» Articles » PMID: 34812627

How the Choice of Force-Field Affects the Stability and Self-Assembly Process of Supramolecular CTA Fibers

Overview
Specialties Biochemistry
Chemistry
Date 2021 Nov 23
PMID 34812627
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In recent years, computational methods have become an essential element of studies focusing on the self-assembly process. Although they provide unique insights, they face challenges, from which two are the most often mentioned in the literature: the temporal and spatial scale of the self-assembly. A less often mentioned issue, but not less important, is the choice of the force-field. The repetitive nature of the supramolecular structure results in many similar interactions. Consequently, even a small deviation in these interactions can lead to significant energy differences in the whole structure. However, studies comparing different force-fields for self-assembling systems are scarce. In this article, we compare molecular dynamics simulations for trifold hydrogen-bonded fibers performed with different force-fields, namely GROMOS, CHARMM General Force Field (CGenFF), CHARMM Drude, General Amber Force-Field (GAFF), Martini, and polarized Martini. Briefly, we tested the force-fields by simulating: (i) spontaneous self-assembly (none form a fiber within 500 ns), (ii) stability of the fiber (observed for CHARMM Drude, GAFF, MartiniP), (iii) dimerization (observed for GROMOS, GAFF, and MartiniP), and (iv) oligomerization (observed for CHARMM Drude and MartiniP). This system shows that knowledge of the force-field behavior regarding interactions in oligomer and larger self-assembled structures is crucial for designing efficient simulation protocols for self-assembling systems.

Citing Articles

Cooperativity and Frustration Effects (or Lack Thereof) in Polarizable and Non-polarizable Force Fields.

Nochebuena J, Piquemal J, Liu S, Cisneros G J Chem Theory Comput. 2023; 19(21):7715-7730.

PMID: 37888874 PMC: 11078293. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00762.


Structural basis of NINJ1-mediated plasma membrane rupture in cell death.

Degen M, Santos J, Pluhackova K, Cebrero G, Ramos S, Jankevicius G Nature. 2023; 618(7967):1065-1071.

PMID: 37198476 PMC: 10307626. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-023-05991-z.


Unbreaking Assemblies in Molecular Simulations with Periodic Boundaries.

Bruininks B, Wassenaar T, Vattulainen I J Chem Inf Model. 2023; 63(11):3448-3452.

PMID: 37171034 PMC: 10268952. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jcim.2c01574.


Short Peptide Self-Assembly in the Martini Coarse-Grain Force Field Family.

van Teijlingen A, Smith M, Tuttle T Acc Chem Res. 2023; 56(6):644-654.

PMID: 36866851 PMC: 10035038. DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.2c00810.


Does the inclusion of electronic polarisability lead to a better modelling of peptide aggregation?.

Kav B, Strodel B RSC Adv. 2022; 12(32):20829-20837.

PMID: 35919139 PMC: 9301629. DOI: 10.1039/d2ra01478e.

References
1.
Wang J, Wolf R, Caldwell J, Kollman P, Case D . Development and testing of a general amber force field. J Comput Chem. 2004; 25(9):1157-74. DOI: 10.1002/jcc.20035. View

2.
Yuan C, Li S, Zou Q, Ren Y, Yan X . Multiscale simulations for understanding the evolution and mechanism of hierarchical peptide self-assembly. Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2017; 19(35):23614-23631. DOI: 10.1039/c7cp01923h. View

3.
Tang X, Koenig P, Larson R . Molecular dynamics simulations of sodium dodecyl sulfate micelles in water-the effect of the force field. J Phys Chem B. 2014; 118(14):3864-80. DOI: 10.1021/jp410689m. View

4.
Arefi H, Yamamoto T . Communication: Self-assembly of a model supramolecular polymer studied by replica exchange with solute tempering. J Chem Phys. 2017; 147(21):211102. DOI: 10.1063/1.5008275. View

5.
Frederix P, Scott G, Abul-Haija Y, Kalafatovic D, Pappas C, Javid N . Exploring the sequence space for (tri-)peptide self-assembly to design and discover new hydrogels. Nat Chem. 2014; 7(1):30-7. DOI: 10.1038/nchem.2122. View