ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2025
Molecular Dynamics of the Intrinsically Disordered Protein COR15A─A Force Field Validation on Structure and Dynamics.
Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Complete NMR assignment for 275 of the most common dipeptides in intrinsically disordered proteins.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Evaluating Force Matching as a Parametrization Strategy for the CHARMM36m Force Field Using Phosphorylation.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2026Article
- Backbone rigidity of disordered protein linkers from NMR experiments and MD simulations.Biophysical journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) pose a challenge for structural characterization, as experimental methods lack the subnanometer/subnanosecond resolution to capture their dynamic conformational ensembles. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations can, in principle, provide this information, but for the simulation of IDPs, dedicated protein and water force fields are needed, as traditional MD models for folded proteins prove inadequate for IDPs. Substantial effort was invested to develop IDP-specific force fields, but their performance in describing IDPs that undergo conformational changes─such as those induced by molecular partner binding or changes in solution environment─remains underexplored. In this study, we investigated the ability of 20 MD models to accurately simulate structural and dynamic aspects of COR15A, an IDP just on the verge of folding, with a particular focus on their ability to capture subtle structural differences. We employ a two-step approach: (i) validation of short 200 ns simulations against small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) data and (ii) detailed evaluation of the six best-performing MD models through extended 1.2 μs MD simulations against nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) data, including a single-point mutant with slightly increased helicity. Only DES-amber and ff99SBws capture helicity differences between wild-type and mutant, but ff99SBws overestimates helicity. Notably, only DES-amber adequately reproduces the COR15A dynamics, as assessed by NMR relaxation times at two different magnetic field strengths. Among the tested force fields, DES-amber emerges as the best MD model for the simulation of COR15A. Its application provides insights into its dynamic conformational landscape, albeit not perfectly reproducing all experimental data. Our study highlights the need for rigorous force field validation for IDPs and identifies remaining discrepancies in need of further force-field development.
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.