» Articles » PMID: 22384157

Systematic Validation of Protein Force Fields Against Experimental Data

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2012 Mar 3
PMID 22384157
Citations 245
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Molecular dynamics simulations provide a vehicle for capturing the structures, motions, and interactions of biological macromolecules in full atomic detail. The accuracy of such simulations, however, is critically dependent on the force field--the mathematical model used to approximate the atomic-level forces acting on the simulated molecular system. Here we present a systematic and extensive evaluation of eight different protein force fields based on comparisons of experimental data with molecular dynamics simulations that reach a previously inaccessible timescale. First, through extensive comparisons with experimental NMR data, we examined the force fields' abilities to describe the structure and fluctuations of folded proteins. Second, we quantified potential biases towards different secondary structure types by comparing experimental and simulation data for small peptides that preferentially populate either helical or sheet-like structures. Third, we tested the force fields' abilities to fold two small proteins--one α-helical, the other with β-sheet structure. The results suggest that force fields have improved over time, and that the most recent versions, while not perfect, provide an accurate description of many structural and dynamical properties of proteins.

Citing Articles

Grappa - a machine learned molecular mechanics force field.

Seute L, Hartmann E, Stuhmer J, Grater F Chem Sci. 2025; 16(6):2907-2930.

PMID: 39822899 PMC: 11734696. DOI: 10.1039/d4sc05465b.


Role of van der Waals, Electrostatic, and Hydrogen-Bond Interactions for the Relative Stability of Cellulose Iβ and II Crystals.

Kullmann R, Delbianco M, Roth C, Weikl T J Phys Chem B. 2024; 128(49):12114-12121.

PMID: 39589929 PMC: 11647894. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.4c06841.


Identifying the minimal sets of distance restraints for FRET-assisted protein structural modeling.

Liu Z, Grigas A, Sumner J, Knab E, Davis C, OHern C Protein Sci. 2024; 33(12):e5219.

PMID: 39548730 PMC: 11568256. DOI: 10.1002/pro.5219.


Toward Gaussian Process Regression Modeling of a Urea Force Field.

Bukowy T, Brown M, Popelier P J Phys Chem A. 2024; 128(39):8551-8560.

PMID: 39303098 PMC: 11457224. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.4c04117.


Tips and Tricks in the Modeling of Supramolecular Peptide Assemblies.

Piskorz T, Perez-Chirinos L, Qiao B, Sasselli I ACS Omega. 2024; 9(29):31254-31273.

PMID: 39072142 PMC: 11270692. DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.4c02628.


References
1.
Best R, Mittal J . Balance between alpha and beta structures in ab initio protein folding. J Phys Chem B. 2010; 114(26):8790-8. DOI: 10.1021/jp102575b. View

2.
Faver J, Benson M, He X, Roberts B, Wang B, Marshall M . The energy computation paradox and ab initio protein folding. PLoS One. 2011; 6(4):e18868. PMC: 3081830. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018868. View

3.
MacKerell Jr A, Feig M, Brooks 3rd C . 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. J Comput Chem. 2004; 25(11):1400-15. DOI: 10.1002/jcc.20065. View

4.
Freddolino L, Freddolino P, Harrison C, Liu Y, Schulten K . Challenges in protein folding simulations: Timescale, representation, and analysis. Nat Phys. 2011; 6(10):751-758. PMC: 3032381. DOI: 10.1038/nphys1713. View

5.
Vendruscolo M, Dobson C . Protein dynamics: Moore's law in molecular biology. Curr Biol. 2011; 21(2):R68-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.11.062. View