Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23197943›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2012

Reference simulations of noncanonical nucleic acids with different χ variants of the AMBER force field: quadruplex DNA, quadruplex RNA and Z-DNA.

Miroslav Krepl, Marie Zgarbová, Petr Stadlbauer, Michal Otyepka, Pavel Banáš, Jaroslav Koča, Thomas E Cheatham, Petr Jurečka, Jiří Sponer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing 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

99 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors.

Miroslav KreplInstitute of Biophysics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Kralovopolska 135, 612 65 Brno, Czech Republic.
Marie Zgarbová
Petr Stadlbauer
Michal Otyepka
Pavel Banáš
Jaroslav Koča
Thomas E Cheatham
Petr Jurečka
Jiří Sponer

Funding

Biomolecular simulation for the end-stage refinement of nucleic acid structureR01GM081411 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI CHEATHAM, THOMAS E. · 2008 to 2022
$2.7M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM081411
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Refinement of empirical force fields for nucleic acids requires their extensive testing using as wide range of systems as possible. However, finding unambiguous reference data is not easy. In this paper, we analyze four systems which we suggest should be included in standard portfolio of molecules to test nucleic acids force fields, namely, parallel and antiparallel stranded DNA guanine quadruplex stems, RNA quadruplex stem, and Z-DNA. We highlight parameters that should be monitored to assess the force field performance. The work is primarily based on 8.4 μs of 100-250 ns trajectories analyzed in detail followed by 9.6 μs of additional selected back up trajectories that were monitored to verify that the results of the initial analyses are correct. Four versions of the Cornell et al. AMBER force field are tested, including an entirely new parmχ(OL4) variant with χ dihedral specifically reparametrized for DNA molecules containing syn nucleotides. We test also different water models and ion conditions. While improvement for DNA quadruplexes is visible, the force fields still do not fully represent the intricate Z-DNA backbone conformation.

Identifiers

PMID23197943
PMCPMC3506181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.