A Comparison of Kinetostatic and Multibody Dynamics Models for Simulating Protein Structures

This paper presents an initial comparison of two approaches to energy minimization of protein molecules, namely the Molecular Dynamic Simulation and the Kineto-Static Compliance Method. Both methods are well established and are promising contenders to the seemingly insurmountable task of global optimization in the protein molecules potential energy terrain. The Molecular Dynamic Simulation takes the form of Constrained Multibody Dynamics of interconnected rigid bodies, as implemented at the Virtual Reality Application Center from Iowa State University. The Kineto-Static Compliance Method is implemented in the Protofold Computer package developed in the Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Connecticut. The simulation results of both methods are compared through the trajectory of potential energy, the Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD) of the alpha carbons, as well as based on visual observations. The preliminary results indicate that both techniques are very effective in converging the protein structure to a state with significantly less potential energy. At present, the converged solutions for the two methods are, however, different from each other and are very likely different from the global minimum potential energy state.Copyright © 2007 by ASME

[1]  A Kolinski,et al.  The protein folding problem: a biophysical enigma. , 2002, Current pharmaceutical biotechnology.

[2]  K. Gundertofte,et al.  A comparison of conformational energies calculated by several molecular mechanics methods , 1996 .

[3]  Kazem Kazerounian,et al.  Residue Level Inverse Kinematics of Peptide Chains in the Presence of Observation Inaccuracies and Bond Length Changes , 2007 .

[4]  Laxmikant V. Kalé,et al.  NAMD: a Parallel, Object-Oriented Molecular Dynamics Program , 1996, Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl..

[5]  M. Badescu,et al.  Kinematics and Workspace Analysis of Protein Based Nano-Actuators , 2005 .

[6]  M. Karplus,et al.  CHARMM: A program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations , 1983 .

[7]  Gregory S. Chirikjian,et al.  An operational calculus for the euclidean motion group with applications in robotics and polymer science , 2000 .

[8]  Jenn-Huei Lii,et al.  An improved force field (MM4) for saturated hydrocarbons , 1996, J. Comput. Chem..

[9]  Kazem Kazerounian,et al.  From Mechanisms and Robotics to Protein Conformation and Drug Design , 2004 .

[10]  Valerie Daggett,et al.  Combined Molecular Dynamics and Φ-Value Analysis of Structure−Reactivity Relationships in the Transition State and Unfolding Pathway of Barnase: Structural Basis of Hammond and Anti-Hammond Effects , 1998 .

[11]  Khalid Latif,et al.  Nano-Kinematics for Analysis Of Protein Molecules , 2005 .

[12]  P. Kollman,et al.  A Second Generation Force Field for the Simulation of Proteins, Nucleic Acids, and Organic Molecules , 1995 .

[13]  Constantinos Mavroidis,et al.  Dynamics and kinematics of viral protein linear nano-actuators for bio-nano robotic systems , 2004, IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA '04. 2004.

[14]  John L. Klepeis,et al.  DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematicsand Theoretical Computer Science Global Optimization Approaches in Protein Folding andPeptide , 2007 .

[15]  K. Kazerounian,et al.  Protofold: A Successive Kinetostatic Compliance Method for Protein Conformation Prediction , 2005 .

[16]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Theory of protein folding: the energy landscape perspective. , 1997, Annual review of physical chemistry.

[17]  T. Halgren Merck molecular force field. I. Basis, form, scope, parameterization, and performance of MMFF94 , 1996, J. Comput. Chem..

[18]  Z. Luthey-Schulten,et al.  Ab initio protein structure prediction. , 2002, Current opinion in structural biology.

[19]  R. Cramer,et al.  Validation of the general purpose tripos 5.2 force field , 1989 .

[20]  Kazem Kazerounian Is Design of New Drugs a Challenge for Kinematics , 2002 .

[21]  K. Dill,et al.  From Levinthal to pathways to funnels , 1997, Nature Structural Biology.

[22]  K. Wüthrich,et al.  Torsion angle dynamics for NMR structure calculation with the new program DYANA. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.