Assessing the performance of the MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 6. Capability to predict protein-protein binding free energies and re-rank binding poses generated by protein-protein docking.

Understanding protein-protein interactions (PPIs) is quite important to elucidate crucial biological processes and even design compounds that interfere with PPIs with pharmaceutical significance. Protein-protein docking can afford the atomic structural details of protein-protein complexes, but the accurate prediction of the three-dimensional structures for protein-protein systems is still notoriously difficult due in part to the lack of an ideal scoring function for protein-protein docking. Compared with most scoring functions used in protein-protein docking, the Molecular Mechanics/Generalized Born Surface Area (MM/GBSA) and Molecular Mechanics/Poisson Boltzmann Surface Area (MM/PBSA) methodologies are more theoretically rigorous, but their overall performance for the predictions of binding affinities and binding poses for protein-protein systems has not been systematically evaluated. In this study, we first evaluated the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA to predict the binding affinities for 46 protein-protein complexes. On the whole, different force fields, solvation models, and interior dielectric constants have obvious impacts on the prediction accuracy of MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA. The MM/GBSA calculations based on the ff02 force field, the GB model developed by Onufriev et al. and a low interior dielectric constant (εin = 1) yield the best correlation between the predicted binding affinities and the experimental data (rp = -0.647), which is better than MM/PBSA (rp = -0.523) and a number of empirical scoring functions used in protein-protein docking (rp = -0.141 to -0.529). Then, we examined the capability of MM/GBSA to identify the possible near-native binding structures from the decoys generated by ZDOCK for 43 protein-protein systems. The results illustrate that the MM/GBSA rescoring has better capability to distinguish the correct binding structures from the decoys than the ZDOCK scoring. Besides, the optimal interior dielectric constant of MM/GBSA for re-ranking docking poses may be determined by analyzing the characteristics of protein-protein binding interfaces. Considering the relatively high prediction accuracy and low computational cost, MM/GBSA may be a good choice for predicting the binding affinities and identifying correct binding structures for protein-protein systems.

[1]  Narayanaswamy Srinivasan,et al.  From workstations to workbenches: Towards predicting physicochemically viable protein–protein interactions across a host and a pathogen , 2014, IUBMB life.

[2]  Tingjun Hou,et al.  Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 5. Improved docking performance using high solute dielectric constant MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA rescoring. , 2014, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[3]  Sheng-You Huang,et al.  Search strategies and evaluation in protein-protein docking: principles, advances and challenges. , 2014, Drug discovery today.

[4]  Youyong Li,et al.  Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 4. Accuracies of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methodologies evaluated by various simulation protocols using PDBbind data set. , 2014, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[5]  Jessica Andreani,et al.  Evolution of protein interactions: from interactomes to interfaces. , 2014, Archives of biochemistry and biophysics.

[6]  Zhiping Weng,et al.  ZDOCK server: interactive docking prediction of protein-protein complexes and symmetric multimers , 2014, Bioinform..

[7]  Holger Gohlke,et al.  DrugScorePPI Knowledge-Based Potentials Used as Scoring and Objective Function in Protein-Protein Docking , 2014, PloS one.

[8]  Ilya A Vakser,et al.  Protein models: The Grand Challenge of protein docking , 2014, Proteins.

[9]  J. Hoheisel,et al.  Methods for analyzing and quantifying protein–protein interaction , 2014, Expert review of proteomics.

[10]  Shoba Ranganathan,et al.  Protein-protein interactions and prediction: a comprehensive overview. , 2013, Protein and peptide letters.

[11]  Olli T. Pentikäinen,et al.  MMGBSA As a Tool To Understand the Binding Affinities of Filamin-Peptide Interactions , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[12]  David S. Palmer,et al.  Hot-spot mapping of the interactions between chymosin and bovine κ-casein. , 2013, Journal of agricultural and food chemistry.

[13]  Youyong Li,et al.  Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 3. The impact of force fields and ligand charge models. , 2013, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[14]  Jin Wang,et al.  Specificity and affinity quantification of protein-protein interactions , 2013, Bioinform..

