CHARMM-style shift truncation performs quite well but suffers from energetic instability. On the other hand, the force-shifted spherical cutoff method conserves energy, correctly predicts the experimental helical content, and shows convergence in simulation statistics as the cutoff is increased. This work demonstrates that by using proper and rigorous techniques, it is possible to correctly model polypeptide dynamics in solution with a spherical cutoff. The inherent computational advantage of spherical cutoffs over Ewald summation (and related) techniques is essential in accessing longer MD time scales.

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

4.4
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