2013
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt675
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Coarse-grained versus atomistic simulations: realistic interaction free energies for real proteins

Abstract: The python analysis framework and data files are available for download at http://www.ibi.vu.nl/downloads/bioinformatics-2013-btt675.tgz.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
38
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
0
38
0
Order By: Relevance
“…491 Interestingly, it was also reported that coarsegrained models can accurately reproduce interaction strength for protein complexes of known structure. 492 An interesting example of a coarse-grained approach to protein docking is the ATTRACT model. 371 Starting from 2003, the ATTRACT model has been systematically improved and evolved in several docking applications.…”
Section: Protein Interactionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…491 Interestingly, it was also reported that coarsegrained models can accurately reproduce interaction strength for protein complexes of known structure. 492 An interesting example of a coarse-grained approach to protein docking is the ATTRACT model. 371 Starting from 2003, the ATTRACT model has been systematically improved and evolved in several docking applications.…”
Section: Protein Interactionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To examine the contribution of the Ile‐Leu zipper interaction in the assemblies of TM helices of wSLN (wild‐typed SLN) and mSLNs (mutated SLNs), the multiple‐scaled MD including both atomistic (AT) and the coarse‐grained (CG) models were used. CG‐MD has been successfully applied in studying of the association of TM protein helix dimerization and the change of free energy, while the AT‐MD simulation could provide more structural details of dimer than the CG‐MD. Although the free energy given by CG models were larger than that by the AT model, a tendency to form dimer have been demonstrated.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They obtained a binding free energy of 12 kJ/mol between the peptide and the MHC class I molecule, which deviates considerably from the 32.2 kJ/mol binding free energy obtained from experiments . On the other hand, May et al applied WHAM with MARTINI CG force field to estimate the binding free energy between the peptide‐MHC‐Class‐I molecule and the T cell receptor (TCR) (PDB ID: 1AO7) and obtained a binding free energy of 80 kJ/mol, which compares well to the value of 78.6 kJ/mol obtained from experiments . To our knowledge, however, there is no reported study that has accurately estimated the binding free energy between a peptide and a MHC class II molecule.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 85%