ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2006
Minimalist explicit solvation models for surface loops in proteins.
Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Open and Closed Form of Maltose Binding Protein in Its Native and Molten Globule State As Studied by Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Spectroscopy.Biochemistry · 2018Article
- Conformational energy range of ligands in protein crystal structures: The difficult quest for accurate understanding.Journal of molecular recognition : JMR · 2017Review
- Entropy and Free Energy of a Mobile Loop Based on the Crystal Structures of the Free and Bound Proteins.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We have performed molecular dynamics simulations of protein surface loops solvated by explicit water, where a prime focus of the study is the small numbers (e.g., ~100) of explicit water molecules employed. The models include only part of the protein (typically 500 - 1000 atoms), and the water molecules are restricted to a region surrounding the loop. In this study, the number of water molecules (N(w)) is systematically varied, and convergence with large N(w) is monitored to reveal N(w)(min), the minimum number required for the loop to exhibit realistic (fully hydrated) behavior. We have also studied protein surface coverage, as well as diffusion and residence times for water molecules as a function of N(w). A number of other modeling parameters are also tested. These include the number of environmental protein atoms explicitly considered in the model, as well as two ways to constrain the water molecules to the vicinity of the loop (where we find one of these methods to perform better when N(w) is small). The results (for RMSD and its fluctuations for four loops) are further compared to much larger, fully solvated systems (using ~10,000 water molecules under periodic boundary conditions and Ewald electrostatics), and to results for the GBSA implicit solvation model. We find that the loop backbone can stabilize with a surprisingly small number of water molecules (as low as 5 molecules per amino acid residue). The side chains of the loop require somewhat larger N(w), where the atomic fluctuations become too small if N(w) is further reduced. Thus, in general, we find adequate hydration to occur at roughly 12 water molecules per residue. This is an important result, because at this hydration level, computational times are comparable to those required for GBSA. Therefore these "minimalist explicit models" can provide a viable and potentially more accurate alternative. The importance of protein loop modeling is discussed in the context of these, and other, loop models, along with other challenges including the relevance of appropriate free energy simulation methodology for assessment of conformational stability.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.