» Articles » PMID: 26574427

Stacking Free Energies of All DNA and RNA Nucleoside Pairs and Dinucleoside-Monophosphates Computed Using Recently Revised AMBER Parameters and Compared with Experiment

Overview
Specialties Biochemistry
Chemistry
Date 2015 Nov 18
PMID 26574427
Citations 39
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We report the results of a series of 1-μs-long explicit-solvent molecular dynamics (MD) simulations performed to compare the free energies of stacking (ΔGstack) of all possible combinations of DNA and RNA nucleoside (NS) pairs and dinucleoside-monophosphates (DNMPs). For both NS pairs and DNMPs, we show that the computed stacking free energies are in reasonable qualitative agreement with experimental measurements and appear to provide the closest correspondence with experimental data yet found among computational studies; in all cases, however, the computed stacking free energies are too favorable relative to experimental data. Comparisons of NS-pair systems indicate that stacking interactions are very similar in RNA and DNA systems except when a thymine or uracil base is involved: the presence of a thymine base favors stacking by ∼0.3 kcal/mol relative to a uracil base. One exception is found in the self-stacking of cytidines, which are found to be significantly more favorable for the DNA form; an analysis of the rotational orientations sampled during stacking events suggests that this is likely to be due to more favorable sugar-sugar interactions in stacked complexes of deoxycytidines. Comparisons of the DNMP systems indicate that stacking interactions are more favorable in RNA than in DNA except, again, when thymine or uracil bases are involved. Finally, additional simulations performed using a previous generation of the AMBER force field-in which the description of glycosidic bond rotations was less than optimal-produce computed stacking free energies that are in poorer agreement with experimental data. Overall, the simulations provide a comprehensive view of stacking thermodynamics in NS pairs and in DNMPs as predicted by a state-of-the-art MD force field.

Citing Articles

Spontaneous base flipping helps drive Nsp15's preferences in double stranded RNA substrates.

Wright Z, Butay K, Krahn J, Wilson I, Gabel S, DeRose E Nat Commun. 2025; 16(1):391.

PMID: 39755678 PMC: 11700208. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-55682-0.


Structural impact of 3-methylcytosine modification on the anticodon stem of a neuronally-enriched arginine tRNA.

Berger K, Puthenpeedikakkal A, Mathews D, Fu D bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39605410 PMC: 11601484. DOI: 10.1101/2024.11.18.624017.


Sensing the structural and conformational properties of single-stranded nucleic acids using electrometry and molecular simulations.

Walker-Gibbons R, Zhu X, Behjatian A, Bennett T, Krishnan M Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):20582.

PMID: 39232063 PMC: 11375218. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-70641-x.


RmsdXNA: RMSD prediction of nucleic acid-ligand docking poses using machine-learning method.

Tan L, Keong Kwoh C, Mu Y Brief Bioinform. 2024; 25(3).

PMID: 38695120 PMC: 11063749. DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbae166.


van der Waals Parameter Scanning with Amber Nucleic Acid Force Fields: Revisiting Means to Better Capture the RNA/DNA Structure through MD.

Love O, Winkler L, Cheatham 3rd T J Chem Theory Comput. 2023; 20(2):625-643.

PMID: 38157247 PMC: 10809421. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c01164.


References
1.
Beauchamp K, Lin Y, Das R, Pande V . Are Protein Force Fields Getting Better? A Systematic Benchmark on 524 Diverse NMR Measurements. J Chem Theory Comput. 2012; 8(4):1409-1414. PMC: 3383641. DOI: 10.1021/ct2007814. View

2.
Horn H, Swope W, Pitera J, Madura J, Dick T, Hura G . Development of an improved four-site water model for biomolecular simulations: TIP4P-Ew. J Chem Phys. 2004; 120(20):9665-78. DOI: 10.1063/1.1683075. View

3.
Yildirim I, Kennedy S, Stern H, Hart J, Kierzek R, Turner D . Revision of AMBER Torsional Parameters for RNA Improves Free Energy Predictions for Tetramer Duplexes with GC and iGiC Base Pairs. J Chem Theory Comput. 2012; 8(1):172-181. PMC: 3254190. DOI: 10.1021/ct200557r. View

4.
Bren U, Lah J, Bren M, Martinek V, Florian J . DNA duplex stability: the role of preorganized electrostatics. J Phys Chem B. 2010; 114(8):2876-85. PMC: 2841231. DOI: 10.1021/jp9064246. View

5.
Wang S, Kool E . Origins of the large differences in stability of DNA and RNA helices: C-5 methyl and 2'-hydroxyl effects. Biochemistry. 1995; 34(12):4125-32. DOI: 10.1021/bi00012a031. View