Nonlinear vs. linear biasing in Trp-cage folding simulations
Language English Country United States Media print
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PubMed
25796266
DOI
10.1063/1.4914828
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Models, Chemical * MeSH
- Linear Models * MeSH
- Nonlinear Dynamics * MeSH
- Computer Simulation * MeSH
- Motion MeSH
- Proteins chemistry MeSH
- Solvents chemistry MeSH
- Protein Folding * MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Proteins MeSH
- Solvents MeSH
Biased simulations have great potential for the study of slow processes, including protein folding. Atomic motions in molecules are nonlinear, which suggests that simulations with enhanced sampling of collective motions traced by nonlinear dimensionality reduction methods may perform better than linear ones. In this study, we compare an unbiased folding simulation of the Trp-cage miniprotein with metadynamics simulations using both linear (principle component analysis) and nonlinear (Isomap) low dimensional embeddings as collective variables. Folding of the mini-protein was successfully simulated in 200 ns simulation with linear biasing and non-linear motion biasing. The folded state was correctly predicted as the free energy minimum in both simulations. We found that the advantage of linear motion biasing is that it can sample a larger conformational space, whereas the advantage of nonlinear motion biasing lies in slightly better resolution of the resulting free energy surface. In terms of sampling efficiency, both methods are comparable.
References provided by Crossref.org
Computer Folding of Parallel DNA G-Quadruplex: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Conformational Space