| Literature DB >> 29124195 |
Abstract
It has been reported recently that classical, isothermal-isobaric molecular dynamics (NTP MD) simulations at a time step of 1.00 fs of the standard-mass time (Δt=1.00 fssmt) and a temperature of ≤340 K using uniformly reduced atomic masses by tenfold offers better configurational sampling than standard-mass NTP MD simulations at the same time step. However, it has long been reported that atomic masses can also be increased to improve configurational sampling because higher atomic masses permit the use of a longer time step. It is worth investigating whether standard-mass NTP MD simulations at Δt=2.00 or 3.16 fssmt can offer better or comparable configurational sampling than low-mass NTP MD simulations at Δt=1.00 fssmt. This article reports folding simulations of two β-hairpins showing that the configurational sampling efficiency of NTP MD simulations using atomic masses uniformly reduced by tenfold at Δt=1.00 fssmt is statistically equivalent to and better than those using standard masses at Δt=3.16 and 2.00 fssmt, respectively. The results confirm that, relative to those using standard masses at routine Δt=2.00 fssmt, the low-mass NTP MD simulations at Δt=1.00 fssmt are a simple and generic technique to enhance configurational sampling at temperatures of ≤340 K.Entities:
Keywords: CLN025; Chignolin; CαβRMSD, Cα and Cβ root mean square deviation; Folding rate; Folding time; LMT, Low-mass time; MD, Molecular dynamics; Molecular dynamics simulation; NTP, Isothermal–isobaric; Protein folding; SD, Standard deviation; SE, Standard error; SMT, Standard-mass time; T, Temperature; Δt, Time step
Year: 2015 PMID: 29124195 PMCID: PMC5668912 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrep.2015.08.023
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biochem Biophys Rep ISSN: 2405-5808
Folding of CLN025 in 20 NTP MD simulations using different forcefields, temperature, and time steps.
| Forcefield | Temp (K) | Time step (fssmt) | Aggregated simulation time (μssmt) | Aggregated native state population (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | SE | ||||
| FF14SBlm | 277 | 1.00 | 3.16 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| FF14SBlm | 277 | 1.00 | 6.32 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| FF14SBlm | 277 | 1.00 | 9.48 | 4 | 10 | 2 |
| FF14SBlm | 277 | 1.00 | 12.64 | 6 | 15 | 3 |
| FF14SBlm | 277 | 1.00 | 15.80 | 9 | 19 | 4 |
| FF14SBlm | 277 | 1.00 | 18.96 | 12 | 22 | 5 |
| FF14SBlm | 277 | 1.00 | 22.12 | 14 | 24 | 5 |
| FF14SBlm | 277 | 1.00 | 25.28 | 15 | 26 | 6 |
| FF14SBlm | 277 | 1.00 | 28.44 | 16 | 27 | 6 |
| FF14SBlm | 277 | 1.00 | 31.60 | 17 | 28 | 6 |
| FF14SB | 277 | 3.16 | 3.16 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FF14SB | 277 | 3.16 | 6.32 | 4 | 11 | 3 |
| FF14SB | 277 | 3.16 | 9.48 | 6 | 17 | 4 |
| FF14SB | 277 | 3.16 | 12.64 | 9 | 21 | 5 |
| FF14SB | 277 | 3.16 | 15.80 | 12 | 24 | 5 |
| FF14SB | 277 | 3.16 | 18.96 | 15 | 24 | 5 |
| FF14SB | 277 | 3.16 | 22.12 | 18 | 25 | 6 |
| FF14SB | 277 | 3.16 | 25.28 | 21 | 26 | 6 |
| FF14SB | 277 | 3.16 | 28.44 | 23 | 28 | 6 |
| FF14SB | 277 | 3.16 | 31.60 | 26 | 29 | 6 |
| FF14SB | 277 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FF14SB | 277 | 2.00 | 4.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FF14SB | 277 | 2.00 | 6.00 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| FF14SB | 277 | 2.00 | 8.00 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
| FF14SB | 277 | 2.00 | 10.00 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| FF14SB | 277 | 2.00 | 12.00 | 4 | 11 | 3 |
| FF14SB | 277 | 2.00 | 14.00 | 5 | 14 | 3 |
| FF14SB | 277 | 2.00 | 16.00 | 6 | 15 | 3 |
| FF14SB | 277 | 2.00 | 18.00 | 8 | 17 | 4 |
| FF14SB | 277 | 2.00 | 20.00 | 9 | 19 | 4 |
| FF12MCstdm | 340 | 3.16 | 3.16 | 29 | 26 | 6 |
| FF12MCstdm | 340 | 3.16 | 6.32 | 36 | 16 | 4 |
| FF12MCstdm | 340 | 3.16 | 9.48 | 41 | 14 | 3 |
| FF12MCstdm | 340 | 3.16 | 12.64 | 41 | 13 | 3 |
| FF12MCstdm | 340 | 3.16 | 15.80 | 42 | 12 | 3 |
| FF12MCstdm | 340 | 3.16 | 18.96 | 42 | 10 | 2 |
| FF12MCstdm | 340 | 3.16 | 22.12 | 41 | 9 | 2 |
| FF12MCstdm | 340 | 3.16 | 25.28 | 41 | 9 | 2 |
| FF12MCstdm | 340 | 3.16 | 28.44 | 42 | 9 | 2 |
| FF12MCstdm | 340 | 3.16 | 31.60 | 41 | 9 | 2 |
Aggregated native state population: number of conformations from 20 simulations with CαβRMSDs of ≤1.96 Å divided by number of all conformations from the 20 simulations. All MD simulations were performed for 500 million time steps with conditions described in Section 2 and Table S1. SD: Standard deviation. SE: Standard error.
