Modeling Protein Folding Pathways

Reviews in Computational Chemistry

Volumn 28, Issue , 2015, Pages 87-135

  Towse, Clare Louise ^a   Daggett, Valerie ^a  

^a University of Washington   (United States)

Author keywords

Forced unfolding simulations; Molecular dynamics (MD) simulation; Protein folding; Protein simulation methodology

Indexed keywords

BIOINFORMATICS; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; PROTEIN FOLDING; STUDENTS;

BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS; COMPUTATIONAL EXPENSE; FORCED UNFOLDING SIMULATIONS; GRADUATE STUDENTS; MECHANICAL STRESS; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATIONS; PROTEIN SIMULATIONS; SIMULATION PROTOCOLS;

PROTEINS;

EID: 84994844871     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9781118889886.ch3     Document Type: Chapter

References (261)

1. P. E. Wright and H. J. Dyson, J. Mol. Biol., 293, 321 (1999). Intrinsically Unstructured Proteins: Re-assessing the Protein Structure-Function Paradigm.
2. P. Cossio, A. Trovato, F. Pietrucci, F. Seno, A. Maritan, and A. Laio, PLoS Comput. Biol., 6, e1000957 (2010). Exploring the Universe of Protein Structures Beyond the Protein Data Bank.
3. J. Skolnick, A. K. Arakaki, S. Y. Lee, and M. Brylinski, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 106, 15690 (2009). The Continuity of Protein Structure Space is an Intrinsic Property of Proteins.
4. M. Vendruscolo and C. M. Dobson, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 102, 5641 (2005). A Glimpse at the Organization of the Protein Universe.
5. H. J. Dyson and P. E. Wright, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Bio., 6, 197 (2005). Intrinsically Unstructured Proteins and their Functions.
6. C. B. Anfinsen, Les Prix Nobel en, 1972, 103 (1973). Studies on the Principles that Govern the Folding of Protein Chains.
7. R. Zwanzig, A. Szabo, and B. Bagchi, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 89, 20 (1992). Levinthal's Paradox.
8. C. Levinthal, J. Med. Phys., 65, 44 (1968). Are there Pathways for Protein Folding?.
9. A. I. Bartlett and S. E. Radford, Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol., 16, 582 (2009). An Expanding Arsenal of Experimental Methods Yields an Explosion of Insights into Protein Folding Mechanisms.
10. A. Rahman, Phys. Rev. A, 136, A405 (1964). Correlations in Motion of Atoms in Liquid Argon.
11. J. McCammon, B. Gelin, and M. Karplus, Nature, 267, 585 (1977). Dynamics of Folded Proteins.
12. M. Levitt and A. Warshel, Nature, 253, 694 (1975). Computer Simulation of Protein Folding.
13. O. B. Ptitsyn and A. A. Rashin, Biophys. Chem., 3, 1 (1975). A Model of Myoglobin Self-Organization.
14. M. Levitt and S. Lifson, J. Mol. Biol., 46, 269 (1969). Refinement of Protein Conformations using a Macromolecular Energy Minimization Procedure.
15. B. R. Gelin and M. Karplus, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 72, 2002 (1975). Sidechain Torsional Potentials and Motion of Amino Acids in Proteins: Bovine Pancreatic Trypsin Inhibitor.
16. W. F. van Gunsteren and M. Karplus, Biochemistry, 21, 2259 (1982). Protein Dynamics in Solution and in a Crystalline Environment: A Molecular Dynamics Study.
17. W. F. van Gunsteren and H. J. Berendsen, J. Mol. Biol., 176, 559 (1984). Computer Simulation as a Tool for Tracing the Conformational Differences between Proteins in Solution and in the Crystalline State.
18. W. F. van Gunsteren, H. J. Berendsen, J. Hermans, W. G. Hol, and J. P. Postma, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 80, 4315 (1983). Computer Simulation of the Dynamics of Hydrated Protein Crystals and its Comparison with X-Ray Data.
19. M. Levitt and R. Sharon, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 85, 7557 (1988). Accurate Simulation of Protein Dynamics in Solution.
20. V. Daggett and M. Levitt, J. Mol. Biol., 223, 1121 (1992). Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Helix Denaturation.
21. V. Daggett, P. A. Kollman, and I. D. Kuntz, Biopolymers, 31, 1115 (1991). A Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Polyalanine: An Analysis of Equilibrium Motions and Helix-Coil Transitions.
22. D. J. Tobias, J. E. Mertz, and C. L. Brooks, III, Biochemistry, 30, 6054 (1991). Nanosecond Time Scale Folding Dynamics of a Pentapeptide in Water.
23. V. Daggett and M. Levitt, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 89, 5142 (1992). A Model of the Molten Globule State from Molecular Dynamics Simulations.
24. V. Daggett and M. Levitt, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 4, 291 (1994). Protein Folding↔Unfolding Dynamics.
25. M. Karplus and A. Sali, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 5, 58 (1995). Theoretical Studies of Protein Folding and Unfolding.
26. Y. Duan and P. A. Kollman, Science, 282, 740 (1998). Pathways to a Protein Folding Intermediate Observed in a 1-Microsecond Simulation in Aqueous Solution.
27. Y. Duan, L. Wang, and P. A. Kollman, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 95, 9897 (1998). The Early Stage of Folding of Villin Headpiece Subdomain Observed in a 200-Nanosecond Fully Solvated Molecular Dynamics Simulation.
28. A. Li and V. Daggett, Protein Eng., 8, 1117 (1995). Investigation of the Solution Structure of Chymotrypsin Inhibitor 2 using Molecular Dynamics: Comparison to X-ray Crystallographic and NMR Data.
29. V. Daggett, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 10, 160 (2000). Long Timescale Simulations.
30. V. Wong and D. A. Case, J. Phys. Chem. B, 112, 6013 (2008). Evaluating Rotational Diffusion from Protein MD Simulations.
31. P. L. Freddolino, F. Liu, M. Gruebele, and K. Schulten, Biophys. J., 94, L75 (2008). Ten-Microsecond Molecular Dynamics Simulation of a Fast-Folding WW Domain.
32. D. L. Ensign, P. M. Kasson, and V. S. Pande, J. Mol. Biol., 374, 806 (2007). Heterogeneity Even at the Speed Limit of Folding: Large-Scale Molecular Dynamics Study of a Fast-Folding Variant of the Villin Headpiece.
33. M. M. Seibert, A. Patriksson, B. Hess, and D. van der Spoel, J. Mol. Biol., 354, 173 (2005). Reproducible Polypeptide Folding and Structure Prediction using Molecular Dynamics Simulations.
34. P. Maragakis, K. Lindorff-Larsen, M. P. Eastwood, R. O. Dror, J. L. Klepeis, I. T. Arkin, M. Ø. Jensen, H. Xu, N. Trbovic, R. A. Friesner, A. G. Palmer, III, and D. E. Shaw, J. Phys. Chem. B, 112, 6155 (2008). Microsecond Molecular Dynamics Simulation Shows Effect of Slow Loop Dynamics on Backbone Amide Order Parameters of Proteins.