[15]  D. V. S. Ravikant,et al.  Improving ranking of models for protein complexes with side chain modeling and atomic potentials , 2013, Proteins.

[16]  C. Bajaj,et al.  Protein-Protein Docking with F2Dock 2.0 and GB-Rerank , 2013, PloS one.

[17]  D. Braun,et al.  Microscale thermophoresis quantifies biomolecular interactions under previously challenging conditions. , 2013, Methods.

[18]  Garrett M. Morris,et al.  Molecular Determinants of Binding to the Plasmodium Subtilisin-like Protease 1 , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[19]  P. Kastritis,et al.  On the binding affinity of macromolecular interactions: daring to ask why proteins interact , 2013, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[20]  Katrin Deinhardt,et al.  Protein–protein interactions: switch from classical methods to proteomics and bioinformatics-based approaches , 2013, Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences.

[21]  Nobuyuki Matubayasi,et al.  Evaluation of protein-protein docking model structures using all-atom molecular dynamics simulations combined with the solution theory in the energy representation. , 2012, The Journal of chemical physics.

[22]  Holger Gohlke,et al.  Modulating protein-protein interactions: from structural determinants of binding to druggability prediction to application. , 2012, Current pharmaceutical design.

[23]  Tom L. Blundell,et al.  Biophysical and computational fragment-based approaches to targeting protein–protein interactions: applications in structure-guided drug discovery , 2012, Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics.

[24]  H. Gohlke,et al.  Structure-based computational analysis of protein binding sites for function and druggability prediction. , 2012, Journal of biotechnology.

[25]  Zhiping Weng,et al.  Prediction of protein–protein binding free energies , 2012, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[26]  H. Gohlke,et al.  Free Energy Calculations by the Molecular Mechanics Poisson−Boltzmann Surface Area Method , 2012, Molecular informatics.

[27]  B. Collins,et al.  Applications of isothermal titration calorimetry in pure and applied research—survey of the literature from 2010 , 2012, Journal of molecular recognition : JMR.

[28]  Vittorio Scarano,et al.  COCOMAPS: a web application to analyze and visualize contacts at the interface of biomolecular complexes , 2011, Bioinform..

[29]  Zhiping Weng,et al.  Accelerating Protein Docking in ZDOCK Using an Advanced 3D Convolution Library , 2011, PloS one.

[30]  Tingjun Hou,et al.  Assessing the performance of the molecular mechanics/Poisson Boltzmann surface area and molecular mechanics/generalized Born surface area methods. II. The accuracy of ranking poses generated from docking , 2011, J. Comput. Chem..

[31]  P. Kastritis,et al.  Erratum: Are scoring functions in protein - Protein Docking Ready to predict interactomes? Clues from a novel binding affinity benchmark (Journal of Proteome Research (2010) 9 (2216-2225) , 2011 .

[32]  Tingjun Hou,et al.  Assessing the Performance of the MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA Methods. 1. The Accuracy of Binding Free Energy Calculations Based on Molecular Dynamics Simulations , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[33]  Richard T. Bradshaw,et al.  Comparing experimental and computational alanine scanning techniques for probing a prototypical protein-protein interaction. , 2011, Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS.

[34]  Zhiping Weng,et al.  Protein–protein docking benchmark version 4.0 , 2010, Proteins.

[35]  Dror Tobi,et al.  Designing coarse grained-and atom based-potentials for protein-protein docking , 2010, BMC Structural Biology.

[36]  Xiaoqin Zou,et al.  Scoring functions and their evaluation methods for protein-ligand docking: recent advances and future directions. , 2010, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[37]  P. Kastritis,et al.  Are scoring functions in protein-protein docking ready to predict interactomes? Clues from a novel binding affinity benchmark. , 2010, Journal of proteome research.

[38]  Kurt Gebruers,et al.  Identification of structural determinants for inhibition strength and specificity of wheat xylanase inhibitors TAXI‐IA and TAXI‐IIA , 2009, The FEBS journal.

