Scrutinizing molecular mechanics force fields on the submicrosecond timescale with NMR Data

Biophysical Journal

Volumn 99, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 647-655

  Lange, Oliver F ^a   Van Der Spoel, David ^b   De Groot, Bert L ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR BIOPHYSICAL CHEMISTRY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

G-SUBSTRATE; NERVE PROTEIN; PEPTIDE; UBIQUITIN;

CHEMISTRY; HYDROGEN BOND; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PROTEIN SECONDARY STRUCTURE; PROTEIN TERTIARY STRUCTURE; STATIC ELECTRICITY; TIME;

HYDROGEN BONDING; MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION; NERVE TISSUE PROTEINS; PEPTIDES; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, SECONDARY; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, TERTIARY; STATIC ELECTRICITY; TIME FACTORS; UBIQUITIN;

EID: 77955135754     PISSN: 00063495     EISSN: 15420086     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2010.04.062     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Palmer, A. G. 2004. NMR characterization of the dynamics of biomacromolecules. Chem. Rev. 104:3623-3640.
2. Best, R. B., N.-V. Buchete, and G. Hummer. 2008. Are current molecular dynamics force fields too helical? Biophys. J. 95:L07-L09.
3. Wickstrom, L., A. Okur, and C. Simmerling. 2009. Evaluating the performance of the ff99sb force field based on NMR scalar coupling data. Biophys. J. 97:853-856.
4. Hornak, V., R. Abel, ..., C. Simmerling. 2006. Comparison of multiple AMBER force fields and development of improved protein backbone parameters. Proteins: Struct. Funct. Bioinform. 65:712-725.
5. Maragakis, P., K. Lindorff-Larsen, ..., D. E. Shaw. 2008. Microsecond molecular dynamics simulation shows effect of slow loop dynamics on backbone amide order parameters of proteins. J. Phys. Chem. B. 112:6155-6158.
6. Lipari, G., and A. Szabo. 1982. Model-free approach to the interpretation of nuclear magnetic-resonance relaxation in macromolecules. 1. Theory and range of validity. J. Am. Chem. Soc 104:4546-4559.
7. van Gunsteren, W. F., and H. J. C. Berendsen. 1990. Computer-simulation of molecular-dynamics-methodology, applications, and perspectives in chemistry. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 29:992-1023.
8. Meiler, J., J. J. Prompers, ..., R. Bruschweiler. 2001. Model-free approach, to the dynamic interpretation of residual dipolar couplings in globular proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 123:6098-6107.
9. Tolman, J. R. 2002. A novel approach to the retrieval of structural and dynamic information from residual dipolar couplings using several oriented media in biomolecular NMR spectroscopy. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 124:12020-12030.
10. Tolman, J. R., and K. Ruan. 2006. NMR residual dipolar couplings as probes of biomolecular dynamics. Chem. Rev. 106:1720-1736.
11. Kiepeis, J. L., K. Lindorff-Larsen, ..., D. E. Shaw. 2009. Long-timescale molecular dynamics simulations of protein structure and function. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 19:120-127.
12. Freddolino, P. L., and K, Schulten. 2009. Common structural transitions in explicit-solvent simulations of villin headpiece folding. Biophys. J. 97:2338-2347.
13. Showalter, S. A., and R. Bruschweiler. 2007. Quantitative molecular ensemble interpretation of NMR. dipolar couplings without restraints. J. Am. Chem. Soc. .129:4158-4159.
14. de Seabra, G. M., R. C. Walker, and A. E. Roitberg. 2009. Are current semiempirical methods better than force fields? A study from the thermodynamics perspective. J. Phys. Chem. A. 113:11938-11948.
15. Hess, B., and R. M. Scheek. 2003. Orientation restraints in molecular dynamics simulations using time and ensemble averaging. J. Magn, Reson. 164:19-27.
16. van der Spoel, D., and P. J. van Maaren. 2005. The origin of layer structure artifacts in simulations of liquid water. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2:1-11.
17. Jorgensen, W. L., D. S. Maxwell, and J. Tirado-Rives. 1996. Development and testing of the OPLS all-atom force field on conformational energetics and properties of organic liquids. J. Am. Chem. Soc: 118:11225-11236.
18. Duan, Y., C. Wu, ..., P. Kollman. 2003. A point-charge force field for molecular mechanics simulations of proteins based on condensed-phase quantum mechanical calculations. J. Comput. Chem. 24:1999-2012.
19. Sorin, E. J., and V. S. Pande. 2005. Exploring the helix-coil transition via all-atom equilibrium ensemble simulations. Biophys. J. 88:2472-2493.
20. MacKerell, A. D., D. Bashford, ..., M. Karplus. 1998. All-atom empirical potential for molecular modeling and dynamics studies of proteins. J.. Phys. Chem. B. 102:3586-3616.
21. Oostenbrink, C., A. Villa, ..., W. F. V. Gunsteren. 2004. A biomolecular force field based on the free enthalpy of hydration and solvation: the GROMOS force-field parameter sets 53a5 and 53a6. J. Comput. Chem. 25:1656-1676.
22. Grzesiek, S., F. Cordier, and A. J. Dingley. 2001. Scalar couplings across hydrogen bonds. Methods Enzymol. 338:111-133.