35. K. Martínez-Mayorga, M. C. Pitman, A. Grossfield, S. E. Feller, and M. F. Brown, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 128, 16502 (2006). Retinal Counterion Switch Mechanism in Vision Evaluated by Molecular Simulations.
36. A. Grossfield, M. C. Pitman, S. E. Feller, O. Soubias, and K. Gawrisch, J. Mol. Biol., 381, 478 (2008). Internal Hydration Increases During Activation of the G-Protein-Coupled Receptor Rhodopsin.
37. R. O. Dror, D. H. Arlow, D. W. Borhani, M. Ø. Jensen, S. Piana, and D. E. Shaw, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 106, 4689 (2009). Identification of Two Distinct Inactive Conformations of the β2-Adrenergic Receptor Reconciles Structural and Biochemical Observations.
38. J. L. Klepeis, K. Lindorff-Larsen, R. O. Dror, and D. E. Shaw, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 19, 120 (2009). Long-Timescale Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Protein Structure and Function.
39. J. Phillips, R. Braun, W. Wang, J. Gumbart, E. Tajkhorshid, E. Villa, C. Chipot, R. Skeel, L. Kale, and K. Schulten, J. Comput. Chem., 26, 1781 (2005). Scalable Molecular Dynamics with NAMD.
40. J. C. Phillips, G. Zheng, S. Kumar, and L. V. Kale. NAMD: Biomolecular Simulation on Thousands of Processors, Supercomputing, ACM/IEEE 2002 Conference, 36 (2002).
41. K. Y. Sanbonmatsu and C.-S. Tung, J. Struct. Biol., 157, 470 (2007). High Performance Computing in Biology: Multimillion Atom Simulations of Nanoscale Systems.
42. A. Bhatelé, L. V. Kalé, and S. Kumar. Dynamic Topology Aware Load Balancing Algorithms for Molecular Dynamics Applications, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Supercomputing (ICS'09), 110 (2009).
43. D. E. Shaw, P. Maragakis, K. Lindorff-Larsen, S. Piana, R. O. Dror, M. P. Eastwood, J. A. Bank, J. M. Jumper, J. K. Salmon, Y. Shan, and W. Wriggers, Science, 330, 341 (2010). Atomic-Level Characterization of the Structural Dynamics of Proteins.
44. S. Piana, K. Lindorff-Larsen, and D. E. Shaw, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. (2012). Protein Folding Kinetics and Thermodynamics from Atomistic Simulation.
45. K. Lindorff-Larsen, S. Piana, R. O. Dror, and D. E. Shaw, Science, 334, 517 (2011). How Fast-Folding Proteins Fold.
46. K. Lindorff-Larsen, N. Trbovic, P. Maragakis, S. Piana, and D. E. Shaw, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 134, 3787 (2012). Structure and Dynamics of an Unfolded Protein Examined by Molecular Dynamics Simulation.
47. D. E. Shaw, K. J. Bowers, E. Chow, M. P. Eastwood, D. J. Ierardi, J. L. Klepeis, J. S. Kuskin, R. H. Larson, K. Lindorff-Larsen, P. Maragakis, M. A. Moraes, R. O. Dror, S. Piana, Y. Shan, B. Towles, J. K. Salmon, J. P. Grossman, K. M. Mackenzie, J. A. Bank, C. Young, M. M. Deneroff, and B. Batson, 1 (2009). Millisecond-Scale Molecular Dynamics Simulations on Anton, Proceedings of the Conference on High Performance Computing Networking, Storage and Analysis (SC'09).
48. S. E. Radford, Trends Biochem. Sci, 25, 611 (2000). Protein Folding: Progress Made and Promises Ahead.
49. P. L. Freddolino, C. B. Harrison, Y. Liu, and K. Schulten, Nat. Phys., 6, 751 (2010). Challenges in Protein-Folding Simulations.
50. K. Klenin, B. Strodel, D. J. Wales, and W. Wenzel, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1814, 977 (2011). Modelling Proteins: Conformational Sampling and Reconstruction of Folding Kinetics.
51. F. Jensen, Introduction to Computational Chemistry, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, England, Hoboken, NJ, 2007.
52. A. R. Leach, Molecular Modelling: Principles and Applications, Prentice Hall, Harlow, 2001.
53. T. Schlick, R. Collepardo-Guevara, L. A. Halvorsen, S. Jung, and X. Xiao, Q. Rev. Biophys., 44, 191 (2011). Biomolecular Modeling and Simulation: A Field Coming of Age.
54. M. P. Allen, in Computational Soft Matthew: From Synthetic Polymers to Proteins, N. Attig, K. Binder, H. Grubmüller, and K. Kremer (Eds.), John von Neumann fur Computing, NIC Series Volume, 2004, pp. 1-28, Introduction to Molecular Dynamics Simulation.
55. D. A. C. Beck and V. Daggett, Methods, 34, 112 (2004). Methods for Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Protein Folding/Unfolding in Solution.
56. H. A. Scheraga, M. Khalili, and A. Liwo, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem., 58, 57 (2012). Protein-Folding Dynamics: Overview of Molecular Simulation Techniques.
57. B. R. Brooks, C. L. Brooks, III, A. D. MacKerell, Jr., L. Nilsson, R. Petrella, B. Roux, Y. Won, G. Archontis, C. Bartels, and S. Boresch, J. Comput. Chem., 30, 1545 (2009). CHARMM: The Biomolecular Simulation Program.
58. D. A. Case, T. E. Cheatham, III, T. Darden, H. Gohlke, R. Luo, K. M. Merz, A. Onufriev, C. Simmerling, B. Wang, and R. J. Woods, J. Comput. Chem., 26, 1668 (2005). The Amber Biomolecular Simulations Programs.
59. M. Christen, P. H. Hünenberger, D. Bakowies, R. Baron, R. Bürgi, D. P. Geerke, T. N. Heinz, M. A. Kastenholz, V. Kräutler, C. Oostenbrink, C. Peter, D. Trzesniak, and W. F. van Gunsteren, J. Comput. Chem., 26, 1719 (2005). The GROMOS Software for Biomolecular Simulation: GROMOS05.
60. W. L. Jorgensen and J. Tirado-Rives, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 110, 1657 (1988). The OPLS Potential Functions for Proteins, Energy Minimizations for Crystals of Cyclic Peptides and Crambin.
61. M. Levitt, Nat. Struct. Biol., 8, 392 (2001). The Birth of Computational Structural Biology.
62. M. Levitt, M. Hirshberg, R. Sharon, and V. Daggett, Comput. Phys. Commun., 91, 215 (1995). Potential Energy Function and Parameters for Simulations of the Molecular Dynamics of Proteins and Nucleic Acids in Solution.
63. M. Levitt, J. Mol. Biol., 168, 595 (1983). Molecular Dynamics of Native Protein. I. Computer Simulation of Trajectories.
