Literature DB >> 22754404

Are Protein Force Fields Getting Better? A Systematic Benchmark on 524 Diverse NMR Measurements.

Kyle A Beauchamp1, Yu-Shan Lin, Rhiju Das, Vijay S Pande.   

Abstract

Recent hardware and software advances have enabled simulation studies of protein systems on biophysically-relevant timescales, often revealing the need for improved force fields. Although early force field development was limited by the lack of direct comparisons between simulation and experiment, recent work from several labs has demonstrated direct calculation of NMR observables from protein simulations. Here we quantitatively evaluate recent molecular dynamics force fields against a suite of 524 chemical shift and J coupling ((3)JH(N)H(α), (3)JH(N)C(β), (3)JH(α)C', (3)JH(N)C', and (3)JH(α)N) measurements on dipeptides, tripeptides, tetra-alanine, and ubiquitin. Of the force fields examined (ff96, ff99, ff03, ff03*, ff03w, ff99sb*, ff99sb-ildn, ff99sb-ildn-phi, ff99sb-ildn-nmr, CHARMM27, OPLS-AA), two force fields (ff99sb-ildn-phi, ff99sb-ildn-nmr) combining recent side chain and backbone torsion modifications achieve high accuracy in our benchmark. For the two optimal force fields, the calculation error is comparable to the uncertainty in the experimental comparison. This observation suggests that extracting additional force field improvements from NMR data may require increased accuracy in J coupling and chemical shift prediction. To further investigate the limitations of current force fields, we also consider conformational populations of dipeptides, which were recently estimated using vibrational spectroscopy.

Entities:  

Year:  2012        PMID: 22754404      PMCID: PMC3383641          DOI: 10.1021/ct2007814

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput        ISSN: 1549-9618            Impact factor:   6.006


  32 in total

1.  Improved treatment of the protein backbone in empirical force fields.

Authors:  Alexander D MacKerell; Michael Feig; Charles L Brooks
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2004-01-28       Impact factor: 15.419

2.  A point-charge force field for molecular mechanics simulations of proteins based on condensed-phase quantum mechanical calculations.

Authors:  Yong Duan; Chun Wu; Shibasish Chowdhury; Mathew C Lee; Guoming Xiong; Wei Zhang; Rong Yang; Piotr Cieplak; Ray Luo; Taisung Lee; James Caldwell; Junmei Wang; Peter Kollman
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.376

3.  Self-consistent 3J coupling analysis for the joint calibration of Karplus coefficients and evaluation of torsion angles.

Authors:  J M Schmidt; M Blümel; F Löhr; H Rüterjans
Journal:  J Biomol NMR       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 2.835

4.  Comparison of multiple Amber force fields and development of improved protein backbone parameters.

Authors:  Viktor Hornak; Robert Abel; Asim Okur; Bentley Strockbine; Adrian Roitberg; Carlos Simmerling
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2006-11-15

5.  Predicting absolute ligand binding free energies to a simple model site.

Authors:  David L Mobley; Alan P Graves; John D Chodera; Andrea C McReynolds; Brian K Shoichet; Ken A Dill
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2007-06-08       Impact factor: 5.469

6.  Intrinsic backbone preferences are fully present in blocked amino acids.

Authors:  Franc Avbelj; Simona Golic Grdadolnik; Joze Grdadolnik; Robert L Baldwin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-01-19       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Structure and dynamics of the homologous series of alanine peptides: a joint molecular dynamics/NMR study.

Authors:  Jürgen Graf; Phuong H Nguyen; Gerhard Stock; Harald Schwalbe
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2007-02-07       Impact factor: 15.419

8.  Intrinsic propensities of amino acid residues in GxG peptides inferred from amide I' band profiles and NMR scalar coupling constants.

Authors:  Andrew Hagarman; Thomas J Measey; Daniel Mathieu; Harald Schwalbe; Reinhard Schweitzer-Stenner
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2010-01-20       Impact factor: 15.419

9.  Implementation of the CHARMM Force Field in GROMACS: Analysis of Protein Stability Effects from Correction Maps, Virtual Interaction Sites, and Water Models.

Authors:  Pär Bjelkmar; Per Larsson; Michel A Cuendet; Berk Hess; Erik Lindahl
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2010-01-25       Impact factor: 6.006

10.  Improved side-chain torsion potentials for the Amber ff99SB protein force field.

Authors:  Kresten Lindorff-Larsen; Stefano Piana; Kim Palmo; Paul Maragakis; John L Klepeis; Ron O Dror; David E Shaw
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2010-06
View more
  116 in total

1.  Density functional tight binding: values of semi-empirical methods in an ab initio era.

Authors:  Qiang Cui; Marcus Elstner
Journal:  Phys Chem Chem Phys       Date:  2014-07-28       Impact factor: 3.676

2.  Extensive tests and evaluation of the CHARMM36IDPSFF force field for intrinsically disordered proteins and folded proteins.

Authors:  Hao Liu; Dong Song; Yangpeng Zhang; Sheng Yang; Ray Luo; Hai-Feng Chen
Journal:  Phys Chem Chem Phys       Date:  2019-10-09       Impact factor: 3.676

3.  Solvation free energies of alanine peptides: the effect of flexibility.

Authors:  Hironori Kokubo; Robert C Harris; Dilipkumar Asthagiri; B Montgomery Pettitt
Journal:  J Phys Chem B       Date:  2013-12-13       Impact factor: 2.991

4.  Speed of conformational change: comparing explicit and implicit solvent molecular dynamics simulations.

Authors:  Ramu Anandakrishnan; Aleksander Drozdetski; Ross C Walker; Alexey V Onufriev
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2015-03-10       Impact factor: 4.033

5.  Reparameterization of Solute-Solute Interactions for Amino Acid-Sugar Systems Using Isopiestic Osmotic Pressure Molecular Dynamics Simulations.

Authors:  Wesley K Lay; Mark S Miller; Adrian H Elcock
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2017-04-28       Impact factor: 6.006

Review 6.  Chemical shifts in biomolecules.

Authors:  David A Case
Journal:  Curr Opin Struct Biol       Date:  2013-02-17       Impact factor: 6.809

7.  Free-Energy Landscape of the Amino-Terminal Fragment of Huntingtin in Aqueous Solution.

Authors:  Vincent Binette; Sébastien Côté; Normand Mousseau
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 4.033

8.  A composite approach towards a complete model of the myosin rod.

Authors:  E Nihal Korkmaz; Keenan C Taylor; Michael P Andreas; Guatam Ajay; Nathan T Heinze; Qiang Cui; Ivan Rayment
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2015-12-09

9.  Stacking Free Energies of All DNA and RNA Nucleoside Pairs and Dinucleoside-Monophosphates Computed Using Recently Revised AMBER Parameters and Compared with Experiment.

Authors:  Reid F Brown; Casey T Andrews; Adrian H Elcock
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2015-04-07       Impact factor: 6.006

10.  Molecular Dynamics Simulations of 441 Two-Residue Peptides in Aqueous Solution: Conformational Preferences and Neighboring Residue Effects with the Amber ff99SB-ildn-NMR Force Field.

Authors:  Shuxiang Li; Casey T Andrews; Tamara Frembgen-Kesner; Mark S Miller; Stephen L Siemonsma; Timothy D Collingsworth; Isaac T Rockafellow; Nguyet Anh Ngo; Brady A Campbell; Reid F Brown; Chengxuan Guo; Michael Schrodt; Yu-Tsan Liu; Adrian H Elcock
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2015-03-10       Impact factor: 6.006

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.