Unit-vector RMS (URMS) as a tool to analyze molecular dynamics trajectories

Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 554-564

  Kedem, Klara ^a   Chew, L Paul ^a   Elber, Ron ^a  

^a Department of Computer Science and School of Operations Research and Information Engineering   (United States)

Author keywords

C peptide; Folding; Order parameter; Root mean square distance; Structure comparison

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID; C PEPTIDE; MYOGLOBIN;

ARTICLE; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN SECONDARY STRUCTURE; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; SIMULATION;

ALGORITHMS; HISTOCOMPATIBILITY ANTIGENS; MYOGLOBIN; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEINS; THERMODYNAMICS;

EID: 0032749097     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(19991201)37:4<554::AID-PROT6>3.0.CO;2-1     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. McCammon JA, Harvey SC. Dynamics of proteins and nucleic acids. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987.
2. Havel TF, Kuntz ID, Crippen GM. The theory and practice of distance geometry. Bull Math Biol 1983;45:665-720. Kabsch WA. A solution for the best rotation to relate two sets of vectors. Acta Crystallogr A 1976;32:922-923.
3. Havel TF, Kuntz ID, Crippen GM. The theory and practice of distance geometry. Bull Math Biol 1983;45:665-720. Kabsch WA. A solution for the best rotation to relate two sets of vectors. Acta Crystallogr A 1976;32:922-923.
4. Rojewska D, Elber R. Molecular dynamics study of secondary structure motions in proteins: application to myohemerythrin. Proteins 1990;7:265-279.
5. Shakhnovich EI. Folding nucleus: specific or multiple? Insights from lattice models and experiments. Fold Des 1998;3:R108-111. Thirumalai D, Klimov KD. Fishing for folding nuclei in lattice models and proteins. Fold Des 1998;3:R112-118.
6. Shakhnovich EI. Folding nucleus: specific or multiple? Insights from lattice models and experiments. Fold Des 1998;3:R108-111. Thirumalai D, Klimov KD. Fishing for folding nuclei in lattice models and proteins. Fold Des 1998;3:R112-118.
7. Elber R, Meiler J, Olender R. A stochastic path approach to compute atomically detailed trajectories: application to the folding of C peptide. J Phys Chem B 1999;103:899-911.
8. Elber R, Roitberg A, Simmerling C, et al. MOIL: a program for simulations of macromolecules. Comput Physics Communications, 1995;91:159-189.
9. Weiner SJ, Kollman PA, Case DA, et al. A new force field for molecular mechanical simulation of nucleic acids and proteins. J Am Chem Soc 1984;106:765-784. Jorgensen WL, Tirado-Rives J. The OPLS [optimized potentials for liquid simulations] potential functions for proteins, energy minimization for crystals of cyclic peptides and crambin. J Am Chem Soc 1988;110:1657-1666.
10. Weiner SJ, Kollman PA, Case DA, et al. A new force field for molecular mechanical simulation of nucleic acids and proteins. J Am Chem Soc 1984;106:765-784. Jorgensen WL, Tirado-Rives J. The OPLS [optimized potentials for liquid simulations] potential functions for proteins, energy minimization for crystals of cyclic peptides and crambin. J Am Chem Soc 1988;110:1657-1666.
11. Osterhout JJ, Baldwin RL, York EJ, Stewart JM, Dyson JH, Wright PE. Proton NMR studies of the solution conformation of an analog of the C-peptide of Ribonuclease A. Biochemistry 1989;2: 7059-7064.
12. Chew LP, Huttenlocher DP, Kedem K, Kleinberg J. Fast detection of common geometric substructure in proteins. Proceedings of ACM RECOMB International Conference on Computational Molecular Biology, 1999, In press., Also published as Tech. Rept. No. 98-1705, Computer Science Department, Cornell University.
13. Rackovsky S, Scheraga HA. Differential geometry and polymer conformations 1. Comparison of protein conformations. Macromolecules 1978;11:1168-1174. Rackovsky S, Scheraga HA. Differential geometry and polymer conformations 2. Development of a conformational distance function. Macromolecules 1980;12:1440-1453. Rackovsky S, Goldstein DA, Protein comparison and classification: a differential geometric approach. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1988;85:777-781.
14. Rackovsky S, Scheraga HA. Differential geometry and polymer conformations 1. Comparison of protein conformations. Macromolecules 1978;11:1168-1174. Rackovsky S, Scheraga HA. Differential geometry and polymer conformations 2. Development of a conformational distance function. Macromolecules 1980;12:1440-1453. Rackovsky S, Goldstein DA, Protein comparison and classification: a differential geometric approach. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1988;85:777-781.
15. Rackovsky S, Scheraga HA. Differential geometry and polymer conformations 1. Comparison of protein conformations. Macromolecules 1978;11:1168-1174. Rackovsky S, Scheraga HA. Differential geometry and polymer conformations 2. Development of a conformational distance function. Macromolecules 1980;12:1440-1453. Rackovsky S, Goldstein DA, Protein comparison and classification: a differential geometric approach. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1988;85:777-781.
16. Reva BA, Finkelstein AV, Skolnick J. What is the probability of a chance prediction of a protein structure with an rmsd of 6 Å? Fold Des 1998;3:141-147
17. Maiorov VN, Grippen GM. Size-independent comparison of protein three-dimensional structures. Proteins 1995;22:273-283.
18. Pennec X, Ayache N. A geometric algorithm to find small but highly similar 3D substructures in proteins. Bioinformatics 1998; 14:516-522.
19. Onuchic JN, Luthey-Schulten Z, Wolynes PG. Theory of protein folding: the energy landscape perspective. Annu Rev Phys Chem 1997;48:545-600.
20. Guo Z, Thirumalai D, Honeycutt JD. Folding kinetics of proteins: a model study. J Chem Phys 1992;97:525-535.