64. D. A. C. Beck, M. E. McCully, D. O. V. Alonso, and V. Daggett, In Lucem Molecular Mechanics (ilmm), University of Washington, 2000.
65. D. R. Nutt and J. C. Smith, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 3, 1550 (2007). Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Proteins: Can the Explicit Water Model be Varied?.
66. B. Hess and N. F. A. van der Vegt, J. Phys. Chem. B, 110, 17616 (2006). Hydration Thermodynamic Properties of Amino Acid Analogues: A Systematic Comparison of Biomolecular Force Fields and Water Models.
67. D. J. Price and C. L. Brooks, III, J. Chem. Phys., 121, 10096 (2004). A Modified TIP3P Water Potential for Simulation with Ewald Summation.
68. K. A. Beauchamp, Y. S. Lin, and R. Das, J. Chem. Theory Comput. (2012). Are Protein Force Fields Getting Better? A Systematic Benchmark on 524 Diverse NMR Measurements.
69. S. J. Weiner, P. A. Kollman, D. A. Case, U. C. Singh, C. Ghio, G. Alagona, S. Profeta, Jr., and P. Weiner, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 106, 765 (1984). A New Force Field for Molecular Mechanical Simulation of Nucleic Acids and Proteins.
70. E. A. Cino, W.-Y. Choy, and M. Karttunen, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 8, 2725 (2012). Comparison of Secondary Structure Formation using 10 Different Force Fields in Microsecond Molecular Dynamics Simulations.
71. V. Hornak, R. Abel, A. Okur, B. Strockbine, A. Roitberg, and C. Simmerling, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf., 65, 712 (2006). Comparison of Multiple AMBER Force Fields and Development of Improved Protein Backbone Parameters.
72. R. B. Best, N.-V. Buchete, and G. Hummer, Biophys. J., 95, L07 (2008). Are Current Molecular Dynamics Force Fields too Helical?.
73. K. Lindorff-Larsen, P. Maragakis, S. Piana, M. P. Eastwood, R. O. Dror, and D. E. Shaw, PLoS One, 7, e32131 (2012). Systematic Validation of Protein Force Fields Against Experimental Data.
74. T. Lazaridis and M. Karplus, Proteins Struct., Funct., Genet., 35(133) (1999). Effective Energy Function for Proteins in Solution.
75. J.-E. Shea, M. R. Friedel, and A. Baumketner, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K.B Lipkowitz, T. R. Cundari, and V. J. Gillet (Eds.), Wiley-VCH Inc., New York, 2006, Vol. 22, pp. 169-228, Simulations of Protein Folding.
76. M. G. Saunders and G. A. Voth, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 22, 144 (2012). Coarse-Graining of Multiprotein Assemblies.
77. A. V. Sinitskiy, M. G. Saunders, and G. A. Voth, J. Phys. Chem. B, 116, 8363 (2012). Optimal Number of Coarse-Grained Sites in Different Components of Large Biomolecular Complexes.
78. S. Takada, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 22, 130 (2012). Coarse-Grained Molecular Simulations of Large Biomolecules.
79. J. Zhang, W. Li, J. Wang, M. Qin, L. Wu, Z. Yan, W. Xu, G. Zuo, and W. Wang, IUBMB Life, 61, 627 (2009). Protein Folding Simulations: From Coarse-Grained Model to All-Atom Model.
80. C. Chen, P. Depa, V. G. Sakai, J. K. Maranas, J. W. Lynn, I. Peral, and J. R. D. Copley, J. Chem. Phys., 124, 234901 (2006). A Comparison of United Atom, Explicit Atom, and Coarse-Grained Simulation Models for Poly(ethylene oxide).
81. W. L. Jorgensen, J. Chandrasekhar, J. D. Madura, R. W. Impey, and M. L. Klein, J. Chem. Phys., 79, 926 (1983). Comparison of Simple Potential Functions for Simulating Liquid Water.
82. H. Berendsen, J. Postma, W. F. van Gunsteren, and J. Hermans, Intermol. Forces, 11, 331 (1981). Interaction Models for Water in Relation to Protein Hydration.
83. F. H. Stillinger and A. Rahman, J. Chem. Phys., 60, 1545 (1974). Improved Simulation of Liquid Water by Molecular Dynamics.
84. M. Levitt, M. Hirshberg, R. Sharon, K. E. Laidig, and V. Daggett, J. Phys. Chem. B, 101, 5051 (1997). Calibration and Testing of a Water Model for Simulation of the Molecular Dynamics of Proteins and Nucleic Acids in Solution.
85. M. W. Mahoney and W. L. Jorgensen, J. Chem. Phys., 112, 8910 (2000). A Five-Site Model for Liquid Water and the Reproduction of the Density Anomaly by Rigid, Nonpolarizable Potential Functions.
86. D. Bashford and D. A. Case, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem., 51, 129 (2000). Generalized Born Models of Macromolecular Solvation Effects.
87. E. M. Storch and V. Daggett, Biochemistry, 34, 9682 (1995). Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Cytochrome b5: Implications for Protein-Protein Recognition.
88. P. Comba and R. Remenyi, Coord. Chem. Rev., 238, 9 (2003). Inorganic and Bioinorganic Molecular Mechanics Modeling - The Problem of the Force Field Parameterization.
89. 2-Protein Interactions for Molecular Dynamics Simulations.
90. A. Hansson, P. C. T. Souza, R. L. Silveira, L. Martínez, and M. S. Skaf, Int. J. Quantum Chem., 111, 1346 (2011). CHARMM Force Field Parameterization of Rosiglitazone.
91. O. N. de Souza and R. L. Ornstein, Biophys. J., 72, 2395 (1997). Effect of Periodic Box Size on Aqueous Molecular Dynamics Simulation of a DNA Dodecamer with Particle-Mesh Ewald Method.
92. K. Takemura and A. Kitao, J. Phys. Chem. B, 111, 11870 (2007). Effects of Water Model and Simulation Box Size on Protein Diffusional Motions.
93. J. Higo, H. Kono, N. Nakajima, H. Shirai, H. Nakamura, and A. Sarai, Chem. Phys. Lett., 306, 395 (1999). Molecular Dynamics Study on Mobility and Dipole Ordering of Solvent Around Proteins: Effects of Periodic-Box Size and Protein Charge.
94. T. A. Wassenaar and A. E. Mark, J. Comput. Chem., 27, 316 (2006). The Effect of Box Shape on the Dynamic Properties of Proteins Simulated Under Periodic Boundary Conditions.
95. H. Bekker, J. Comput. Chem., 18, 1930 (1997). Unification of Box Shapes in Molecular Simulations.
96. D. A. C. Beck, R. S. Armen, and V. Daggett, Biochemistry, 44, 609 (2005). Cutoff Size Need Not Strongly Influence Molecular Dynamics Results for Solvated Polypeptides.
97. H. Schreiber and O. Steinhauser, Biochemistry, 31, 5856 (1992). Cutoff Size Does Strongly Influence Molecular Dynamics Results on Solvated Polypeptides.