[39]  Stephen R Comeau,et al.  DARS (Decoys As the Reference State) potentials for protein-protein docking. , 2008, Biophysical journal.

[40]  Jianping Ding,et al.  Structural studies of Saccharomyces cerevesiae mitochondrial NADP‐dependent isocitrate dehydrogenase in different enzymatic states reveal substantial conformational changes during the catalytic reaction , 2008, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[41]  Ilya A Vakser,et al.  Predicting 3D structures of protein-protein complexes. , 2008, Current pharmaceutical biotechnology.

[42]  Z. Weng,et al.  Integrating statistical pair potentials into protein complex prediction , 2007, Proteins.

[43]  Kalle Gehring,et al.  Structural basis for ubiquitin-mediated dimerization and activation of the ubiquitin protein ligase Cbl-b. , 2007, Molecular cell.

[44]  Daniel Borgis,et al.  A coarse-grained protein-protein potential derived from an all-atom force field. , 2007, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[45]  J. Sondek,et al.  The DH and PH domains of Trio coordinately engage Rho GTPases for their efficient activation. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[46]  J. Whisstock,et al.  The structure of chagasin in complex with a cysteine protease clarifies the binding mode and evolution of an inhibitor family. , 2007, Structure.

[47]  I. Wilson,et al.  Maturation of shark single-domain (IgNAR) antibodies: evidence for induced-fit binding. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[48]  M. Wilmanns,et al.  Recognition of a functional peroxisome type 1 target by the dynamic import receptor pex5p. , 2006, Molecular cell.

[49]  Manfred Auer,et al.  Structural and Biophysical Characterization of the EphB4·EphrinB2 Protein-Protein Interaction and Receptor Specificity* , 2006, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[50]  Holger Gohlke,et al.  Targeting protein-protein interactions with small molecules: challenges and perspectives for computational binding epitope detection and ligand finding. , 2006, Current medicinal chemistry.

[51]  Xiaojie Xu,et al.  Recent Advances in Free Energy Calculations with a Combination of Molecular Mechanics and Continuum Models , 2006 .

[52]  Ray Luo,et al.  How well does Poisson-Boltzmann implicit solvent agree with explicit solvent? A quantitative analysis. , 2006, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[53]  Udo Heinemann,et al.  Structure of the Bet3-Tpc6B core of TRAPP: two Tpc6 paralogs form trimeric complexes with Bet3 and Mum2. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[54]  R. Fletterick,et al.  Structural basis for unique mechanisms of folding and hemoglobin binding by a malarial protease. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[55]  D. Lambright,et al.  TBC-domain GAPs for Rab GTPases accelerate GTP hydrolysis by a dual-finger mechanism , 2006, Nature.

[56]  D. Shaw,et al.  Structure of Human Urokinase Plasminogen Activator in Complex with Its Receptor , 2006, Science.

[57]  Ken Chen,et al.  Computational Analysis and Prediction of the Binding Motif and Protein Interacting Partners of the Abl SH3 Domain , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[58]  Holger Gohlke,et al.  The Amber biomolecular simulation programs , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[59]  Yigong Shi,et al.  Structure and mechanisms of the proteasome‐associated deubiquitinating enzyme USP14 , 2005, The EMBO journal.

[60]  S. Harrison,et al.  Structure of SARS Coronavirus Spike Receptor-Binding Domain Complexed with Receptor , 2005, Science.

[61]  T. Tsukihara,et al.  Conformational changes in the tryptophan synthase from a hyperthermophile upon α2β2 complex formation : Crystal structure of the complex , 2005 .

[62]  D. Lambright,et al.  Structural basis of family-wide Rab GTPase recognition by rabenosyn-5 , 2005, Nature.

[63]  Andreas Bracher,et al.  Regulation of Hsp70 function by HspBP1: structural analysis reveals an alternate mechanism for Hsp70 nucleotide exchange. , 2005, Molecular cell.

