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
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.
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
VMD: visual molecular dynamics
Humphrey, W., Dalke, A., & Schulten, K. (1996) · Journal of Molecular Graphics · doi:10.1016/0263-7855(96)00018-5 · Cited by 66,952
How fast-folding proteins fold
Lindorff-Larsen, K., Piana, S., Dror, R. O., & Shaw, D. E. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1208351 · Cited by 1,980
Self-citationSTRIDE: a web server for secondary structure assignment from known atomic coordinates of proteins
Heinig, M., & Frishman, D. (2004) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkh429 · Cited by 1,003
Protein structure prediction: when is it useful?
Zhang, Y. (2009) · Current Opinion in Structural Biology · doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2009.02.005 · Cited by 277
Cited by
Molecular Dynamics Simulation for All
Hollingsworth, S. A., & Dror, R. O. (2018) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2018.08.011 · Cited by 3,257
Self-citationThe Protein-Folding Problem, 50 Years On
Dill, K. A., & MacCallum, J. L. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1219021 · Cited by 1,699
Perspective: Coarse-grained models for biomolecular systems
Noid, W. G. (2013) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.4818908 · Cited by 893
Chen, Y.-C. (2015) · Trends in Pharmacological Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tips.2014.12.001 · Cited by 611
Classical Electrostatics for Biomolecular Simulations
Cisneros, G. A., Karttunen, M., Ren, P., & Sagui, C. (2014) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr300461d · Cited by 259
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.