Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30514080›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2019

Why Computed Protein Folding Landscapes Are Sensitive to the Water Model.

Ramu Anandakrishnan, Saeed Izadi, Alexey V Onufriev

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Impact of water models on the structure and dynamics of enzyme tunnels.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

3 authors.

Ramu AnandakrishnanDepartment of Biomedical Sciences , Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine , Blacksburg , Virginia 24060 , United States.
Saeed IzadiEarly Stage Pharmaceutical Development , Genentech Inc. , South San Francisco , California 94080 , United States.
Alexey V OnufrievDepartment of Computer Science and Physics, Center for Soft Matter and Biological Physics , Virginia Tech , Blacksburg , Virginia 24061 , United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4930-6612

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 R01 GM076121
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We investigate the effect of solvent models on the computed thermodynamics of protein folding. Atomistic folding simulations of a fast-folding mini-protein, CLN025, were employed to compare two commonly used explicit solvent water models, TIP3P and TIP4P/Ew, and one implicit solvent (AMBER generalized Born) model. Although all three solvent models correctly identify the same native folded state (RMSD = 1.5 ± 0.1 Å relative to the experimental structure), the corresponding free energy landscapes vary drastically between water models: almost an order-of-magnitude difference is seen in the predicted fraction of the unfolded state between the two explicit solvent models, with even larger differences between the implicit and the explicit models. Quantitative arguments are presented for why the sensitivity is expected to hold for other proteins, as well as for other conformational transitions involving large changes in solvent exposed areas such as protein-ligand binding. Comparing protein-solvent and solvent-solvent contributions to the folding energy between different water models, water-water electrostatic interactions are identified as the largest contributor to the differences in the predicted folding energy, which helps explain the strong sensitivity of the folding landscape to subtle details of the water model. For the two explicit solvent models, differences in water model parameters also result in the average number of water molecules surrounding the protein being noticeably different. Water models that poorly reproduce certain bulk properties of liquid water such as self-diffusion are likely to misrepresent water-water interactions; we argue that within a pairwise additive energy function this error cannot, in general, be compensated by an adjustment to the solute-solute and solute-solvent parts of the energy.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationProtein FoldingDiffusionHydrogen BondingMolecular Dynamics SimulationProtein ConformationProteinsSolventsStatic ElectricityThermodynamicsWaterProteinsSolventsWater

Identifiers

PMID30514080
PMCPMC11560320

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.