Fig. 1Time series of aggregated native state population for chignolin and CLN025. The two-tailed P values were obtained from unpaired t tests using the PRISM 5 program.
Folding of chignolin in 20 NTP MD simulations at 300 K using FF12MC.
| Time step (fssmt) | Aggregated simulation time (μssmt) | Aggregated native state population (%) | Estimated folding time (nssmt) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | SE | Mean | LCL | UCL | Event | ||
| 1.00 | 0.632 | 3 | 7 | 2 | – | – | – | 4 |
| 1.00 | 1.264 | 7 | 17 | 4 | – | – | – | 7 |
| 1.00 | 1.896 | 14 | 22 | 5 | 87 | 53 | 145 | 15 |
| 1.00 | 2.528 | 18 | 25 | 5 | 92 | 56 | 150 | 16 |
| 1.00 | 3.160 | 22 | 26 | 6 | 82 | 53 | 129 | 19 |
| 1.00 | 3.792 | 26 | 26 | 6 | 79 | 51 | 123 | 20 |
| 1.00 | 4.424 | 30 | 26 | 6 | 79 | 51 | 123 | 20 |
| 1.00 | 5.056 | 31 | 25 | 6 | 79 | 51 | 123 | 20 |
| 1.00 | 5.688 | 33 | 24 | 5 | 79 | 51 | 123 | 20 |
| 1.00 | 6.320 | 33 | 23 | 5 | 79 | 51 | 123 | 20 |
| 1.00 | 6.952 | 34 | 22 | 5 | 79 | 51 | 123 | 20 |
| 1.00 | 7.584 | 35 | 21 | 5 | 79 | 51 | 123 | 20 |
| 1.00 | 8.216 | 35 | 21 | 5 | 79 | 51 | 123 | 20 |
| 1.00 | 8.848 | 35 | 20 | 5 | 79 | 51 | 123 | 20 |
| 1.00 | 9.480 | 36 | 20 | 4 | 79 | 51 | 123 | 20 |
| 1.00 | 12.640 | 36 | 14 | 3 | 79 | 51 | 123 | 20 |
| 1.00 | 15.800 | 38 | 13 | 3 | 79 | 51 | 123 | 20 |
| 1.00 | 18.960 | 36 | 12 | 3 | 79 | 51 | 123 | 20 |
| 1.00 | 22.120 | 35 | 13 | 3 | 79 | 51 | 123 | 20 |
| 1.00 | 25.280 | 35 | 12 | 3 | 79 | 51 | 123 | 20 |
| 1.00 | 28.440 | 35 | 12 | 3 | 79 | 51 | 123 | 20 |
| 1.00 | 31.600 | 35 | 12 | 3 | 79 | 51 | 123 | 20 |
Aggregated native state population: number of conformations from 20 simulations with CαβRMSDs of ≤1.96 Å divided by number of all conformations from the 20 simulations. All MD simulations were performed for 500 million time steps with conditions described in Methods and Table S1. SD: Standard deviation. SE: Standard error. LCL: Lower 95% confidence limit. UCL: Upper 95% confidence limit. Event: number of simulations that captured a folding event.
Folding of chignolin in 20 NTP MD simulations at 300 K using FF12MCstdm.
