Cargando…
Evaluating Molecular Mechanical Potentials for Helical Peptides and Proteins
Multiple variants of the AMBER all-atom force field were quantitatively evaluated with respect to their ability to accurately characterize helix-coil equilibria in explicit solvent simulations. Using a global distributed computing network, absolute conformational convergence was achieved for large e...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2010
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2850926/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20418937 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010056 |
_version_ | 1782179823679963136 |
---|---|
author | Thompson, Erik J. DePaul, Allison J. Patel, Sarav S. Sorin, Eric J. |
author_facet | Thompson, Erik J. DePaul, Allison J. Patel, Sarav S. Sorin, Eric J. |
author_sort | Thompson, Erik J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Multiple variants of the AMBER all-atom force field were quantitatively evaluated with respect to their ability to accurately characterize helix-coil equilibria in explicit solvent simulations. Using a global distributed computing network, absolute conformational convergence was achieved for large ensembles of the capped A(21) and F(s) helical peptides. Further assessment of these AMBER variants was conducted via simulations of a flexible 164-residue five-helix-bundle protein, apolipophorin-III, on the 100 ns timescale. Of the contemporary potentials that had not been assessed previously, the AMBER-99SB force field showed significant helix-destabilizing tendencies, with beta bridge formation occurring in helical peptides, and unfolding of apolipophorin-III occurring on the tens of nanoseconds timescale. The AMBER-03 force field, while showing adequate helical propensities for both peptides and stabilizing apolipophorin-III, (i) predicts an unexpected decrease in helicity with ALA→ARG(+) substitution, (ii) lacks experimentally observed 3(10) helical content, and (iii) deviates strongly from average apolipophorin-III NMR structural properties. As is observed for AMBER-99SB, AMBER-03 significantly overweighs the contribution of extended and polyproline backbone configurations to the conformational equilibrium. In contrast, the AMBER-99φ force field, which was previously shown to best reproduce experimental measurements of the helix-coil transition in model helical peptides, adequately stabilizes apolipophorin-III and yields both an average gyration radius and polar solvent exposed surface area that are in excellent agreement with the NMR ensemble. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2850926 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2010 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-28509262010-04-23 Evaluating Molecular Mechanical Potentials for Helical Peptides and Proteins Thompson, Erik J. DePaul, Allison J. Patel, Sarav S. Sorin, Eric J. PLoS One Research Article Multiple variants of the AMBER all-atom force field were quantitatively evaluated with respect to their ability to accurately characterize helix-coil equilibria in explicit solvent simulations. Using a global distributed computing network, absolute conformational convergence was achieved for large ensembles of the capped A(21) and F(s) helical peptides. Further assessment of these AMBER variants was conducted via simulations of a flexible 164-residue five-helix-bundle protein, apolipophorin-III, on the 100 ns timescale. Of the contemporary potentials that had not been assessed previously, the AMBER-99SB force field showed significant helix-destabilizing tendencies, with beta bridge formation occurring in helical peptides, and unfolding of apolipophorin-III occurring on the tens of nanoseconds timescale. The AMBER-03 force field, while showing adequate helical propensities for both peptides and stabilizing apolipophorin-III, (i) predicts an unexpected decrease in helicity with ALA→ARG(+) substitution, (ii) lacks experimentally observed 3(10) helical content, and (iii) deviates strongly from average apolipophorin-III NMR structural properties. As is observed for AMBER-99SB, AMBER-03 significantly overweighs the contribution of extended and polyproline backbone configurations to the conformational equilibrium. In contrast, the AMBER-99φ force field, which was previously shown to best reproduce experimental measurements of the helix-coil transition in model helical peptides, adequately stabilizes apolipophorin-III and yields both an average gyration radius and polar solvent exposed surface area that are in excellent agreement with the NMR ensemble. Public Library of Science 2010-04-07 /pmc/articles/PMC2850926/ /pubmed/20418937 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010056 Text en Thompson et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Thompson, Erik J. DePaul, Allison J. Patel, Sarav S. Sorin, Eric J. Evaluating Molecular Mechanical Potentials for Helical Peptides and Proteins |
title | Evaluating Molecular Mechanical Potentials for Helical Peptides and Proteins |
title_full | Evaluating Molecular Mechanical Potentials for Helical Peptides and Proteins |
title_fullStr | Evaluating Molecular Mechanical Potentials for Helical Peptides and Proteins |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating Molecular Mechanical Potentials for Helical Peptides and Proteins |
title_short | Evaluating Molecular Mechanical Potentials for Helical Peptides and Proteins |
title_sort | evaluating molecular mechanical potentials for helical peptides and proteins |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2850926/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20418937 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010056 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT thompsonerikj evaluatingmolecularmechanicalpotentialsforhelicalpeptidesandproteins AT depaulallisonj evaluatingmolecularmechanicalpotentialsforhelicalpeptidesandproteins AT patelsaravs evaluatingmolecularmechanicalpotentialsforhelicalpeptidesandproteins AT sorinericj evaluatingmolecularmechanicalpotentialsforhelicalpeptidesandproteins |