Literature DB >> 27392746

Examination of the quality of various force fields and solvation models for the equilibrium simulations of GA88 and GB88.

Juan Zeng1, Yongxiu Li2, John Z H Zhang3,4, Ye Mei4,5.   

Abstract

Elucidating the relationship between sequence and conformation is essential for the understanding of functions of proteins. While sharing 88 % sequence identity and differing by only seven residues, GA88 and GB88 have completely different structures and serve as ideal systems for investigating the relationship between sequence and function. Benefiting from the continuous advancement of the computational ability of modern computers, molecular dynamics (MD) simulation is now playing an increasingly important role in the study of proteins. However, the reliability of MD simulations is limited by the accuracy of the force fields and solvent model approximations. In this work, several AMBER force fields (AMBER03, AMBER99SB, AMBER12SB, AMBER14SB, AMBER96) and solvent models (TIP3P, IGB5, IGB7, IGB8) have been employed in the simulations of GA88 and GB88. The statistical results from 19 simulations show that GA88 and GB88 both adopt more compact structures than the native structures. GB88 is more stable than GA88 regardless of the force fields and solvent models utilized. Most of the simulations overestimated the salt bridge interaction. The combination of AMBER14SB force field and IGB8 solvent model shows the best overall performance in the simulations of both GA88 and GB88. AMBER03 and AMBER12SB also yield reasonable results but only in the TIP3P explicit solvent model.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Force field; GA88 and GB88; Molecular dynamics simulations; Solvent model; Structure stability

Year:  2016        PMID: 27392746     DOI: 10.1007/s00894-016-3027-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mol Model        ISSN: 0948-5023            Impact factor:   1.810


  52 in total

1.  Comparison of protein solution structures refined by molecular dynamics simulation in vacuum, with a generalized Born model, and with explicit water.

Authors:  Bin Xia; Vickie Tsui; David A Case; H Jane Dyson; Peter E Wright
Journal:  J Biomol NMR       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.835

2.  Trp-cage: folding free energy landscape in explicit water.

Authors:  Ruhong Zhou
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-10-27       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  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

4.  How fast-folding proteins fold.

Authors:  Kresten Lindorff-Larsen; Stefano Piana; Ron O Dror; David E Shaw
Journal:  Science       Date:  2011-10-28       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Peptide and protein folding and conformational equilibria: theoretical treatment of electrostatics and hydrogen bonding with implicit solvent models.

Authors:  Wonpil Im; Jianhan Chen; Charles L Brooks
Journal:  Adv Protein Chem       Date:  2005

6.  Continuous molecular evolution of protein-domain structures by single amino acid changes.

Authors:  Sebastian Meier; Pernille R Jensen; Charles N David; Jarrod Chapman; Thomas W Holstein; Stephan Grzesiek; Suat Ozbek
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2007-01-23       Impact factor: 10.834

7.  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

8.  A stringent test for hydrophobicity scales: two proteins with 88% sequence identity but different structure and function.

Authors:  Alexander E Kister; James C Phillips
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-06-30       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  De novo structure generation using chemical shifts for proteins with high-sequence identity but different folds.

Authors:  Yang Shen; Philip N Bryan; Yanan He; John Orban; David Baker; Ad Bax
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 6.725

10.  I-TASSER server for protein 3D structure prediction.

Authors:  Yang Zhang
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2008-01-23       Impact factor: 3.169

View more
  1 in total

1.  Decoding molecular recognition of inhibitors targeting HDAC2 via molecular dynamics simulations and configurational entropy estimation.

Authors:  Suriya Tateing; Nuttee Suree
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-08-18       Impact factor: 3.752

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.