Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25762327›Full record

ArticleBiophysical journal2015

Speed of conformational change: comparing explicit and implicit solvent molecular dynamics simulations.

Ramu Anandakrishnan, Aleksander Drozdetski, Ross C Walker, Alexey V Onufriev

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Biophysical journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

82 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Disrupting Amyloid Filaments of Tau by Means of Electric Fields.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Binding affinity between coronavirus spike protein and human ACE2 receptor.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Design, synthesis,Heliyon · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

22 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

4 authors.

Ramu AnandakrishnanDepartment of Computer Science, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Aleksander DrozdetskiDepartment of Physics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Ross C WalkerSan Diego Supercomputer Center and Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, California.
Alexey V OnufrievDepartment of Computer Science, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia; Department of Physics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia. Electronic address: alexey@cs.vt.edu.

Funding

Analytical Electrostatics: Methods and Biological Applications.R01GM076121 · NIGMS · VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INST AND ST UNIV · PI ONUFRIEV, ALEXEY VLAD · 2006 to 2014
$2.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS GM076121NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM076121
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adequate sampling of conformation space remains challenging in atomistic simulations, especially if the solvent is treated explicitly. Implicit-solvent simulations can speed up conformational sampling significantly. We compare the speed of conformational sampling between two commonly used methods of each class: the explicit-solvent particle mesh Ewald (PME) with TIP3P water model and a popular generalized Born (GB) implicit-solvent model, as implemented in the AMBER package. We systematically investigate small (dihedral angle flips in a protein), large (nucleosome tail collapse and DNA unwrapping), and mixed (folding of a miniprotein) conformational changes, with nominal simulation times ranging from nanoseconds to microseconds depending on system size. The speedups in conformational sampling for GB relative to PME simulations, are highly system- and problem-dependent. Where the simulation temperatures for PME and GB are the same, the corresponding speedups are approximately onefold (small conformational changes), between ∼1- and ∼100-fold (large changes), and approximately sevenfold (mixed case). The effects of temperature on speedup and free-energy landscapes, which may differ substantially between the solvent models, are discussed in detail for the case of miniprotein folding. In addition to speeding up conformational sampling, due to algorithmic differences, the implicit solvent model can be computationally faster for small systems or slower for large systems, depending on the number of solute and solvent atoms. For the conformational changes considered here, the combined speedups are approximately twofold, ∼1- to 60-fold, and ∼50-fold, respectively, in the low solvent viscosity regime afforded by the implicit solvent. For all the systems studied, 1) conformational sampling speedup increases as Langevin collision frequency (effective viscosity) decreases; and 2) conformational sampling speedup is mainly due to reduction in solvent viscosity rather than possible differences in free-energy landscapes between the solvent models.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMolecular Dynamics SimulationDNAKineticsNucleosomesOligopeptidesSolventsTemperatureViscosityDNANucleosomesOligopeptidesSolventsYYDPETGTWY

Identifiers

PMID25762327
PMCPMC4375717

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.