23. Bouvignies, G., P. Bernado, ..., M. Blackledge. 2005. Identification of slow correlated motions in proteins using residual dipolar and hydrogen-bond scalar couplings. Prot: Natl. Acad. Sci USA. 102:13885-13890.
24. Richter, B., J. Gsponer, ..., M. Vendruscolo. 2007. The MUMO (minimal under-restraining minimal over-restraining) method for the determination of native state ensembles of proteins. J. Biomol, NMR. 37:117-135.
25. Barfield, M., A. J. Dingley, ..., S. Grzesiek. 2001, A DFT study of the interresidue dependencies of scalar J-coupling and magnetic shielding in the hydrogen-bonding regions of a DNA tripler. J.. Am. Chem. Soc 123:4014-4022.
26. Cornilescu, G., J.-S. Hu, and A. Bax. 1999. Identification of the hydrogen bonding network in a protein by scalar couplings. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 121:2949-2950.
27. NC' scalar couplings. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 121:1601-1602.
28. Elofsson, A., and L. Nilsson. 1993. How consistent are moleculardynamics simulations-comparing structure and dynamics in reduced and oxidized Escherichia coli thioredoxin. J. Mol. Biol. 233:766-780.
29. Reference deleted in proof.
30. Sass, H. J., F. F. F. Schmid, and S. Grzesiek. 2007. Correlation of protein structure and dynamics to scalar couplings across hydrogen bonds. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 129:5898-5903.
31. van der Spoel, D., P. J. van Maaren, ..., N. Timneanu. 2006. Thermodynamics of hydrogen bonding in hydrophilic and hydrophobic media. J. Phys. Chem. B. 110:4393-4398.
32. Gsponer, J., H. Hopearuoho, ..., M. Vendruscolo. 2006. Geometry, energetics, and dynamics of hydrogen bonds in proteins: structural information derived from NMR scalar couplings. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128:15127-15135.
33. Schmid, F. F. F., and M. Meuwly. 2008. Direct comparison of experimental and calculated NMR scalar coupling constants for force field validation and adaptation. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 4:1949-1958.
34. Clore, G. M., and C. D. Schwieters. 2006. Concordance of residual dipolar couplings, backbone order parameters and crystallographic B-factors for a small α/β protein: a unified picture of high probability, fast atomic motions in proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 355:879-886.
35. Bouvignies, G., P. R. L. Markwick, and M. Blackledge. 2007. Simultaneous definition of high resolution protein structure and backbone conformational dynamics using NMR residual dipolar couplings. ChemPhysChem. 8:1901-1909.
36. Ruan, K., and J. R. Tolman. 2005. Composite alignment media for the measurement of independent sets of NMR residual, dipolar couplings. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127:15032-15033.
37. Markwick, P. R. L., G. Bouvignies, and M. Blackledge. 2007. Exploring multiple timescale motions in protein GB3 using accelerated molecular dynamics and NMR spectroscopy. .J. Am. Chem. Soc. 129:4724-4730.
38. Markwick, P. R. L., G. Bouvignies, ..., M. Blackledge. 2009. Toward a unified representation, of protein structural dynamics in solution. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131:16968-16975.
39. Amadei, A., A. B. M. Linssen, and H. J. C. Berendsen. 1993. Essential dynamics of proteins. Proteins. 17:412-425.
40. Lange, O. F., N.-A. Lakomek, ..., B. L. de Groot. 2008. Recognition dynamics up to microseconds revealed from an RDC-derived ubiquitin ensemble in solution. Science. 320:1471-1475.
41. Salmon, L., G. Bouvignies, ..., M. Blackledge. 2009. Protein conformational flexibility from structure-free analysis of NMR dipolar couplings: quantitative and absolute determination of backbone motion in ubiquitin. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 48:4154-4157.
42. Mackerell, Jr., A. D., F. Michael, and C. L. Brooks, III. 2004. Extending the treatment of backbone energetics in protein force fields: limitations of gas-phase quantum mechanics in reproducing protein conformational distributions in molecular dynamics simulations. J. Comput. Chem. 25:1400-1415.
43. Rohl, C. A., C. E. Strauss, ..., D. Baker. 2004. Protein structure prediction using Rosetta. Methods Enzymol. 383:66-93.
44. Walser, R., P. H. Hunenberger, and W. F. van Gunsteren. 2001, Comparison of different schemes to treat long-range electrostatic interactions in molecular dynamics simulations of a protein crystal. Proteins. 43:509-519.
45. Lins, R., and U. Rothlisberger. 2006. Influence of long-range electrostatic treatments on the folding of the N-tenninal H4 histone tail peptide. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2:246-250.
46. Monticelli, L., C. Simoes, ..., G. Colombo. 2006. Assessing the influence of electrostatic schemes on molecular dynamics simulations of secondary structure forming peptides. J. Phys. Condens. Matter. 18:S329-S345.
47. Robertson, A., E. Luttmann, and V. S. Pande. 2008. Effects of longrange electrostatic forces on simulated protein folding kinetics. J. Comput. Chem. 29:694-700.
48. Kortemme, T., A. V. Morozov, and D. Baker. 2003. An orientationdependent hydrogen bonding potential, improves prediction of specificity and structure for proteins and protein-protein complexes. J. Mol. Biol. 326:1239-1259.