Dataset Information

Comparative study of generalized Born models: protein dynamics.

ABSTRACT: In this work, we compare the results of molecular dynamics simulations involving the application of three generalized Born (GB) models to 10 different proteins. The three GB models, the Still, HCT, and modified analytical generalized Born models, were implemented in the computationally efficient gromacs package. The performance of each model was assessed from the backbone rms deviation from the native structure, the number of native hydrogen bonds retained in the simulation, and the experimental and calculated radius of gyration. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the results of the simulations. The rms deviation measure was found to be unable to distinguish the quality of the results obtained with the three different GB models, whereas the number of native hydrogen bonds and radius of gyration yielded a statistically meaningful discrimination among models. Our results suggest that, of the three, modified analytical generalized Born yields the best agreement between calculated and experimentally derived structures. More generally, our study highlights the need both to evaluate the effects of different variables on the results of simulations and to verify that the results of molecular dynamics simulations are statistically meaningful.

SUBMITTER: Fan H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1100760 | biostudies-literature | 2005 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative study of generalized Born models: protein dynamics.

Fan Hao H Mark Alan E AE Zhu Jiang J Honig Barry B

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 20050406 19

In this work, we compare the results of molecular dynamics simulations involving the application of three generalized Born (GB) models to 10 different proteins. The three GB models, the Still, HCT, and modified analytical generalized Born models, were implemented in the computationally efficient gromacs package. The performance of each model was assessed from the backbone rms deviation from the native structure, the number of native hydrogen bonds retained in the simulation, and the experimental ...[more]

PMID: 15814616

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: In the last decade, various coarse-grained elastic network models have been developed to study the large-scale motions of proteins and protein complexes where computer simulations using detailed all-atom models are not feasible. Among these models, the Gaussian Network Model (GNM) and Anisotropic Network Model (ANM) have been widely used. Both models have strengths and limitations. GNM can predict the relative magnitudes of protein fluctuations well, but due to its isotropy assumption, it can not be applied to predict the directions of the fluctuations. In contrast, ANM adds the ability to do the latter, but loses a significant amount of precision in the prediction of the magnitudes. RESULTS: In this article, we develop a single model, called generalized spring tensor model (STeM), that is able to predict well both the magnitudes and the directions of the fluctuations. Specifically, STeM performs equally well in B-factor predictions as GNM and has the ability to predict the directions of fluctuations as ANM. This is achieved by employing a physically more realistic potential, the Go-like potential. The potential, which is more sophisticated than that of either GNM or ANM, though adds complexity to the derivation process of the Hessian matrix (which fortunately has been done once for all and the MATLAB code is freely available electronically at http://www.cs.iastate.edu/~gsong/STeM), causes virtually no performance slowdown. CONCLUSIONS: Derived from a physically more realistic potential, STeM proves to be a natural solution in which advantages that used to exist in two separate models, namely GNM and ANM, are achieved in one single model. It thus lightens the burden to work with two separate models and to relate the modes of GNM with those of ANM at times. By examining the contributions of different interaction terms in the G? potential to the fluctuation dynamics, STeM reveals, (i) a physical explanation for why the distance-dependent, inverse distance square (i.e., 1/(r)2) spring constants perform better than the uniform ones, and (ii), the importance of three-body and four-body interactions to properly modeling protein dynamics.

Dataset Information

Comparative study of generalized Born models: protein dynamics.

Publications

Comparative study of generalized Born models: protein dynamics.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets