4.5 Article

How reliable are molecular dynamics simulations of membrane active antimicrobial peptides?

期刊

BIOCHIMICA ET BIOPHYSICA ACTA-BIOMEMBRANES
卷 1838, 期 9, 页码 2280-2288

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2014.04.009

关键词

Antimicrobial peptide PGLa; BP100; Maculatin; Melittin; Lipid bilayer membrane; MD force field

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [BC4190004]
  2. 1000 young talent grant
  3. National High-Tech R&D Program (863 program) [2012AA020307]
  4. National Basic Research Program of China (973 program) [2012CB721000]
  5. Key Project of Shanghai Science and Technology Commission [11JC1406400]
  6. NIH [RC2GM093307]
  7. DFG-Center for Functional Nanotechnology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Membrane-active antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are challenging to study experimentally, but relatively easy to investigate using molecular dynamics (MD) computer simulations. For this reason, a large number of MD studies of AMPs have been reported over recent years. Yet relatively little effort has focused on the validity of such simulations. Are these results reliable, and do they agree with what is known experimentally? And how much meaningful information can be obtained? To answer these questions, we demonstrate here some of the requirements and limitations of running MD simulations for several common AMPs: PGLa, melittin, maculatin and BP100. The two most important findings are: (a) simulation results depend strongly on force field parameters, making experimental verification of the simulations obligatory, and (b) slow orientational and conformational fluctuations mean that much longer sampling timescales (multi-mu s) are needed if quantitative agreement between simulation averages and experimental data is to be achieved. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Interfacially Active Peptides and Proteins. Guest Editors: William C. Wimley and Kalina Hristova. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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