98. R. Day and V. Daggett, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 102, 13445 (2005). Ensemble Versus Single-Molecule Protein Unfolding.
99. R. Walser, A. E. Mark, and W. F. van Gunsteren, Biophys. J., 78, 2752 (2000). On the Temperature and Pressure Dependence of a Range of Properties of a Type of Water Model Commonly Used in High-Temperature Protein Unfolding Simulations.
100. G. S. Kell, J. Chem. Eng. Data, 12, 66 (1967). Precise Representation of Volume Properties of Water at One Atmosphere.
101. Q. Zou, B. J. Bennion, V. Daggett, and K. P. Murphy, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 124, 1192 (2002). The Molecular Mechanism of Stabilization of Proteins by TMAO and its Ability to Counteract the Effects of Urea.
102. F. U. Hartl and M. Hayer-Hartl, Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol., 16, 574 (2009). Converging Concepts of Protein Folding In Vitro and In Vivo.
103. T. Cellmer, M. Buscaglia, E. R. Henry, J. Hofrichter, and W. A. Eaton, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 108, 6103 (2011). Making Connections Between Ultrafast Protein Folding Kinetics and Molecular Dynamics Simulations.
104. T. R. Sosnick and D. Barrick, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 21, 12 (2011). The Folding of Single Domain Proteins - Have We Reached a Consensus?.
105. C. Simmerling, B. Strockbine, and A. E. Roitberg, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 124, 11258 (2002). All-Atom Structure Prediction and Folding Simulations of a Stable Protein.
106. D. Bhatt and D. M. Zuckerman, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 7, 2520 (2011). Beyond Microscopic Reversibility: Are Observable Non-Equilibrium Processes Precisely Reversible?.
107. A. R. Dinner and M. Karplus, J. Mol. Biol., 292, 403 (1999). Is Protein Unfolding the Reverse of Protein Folding? A Lattice Simulation Analysis.
108. R. C. Tolman, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 11, 436 (1925). The Principle of Microscopic Reversibility.
109. R. Day and V. Daggett, J. Mol. Biol., 366, 677 (2007). Direct Observation of Microscopic Reversibility in Single-Molecule Protein Folding.
110. M. E. McCully, D. A. C. Beck, and V. Daggett, Biochemistry, 47, 7079 (2008). Microscopic Reversibility of Protein Folding in Molecular Dynamics Simulations of the Engrailed Homeodomain.
111. M. E. McCully, D. A. C. Beck, A. R. Fersht, and V. Daggett, Biophys. J., 99, 1628 (2010). Refolding the Engrailed Homeodomain: Structural Basis for the Accumulation of a Folding Intermediate.
112. D. B. Kitchen, L. H. Reed, and R. M. Levy, Biochemistry, 31, 10083 (1992). Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Solvated Protein at High Pressure.
113. D. Paschek and A. E. García, Phys. Rev. Lett., 93, 238105 (2004). Reversible Temperature and Pressure Denaturation of a Protein Fragment: A Replica Exchange Molecular Dynamics Simulation Study.
114. N. Smolin and R. Winter, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1764, 522 (2006). A Molecular Dynamics Simulation of SNase and its Hydration Shell at High Temperature and High Pressure.
115. D. Trzesniak, R. D. Lins, and W. F. van Gunsteren, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf., 65, 136 (2006). Protein Under Pressure: Molecular Dynamics Simulation of the Arc Repressor.
116. O. Chara, J. R. Grigera, and A. N. McCarthy, J. Biol. Phys., 33, 515 (2007). Studying the Unfolding Kinetics of Proteins Under Pressure Using Long Molecular Dynamics Simulation Runs.
117. M. D. Collins, G. Hummer, M. L. Quillin, B. W. Matthews, and S. M. Gruner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 102, 16668 (2005). Cooperative Water Filling of a Nonpolar Protein Cavity Observed by High-Pressure Crystallography and Simulation.
118. A. N. McCarthy and J. R. Grigera, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1764, 506 (2006). Pressure Denaturation of Apomyoglobin: A Molecular Dynamics Simulation Study.
119. E. Paci, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1595, 185 (2002). High Pressure Simulations of Biomolecules.
120. S. Sarupria, T. Ghosh, A. E. García, and S. Garde, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf., 78, 1641 (2010). Studying Pressure Denaturation of a Protein by Molecular Dynamics Simulations.
121. D. R. Canchi and A. E. García, Biophys. J., 100, 1526 (2011). Backbone and Side-Chain Contributions in Protein Denaturation by Urea.
122. D. R. Canchi, D. Paschek, and A. E. García, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 132, 2338 (2010). Equilibrium Study of Protein Denaturation by Urea.
123. L. J. Smith, R. M. Jones, and W. F. van Gunsteren, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf., 58, 439 (2004). Characterization of the Denaturation of Human α-Lactalbumin in Urea by Molecular Dynamics Simulations.
124. A. Caballero-Herrera, K. Nordstrand, K. D. Berndt, and L. Nilsson, Biophys. J., 89, 842 (2005). Effect of Urea on Peptide Conformation in Water: Molecular Dynamics and Experimental Characterization.
125. A. G. Rocco, L. Mollica, P. Ricchiuto, A. M. Baptista, E. Gianazza, and I. Eberini, Biophys. J., 94, 2241 (2008). Characterization of the Protein Unfolding Processes Induced by Urea and Temperature.
126. M. C. Stumpe and H. Grubmüller, PLoS Comput. Biol., 4, e1000221 (2008). Polar or Apolar--The Role of Polarity for Urea-Induced Protein Denaturation.
127. L. Hua, R. Zhou, D. Thirumalai, and B. J. Berne, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 105, 16928 (2008). Urea Denaturation by Stronger Dispersion Interactions with Proteins than Water Implies a 2-Stage Unfolding.
128. M. C. Stumpe and H. Grubmüller, Biophys. J., 96, 3744 (2009). Urea Impedes the Hydrophobic Collapse of Partially Unfolded Proteins.
129. C. Camilloni, L. Sutto, D. Provasi, G. Tiana, and R. A. Broglia, Protein Sci., 17, 1424 (2008). Early Events in Protein Folding: Is There Something More Than Hydrophobic Burst?.
130. C. Camilloni, A. Guerini Rocco, I. Eberini, E. Gianazza, R. A. Broglia, and G. Tiana, Biophys. J., 94, 4654 (2008). Urea and Guanidinium Chloride Denature Protein L in Different Ways in Molecular Dynamics Simulations.
131. E. P. O'Brien, R. I. Dima, B. R. Brooks, and D. Thirumalai, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 129, 7346 (2007). Interactions Between Hydrophobic and Ionic Solutes in Aqueous Guanidinium Chloride and Urea Solutions: Lessons for Protein Denaturation Mechanism.
132. J. Tirado-Rives, M. Orozco, and W. L. Jorgensen, Biochemistry, 36, 7313 (1997). Molecular Dynamics Simulations of the Unfolding of Barnase in Water and 8 M Aqueous Urea.
