Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35637786›Full record

ArticleACS physical chemistry Au2022

Comparison of Grand Canonical and Conventional Molecular Dynamics Simulation Methods for Protein-Bound Water Networks.

Vilhelm Ekberg, Marley L Samways, Majda Misini Ignjatović, Jonathan W Essex, Ulf Ryde

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACS physical chemistry Au, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Vilhelm EkbergDepartment of Theoretical Chemistry, Lund University, Chemical Centre, P.O. Box 124, Lund SE-221 00, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2813-3564
Marley L SamwaysSchool of Chemistry, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, U.K.
Majda Misini IgnjatovićDepartment of Theoretical Chemistry, Lund University, Chemical Centre, P.O. Box 124, Lund SE-221 00, Sweden.
Jonathan W EssexSchool of Chemistry, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, U.K.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2639-2746
Ulf RydeDepartment of Theoretical Chemistry, Lund University, Chemical Centre, P.O. Box 124, Lund SE-221 00, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7653-8489
Lund University · SEUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Water molecules play important roles in all biochemical processes. Therefore, it is of key importance to obtain information of the structure, dynamics, and thermodynamics of water molecules around proteins. Numerous computational methods have been suggested with this aim. In this study, we compare the performance of conventional and grand-canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to sample the water structure, as well GCMC and grid-based inhomogeneous solvation theory (GIST) to describe the energetics of the water network. They are evaluated on two proteins: the buried ligand-binding site of a ferritin dimer and the solvent-exposed binding site of galectin-3. We show that GCMC/MD simulations significantly speed up the sampling and equilibration of water molecules in the buried binding site, thereby making the results more similar for simulations started from different states. Both GCMC/MD and conventional MD reproduce crystal-water molecules reasonably for the buried binding site. GIST analyses are normally based on restrained MD simulations. This improves the precision of the calculated energies, but the restraints also significantly affect both absolute and relative energies. Solvation free energies for individual water molecules calculated with and without restraints show a good correlation, but with large quantitative differences. Finally, we note that the solvation free energies calculated with GIST are ∼5 times larger than those estimated by GCMC owing to differences in the reference state.

Identifiers

PMID35637786
PMCPMC9136951
OpenAlexW4211240751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.