The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
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
Abstract
Computational studies of proteins based on empirical force fields represent a powerful tool to obtain structure–function relationships at an atomic level, and are central in current efforts to solve the protein folding problem. The results from studies applying these tools are, however, dependent on the quality of the force fields used. In particular, accurate treatment of the peptide backbone is crucial to achieve representative conformational distributions in simulation studies. To improve the treatment of the peptide backbone, quantum mechanical (QM) and molecular mechanical (MM) calculations were undertaken on the alanine, glycine, and proline dipeptides, and the results from these calculations were combined with molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of proteins in crystal and aqueous environments. QM potential energy maps of the alanine and glycine dipeptides at the LMP2/cc‐pVxZ//MP2/6‐31G* levels, where x = D, T, and Q, were determined, and are compared to available QM studies on these molecules. The LMP2/cc‐pVQZ//MP2/6‐31G* energy surfaces for all three dipeptides were then used to improve the MM treatment of the dipeptides. These improvements included additional parameter optimization via Monte Carlo simulated annealing and extension of the potential energy function to contain peptide backbone ϕ, ψ dihedral crossterms or a ϕ, ψ grid‐based energy correction term. Simultaneously, MD simulations of up to seven proteins in their crystalline environments were used to validate the force field enhancements. Comparison with QM and crystallographic data showed that an additional optimization of the ϕ, ψ dihedral parameters along with the grid‐based energy correction were required to yield significant improvements over the CHARMM22 force field. However, systematic deviations in the treatment of ϕ and ψ in the helical and sheet regions were evident. Accordingly, empirical adjustments were made to the grid‐based energy correction for alanine and glycine to account for these systematic differences. These adjustments lead to greater deviations from QM data for the two dipeptides but also yielded improved agreement with experimental crystallographic data. These improvements enhance the quality of the CHARMM force field in treating proteins. This extension of the potential energy function is anticipated to facilitate improved treatment of biological macromolecules via MM approaches in general. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem 25: 1400–1415, 2004
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines
Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H., & Teller, E. (1953) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.1699114 · Cited by 37,192
Cited by
‘Improved parameters for the Martini coarse-grained protein force field’
de Jong, D. H., Singh, G., Bennett, W. F. D., Arnarez, C., Wassenaar, T. A., Schäfer, L. V., Periole, X., Tieleman, D. P., & Marrink, S. J. (2013) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/ct300646g · Cited by 1,486
Macromolecular modeling and design in Rosetta: recent methods and frameworks
Leman, J. K., Weitzner, B. D., Lewis, S. M., Adolf-Bryfogle, J., Alam, N., Alford, R. F., Aprahamian, M., Baker, D., Barlow, K. A., Barth, P., et al. (2020) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-020-0848-2 · Cited by 888
Graphene quantum dots prevent α-synucleinopathy in Parkinson’s disease
Kim, D., Yoo, J. M., Hwang, H., Lee, J., Lee, S. H., Yun, S. P., Park, M. J., Lee, M., Choi, S., Kwon, S. H., et al. (2018) · Nature Nanotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41565-018-0179-y · Cited by 455
Standard Binding Free Energies from Computer Simulations: What Is the Best Strategy?
Gumbart, J. C., Roux, B., & Chipot, C. (2013) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/ct3008099 · Cited by 343
Fribourg, M., Moreno, J. L., Holloway, T., Provasi, D., Baki, L., Mahajan, R., Park, G., Adney, S. K., Hatcher, C., Eltit, J. M., et al. (2011) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2011.09.055 · Cited by 311
Self-citationStructural basis for hijacking of cellular LxxLL motifs by papillomavirus E6 oncoproteins
Zanier, K., Charbonnier, S., Sidi, A. O. M. O., McEwen, A. G., Ferrario, M. G., Poussin-Courmontagne, P., Cura, V., Brimer, N., Babah, K. O., Ansari, T., et al. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1229934 · Cited by 222
Abrams, J. B., & Tuckerman, M. E. (2008) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry B · doi:10.1021/jp805039u · Cited by 221
Günther, A., Einwich, A., Sjulstok, E., Feederle, R., Bolte, P., Koch, K.-W., Solov’yov, I. A., & Mouritsen, H. (2018) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.12.003 · Cited by 204
Hu, D., Gur, M., Zhou, Z., Gamper, A., Hung, M.-C., Fujita, N., Lan, L., Bahar, I., & Wan, Y. (2015) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms9419 · Cited by 154
