Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19619475›Full record

ArticleBiophysical journal2009

Secondary structure propensities in peptide folding simulations: a systematic comparison of molecular mechanics interaction schemes.

Dirk Matthes, Bert L de Groot

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Biophysical journal, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Current Approaches in Supersecondary Structures Investigation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Dirk MatthesDepartment of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics, Computational Biomolecular Dynamics Group, Max-Planck-Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Göttingen, Germany.
Bert L de Groot

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present a systematic study directed toward the secondary structure propensity and sampling behavior in peptide folding simulations with eight different molecular dynamics force-field variants in explicit solvent. We report on the combinational result of force field, water model, and electrostatic interaction schemes and compare to available experimental characterization of five studied model peptides in terms of reproduced structure and dynamics. The total simulation time exceeded 18 mus and included simulations that started from both folded and extended conformations. Despite remaining sampling issues, a number of distinct trends in the folding behavior of the peptides emerged. Pronounced differences in the propensity of finding prominent secondary structure motifs in the different applied force fields suggest that problems point in particular to the balance of the relative stabilities of helical and extended conformations.

Indexed as

Models, MolecularProtein FoldingAmino Acid SequenceMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyMolecular Sequence DataPeptidesPrincipal Component AnalysisProtein Structure, SecondaryStatic ElectricityThermodynamicsWaterPeptidesWater

Identifiers

PMID19619475
PMCPMC2711344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.