ArticleThe journal of physical chemistry. B2024
Intrinsic Conformational Dynamics of Glycine and Alanine in Polarizable Molecular Dynamics Force Fields: Comparison to Spectroscopic Data.
Article in The journal of physical chemistry. B, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nearest-Neighbor Effects in Short Unfolded Peptides: An Assessment of Molecular Dynamics Force Fields.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- Identification of intracellular target of antimicrobial peptide EWAMP-R in bacteria.Communications biology · 2026Article
- Amber ff24EXP-GA, Based on Empirical Ramachandran Distributions of Glycine and Alanine Residues in Water.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2025Article
- Amino Acid Residue-Specific Ramachandran Distributions Derived from a Simple Mean Field Potential.ACS physical chemistry Au · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Molecular dynamics (MD) is a great tool for elucidating conformational dynamics of proteins and peptides in water at the atomistic level that often surpasses the level of detail available experimentally. Structure predictions, however, are limited by the accuracy of the underlying MD force field. This limitation is particularly stark in the case of intrinsically disordered peptides and proteins, which are characterized by solvent-accessible and disordered peptide regions and domains. Recent studies show that most additive MD force fields, including CHARMM36m, do not reproduce the intrinsic conformational distributions of guest amino acid residues x in cationic GxG peptides in water in line with experimental data. Positing that a lack of polarizability in additive MD force fields may be the culprit for the reported discrepancies, we here examine the conformational dynamics of guest glycine and alanine residues in cationic GxG peptides in water using two polarizable MD force fields, CHARMM Drude and AMOEBA. Our results indicate that while AMOEBA captures the experimental data better than CHARMM Drude, neither of the two polarizable force fields offers an improvement of the Ramachandran distributions of glycine and alanine residues in cationic GGG and GAG peptides, respectively, over CHARMM36m.
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.