133. B. J. Bennion and V. Daggett, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 100, 5142 (2003). The Molecular Basis for the Chemical Denaturation of Proteins by Urea.
134. P. E. Mason, C. E. Dempsey, L. Vrbka, J. Heyda, J. W. Brady, and P. Jungwirth, J. Phys. Chem. B, 113, 3227 (2009). Specificity of Ion-Protein Interactions: Complementary and Competitive Effects of Tetrapropylammonium, Guanidinium, Sulfate, and Chloride Ions.
135. J. L. England and G. Haran, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem., 62, 257 (2011). Role of Solvation Effects in Protein Denaturation: From Thermodynamics to Single Molecules and Back.
136. Z. Xia, P. Das, E. I. Shakhnovich, and R. Zhou, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 134, 18266 (2012). Collapse of Unfolded Proteins in a Mixture of Denaturants.
137. K. Goossens, L. Smeller, J. Frank, and K. Heremans, Eur. J. Biochem., 236, 254 (1996). Pressure-Tuning the Conformation of Bovine Pancreatic Trypsin Inhibitor Studied by Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy.
138. B. Wroblowski, J. F. Díaz, K. Heremans, and Y. Engelborghs, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf., 25, 446 (1996). Molecular Mechanisms of Pressure Induced Conformational Changes in BPTI.
139. P. Fan, D. Kominos, D. B. Kitchen, R. M. Levy, and J. Baum, Chem. Phys., 158, 295 (1991). Stabilization of α-Helical Secondary Structure During High-Temperature Molecular-Dynamics Simulations of α-Lactalbumin.
140. A. E. Mark and W. F. van Gunsteren, Biochemistry, 31, 7745 (1992). Simulation of the Thermal Denaturation of Hen Egg White Lysozyme: Trapping the Molten Globule State.
141. V. Daggett and M. Levitt, J. Mol. Biol., 232, 600 (1993). Protein Unfolding Pathways Explored Through Molecular Dynamics Simulations.
142. A. Caflisch and M. Karplus, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 91, 1746 (1994). Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Protein Denaturation: Solvation of the Hydrophobic Cores and Secondary Structure of Barnase.
143. A. V. Finkelstein, Protein Eng., 10, 843 (1997). Can Protein Unfolding Simulate Protein Folding?.
144. W. Guo, S. Lampoudi, and J.-E. Shea, Proteins, 55, 395 (2004). Temperature Dependence of the Free Energy Landscape of the Src-SH3 Protein Domain.
145. A. Cavalli, P. Ferrara, and A. Caflisch, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf., 47, 305 (2002). Weak Temperature Dependence of the Free Energy Surface and Folding Pathways of Structured Peptides.
146. T. Wang and R. C. Wade, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 3, 1476 (2007). On the Use of Elevated Temperature in Simulations to Study Protein Unfolding Mechanisms.
147. R. Day, B. J. Bennion, S. Ham, and V. Daggett, J. Mol. Biol., 322, 189 (2002). Increasing Temperature Accelerates Protein Unfolding Without Changing the Pathway of Unfolding.
148. X. Daura, B. Jaun, D. Seebach, W. F. van Gunsteren, and A. E. Mark, J. Mol. Biol., 280, 925 (1998). Reversible Peptide Folding in Solution by Molecular Dynamics Simulation.
149. U. Mayor, C. M. Johnson, V. Daggett, and A. R. Fersht, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 97, 13518 (2000). Protein Folding and Unfolding in Microseconds to Nanoseconds by Experiment and Simulation.
150. U. Mayor, N. R. Guydosh, C. M. Johnson, J. G. Grossmann, S. Sato, G. S. Jas, S. M. V. Freund, D. O. V. Alonso, V. Daggett, and A. R. Fersht, Nature, 421, 863 (2003). The Complete Folding Pathway of a Protein from Nanoseconds to Microseconds.
151. M. L. Demarco, D. O. V. Alonso, and V. Daggett, J. Mol. Biol., 341, 1109 (2004). Diffusing and Colliding: The Atomic Level Folding/Unfolding Pathway of a Small Helical Protein.
152. Y. Y. Sham, B. Ma, C.-J. Tsai, and R. Nussinov, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf., 46, 308 (2002). Thermal Unfolding Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Escherichia Coli Dihydrofo-late Reductase: Thermal Stability of Protein Domains and Unfolding Pathway.
153. B. Ma and R. Nussinov, Protein Eng., 16, 561 (2003). Molecular Dynamics Simulations of the Unfolding of β2-Microglobulin and its Variants.
154. V. S. Pande and D. S. Rokhsar, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 96, 9062 (1999). Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Unfolding and Refolding of a β-Hairpin Fragment of Protein G.
155. R. Day and V. Daggett, Protein Sci., 14, 1242 (2005). Sensitivity of the Folding/Unfolding Transition State Ensemble of Chymotrypsin Inhibitor 2 to Changes in Temperature and Solvent.
156. M. E. McCully, D. A. C. Beck, and V. Daggett, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 109, 17851 (2012). Multimolecule Test-Tube Simulations of Protein Unfolding and Aggregation.
157. J. Forman and J. Clarke, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 17, 58 (2007). Mechanical Unfolding of Proteins: Insights into Biology, Structure and Folding.
158. A. F. Oberhauser and M. Carrión-Vázquez, J. Biol. Chem., 283, 6617 (2008). Mechanical Biochemistry of Proteins One Molecule at a Time.
159. E. M. Puchner and H. E. Gaub, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 19, 605 (2009). Force and Function: Probing Proteins with AFM-Based Force Spectroscopy.
160. A. Galera-Prat, A. Gómez-Sicilia, A. F. Oberhauser, M. Cieplak, and M. Carrión-Vázquez, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 20, 63 (2010). Understanding Biology by Stretching Proteins: Recent Progress.
161. M. Rief, M. Gautel, F. Oesterhelt, J. M. Fernandez, and H. E. Gaub, Science, 276, 1109 (1997). Reversible Unfolding of Individual Titin Immunoglobulin Domains by AFM.
162. J. Hsin, J. Strümpfer, E. H. Lee, and K. Schulten, Annu. Rev. Biophys., 40, 187 (2011). Molecular Origin of the Hierarchical Elasticity of Titin: Simulation, Experiment, and Theory.
163. S. Labeit and B. Kolmerer, Science, 270, 293 (1995). Titins: Giant Proteins in Charge of Muscle Ultrastructure and Elasticity.
164. L. Tskhovrebova, M. L. Walker, J. G. Grossmann, G. N. Khan, A. Baron, and J. Trinick, J. Mol. Biol., 397, 1092 (2010). Shape and Flexibility in the Titin 11-Domain Super-Repeat.
165. H. Lu, B. Isralewitz, A. Krammer, V. Vogel, and K. Schulten, Biophys. J., 75, 662 (1998). Unfolding of Titin Immunoglobulin Domains by Steered Molecular Dynamics Simulation.
