ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2016
Assessing the Current State of Amber Force Field Modifications for DNA.
Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 239 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
239 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular dynamics guided all-atom reconstruction of cryo-ET maps reveals mechanisms of histone tail mediated chromatin compaction.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Rational Polyligand Design for G-Quadruplex Multimer Stabilization.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- The Intrinsic Disordered N-Terminus of Nucleocapsid Protein of SARS-CoV-2 Is Critical in DNA Aptamer Binding.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Pol γ possesses separate metal binding sites for polymerase and strand displacement functions.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Setting the Bases of the Photogenotoxicity ofJournal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- Small Structural Variations, Large Functional Consequences: Comparative Analysis Reveals Structural Control of Ubiquitylation Site Selection by BRCA1/BARD1.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- hexABC seeking the physical code of DNA.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Improving All-Atom Molecular Dynamics Models for Quantitative Prediction of Nanopore Blockade Current.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Decoding the Conformational Dynamics and Hyperactivity of Histone H3K36 N-Methyltransferase in Oncogenic MutationsbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- ApaH decaps NpNature chemical biology · 2026Article
- Molecular basis for noncanonical transcription initiation from NpNature chemical biology · 2026Article
- Sub-2 Å cryo-EM structures of transcribing RNA polymerase II reveal critical roles of water molecules in catalysis.Molecular cell · 2026Article
- DNA Mechanical Strain Steers Transcription Factor Recognition.Research square · 2026Article
- Systematic functional screening of switchable aptamer beacon probes.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- FMOPhore for hotspot identification and efficient fragment-to-lead growth strategies.Nature communications · 2026Article
- H2A.Z facilitates Sox2-nucleosome interaction by promoting DNA and histone H3 tail mobility.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Histone Variant H2A.Z Enhances Histone and Nucleosome Dynamics.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2026Article
- Molecular characterisation of the trafficking rescue of defective ABCB4 variants by roscovitine analogues.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Selective binding of divalent cations reshapes nucleosome mechanics and unlocks histone tail dynamics.Communications biology · 2026Article
- Somatic hypermutation patterns are shaped by both motif position and sequence grammar.The EMBO journal · 2026Article
179 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The utility of molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to model biomolecular structure, dynamics, and interactions has witnessed enormous advances in recent years due to the availability of optimized MD software and access to significant computational power, including GPU multicore computing engines and other specialized hardware. This has led researchers to routinely extend conformational sampling times to the microsecond level and beyond. The extended sampling time has allowed the community not only to converge conformational ensembles through complete sampling but also to discover deficiencies and overcome problems with the force fields. Accuracy of the force fields is a key component, along with sampling, toward being able to generate accurate and stable structures of biopolymers. The Amber force field for nucleic acids has been used extensively since the 1990s, and multiple artifacts have been discovered, corrected, and reassessed by different research groups. We present a direct comparison of two of the most recent and state-of-the-art Amber force field modifications, bsc1 and OL15, that focus on accurate modeling of double-stranded DNA. After extensive MD simulations with five test cases and two different water models, we conclude that both modifications are a remarkable improvement over the previous bsc0 force field. Both force field modifications show better agreement when compared to experimental structures. To ensure convergence, the Drew-Dickerson dodecamer (DDD) system was simulated using 100 independent MD simulations, each extended to at least 10 μs, and the independent MD simulations were concatenated into a single 1 ms long trajectory for each combination of force field and water model. This is significantly beyond the time scale needed to converge the conformational ensemble of the internal portions of a DNA helix absent internal base pair opening. Considering all of the simulations discussed in the current work, the MD simulations performed to assess and validate the current force fields and water models aggregate over 14 ms of simulation time. The results suggest that both the bsc1 and OL15 force fields render average structures that deviate significantly less than 1 Å from the average experimental structures. This can be compared to similar but less exhaustive simulations with the CHARMM 36 force field that aggregate to the ∼90 μs time scale and also perform well but do not produce structures as close to the DDD NMR average structures (with root-mean-square deviations of 1.3 Å) as the newer Amber force fields. On the basis of these analyses, any future research involving double-stranded DNA simulations using the Amber force fields should employ the bsc1 or OL15 modification.
Indexed as
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.