1983
DOI: 10.1021/j100234a011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Energy parameters in polypeptides. 9. Updating of geometrical parameters, nonbonded interactions, and hydrogen bond interactions for the naturally occurring amino acids

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
425
0

Year Published

1994
1994
2001
2001

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 954 publications
(427 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
2
425
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Table 3 also provides a comparison of conformational energies and residual constraint violations for sets of mEGF and hTGFa structures calculated by our laboratory over the last few years. For mEGF, these are designated as coordinate sets: DISMAN-1, five structures calculated with the DISMAN program using 333 NMR constraints (Montelione et al, 1987); DISMAN-2, 16 structures calculated with DISMAN using 730 NMR constraints (Montelione et al, 1992; PDB ascension number IEGF); ECEPP, 16 structures calculated with DISMAN using 730 NMR constraints and energy minimized with the ECEPP (Nemethy et al, 1983(Nemethy et al, , 1992 potential energy function (Montelione et al, 1992; PDB ascension number 3EGF); and five ensembles of CONGEN structures from this work, each consisting of 16 structures calculated with CONGEN using 730 NMR constraints and protocols i-v. All of these statistics were computed using the same set of mEGF NMR constraints (i.e., the complete set of 730 constraints with 15% relaxation of the distance constraints) and the CHARMM potential function of CONGEN. Whereas there is a clear correlation between improved convergence with respect to residual constraint violations, VDW energies, and Conf.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Table 3 also provides a comparison of conformational energies and residual constraint violations for sets of mEGF and hTGFa structures calculated by our laboratory over the last few years. For mEGF, these are designated as coordinate sets: DISMAN-1, five structures calculated with the DISMAN program using 333 NMR constraints (Montelione et al, 1987); DISMAN-2, 16 structures calculated with DISMAN using 730 NMR constraints (Montelione et al, 1992; PDB ascension number IEGF); ECEPP, 16 structures calculated with DISMAN using 730 NMR constraints and energy minimized with the ECEPP (Nemethy et al, 1983(Nemethy et al, , 1992 potential energy function (Montelione et al, 1992; PDB ascension number 3EGF); and five ensembles of CONGEN structures from this work, each consisting of 16 structures calculated with CONGEN using 730 NMR constraints and protocols i-v. All of these statistics were computed using the same set of mEGF NMR constraints (i.e., the complete set of 730 constraints with 15% relaxation of the distance constraints) and the CHARMM potential function of CONGEN. Whereas there is a clear correlation between improved convergence with respect to residual constraint violations, VDW energies, and Conf.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The construction of the C2 spatial structure includes the following steps: (a) analysis of the local structure and evaluation of the effective rotational correlation time with the program CONFORNMR ; (b) structure calculation with the distance geometry program DIANA (Guntert et al, 1991); (c) systematic search for allowed sidechain rotamers consistent with NOESY cross-peak volumes and normalized cross-peak intensities in NOESY-HMQC spectra by the program CONFORNMR; (d) DIANA calculations with additional constraints on the torsion angles of side chains obtained at stage c; (e) unrestrained energy minimization with the program CONFORNMR using the ECEPPI2 force field (Nemethy et al, 1983). An electrostatic term was excluded in all energy-minimization calculations.…”
Section: Computation Of C2 Spatial Structuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We choose the DIANA-derived conformation with the lowest penalty function as a starting point, but the results were not dependent on this. The starting C2 conformation was refined by energy minimization using CONFORNMR with ECEPP/ 2 parameters (Nemethy et al, 1983). Then for each residue i, all side-chain rotamers were considered with evaluation of the energy minimization and penalty functions for the region i 2 5 of the a helix.…”
Section: Computation Of C2 Spatial Structuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A series of attempts by Levitt and Lifson, 12 Hagler and coworkers, 13 and Brant and Flory 14 followed to derive improved potential functions. Our efforts in this regard led to our empirical conformational energy program for peptides, ECEPP, 15 which was subsequently upgraded twice as ECEPP/2 16,17 and ECEPP/3. 18 Several other force fields, for example, AMBER 19 and CHARMM 20 have since been introduced.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%