Cargando…

Comparison of Grand Canonical and Conventional Molecular Dynamics Simulation Methods for Protein-Bound Water Networks

[Image: see text] Water molecules play important roles in all biochemical processes. Therefore, it is of key importance to obtain information of the structure, dynamics, and thermodynamics of water molecules around proteins. Numerous computational methods have been suggested with this aim. In this s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ekberg, Vilhelm, Samways, Marley L., Misini Ignjatović, Majda, Essex, Jonathan W., Ryde, Ulf
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Chemical Society 2022
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9136951/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35637786
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsphyschemau.1c00052
_version_ 1784714287148695552
author Ekberg, Vilhelm
Samways, Marley L.
Misini Ignjatović, Majda
Essex, Jonathan W.
Ryde, Ulf
author_facet Ekberg, Vilhelm
Samways, Marley L.
Misini Ignjatović, Majda
Essex, Jonathan W.
Ryde, Ulf
author_sort Ekberg, Vilhelm
collection PubMed
description [Image: see text] Water molecules play important roles in all biochemical processes. Therefore, it is of key importance to obtain information of the structure, dynamics, and thermodynamics of water molecules around proteins. Numerous computational methods have been suggested with this aim. In this study, we compare the performance of conventional and grand-canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to sample the water structure, as well GCMC and grid-based inhomogeneous solvation theory (GIST) to describe the energetics of the water network. They are evaluated on two proteins: the buried ligand-binding site of a ferritin dimer and the solvent-exposed binding site of galectin-3. We show that GCMC/MD simulations significantly speed up the sampling and equilibration of water molecules in the buried binding site, thereby making the results more similar for simulations started from different states. Both GCMC/MD and conventional MD reproduce crystal-water molecules reasonably for the buried binding site. GIST analyses are normally based on restrained MD simulations. This improves the precision of the calculated energies, but the restraints also significantly affect both absolute and relative energies. Solvation free energies for individual water molecules calculated with and without restraints show a good correlation, but with large quantitative differences. Finally, we note that the solvation free energies calculated with GIST are ∼5 times larger than those estimated by GCMC owing to differences in the reference state.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9136951
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher American Chemical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91369512022-05-28 Comparison of Grand Canonical and Conventional Molecular Dynamics Simulation Methods for Protein-Bound Water Networks Ekberg, Vilhelm Samways, Marley L. Misini Ignjatović, Majda Essex, Jonathan W. Ryde, Ulf ACS Phys Chem Au [Image: see text] Water molecules play important roles in all biochemical processes. Therefore, it is of key importance to obtain information of the structure, dynamics, and thermodynamics of water molecules around proteins. Numerous computational methods have been suggested with this aim. In this study, we compare the performance of conventional and grand-canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to sample the water structure, as well GCMC and grid-based inhomogeneous solvation theory (GIST) to describe the energetics of the water network. They are evaluated on two proteins: the buried ligand-binding site of a ferritin dimer and the solvent-exposed binding site of galectin-3. We show that GCMC/MD simulations significantly speed up the sampling and equilibration of water molecules in the buried binding site, thereby making the results more similar for simulations started from different states. Both GCMC/MD and conventional MD reproduce crystal-water molecules reasonably for the buried binding site. GIST analyses are normally based on restrained MD simulations. This improves the precision of the calculated energies, but the restraints also significantly affect both absolute and relative energies. Solvation free energies for individual water molecules calculated with and without restraints show a good correlation, but with large quantitative differences. Finally, we note that the solvation free energies calculated with GIST are ∼5 times larger than those estimated by GCMC owing to differences in the reference state. American Chemical Society 2022-02-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9136951/ /pubmed/35637786 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsphyschemau.1c00052 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Permits the broadest form of re-use including for commercial purposes, provided that author attribution and integrity are maintained (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Ekberg, Vilhelm
Samways, Marley L.
Misini Ignjatović, Majda
Essex, Jonathan W.
Ryde, Ulf
Comparison of Grand Canonical and Conventional Molecular Dynamics Simulation Methods for Protein-Bound Water Networks
title Comparison of Grand Canonical and Conventional Molecular Dynamics Simulation Methods for Protein-Bound Water Networks
title_full Comparison of Grand Canonical and Conventional Molecular Dynamics Simulation Methods for Protein-Bound Water Networks
title_fullStr Comparison of Grand Canonical and Conventional Molecular Dynamics Simulation Methods for Protein-Bound Water Networks
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Grand Canonical and Conventional Molecular Dynamics Simulation Methods for Protein-Bound Water Networks
title_short Comparison of Grand Canonical and Conventional Molecular Dynamics Simulation Methods for Protein-Bound Water Networks
title_sort comparison of grand canonical and conventional molecular dynamics simulation methods for protein-bound water networks
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9136951/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35637786
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsphyschemau.1c00052
work_keys_str_mv AT ekbergvilhelm comparisonofgrandcanonicalandconventionalmoleculardynamicssimulationmethodsforproteinboundwaternetworks
AT samwaysmarleyl comparisonofgrandcanonicalandconventionalmoleculardynamicssimulationmethodsforproteinboundwaternetworks
AT misiniignjatovicmajda comparisonofgrandcanonicalandconventionalmoleculardynamicssimulationmethodsforproteinboundwaternetworks
AT essexjonathanw comparisonofgrandcanonicalandconventionalmoleculardynamicssimulationmethodsforproteinboundwaternetworks
AT rydeulf comparisonofgrandcanonicalandconventionalmoleculardynamicssimulationmethodsforproteinboundwaternetworks