4.5 Article

Scrutinizing Molecular Mechanics Force Fields on the Submicrosecond Timescale with NMR Data

期刊

BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 99, 期 2, 页码 647-655

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2010.04.062

关键词

-

资金

  1. Human Frontiers of Science Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Protein dynamics on the atomic level and on the microsecond timescale has recently become accessible from both computation and experiment. To validate molecular dynamics (MD) at the submicrosecond timescale against experiment we present microsecond MD simulations in 10 different force-field configurations for two globular proteins, ubiquitin and the gb3 domain of protein G, for which extensive NMR data is available. We find that the reproduction of the measured NMR data strongly depends on the chosen force field and electrostatics treatment. Generally, particle-mesh Ewald outperforms cut-off and reaction-field approaches. A comparison to measured J-couplings across hydrogen bonds suggests that there is room for improvement in the force-field description of hydrogen bonds in most modern force fields. Our results show that with current force fields, simulations beyond hundreds of nanoseconds run an increased risk of undergoing transitions to nonnative conformational states or will persist within states of high free energy for too long, thus skewing the obtained population frequencies. Only for the AMBER99sb force field have such transitions not been observed. Thus, our results have significance for the interpretation of data obtained with long MD simulations, for the selection of force fields for MD studies and for force-field development. We hope that this comprehensive benchmark based on NMR data applied to many popular MD force fields will serve as a useful resource to the MD community. Finally, we find that for gb3, the force-field AMBER99sb reaches comparable accuracy in back-calculated residual dipolar couplings and J-couplings across hydrogen bonds to ensembles obtained by refinement against NMR data.

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