Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Intrinsically Disordered Proteins: Force Field Evaluation and Comparison with Experiment.

An increasing number of studies using molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of unfolded and intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) suggest that current force fields sample conformations that are overly collapsed. Here, we study the applicability of several state-of-the-art MD force fields, of the AMBER and GROMOS variety, for the simulation of Histatin 5, a short (24 residues) cationic salivary IDP with antimicrobial and antifungal properties. The quality of the simulations is assessed in three complementary analyses: (i) protein shape and size comparison with recent experimental small-angle X-ray scattering data; (ii) secondary structure prediction; (iii) energy landscape exploration and conformational class analysis. Our results show that, indeed, standard force fields sample conformations that are too compact, being systematically unable to reproduce experimental evidence such as the scattering function, the shape of the protein as compared with the Kratky plot, and intrapeptide distances obtained through the pair distance distribution function, p(r). The consistency of this deviation suggests that the problem is not mainly due to protein-protein or water-water interactions, whose parametrization varies the most between force fields and water models. In fact, as originally proposed in [ Best et al. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2014, 10, 5113 - 5124.], balanced protein-water interactions may be the key to solving this problem. Our simulations using this approach produce results in very good agreement with experiment.

[1]  Roger Fletcher,et al.  A Rapidly Convergent Descent Method for Minimization , 1963, Comput. J..

[2]  P. Y. Chou,et al.  Conformational parameters for amino acids in helical, beta-sheet, and random coil regions calculated from proteins. , 1974, Biochemistry.

[3]  H. Berendsen,et al.  Interaction Models for Water in Relation to Protein Hydration , 1981 .

[4]  W. Kabsch,et al.  Dictionary of protein secondary structure: Pattern recognition of hydrogen‐bonded and geometrical features , 1983, Biopolymers.

[5]  W. L. Jorgensen,et al.  Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water , 1983 .

[6]  H. Berendsen,et al.  Molecular dynamics with coupling to an external bath , 1984 .

[7]  Jorge Nocedal,et al.  On the limited memory BFGS method for large scale optimization , 1989, Math. Program..

[8]  P. A. Raj,et al.  Salivary histatin 5: dependence of sequence, chain length, and helical conformation for candidacidal activity. , 1990, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[9]  Dmitri I. Svergun,et al.  Determination of the regularization parameter in indirect-transform methods using perceptual criteria , 1992 .

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

[11]  V. Muñoz,et al.  Intrinsic secondary structure propensities of the amino acids, using statistical ϕ–ψ matrices: Comparison with experimental scales , 1994 .

[12]  D. Svergun,et al.  CRYSOL : a program to evaluate X-ray solution scattering of biological macromolecules from atomic coordinates , 1995 .

[13]  D. van der Spoel,et al.  GROMACS: A message-passing parallel molecular dynamics implementation , 1995 .

[14]  Wilfred F. van Gunsteren,et al.  A generalized reaction field method for molecular dynamics simulations , 1995 .

[15]  Berk Hess,et al.  LINCS: A linear constraint solver for molecular simulations , 1997 .

[16]  P. A. Raj,et al.  Structure of human salivary histatin 5 in aqueous and nonaqueous solutions. , 1998, Biopolymers.

[17]  G. Lajoie,et al.  NMR studies of the antimicrobial salivary peptides histatin 3 and histatin 5 in aqueous and nonaqueous solutions. , 1998, Biochemistry and cell biology = Biochimie et biologie cellulaire.

[18]  S. Balasubramanian,et al.  Role of alpha-helical conformation of histatin-5 in candidacidal activity examined by proline variants. , 2000, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[19]  P. Kollman,et al.  How well does a restrained electrostatic potential (RESP) model perform in calculating conformational energies of organic and biological molecules? , 2000 .

[20]  T. Abee,et al.  Characterization of Histatin 5 with Respect to Amphipathicity, Hydrophobicity, and Effects on Cell and Mitochondrial Membrane Integrity Excludes a Candidacidal Mechanism of Pore Formation* , 2001, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[21]  Berk Hess,et al.  GROMACS 3.0: a package for molecular simulation and trajectory analysis , 2001 .

[22]  C. Soares,et al.  Constant-pH molecular dynamics using stochastic titration , 2002 .

