ArticleJournal of molecular modeling2016
Examination of the quality of various force fields and solvation models for the equilibrium simulations of GA88 and GB88.
Article in Journal of molecular modeling, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Elucidating the relationship between sequence and conformation is essential for the understanding of functions of proteins. While sharing 88 % sequence identity and differing by only seven residues, GA88 and GB88 have completely different structures and serve as ideal systems for investigating the relationship between sequence and function. Benefiting from the continuous advancement of the computational ability of modern computers, molecular dynamics (MD) simulation is now playing an increasingly important role in the study of proteins. However, the reliability of MD simulations is limited by the accuracy of the force fields and solvent model approximations. In this work, several AMBER force fields (AMBER03, AMBER99SB, AMBER12SB, AMBER14SB, AMBER96) and solvent models (TIP3P, IGB5, IGB7, IGB8) have been employed in the simulations of GA88 and GB88. The statistical results from 19 simulations show that GA88 and GB88 both adopt more compact structures than the native structures. GB88 is more stable than GA88 regardless of the force fields and solvent models utilized. Most of the simulations overestimated the salt bridge interaction. The combination of AMBER14SB force field and IGB8 solvent model shows the best overall performance in the simulations of both GA88 and GB88. AMBER03 and AMBER12SB also yield reasonable results but only in the TIP3P explicit solvent model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27392746What 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.