Expanded ensemble and replica exchange methods for simulation of protein-like systems

Journal of Chemical Physics

Volumn 119, Issue 22, 2003, Pages 11998-12010

  Fenwick, Michael K ^a   Escobedo, Fernando A ^a  

^a Department of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION THEORY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONFORMATIONS; EXTRAPOLATION; FREE ENERGY; HAMILTONIANS; ITERATIVE METHODS; MATRIX ALGEBRA; PROBABILITY; TEMPERATURE;

BERG RECURSION METHOD; CANONICAL PARTITION FUNCTION; EXPANDED ENSEMBLE; HELMHOLTZ FREE ENERGIES; MEAN VALUE ESTIMATOR; REPLICA EXCHANGE;

PROTEINS;

EID: 0345790274     PISSN: 00219606     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.1624822     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. M. Teller, and E. Teller, J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087 (1953).
2. D. Frenkel and B. Smit, Understanding Molecular Simulation: From Algorithms to Applications (Academic, San Diego, 1996).
3. M. P. Allen and D. J. Tildesley, Computer Simulation of Liquids (Clarendon, Oxford, 1987).
4. U. H. E. Hansmann and Y. Okamoto, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 9, 177 (1999).
5. A. Mitsutake, Y. Sugita, and Y. Okamoto, Biopolymers 60, 96 (2001).
6. B. A. Berg, Comput. Phys. Commun. 147, 52 (2002).
7. B. A. Berg and T. Neuhaus, Phys. Lett. B 267, 249 (1991).
8. B. A. Berg and T. Neuhaus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 9 (1992).
9. B.A. Berg and T. Celik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2292 (1992).
10. E. Marinari and G. Parisi, Europhys. Lett. 19, 451 (1992).
11. A. P. Lyubartsev, A. A. Martinovski, S. V. Shevkonov, and P. N. Vorontsov-Velyaminov, J. Chem. Phys. 96, 1776 (1992).
12. C. J. Geyer, in Computing Science and Statistics: Proceedings of the 23rd Symposium on the Interface, edited by E. M. Keramidas (Interface Foundation, Fairfax Station, 1991).
13. K. Hukushima and K. Nemoto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 65, 1604 (1996).
14. M. C. Tesi, E. J. J. van Rensburg, E. Orlandini, and S. G. Whittington, J. Stat. Phys. 82, 155 (1996).
15. U. H. E. Hansmann, Chem. Phys. Lett. 281, 140 (1997).
16. J. Higo, N. Nakajima, H. Shirai, A. Kidera, and H. Nakamura, J. Comput. Chem. 18, 2086 (1997).
17. I. Shteto, J. Linares, and F. Varret, Phys. Rev. E Phys. Rev. E 56, 5128 (1997).
18. C. Bartels and M. Karplus, J. Comput. Chem. 18, 1450 (1997).
19. Y. Iba, G. Chikenji, and M. Kikuchi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 67, 3327 (1998).
20. N. Nakajima, Chem. Phys. Lett. 288, 319 (1998).
21. Y. Sugita, A. Kitao, and Y. Okamoto, J. Chem. Phys. 113, 6042 (2000).
22. M. K. Fenwick and F. A. Escobedo, Biopolymers 68, 160 (2003).
23. H. Fukunishi, O. Watanabe, and S. Takada, J. Chem. Phys. 116, 9058 (2002).
24. Y. Iba, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 12, 623 (2001).
25. Y. Sugita and Y. Okamoto, Chem. Phys. Lett. 329, 261 (2000).
26. F. Calvo and J. P. K. Doye, Phys. Rev. E 63, 010902 (2000).
27. Y. Mitsutake and Y. Okamoto, Chem. Phys. Lett. 332, 131 (2000).
28. R. Faller, Q. L. Yan, and J. J. de Pablo, J. Chem. Phys. 116, 5419 (2002).
29. G. R. Smith and A. D. Bruce, J. Phys. A 28, 6623 (1995).
30. B. A. Berg, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 63A-C, 982 (1998).
31. F. Yasar, T. Celik, B. A. Berg, and H. Meirovitch, J. Comput. Chem. 21, 1251 (2000).
32. M. Fitzgerald, R. R. Picard, and R. N. Silver, Europhys. Lett. 46, 282 (1999).
33. M. Fitzgerald, R. R. Picard, and R. N. Silver, J. Stat. Phys. 98, 321 (2000).
34. F. Wang and D. P. Landau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2050 (2001).
35. J. R. Errington, Phys. Rev. E 67, 012102 (2003).
36. J. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 211 (1993)
37. J. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 2353(E) (1993).
38. E. I. Shakhnovich and A. M. Gutin, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 90, 7195 (1993).
39. N. D. Socci and J. N. Onuchic, J. Chem. Phys. 101, 1519 (1994).
40. N. D. Socci and J. N. Onuchic, J. Chem. Phys. 103, 4732 (1995).
41. E. B. Kim, R. Faller, Q. Yan, N. L. Abbott, and J. J. de Pablo, J. Chem. Phys. 117, 7781 (2002).
42. G. R. Smith and A. D. Bruce, Phys. Rev. E 53, 6530 (1996).
43. C. H. Bennett, J. Comput. Phys. 22, 245 (1976).
44. W. Kerler and P. Rehberg, Phys. Rev. E 50, 4220 (1994).
45. N. B. Wilding and M. Muller, J. Chem. Phys. 101, 4324 (1994).
46. A. Irback and F. Potthast, J. Chem. Phys. 103, 10298 (1995).
47. U. H. E. Hansmann and Y. Okamoto, J. Comput. Chem. 18, 920 (1997).
48. F. Calvo, Mol. Phys. 100, 3421 (2002).
49. The canonical transition probabilities are given by the Metropolis functions described by Bennett (Ref. 42), which in the optimized version of the acceptance ratio method are replaced by Fermi functions.
50. A. M. Ferrenberg and R. H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2635 (1988).
51. A. M. Ferrenberg and R. H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1195 (1989).
52. Factors of 1/2 were used in Eq. (10) when appropriate, such as for moves involving end states.
53. ∞.
54. 7 steps, respectively.
55. In practice, one would normally ignore the energies gathered from the earliest MC steps, when equilibration has not yet been established within the macrostates.
56. Slight differences in the amounts of data recorded per macrostate result only because the EXE-based runs did not yield perfectly uniform macrostate distributions.
57. 4 MC steps.
58. H. R. Kunsch, Ann. Stat. 17, 1217 (1989).
59. S. Mignani and R. Rosa, Comput. Phys. Commun. 92, 203 (1995).
60. H. Flyvbjerg and H. G. Petersen, J. Chem. Phys. 91, 461 (1989).
61. 2, especially near the transition (e.g., T = 1.36).
62. H. Muller-Krumbhaar and K. Binder, J. Stat. Phys. 8, 1 (1973).
63. N. Madras and A. D. Sokal, J. Stat. Phys. 50, 109 (1988).
64. However, Socci and Onuchic show that T = 1.36 yields comparable folding times.
65. M. K. Fenwick and F. A. Escobedo. J. Chem. Phys. (to be published).