A gating mechanism of pentameric ligand-gated ion channels
Calimet, N., Simoes, M., Changeux, J.-P., Karplus, M., Taly, A., & Cecchini, M. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1313785110 · Cited by 150
CHARMM at 45: Enhancements in Accessibility, Functionality, and Speed
Hwang, W., Austin, S. L., Blondel, A., Boittier, E. D., Boresch, S., Buck, M., Buckner, J., Caflisch, A., Chang, H.-T., Cheng, X., et al. (2024) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry B · doi:10.1021/acs.jpcb.4c04100 · Cited by 136
Self-citationBiomolecular simulation and modelling: status, progress and prospects
van der Kamp, M. W., Shaw, K. E., Woods, C. J., & Mulholland, A. J. (2008) · Journal of The Royal Society Interface · doi:10.1098/rsif.2008.0105.focus · Cited by 90
Free energy perturbation calculations of the thermodynamics of protein side-chain mutations
Steinbrecher, T., Abel, R., Clark, A., & Friesner, R. (2017) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2017.03.002 · Cited by 46
Structural and thermodynamic framework for PIEZO1 modulation by small molecules
Jiang, W., Wijerathne, T. D., Zhang, H., Lin, Y.-C., Jo, S., Im, W., Lacroix, J. J., & Luo, Y. L. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2310933120 · Cited by 44
Henry, N., Krammer, E.-M., Stengel, F., Adams, Q., Van Liefferinge, F., Hubin, E., Chaves, R., Efremov, R., Aebersold, R., Vandenbussche, G., et al. (2018) · PLOS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006165 · Cited by 42
Martin, N. E., Malik, S., Calimet, N., Changeux, J.-P., & Cecchini, M. (2017) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005784 · Cited by 38
Peptide conformational sampling using the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm
Boulebnane, S., Lucas, X., Meyder, A., Adaszewski, S., & Montanaro, A. (2023) · npj Quantum Information · doi:10.1038/s41534-023-00733-5 · Cited by 32
Polarization and polarizability assessed by protein amide acidity
Hernández, G., Anderson, J. S., & LeMaster, D. M. (2009) · Biochemistry · doi:10.1021/bi900526z · Cited by 31
Molecular Basis of CLC Antiporter Inhibition by Fluoride
Chiariello, M. G., Bolnykh, V., Ippoliti, E., Meloni, S., Olsen, J. M. H., Beck, T., Rothlisberger, U., Fahlke, C., & Carloni, P. (2020) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/jacs.9b13588 · Cited by 31
Basis for Accurate Protein p K a Prediction with Machine Learning
Cai, Z., Liu, T., Lin, Q., He, J., Lei, X., Luo, F., & Huang, Y. (2023) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.3c00254 · Cited by 31
Brown, A. H., Rodger, P. M., Evans, J. S., & Walsh, T. R. (2014) · Biomacromolecules · doi:10.1021/bm501263s · Cited by 28
Orchestrated actin nucleation by the Candida albicans polarisome complex enables filamentous growth
Xie, Y., Loh, Z. Y., Xue, J., Zhou, F., Sun, J., Qiao, Z., Jin, S., Deng, Y., Li, H., Wang, Y., et al. (2020) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1074/jbc.ra120.013890 · Cited by 26
Samarut, E., Amal, I., Markov, G. V., Stote, R., Dejaegere, A., Laudet, V., & Rochette-Egly, C. (2011) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msr035 · Cited by 26
Chebaro, Y., Amal, I., Rochel, N., Rochette-Egly, C., Stote, R. H., & Dejaegere, A. (2013) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003012 · Cited by 25
Unraveling the nature of the catalytic power of fluoroacetate dehalogenase
Miranda‐Rojas, S., Fernández, I., Kästner, J., Toro‐Labbé, A., & Mendizábal, F. (2018) · ChemCatChem · doi:10.1002/cctc.201701517 · Cited by 23
Charge Transfer at the Qo-Site of the Cytochrome bc1 Complex Leads to Superoxide Production
Salo, A. B., Husen, P., & Solov’yov, I. A. (2017) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry B · doi:10.1021/acs.jpcb.6b10403 · Cited by 21
Mutations at the Qo Site of the Cytochrome bc1 Complex Strongly Affect Oxygen Binding
Husen, P., & Solov’yov, I. A. (2017) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry B · doi:10.1021/acs.jpcb.6b08226 · Cited by 17
Protein Interaction Energy Landscapes are Shaped by Functional and also Non-functional Partners
Schweke, H., Mucchielli, M.-H., Sacquin-Mora, S., Bei, W., & Lopes, A. (2020) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2019.12.047 · Cited by 15
Automated simulation-based membrane protein refinement into cryo-EM data
Yvonnesdotter, L., Rovšnik, U., Blau, C., Lycksell, M., Howard, R. J., & Lindahl, E. (2023) · Biophysical Journal · doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2023.05.033 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Mackerell, A. D., Feig, M., & Brooks, C. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Computational Chemistry
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-06-02
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1400-1415
- ISSN
- 0192-8651 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-987X
- OpenAlex
- W2050333027
- Cited by
- 3,319
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