[64]  Robert C. Liddington,et al.  Crystal structure of a complex between anthrax toxin and its host cell receptor , 2004, Nature.

[65]  W. Sundquist,et al.  Ubiquitin recognition by the human TSG101 protein. , 2004, Molecular cell.

[66]  A. D. de Vos,et al.  The Crystal Structure of Placental Growth Factor in Complex with Domain 2 of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor-1* , 2004, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[67]  Holger Gohlke,et al.  Converging free energy estimates: MM‐PB(GB)SA studies on the protein–protein complex Ras–Raf , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[68]  James R Horn,et al.  Structure and energetics of protein-protein interactions: the role of conformational heterogeneity in OMTKY3 binding to serine proteases. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[69]  K. Volz,et al.  Canonical Inhibitor-like Interactions Explain Reactivity of α1-Proteinase Inhibitor Pittsburgh and Antithrombin with Proteinases* , 2003, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[70]  R. Abagyan,et al.  ICM‐DISCO docking by global energy optimization with fully flexible side‐chains , 2003, Proteins.

[71]  M. James,et al.  Structural Basis of Inhibition Revealed by a 1:2 Complex of the Two-headed Tomato Inhibitor-II and Subtilisin Carlsberg* , 2003, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[72]  Naohiro Matsugaki,et al.  Molecular mechanism of membrane recruitment of GGA by ARF in lysosomal protein transport , 2003, Nature Structural Biology.

[73]  Robert C Robinson,et al.  The calcium activation of gelsolin: insights from the 3A structure of the G4-G6/actin complex. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[74]  Tracy M. Handel,et al.  Structural Basis of Chemokine Sequestration by a Herpesvirus Decoy Receptor , 2002, Cell.

[75]  J. Sixma,et al.  Structures of Glycoprotein Ibα and Its Complex with von Willebrand Factor A1 Domain , 2002, Science.

[76]  R. Liddington,et al.  Structural basis of von Willebrand factor activation by the snake toxin botrocetin. , 2002, Structure.

[77]  L. Wyns,et al.  Three camelid VHH domains in complex with porcine pancreatic alpha-amylase. Inhibition and versatility of binding topology. , 2002, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[78]  Roberto Dominguez,et al.  Crystal structures of the vitamin D-binding protein and its complex with actin: Structural basis of the actin-scavenger system , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[79]  W. Delano Unraveling hot spots in binding interfaces: progress and challenges. , 2002, Current opinion in structural biology.

[80]  Matthias Wilmanns,et al.  Structural evidence for ammonia tunneling across the (beta alpha)(8) barrel of the imidazole glycerol phosphate synthase bienzyme complex. , 2002, Structure.

[81]  M. Mathieu,et al.  Complexation of Two Proteic Insect Inhibitors to the Active Site of Chymotrypsin Suggests Decoupled Roles for Binding and Selectivity* , 2001, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[82]  L. Presta,et al.  The 1.85 A resolution crystal structures of tissue factor in complex with humanized Fab D3h44 and of free humanized Fab D3h44: revisiting the solvation of antigen combining sites. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[83]  O. Issinger,et al.  Crystal structure of human protein kinase CK2: insights into basic properties of the CK2 holoenzyme , 2001, The EMBO journal.

[84]  Susan Jensen,et al.  Crystal structure and kinetic analysis of β-lactamase inhibitor protein-II in complex with TEM-1 β-lactamase , 2001, Nature Structural Biology.

[85]  B. Stoddard,et al.  Structure of a factor VIII C2 domain-immunoglobulin G4kappa Fab complex: identification of an inhibitory antibody epitope on the surface of factor VIII. , 2001, Blood.

[86]  Kenji Ogura,et al.  Novel recognition mode between Vav and Grb2 SH3 domains , 2001, The EMBO journal.

[87]  V. Michael Holers,et al.  Structure of Complement Receptor 2 in Complex with Its C3d Ligand , 2001, Science.

