Folding probabilities: A novel approach to folding transitions and the two-dimensional ising-model

Journal of Chemical Physics

Volumn 120, Issue 14, 2004, Pages 6769-6778

  Lenz, Peter ^a,b,c   Zagrovic, Bojan ^b   Shapiro, Jessica ^b   Pande, Vijay S ^b  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c PHILIPPS UNIVERSITY MARBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FOLDING TRANSITIONS; ISING MODEL; MASTER EQUATIONS; TRANSITION RATES;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DEUTERIUM; EIGENVALUES AND EIGENFUNCTIONS; ESTIMATION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MEASUREMENT ERRORS; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MONTE CARLO METHODS; PROTEINS;

ESCHERICHIA COLI;

PROTEIN;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CHEMICAL MODEL; CHEMISTRY; KINETICS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROBABILITY; PROTEIN FOLDING;

ALGORITHMS; KINETICS; MODELS, CHEMICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROBABILITY; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEINS;

EID: 2342504637     PISSN: 00219606     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.1667470     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. V. S. Pande, A. Yu. Grosberg, and T. Tanaka, Rev. Mod. Phys. 72, 259 (2000).
2. Y. Duan and P. A. Kollman, Science 282, 740 (1998).
3. B. Zagrovic, E. J. Sorin, and V. S. Pande, J. Mol. Biol. 313, 151 (2001).
4. A. F. Voter, Phys. Rev. B 57, 13985 (1998).
5. H. S. Chan and K. Dill, Proteins 30, 2 (1998).
6. M. M. Klosek, B. J. Matkowsky, and Z. Schuss, Ber. Bunsenges. Phys. Chem. 95, 331 (1991).
7. R. Du et al., J. Chem. Phys. 108, 334 (1998).
8. D. K. Klimov and D. Thirumalai, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet. 43, 465 (2001).
9. ij) than on the precise value of the transition rates.
10. N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087 (1953).
11. T. E. Creighton, Proteins: Structure and Molecular Properties (W. H. Freeman, New York, 1993).
12. A. R. Leach, Molecular Modeling: Principles and Applications (Longman, New York, 1996).
13. H. C. Andersen, J. Comput. Phys. 52, 24 (1983).
14. W. L. Jorgensen and J. Tirado-Rives, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 110, 1666 (1988).
15. D. Qiu, P. S. Shenkin, F. P. Hollinger, and W. C. Still, J. Phys. Chem. 101, 3005 (1997).
16. W. A. Eaton, V. Munoz, S. J. Hagen, G. S. Jas, L. J. Lapidus, E. R. Henry, and J. Hofrichter, Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 29, 327 (2000).
17. V. Daggett, P. A. Kollman, and I. D. Kuntz, Biopolymers 31, 1115 (1991).
18. V. Daggett and M. Levitt, J. Mol. Biol. 223, 1221 (1992).
19. W. S. Young and C. L. I. Brooks, J. Mol. Biol. 259, 560 (1996).
20. B. H. Zimm and J. K. Bragg, J. Chem. Phys. 31, 526 (1959).
21. V. I. Abkevich, A. M. Gutin, and E. I. Shakhnovich, J. Chem. Phys. 101, 6052 (1994).
22. V. I. Abkevich, A. M. Gutin, and E. I. Shakhnovich, Biochemistry 33, 10026 (1994).
23. A. Rey and J. Skolnick, Chem. Phys. 158, 199 (1991).
24. J. Shimada, E. L. Kussell, and E. I. Shakhnovich, J. Mol. Biol. 308, 79 (2001).
25. R. Srinivasan and G. D. Rose, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96, 14258 (1999).
26. The fact that the formation of helices can be reasonably well characterized by the reaction coordinate ξ is a consequence from the one-dimensional nature of this structure. However, this approach cannot be easily generalized to the folding of more complex proteins.
27. fold: We are able to achieve the same accuracy by analyzing only 466 runs instead of 9900 runs.
28. This statement is supported by our analysis of a simple MD model for protein folding (data not shown). In these MD simulations, phase space is explored much more thoroughly and the various protein configurations are much more connected. As a consequence, the folding probability of the protein configurations is generally much smaller than in the MC model and only weakly depends on the order parameter.
29. See, e.g., N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 570 (1997); J. Feinberg and A. Zee, Nucl. Phys. B 501, 643 (1997).
30. See, e.g., N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 570 (1997); J. Feinberg and A. Zee, Nucl. Phys. B 501, 643 (1997).