166. S. Izrailev, S. Stepaniants, B. Isralewitz, D. Kosztin, H. Lu, F. Molnar, W. Wriggers, and K. Schulten, in Computational Molecular Dynamics: Challenges, Methods, Ideas, P. Deuflhard, J. Hermans, B. Leimkuhler, A. E. Mark, S. Reich, and R. D. Skeel (Eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999, pp. 39-65, Steered Molecular Dynamics.
167. B. Isralewitz, M. Gao, and K. Schulten, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 11, 224 (2001). Steered Molecular Dynamics and Mechanical Functions of Proteins.
168. E. Paci and M. Karplus, J. Mol. Biol., 288, 441 (1999). Forced Unfolding of Fibronectin Type 3 Modules: An Analysis by Biased Molecular Dynamics Simulations.
169. H. Grubmuller, B. Heymann, and P. Tavan, Science, 271, 997 (1996). Ligand Binding: Molecular Mechanics Calculation of the Streptavidin-Biotin Rupture Force.
170. J. M. Fernandez, P. E. Marszalek, H. Lu, H. Li, M. Carrión-Vázquez, A. F. Oberhauser, and K. Schulten, Nature, 402, 100 (1999). Mechanical Unfolding Intermediates in Titin Modules.
171. H. Lu and K. Schulten, Biophys. J., 79, 51 (2000). The Key Event in Force-Induced Unfolding of Titin's Immunoglobulin Domains.
172. H. Lu and K. Schulten, Chem. Phys., 247, 141 (1999). Steered Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Conformational Changes of Immunoglobulin Domain 127 Interpret Atomic Force Microscopy Observations.
173. R. Toofanny and P. M. Williams, J. Mol. Graph. Model., 24, 396 (2006). Simulations of Multi-Directional Forced Unfolding of Titin 127.
174. R. B. Best, B. Li, A. Steward, V. Daggett, and J. Clarke, Biophys. J., 81, 2344 (2001). Can Non-Mechanical Proteins Withstand Force? Stretching Barnase by Atomic Force Microscopy and Molecular Dynamics Simulation.
175. D. J. Brockwell, G. S. Beddard, E. Paci, D. K. West, P. D. Olmsted, D. A. Smith, and S. E. Radford, Biophys. J., 89, 506 (2005). Mechanically Unfolding the Small, Topologically Simple Protein L.
176. A. Das and C. Mukhopadhyay, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf., 75, 1024 (2009). Mechanical Unfolding Pathway and Origin of Mechanical Stability of Proteins of Ubiquitin Family: An Investigation by Steered Molecular Dynamics Simulation.
177. A. V. Glyakina, N. K. Balabaev, and O. V. Galzitskaya, J. Chem. Phys., 131, 045102 (2009). Mechanical Unfolding of Proteins L and G with Constant Force: Similarities and Differences.
178. A. Li and V. Daggett, J. Mol. Biol., 275, 677 (1998). Molecular Dynamics Simulation of the Unfolding of Barnase: Characterization of the Major Intermediate.
179. A. V. Glyakina, N. K. Balabaev, and O. V. Galzitskaya, Biochemistry (Moscow), 74(316) (2009). Comparison of Transition States Obtained Upon Modeling of Unfolding of Immunoglobulin-Binding Domains of Proteins L and G Caused by External Action with Transition States Obtained in the Absence of Force Probed by Experiments.
180. D. K. West, E. Paci, and P. D. Olmsted, Phys. Rev. E, 74, 061912 (2006). Internal Protein Dynamics Shifts the Distance to the Mechanical Transition State.
181. J. I. Sukowska and M. Cieplak, Biophys. J., 94, 6 (2008). Stretching to Understand Proteins - A Survey of the Protein Data Bank.
182. M. Sikora, J. I. Sukowska, and M. Cieplak, PLoS Comput. Biol., 5, e1000547 (2009). Mechanical Strength of 17,134 Model Proteins and Cysteine Slipknots.
183. S. Prakash and A. Matouschek, Trends Biochem. Sci, 29, 593 (2004). Protein Unfolding in the Cell.
184. C. Bustamante, Y. R. Chemla, N. R. Forde, and D. Izhaky, Annu. Rev. Biochem., 73, 705 (2004). Mechanical Processes in Biochemistry.
185. A. Caflisch and E. Paci, in Protein Folding Handbook, J. Buchner and T. Kiefhaber (Eds.), Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, 2008, pp. 1143-1169, Molecular Dynamics Simulations to Study Protein Folding and Unfolding.
186. J.-E. Shea and C. L. Brooks, III, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem., 52, 499 (2001). From Folding Theories to Folding Proteins: A Review and Assessment of Simulation Studies of Protein Folding and Unfolding.
187. I. Daidone, A. Amadei, D. Roccatano, and A. D. Nola, Biophys. J., 85, 2865 (2003). Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Protein Folding by Essential Dynamics Sampling: Folding Landscape of Horse Heart Cytochrome C.
188. H. Lei and Y. Duan, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 17, 187 (2007). Improved Sampling Methods for Molecular Simulation.
189. M. C. Zwier and L. T. Chong, Curr. Opin. Pharmacol., 10, 745 (2010). Reaching Biological Timescales with All-Atom Molecular Dynamics Simulations.
190. E. Paci, L. J. Smith, C. M. Dobson, and M. Karplus, J. Mol. Biol., 306, 329 (2001). Exploration of Partially Unfolded States of Human α-Lactalbumin by Molecular Dynamics Simulation.
191. E. Paci, M. Vendruscolo, C. M. Dobson, and M. Karplus, J. Mol. Biol., 324, 151 (2002). Determination of a Transition State at Atomic Resolution from Protein Engineering Data.
192. E. Paci, A. Caflisch, A. Pluckthun, and M. Karplus, J. Mol. Biol., 314, 589 (2001). Forces and Energetics of Hapten-Antibody Dissociation: A Biased Molecular Dynamics Simulation Study.
193. C. D. Geierhaas, R. B. Best, E. Paci, M. Vendruscolo, and J. Clarke, Biophys. J., 91, 263 (2006). Structural Comparison of the Two Alternative Transition States for Folding of TI 127.
194. P. Chen, C.-L. Evans, J. D. Hirst, and M. S. Searle, Biochemistry, 50, 125 (2011). Structural Insights into the Two Sequential Folding Transition States of the PB1 Domain of NBR1 from Φ Value Analysis and Biased Molecular Dynamics Simulations.
195. L. R. Allen and E. Paci, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, 19, 285211 (2007). Transition States for Protein Folding using Molecular Dynamics and Experimental Restraints.
196. A. R. Fersht, A. Matouschek, and L. Serrano, J. Mol. Biol., 224, 771 (1992). The Folding of an Enzyme. I. Theory of Protein Engineering Analysis of Stability and Pathway of Protein Folding.
197. J. K. Myers, N. C. Pace, and J. Martin Scholtz, Protein Sci., 4, 2138 (1995). Denaturant Values and Heat Capacity Changes: Relation to Changes in Accessible Surface Areas of Protein Unfolding.