[88]  S. Smerdon,et al.  The structural basis of Arfaptin-mediated cross-talk between Rac and Arf signalling pathways , 2001, Nature.

[89]  K. Strauch,et al.  Structure of CD40 ligand in complex with the Fab fragment of a neutralizing humanized antibody. , 2001, Structure.

[90]  Gleb Bourenkov,et al.  Adrenodoxin Reductase-Adrenodoxin Complex Structure Suggests Electron Transfer Path in Steroid Biosynthesis* , 2001, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[91]  A. Sali,et al.  Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. , 2000, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[92]  Phillip T. Hawkins,et al.  Crystal Structure and Functional Analysis of Ras Binding to Its Effector Phosphoinositide 3-Kinase γ , 2000, Cell.

[93]  P A Kollman,et al.  Free energy calculations on dimer stability of the HIV protease using molecular dynamics and a continuum solvent model. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[94]  S. Smerdon,et al.  Structure of the TPR domain of p67phox in complex with Rac.GTP. , 2000, Molecular cell.

[95]  S Cusack,et al.  Mutual conformational adaptations in antigen and antibody upon complex formation between an Fab and HIV-1 capsid protein p24. , 2000, Structure.

[96]  E. Lattman,et al.  High apparent dielectric constants in the interior of a protein reflect water penetration. , 2000, Biophysical journal.

[97]  J. Hoch,et al.  A transient interaction between two phosphorelay proteins trapped in a crystal lattice reveals the mechanism of molecular recognition and phosphotransfer in signal transduction. , 2000, Structure.

[98]  M. Gajhede,et al.  Dominant Epitopes and Allergic Cross-Reactivity: Complex Formation Between a Fab Fragment of a Monoclonal Murine IgG Antibody and the Major Allergen from Birch Pollen Bet v 11 , 2000, The Journal of Immunology.

[99]  R J Fletterick,et al.  Compromise and accommodation in ecotin, a dimeric macromolecular inhibitor of serine proteases. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[100]  B. Brandsdal,et al.  Evaluation of protein-protein association energies by free energy perturbation calculations. , 2000, Protein engineering.

[101]  D. Case,et al.  Modification of the Generalized Born Model Suitable for Macromolecules , 2000 .

[102]  R. Huber,et al.  Specific inhibition of insect α-amylases: yellow meal worm α-amylase in complex with the Amaranth α-amylase inhibitor at 2.0 Å resolution , 1999 .

[103]  Gerhard Wagner,et al.  Structure of a Heterophilic Adhesion Complex between the Human CD2 and CD58 (LFA-3) Counterreceptors , 1999, Cell.

[104]  Alfred Wittinghofer,et al.  Structural View of the Ran–Importin β Interaction at 2.3 Å Resolution , 1999, Cell.

[105]  Morgan Huse,et al.  Crystal Structure of the Cytoplasmic Domain of the Type I TGF β Receptor in Complex with FKBP12 , 1999, Cell.

[106]  Jörg Weiser,et al.  Approximate atomic surfaces from linear combinations of pairwise overlaps (LCPO) , 1999, J. Comput. Chem..

[107]  T. Ko,et al.  The crystal structure of the DNase domain of colicin E7 in complex with its inhibitor Im7 protein. , 1999, Structure.

[108]  Gregory R. Hoffman,et al.  Structures of Cdc42 bound to the active and catalytically compromised forms of Cdc42GAP , 1998, Nature Structural Biology.

[109]  A. D. de Vos,et al.  VEGF and the Fab fragment of a humanized neutralizing antibody: crystal structure of the complex at 2.4 A resolution and mutational analysis of the interface. , 1998, Structure.

[110]  E. Getzoff,et al.  Structural basis for the binding of an anti-cytochrome c antibody to its antigen: crystal structures of FabE8-cytochrome c complex to 1.8 A resolution and FabE8 to 2.26 A resolution. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[111]  L. Prasad,et al.  The 2.5 A resolution structure of the jel42 Fab fragment/HPr complex. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[112]  Robert Huber,et al.  A novel strategy for inhibition of α-amylases: yellow meal worm α-amylase in complex with the Ragi bifunctional inhibitor at 2.5 å resolution , 1998 .