| Time step (fssmt) | Aggregated simulation time (μssmt) | Aggregated native state population (%) | Estimated folding time (nssmt) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | SE | Mean | LCL | UCL | Event | ||
| 3.16 | 0.632 | 3 | 8 | 2 | – | – | – | 4 |
| 3.16 | 1.264 | 8 | 17 | 4 | – | – | – | 10 |
| 3.16 | 1.896 | 16 | 23 | 5 | 95 | 55 | 163 | 13 |
| 3.16 | 2.528 | 21 | 22 | 5 | 74 | 47 | 118 | 18 |
| 3.16 | 3.160 | 24 | 21 | 5 | 73 | 47 | 114 | 19 |
| 3.16 | 3.792 | 28 | 21 | 5 | 74 | 48 | 117 | 19 |
| 3.16 | 4.424 | 31 | 20 | 4 | 72 | 47 | 112 | 20 |
| 3.16 | 5.056 | 34 | 20 | 4 | 72 | 47 | 112 | 20 |
| 3.16 | 5.688 | 36 | 20 | 4 | 72 | 47 | 112 | 20 |
| 3.16 | 6.320 | 38 | 19 | 4 | 72 | 47 | 112 | 20 |
| 3.16 | 6.952 | 38 | 18 | 4 | 72 | 47 | 112 | 20 |
| 3.16 | 7.584 | 37 | 17 | 4 | 72 | 47 | 112 | 20 |
| 3.16 | 8.216 | 37 | 17 | 4 | 72 | 47 | 112 | 20 |
| 3.16 | 8.848 | 37 | 17 | 4 | 72 | 47 | 112 | 20 |
| 3.16 | 9.480 | 37 | 17 | 4 | 72 | 47 | 112 | 20 |
| 3.16 | 12.640 | 39 | 15 | 3 | 72 | 47 | 112 | 20 |
| 3.16 | 15.800 | 39 | 15 | 3 | 72 | 47 | 112 | 20 |
| 3.16 | 18.960 | 38 | 13 | 3 | 72 | 47 | 112 | 20 |
| 3.16 | 22.120 | 37 | 12 | 3 | 72 | 47 | 112 | 20 |
| 3.16 | 25.280 | 37 | 11 | 2 | 72 | 47 | 112 | 20 |
| 3.16 | 28.440 | 37 | 9 | 2 | 72 | 47 | 112 | 20 |
| 3.16 | 31.600 | 37 | 7 | 2 | 72 | 47 | 112 | 20 |
Aggregated native state population: number of conformations from 20 simulations with CαβRMSDs of ≤1.96 Å divided by number of all conformations from the 20 simulations. All MD simulations were performed for 500 million time steps with conditions described in Methods and Table S1. SD: Standard deviation. SE: Standard error. LCL: Lower 95% confidence limit. UCL: Upper 95% confidence limit. Event: number of simulations that captured a folding event.
Folding of chignolin in 20 NTP MD simulations at 300 K using FF12MCstdm.
| Time step (fssmt) | Aggregated simulation time (μssmt) | Aggregated native state population (%) | Estimated folding time (nssmt) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | SE | Mean | LCL | UCL | Event | ||
| 2.00 | 0.400 | 1 | 3 | 1 | – | – | – | 2 |
| 2.00 | 0.800 | 2 | 6 | 1 | – | – | – | 4 |
| 2.00 | 1.200 | 5 | 10 | 2 | – | – | – | 9 |
| 2.00 | 1.600 | 8 | 12 | 3 | – | – | – | 10 |
| 2.00 | 2.000 | 13 | 16 | 4 | 128 | 71 | 231 | 11 |
| 2.00 | 2.400 | 16 | 19 | 4 | 122 | 71 | 209 | 13 |
| 2.00 | 2.800 | 17 | 20 | 4 | 132 | 76 | 227 | 13 |
| 2.00 | 3.200 | 18 | 20 | 4 | 132 | 78 | 222 | 14 |
| 2.00 | 3.600 | 19 | 19 | 4 | 114 | 71 | 184 | 17 |
| 2.00 | 4.000 | 20 | 18 | 4 | 105 | 67 | 164 | 19 |
| 2.00 | 4.400 | 22 | 17 | 4 | 106 | 67 | 165 | 19 |
| 2.00 | 4.800 | 24 | 16 | 4 | 107 | 68 | 167 | 19 |
| 2.00 | 5.200 | 26 | 16 | 4 | 108 | 69 | 169 | 19 |
| 2.00 | 5.600 | 27 | 17 | 4 | 109 | 69 | 171 | 19 |
| 2.00 | 6.000 | 28 | 17 | 4 | 110 | 70 | 172 | 19 |
| 2.00 | 8.000 | 31 | 17 | 4 | 114 | 73 | 179 | 19 |
| 2.00 | 10.000 | 34 | 17 | 4 | 120 | 77 | 188 | 19 |
| 2.00 | 12.000 | 34 | 15 | 3 | 125 | 80 | 196 | 19 |
| 2.00 | 14.000 | 34 | 14 | 3 | 130 | 83 | 204 | 19 |
| 2.00 | 16.000 | 35 | 15 | 3 | 136 | 87 | 212 | 19 |
| 2.00 | 18.000 | 35 | 14 | 3 | 141 | 90 | 221 | 19 |
| 2.00 | 20.000 | 35 | 13 | 3 | 147 | 94 | 230 | 19 |
Aggregated native state population: number of conformations from 20 simulations with CαβRMSDs of ≤1.96 Å divided by number of all conformations from the 20 simulations. All MD simulations were performed for 500 million time steps with conditions described in Methods and Table S1. SD: Standard deviation. SE: Standard error. LCL: Lower 95% confidence limit. UCL: Upper 95% confidence limit. Event: number of simulations that captured a folding event.
Fig. 2Plots of natural logarithm of the nonnative population versus simulation time. The individual folding times were taken from the data provided in Fig. S1. The linear regression analysis was performed using the PRISM 5 program.