Literature DB >> 29096508

Links between the charge model and bonded parameter force constants in biomolecular force fields.

David S Cerutti1, Karl T Debiec2, David A Case1, Lillian T Chong3.   

Abstract

The ff15ipq protein force field is a fixed charge model built by automated tools based on the two charge sets of the implicitly polarized charge method: one set (appropriate for vacuum) for deriving bonded parameters and the other (appropriate for aqueous solution) for running simulations. The duality is intended to treat water-induced electronic polarization with an understanding that fitting data for bonded parameters will come from quantum mechanical calculations in the gas phase. In this study, we compare ff15ipq to two alternatives produced with the same fitting software and a further expanded data set but following more conventional methods for tailoring bonded parameters (harmonic angle terms and torsion potentials) to the charge model. First, ff15ipq-Qsolv derives bonded parameters in the context of the ff15ipq solution phase charge set. Second, ff15ipq-Vac takes ff15ipq's bonded parameters and runs simulations with the vacuum phase charge set used to derive those parameters. The IPolQ charge model and associated protocol for deriving bonded parameters are shown to be an incremental improvement over protocols that do not account for the material phases of each source of their fitting data. Both force fields incorporating the polarized charge set depict stable globular proteins and have varying degrees of success modeling the metastability of short (5-19 residues) peptides. In this particular case, ff15ipq-Qsolv increases stability in a number of α-helices, correctly obtaining 70% helical character in the K19 system at 275 K and showing appropriately diminishing content up to 325 K, but overestimating the helical fraction of AAQAA3 by 50% or more, forming long-lived α-helices in simulations of a β-hairpin, and increasing the likelihood that the disordered p53 N-terminal peptide will also form a helix. This may indicate a systematic bias imparted by the ff15ipq-Qsolv parameter development strategy, which has the hallmarks of strategies used to develop other popular force fields, and may explain some of the need for manual corrections in this force fields' evolution. In contrast, ff15ipq-Vac incorrectly depicts globular protein unfolding in numerous systems tested, including Trp cage, villin, lysozyme, and GB3, and does not perform any better than ff15ipq or ff15ipq-Qsolv in tests on short peptides. We analyze the free energy surfaces of individual amino acid dipeptides and the electrostatic potential energy surfaces of each charge model to explain the differences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29096508      PMCID: PMC5669220          DOI: 10.1063/1.4985866

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chem Phys        ISSN: 0021-9606            Impact factor:   3.488


  18 in total

1.  Fast, efficient generation of high-quality atomic charges. AM1-BCC model: II. Parameterization and validation.

Authors:  Araz Jakalian; David B Jack; Christopher I Bayly
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.376

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.  Development and testing of a general amber force field.

Authors:  Junmei Wang; Romain M Wolf; James W Caldwell; Peter A Kollman; David A Case
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2004-07-15       Impact factor: 3.376

4.  OPLS3: A Force Field Providing Broad Coverage of Drug-like Small Molecules and Proteins.

Authors:  Edward Harder; Wolfgang Damm; Jon Maple; Chuanjie Wu; Mark Reboul; Jin Yu Xiang; Lingle Wang; Dmitry Lupyan; Markus K Dahlgren; Jennifer L Knight; Joseph W Kaus; David S Cerutti; Goran Krilov; William L Jorgensen; Robert Abel; Richard A Friesner
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 6.006

5.  Force-Field Induced Bias in the Structure of Aβ21-30: A Comparison of OPLS, AMBER, CHARMM, and GROMOS Force Fields.

Authors:  Micholas Dean Smith; J Srinivasa Rao; Elizabeth Segelken; Luis Cruz
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2015-12-16       Impact factor: 4.956

6.  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

7.  Induction of peptide bond dipoles drives cooperative helix formation in the (AAQAA)3 peptide.

Authors:  Jing Huang; Alexander D MacKerell
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2014-08-19       Impact factor: 4.033

8.  CHARMM36 all-atom additive protein force field: validation based on comparison to NMR data.

Authors:  Jing Huang; Alexander D MacKerell
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2013-07-06       Impact factor: 3.376

9.  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

10.  Derivation of fixed partial charges for amino acids accommodating a specific water model and implicit polarization.

Authors:  David S Cerutti; Julia E Rice; William C Swope; David A Case
Journal:  J Phys Chem B       Date:  2013-02-18       Impact factor: 2.991

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.