[113]  A. McCoy,et al.  Structural basis for molecular recognition between nuclear transport factor 2 (NTF2) and the GDP-bound form of the Ras-family GTPase Ran. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[114]  S R Sprang,et al.  Crystal structure of the catalytic domains of adenylyl cyclase in a complex with Gsalpha.GTPgammaS. , 1997 .

[115]  W. Kabsch,et al.  The Ras-RasGAP complex: structural basis for GTPase activation and its loss in oncogenic Ras mutants. , 1997, Science.

[116]  D. Stuart,et al.  Crystal structure of the complex between human CD8αα and HLA-A2 , 1997, Nature.

[117]  W. Sundquist,et al.  Crystal Structure of Human Cyclophilin A Bound to the Amino-Terminal Domain of HIV-1 Capsid , 1996, Cell.

[118]  Gregory D. Hawkins,et al.  Parametrized Models of Aqueous Free Energies of Solvation Based on Pairwise Descreening of Solute Atomic Charges from a Dielectric Medium , 1996 .

[119]  John A Tainer,et al.  Crystal Structure and Mutational Analysis of the Human CDK2 Kinase Complex with Cell Cycle–Regulatory Protein CksHs1 , 1996, Cell.

[120]  P. Taylor,et al.  Acetylcholinesterase inhibition by fasciculin: Crystal structure of the complex , 1995, Cell.

[121]  Renos Savva,et al.  Nucleotide mimicry in the crystal structure of the uracil-DNA glycosylase–uracil glycosylase inhibitor protein complex , 1995, Nature Structural Biology.

[122]  A Coda,et al.  Structure of a complex of two plasma proteins: transthyretin and retinol-binding protein. , 1995, Science.

[123]  R. Huber,et al.  The crystal structure of porcine pancreatic alpha-amylase in complex with the microbial inhibitor Tendamistat. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[124]  J. Deisenhofer,et al.  A structural basis of the interactions between leucine-rich repeats and protein ligands , 1995, Nature.

[125]  Kenneth D. Jordan,et al.  Comparison of Density Functional and MP2 Calculations on the Water Monomer and Dimer , 1994 .

[126]  L. Chen,et al.  Structure of an electron transfer complex: methylamine dehydrogenase, amicyanin, and cytochrome c551i. , 1994, Science.

[127]  C. Schutt,et al.  The structure of crystalline profilin–β-actin , 1993, Nature.

[128]  T. Darden,et al.  Particle mesh Ewald: An N⋅log(N) method for Ewald sums in large systems , 1993 .

[129]  W G Laver,et al.  Refined crystal structure of the influenza virus N9 neuraminidase-NC41 Fab complex. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[130]  Y. Satow,et al.  Refined crystal structure of the complex of subtilisin BPN' and Streptomyces subtilisin inhibitor at 1.8 A resolution. , 1991, Journal of molecular biology.

[131]  D. Schomburg,et al.  Three-dimensional structure of the complexes between bovine chymotrypsinogen A and two recombinant variants of human pancreatic secretory trypsin inhibitor (Kazal-type). , 1991, Journal of molecular biology.

[132]  J Otlewski,et al.  The refined 2.0 Å X‐ray crystal structure of the complex formed between bovine β‐trypsin and CMTI‐I, a trypsin inhibitor from squash seeds (Cucurbita maxima) Topological similarity of the squash seed inhibitors with the carboxypeptidase A inhibitor from potatoes , 1989, FEBS letters.

[133]  D C Rees,et al.  Refined crystal structure of the potato inhibitor complex of carboxypeptidase A at 2.5 A resolution. , 1982, Journal of molecular biology.

[134]  G. Ciccotti,et al.  Numerical Integration of the Cartesian Equations of Motion of a System with Constraints: Molecular Dynamics of n-Alkanes , 1977 .