Literature DB >> 16425239

Comparing atomistic simulation data with the NMR experiment: how much can NOEs actually tell us?

Bojan Zagrovic1, Wilfred F van Gunsteren.   

Abstract

Simulated molecular dynamics trajectories of proteins and nucleic acids are often compared with nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) data for the purposes of assessing the quality of the force field used or, equally important, trying to interpret ambiguous experimental data. In particular, nuclear Overhauser enhancement (NOE) intensities or atom-atom distances derived from them are frequently calculated from the simulated ensembles because the distance restraints derived from NOEs are the key ingredient in NMR-based protein structure determination. In this study, we ask how diverse and nonnative-like an ensemble of structures can be and still match the experimental NOE distance upper bounds well. We present two examples in which simulated ensembles of highly nonnative polypeptide structures (an unfolded state ensemble of the villin headpiece and a high-temperature denatured ensemble of lysozyme) are shown to match fairly well the experimental NOE distance upper bounds from which the corresponding native structures were derived. For example, the unfolded ensemble of villin headpiece, which is on average 0.90 +/- 0.13 nm root-mean-square deviation away from the native NMR structure, deviates from the experimental restraints by only 0.027 nm on average. However, this artificially good agreement is largely a consequence of 1) the highly nonlinear effects of r(-6) (or r(-3)) averaging and 2) focusing only on the experimentally observed set of NOE bounds. Namely, in addition to the experimentally observed NOEs, both simulated ensembles (especially the villin ensemble) also predict a large number of NOEs, which are not seen in the experiment. If these are taken into account, the agreement between simulation and experiment gets markedly worse, as it should, given the nonnative nature of the underlying simulated ensembles. In light of the examples given, we conclude that comparing experimental NOE distance restraints with large simulated ensembles provides just by itself only limited information about the quality of simulation. 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16425239     DOI: 10.1002/prot.20872

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proteins        ISSN: 0887-3585


  33 in total

1.  Three force fields' views of the 3(10) helix.

Authors:  Kalliopi K Patapati; Nicholas M Glykos
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2011-10-05       Impact factor: 4.033

2.  Methods of NMR structure refinement: molecular dynamics simulations improve the agreement with measured NMR data of a C-terminal peptide of GCN4-p1.

Authors:  Jozica Dolenc; John H Missimer; Michel O Steinmetz; Wilfred F van Gunsteren
Journal:  J Biomol NMR       Date:  2010-06-04       Impact factor: 2.835

3.  Assessment of protein structure refinement in CASP9.

Authors:  Justin L MacCallum; Alberto Pérez; Michael J Schnieders; Lan Hua; Matthew P Jacobson; Ken A Dill
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2011-08-30

4.  Integrating molecular dynamics simulations with chemical probing experiments using SHAPE-FIT.

Authors:  Serdal Kirmizialtin; Scott P Hennelly; Alexander Schug; Jose N Onuchic; Karissa Y Sanbonmatsu
Journal:  Methods Enzymol       Date:  2015-02-07       Impact factor: 1.600

5.  A consistent S-Adenosylmethionine force field improved by dynamic Hirshfeld-I atomic charges for biomolecular simulation.

Authors:  David Adrian Saez; Esteban Vöhringer-Martinez
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2015-08-15       Impact factor: 3.686

6.  Reconciling the solution and X-ray structures of the villin headpiece helical subdomain: molecular dynamics simulations and double mutant cycles reveal a stabilizing cation-pi interaction.

Authors:  Lauren Wickstrom; Yuan Bi; Viktor Hornak; Daniel P Raleigh; Carlos Simmerling
Journal:  Biochemistry       Date:  2007-03-06       Impact factor: 3.162

7.  Experimental parameterization of an energy function for the simulation of unfolded proteins.

Authors:  Anders B Norgaard; Jesper Ferkinghoff-Borg; Kresten Lindorff-Larsen
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2007-09-07       Impact factor: 4.033

8.  Analyzing the flexibility of RNA structures by constraint counting.

Authors:  Simone Fulle; Holger Gohlke
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2008-02-15       Impact factor: 4.033

Review 9.  Molecular simulations of protein dynamics: new windows on mechanisms in biology.

Authors:  Guy G Dodson; David P Lane; Chandra S Verma
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 8.807

10.  Impact of γ-Amino Acid Residue Preorganization on α/γ-Peptide Foldamer Helicity in Aqueous Solution.

Authors:  Brian F Fisher; Samuel H Gellman
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 15.419

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.