4.7 Article

Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Intrinsically Disordered Proteins: Force Field Evaluation and Comparison with Experiment

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL THEORY AND COMPUTATION
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 3420-3431

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ct501178z

关键词

-

资金

  1. Organizing Molecular Matter (OMM)
  2. Vinnova
  3. Vinnmer program
  4. Royal Physiographic Society in Lund
  5. Per-Eric and Ulla Schybergs Foundation
  6. Crafoord Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An increasing number of studies using molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of unfolded and intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) suggest that current force fields sample conformations that are overly collapsed. Here, we study the applicability of several state-of-the-art MD force fields, of the AMBER and GROMOS variety, for the simulation of Histatin 5, a short (24 residues) cationic salivary IDP with antimicrobial and antifungal properties. The quality of the simulations is assessed in three complementary analyses: (i) protein shape and Size comparison with recent experimental small-angle X-ray scattering data; (ii) secondary structure prediction; (iii) energy landscape exploration and conformational Class analysis. Our results show that, indeed, standard force fields sample conformations that are too compact, being systematically unable to reproduce experimental evidence such as the scattering function, the shape of the protein as compared with the Kratky plot, and intrapeptide distances obtained through the pair distance distribution function, p(r). The consistency of this deviation suggests that the problem is not mainly due to protein-protein or water-water interactions, whose parametrization varies the most between force fields and water models. In fact, as originally proposed in [Best et al. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2014, 10, 5113-5124.], balanced protein-water interactions may be the key to solving this problem. Our simulations using this approach produce results in very good agreement with experiment.

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

4.7
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