198. C. D. Geierhaas, E. Paci, M. Vendruscolo, and J. Clarke, J. Mol. Biol., 343, 1111 (2004). Comparison of the Transition States for Folding of Two Ig-Like Proteins from Different Superfamilies.
199. A. Fersht, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 974, 1525 (2000). Transition-State Structure as a Unifying Basis in Protein-Folding Mechanisms: Contact Order, Chain Topology, Stability, and the Extended Nucleus Mechanism.
200. A. L. Jonsson, K. A. Scott, and V. Daggett, Biophys. J., 97, 2958 (2009). Dynameomics: a Consensus View of the Protein Unfolding/Folding Transition State Ensemble Across a Diverse Set of Protein Folds.
201. F. Ding, J. J. LaRocque, and N. V. Dokholyan, J. Biol. Chem., 280, 40235 (2005). Direct Observation of Protein Folding, Aggregation, and a Prion-Like Conformational Conversion.
202. F. B. Sheinerman and C. L. Brooks, III, J. Mol. Biol., 278, 439 (1998). Calculations on Folding of Segment B1 of Streptococcal Protein G.
203. R. Toofanny, A. L. Jonsson, and V. Daggett, Biophys. J., 98, 2671 (2010). A Comprehensive Multidimensional-Embedded, One-Dimensional Reaction Coordinate for Protein Unfold-ing/Folding.
204. A. Li and V. Daggett, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 91, 10430 (1994). Characterization of the Transition State of Protein Unfolding by use of Molecular Dynamics: Chymotrypsin Inhibitor 2.
205. A. Li and V. Daggett, J. Mol. Biol., 257, 412 (1996). Identification and Characterization of the Unfolding Transition State of Chymotrypsin Inhibitor 2 by Molecular Dynamics Simulations.
206. M. Petrovich, A. L. Jonsson, N. Ferguson, V. Daggett, and A. R. Fersht, J. Mol. Biol., 360, 865 (2006). Φ-Analysis at the Experimental Limits: Mechanism of β-Hairpin Formation.
207. D. Brockwell and S. Radford, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 17, 30 (2007). Intermediates: Ubiquitous Species on Folding Energy Landscapes?.
208. J. Gsponer, H. Hopearuoho, S. Whittaker, G. Spence, G. Moore, E. Paci, S. Radford, and M. Vendruscolo, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 103, 99 (2006). Determination of an Ensemble of Structures Representing the Intermediate State of the Bacterial Immunity Protein Im7.
209. T. L. Religa, J. S. Markson, U. Mayor, S. M. V. Freund, and A. R. Fersht, Nature, 437, 1053 (2005). Solution Structure of a Protein Denatured State and Folding Intermediate.
210. D. A. C. Beck and V. Daggett, Biophys. J., 93, 3382 (2007). A One-Dimensional Reaction Coordinate for Identification of Transition States from Explicit Solvent P(fold)-Like Calculations.
211. E. I. Shakhnovich, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 7, 29 (1997). Theoretical Studies of Protein-Folding Thermodynamics and Kinetics.
212. M. Levitt, J. Mol. Biol., 104, 59 (1976). A Simplified Representation of Protein Conformations for Rapid Simulation of Protein Folding.
213. A. Warshel and M. Levitt, J. Mol. Biol., 106, 421 (1976). Folding and Stability of Helical Proteins: Carp Myogen.
214. S. Patel, P. Sista, P. V. Balaji, and Y. U. Sasidhar, J. Mol. Graph. Model., 25, 103 (2006). β-Hairpins with Native-Like and Non-Native Hydrogen Bonding Patterns Could Form During the Refolding of Staphylococcal Nuclease.
215. H. Wang, J. Varady, L. Ng, and S. S. Sung, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 37(325) (1999). Molecular Dynamics Simulations of β-Hairpin Folding.
216. B. Zagrovic, C. D. Snow, M. R. Shirts, and V. S. Pande, J. Mol. Biol., 323, 927 (2002). Simulation of Folding of a Small α-Helical Protein in Atomistic Detail Using Worldwide-Distributed Computing.
217. H. Lei and Y. Duan, J. Phys. Chem. B, 111, 5458 (2007). Ab Initio Folding of Albumin Binding Domain from All-Atom Molecular Dynamics Simulation.
218. J. W. Neidigh, R. M. Fesinmeyer, and N. H. Andersen, Nat. Struct. Biol., 9, 425 (2002). Designing a 20-Residue Protein.
219. E. Demchuk, D. Bashford, and D. A. Case, Folding Des., 2, 35 (1997). Dynamics of a Type VI Reverse Turn in a Linear Peptide in Aqueous Solution.
220. K.-I. Oh, Y.-S. Jung, G.-S. Hwang, and M. Cho, J. Biomol. NMR, 53, 25 (2012). Conformational Distributions of Denatured and Unstructured Proteins are Similar to those of 20 × 20 Blocked Dipeptides.
221. D. A. C. Beck, D. O. V. Alonso, D. Inoyama, and V. Daggett, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 105, 12259 (2008). The Intrinsic Conformational Propensities of the 20 Naturally Occurring Amino Acids and Reflection of these Propensities in Proteins.
222. E. R. McCarney, J. E. Kohn, and K. W. Plaxco, Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol., 40, 181 (2005). Is There or Isn't There? The Case For (and Against) Residual Structure in Chemically Denatured Proteins.
223. Z. Shi, K. Chen, Z. Liu, and N. R. Kallenbach, Chem. Rev., 106, 1877 (2006). Conformation of the Backbone in Unfolded Proteins.
224. C. Hyeon, G. Morrison, D. L. Pincus, and D. Thirumalai, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 106, 20288 (2009). Refolding Dynamics of Stretched Biopolymers Upon Force Quench.
225. X. Periole, M. Vendruscolo, and A. E. Mark, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf., 69, 536 (2007). Molecular Dynamics Simulations from Putative Transition States of α-Spectrin SH3 Domain.
226. M. Prévost and I. Ortmans, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf., 29, 212 (1997). Refolding Simulations of an Isolated Fragment of Barnase into a Native-Like β Hairpin: Evidence for Compactness and Hydrogen Bonding as Concurrent Stabilizing Factors.
227. G.-J. Zhao and C.-L. Cheng, Amino Acids, 43, 557 (2012). Molecular Dynamics Simulation Exploration of Unfolding and Refolding of a Ten-Amino Acid Miniprotein.
228. D. O. V. Alonso and V. Daggett, J. Mol. Biol., 247, 501 (1995). Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Protein Unfolding and Limited Refolding: Characterization of Partially Unfolded States of Ubiquitin in 60% Methanol and in Water.
229. D. O. V. Alonso and V. Daggett, Protein Sci., 7, 860 (1998). Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Hydrophobic Collapse of Ubiquitin.
230. M.-Y. Shen and K. F. Freed, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf., 49, 439 (2002). All-Atom Fast Protein Folding Simulations: The Villin Headpiece.
