Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 257

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Refinement of protein structure homology models via long, all‐atom molecular dynamics simulations

Raval, Alpan, Piana, Stefano, Eastwood, Michael P., Dror, Ron O., Shaw, David E.·2012·Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics

Abstract

Accurate computational prediction of protein structure represents a longstanding challenge in molecular biology and structure‐based drug design. Although homology modeling techniques are widely used to produce low‐resolution models, refining these models to high resolution has proven difficult. With long enough simulations and sufficiently accurate force fields, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations should in principle allow such refinement, but efforts to refine homology models using MD have for the most part yielded disappointing results. It has thus far been unclear whether MD‐based refinement is limited primarily by accessible simulation timescales, force field accuracy, or both. Here, we examine MD as a technique for homology model refinement using all‐atom simulations, each at least 100 μs long—more than 100 times longer than previous refinement simulations—and a physics‐based force field that was recently shown to successfully fold a structurally diverse set of fast‐folding proteins. In MD simulations of 24 proteins chosen from the refinement category of recent Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP) experiments, we find that in most cases, simulations initiated from homology models drift away from the native structure. Comparison with simulations initiated from the native structure suggests that force field accuracy is the primary factor limiting MD‐based refinement. This problem can be mitigated to some extent by restricting sampling to the neighborhood of the initial model, leading to structural improvement that, while limited, is roughly comparable to the leading alternative methods. Proteins 2012;. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/prot.24098

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 4 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Raval, A., Piana, S., Eastwood, M. P., Dror, R. O., & Shaw, D. E.
Venue
Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-05-15
Volume
80
Issue
8
Pages
2071-2079
ISSN
  • 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0134
OpenAlex
W2100251789
Cited by
257
References
4
FWCI
11.04
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.