[23]  Vladimir N Uversky,et al.  A Protein-Chameleon: Conformational Plasticity of α-Synuclein, a Disordered Protein Involved in Neurodegenerative Disorders , 2003, Journal of biomolecular structure & dynamics.

[24]  Chris Oostenbrink,et al.  A biomolecular force field based on the free enthalpy of hydration and solvation: The GROMOS force‐field parameter sets 53A5 and 53A6 , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[25]  Greg L. Hura,et al.  Development of an improved four-site water model for biomolecular simulations: TIP4P-Ew. , 2004, The Journal of chemical physics.

[26]  Yuko Okamoto,et al.  Secondary-structure preferences of force fields for proteins evaluated by generalized-ensemble simulations , 2004 .

[27]  Gerrit Groenhof,et al.  GROMACS: Fast, flexible, and free , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[28]  C. Vega,et al.  A general purpose model for the condensed phases of water: TIP4P/2005. , 2005, The Journal of chemical physics.

[29]  Miguel Machuqueiro,et al.  Constant-pH molecular dynamics with ionic strength effects: protonation-conformation coupling in decalysine. , 2006, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[30]  V. Hornak,et al.  Comparison of multiple Amber force fields and development of improved protein backbone parameters , 2006, Proteins.

[31]  M. Parrinello,et al.  Canonical sampling through velocity rescaling. , 2007, The Journal of chemical physics.

[32]  J. Forman-Kay,et al.  Atomic-level characterization of disordered protein ensembles. , 2007, Current opinion in structural biology.

[33]  Alessandra Villa,et al.  How sensitive are nanosecond molecular dynamics simulations of proteins to changes in the force field? , 2007, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[34]  Carsten Kutzner,et al.  GROMACS 4:  Algorithms for Highly Efficient, Load-Balanced, and Scalable Molecular Simulation. , 2008, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[35]  A. Baptista,et al.  Conformational analysis in a multidimensional energy landscape: study of an arginylglutamate repeat. , 2009, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[36]  Frank Küster,et al.  Single-molecule spectroscopy of the temperature-induced collapse of unfolded proteins , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[37]  Bert L de Groot,et al.  Secondary structure propensities in peptide folding simulations: a systematic comparison of molecular mechanics interaction schemes. , 2009, Biophysical journal.

[38]  G. Hummer,et al.  Optimized molecular dynamics force fields applied to the helix-coil transition of polypeptides. , 2009, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[39]  D. Eliezer,et al.  Biophysical characterization of intrinsically disordered proteins. , 2009, Current opinion in structural biology.

[40]  R. Best,et al.  Protein simulations with an optimized water model: cooperative helix formation and temperature-induced unfolded state collapse. , 2010, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[41]  Dominique Durand,et al.  Proline-rich salivary proteins have extended conformations. , 2010, Biophysical journal.

[42]  R. Dror,et al.  Improved side-chain torsion potentials for the Amber ff99SB protein force field , 2010, Proteins.

[43]  Andreas P. Eichenberger,et al.  Definition and testing of the GROMOS force-field versions 54A7 and 54B7 , 2011, European Biophysics Journal.

[44]  William F. Christensen,et al.  Methods of Multivariate Analysis: Rencher/Methods , 2012 .

[45]  Jing Huang,et al.  CHARMM36 all‐atom additive protein force field: Validation based on comparison to NMR data , 2013, J. Comput. Chem..

[46]  R. Best,et al.  Balanced Protein–Water Interactions Improve Properties of Disordered Proteins and Non-Specific Protein Association , 2014, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[47]  Stefano Piana,et al.  Assessing the accuracy of physical models used in protein-folding simulations: quantitative evidence from long molecular dynamics simulations. , 2014, Current opinion in structural biology.

[48]  Ernst-Walter Knapp,et al.  Protein Secondary Structure Classification Revisited: Processing DSSP Information with PSSC , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[49]  Mikael Lund,et al.  Role of histidine for charge regulation of unstructured peptides at interfaces and in bulk , 2014, Proteins.

[50]  A. Barducci,et al.  Accuracy of current all-atom force-fields in modeling protein disordered states. , 2015, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[51]  Paul Robustelli,et al.  Water dispersion interactions strongly influence simulated structural properties of disordered protein states. , 2015, The journal of physical chemistry. B.