231. H. Lei and Y. Duan, J. Mol. Biol., 370, 196 (2007). Two-Stage Folding of HP-35 from Ab Initio Simulations.
232. P. L. Freddolino and K. Schulten, Biophys. J., 97, 2338 (2009). Common Structural Transitions in Explicit-Solvent Simulations of Villin Headpiece Folding.
233. H. Lei, C. Wu, H. Liu, and Y. Duan, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104, 4925 (2007). Folding Free-Energy Landscape of Villin Headpiece Subdomain from Molecular Dynamics Simulations.
234. E. Paci, C. Friel, K. Lindorff-Larsen, S. Radford, M. Karplus, and M. Vendruscolo, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf., 54, 513 (2004). Comparison of the Transition State Ensembles for Folding of Im7 and Im9 Determined using All-Atom Molecular Dynamics Simulations with Φ Value Restraints.
235. S. Gianni, N. R. Guydosh, F. Khan, T. D. Caldas, U. Mayor, G. W. N. White, M. L. Demarco, V. Daggett, and A. R. Fersht, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 100, 13286 (2003). Unifying Features in Protein-Folding Mechanisms.
236. K. Gunasekaran, S. J. Eyles, A. T. Hagler, and L. M. Gierasch, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 11, 83 (2001). Keeping it in the Family: Folding Studies of Related Proteins.
237. O. B. Ptitsyn and K. L. Ting, J. Mol. Biol., 291, 671 (1999). Non-Functional Conserved Residues in Globins and their Possible Role as a Folding Nucleus.
238. M. W. van der Kamp, R. D. Schaeffer, A. L. Jonsson, A. D. Scouras, A. M. Simms, R. Toofanny, N. C. Benson, P. C. Anderson, E. D. Merkley, S. Rysavy, D. Bromley, D. A. C. Beck, and V. Daggett, Structure, 18, 423 (2010). Dynameomics: A Comprehensive Database of Protein Dynamics.
239. N. C. Benson and V. Daggett, Protein Sci., 17, 2038 (2008). Dynameomics: Large-Scale Assessment of Native Protein Flexibility.
240. D. A. C. Beck, A. L. Jonsson, R. D. Schaeffer, K. A. Scott, R. Day, R. Toofanny, D. O. V. Alonso, and V. Daggett, Protein Eng. Des. Sel., 21, 353 (2008). Dynameomics: Mass Annotation of Protein Dynamics and Unfolding in Water by High-Throughput Atomistic Molecular Dynamics Simulations.
241. A. L. Jonsson, R. D. Schaeffer, M. W. van der Kamp, and V. Daggett, BioMol. Concepts, 335 (2011). Dynameomics: Protein Dynamics and Unfolding Across Fold Space.
242. R. Day, D. A. C. Beck, R. S. Armen, and V. Daggett, Protein Sci., 12, 2150 (2003). a Consensus View of Fold Space: Combining SCOP, CATH, and the Dali Domain Dictionary.
243. R. D. Schaeffer, A. L. Jonsson, A. M. Simms, and V. Daggett, Bioinformatics, 27, 46 (2011). Generation of a Consensus Protein Domain Dictionary.
244. R. D. Schaeffer and V. Daggett, Protein Eng. Des. Sel., 24, 11 (2011). Protein Folds and Protein Folding.
245. C.-L. Towse and V. Daggett, BioEssays, 34, 1060 (2012). When a Domain is Not a Domain, and Why it is Important to Properly Filter Proteins in Databases.
246. A. D. Scouras and V. Daggett, Protein Sci., 20, 341 (2011). The Dynameomics Rotamer Library: Amino Acid Side Chain Conformations and Dynamics from Comprehensive Molecular Dynamics Simulations in Water.
247. A. L. Jonsson and V. Daggett, J. Struct. Biol., 176, 143 (2011). The Effect of Context on the Folding of β-Hairpins.
248. P. A. Alexander, Y. He, Y. Chen, J. Orban, and P. N. Bryan, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104, 11963 (2007). The Design and Characterization of Two Proteins with 88% Sequence Identity but Different Structure and Function.
249. Y. He, Y. Chen, P. Alexander, P. N. Bryan, and J. Orban, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 105, 14412 (2008). NMR Structures of Two Designed Proteins with High Sequence Identity but Different Fold and Function.
250. Y. He, D. C. Yeh, P. Alexander, P. N. Bryan, and J. Orban, Biochemistry, 44, 14055 (2005). Solution NMR Structures of IgG Binding Domains with Artificially Evolved High Levels of Sequence Identity but Different Folds.
251. Y. He, Y. Chen, P. A. Alexander, P. N. Bryan, and J. Orban, Structure, 20, 283 (2012). Mutational Tipping Points for Switching Protein Folds and Functions.
252. K. A. Scott and V. Daggett, Biochemistry, 46, 1545 (2007). Folding Mechanisms of Proteins with High Sequence Identity but Different Folds.
253. A. Morrone, M. E. McCully, P. N. Bryan, M. Brunori, V. Daggett, S. Gianni, and C. Travaglini-Allocatelli, J. Biol. Chem., 286, 3863 (2011). The Denatured State Dictates the Topology of Two Proteins with Almost Identical Sequence but Different Native Structure and Function.
254. J. R. Allison, M. Bergeler, N. Hansen, and W. F. van Gunsteren, Biochemistry, 50, 10965 (2011). Current Computer Modeling Cannot Explain why Two Highly Similar Sequences Fold into Different Structures.
255. R. O. Dror, R. M. Dirks, J. P. Grossman, H. Xu, and D. E. Shaw, Biophysics, 41, 429 (2012). Biomolecular Simulation: A Computational Microscope for Molecular Biology.
256. J. A. Baker and J. D. Hirst, Mol. Inf., 30, 498 (2011). Molecular Dynamics Simulations using Graphics Processing Units.
257. M. S. Friedrichs, P. Eastman, V. Vaidyanathan, M. Houston, S. Legrand, A. L. Beberg, D. L. Ensign, C. M. Bruns, and V. S. Pande, J. Comput. Chem., 30, 864 (2009). Accelerating Molecular Dynamic Simulation on Graphics Processing Units.
258. M. Vendruscolo and C. M. Dobson, Curr. Biol., 21, R68 (2011). Protein Dynamics: Moore's Law in Molecular Biology.
259. C. Kehl, A. M. Simms, R. Toofanny, and V. Daggett, Protein Eng. Des. Sel., 21, 379 (2008). Dynameomics: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis-Optimized Database for Dynamic Protein Data.
260. A. M. Simms, R. Toofanny, C. Kehl, N. C. Benson, and V. Daggett, Protein Eng. Des. Sel., 21, 369 (2008). Dynameomics: Design of a Computational Lab Workflow and Scientific Data Repository for Protein Simulations.
261. K. A. Scott, D. O. V. Alonso, S. Sato, A. R. Fersht, and V. Daggett, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104, 2661 (2007). Conformational Entropy of Alanine Versus Glycine in Protein Denatured States.