Effects of force fields on the conformational and dynamic properties of amyloid β(1-40) dimer explored by replica exchange molecular dynamics simulations

Charles R. Watts, Andrew Gregory, Cole Frisbie, Sándor Lovas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The conformational space and structural ensembles of amyloid beta (Aβ) peptides and their oligomers in solution are inherently disordered and proven to be challenging to study. Optimum force field selection for molecular dynamics (MD) simulations and the biophysical relevance of results are still unknown. We compared the conformational space of the Aβ(1-40) dimers by 300 ns replica exchange MD simulations at physiological temperature (310 K) using: the AMBER-ff99sb-ILDN, AMBER-ff99sb*-ILDN, AMBER-ff99sb-NMR, and CHARMM22* force fields. Statistical comparisons of simulation results to experimental data and previously published simulations utilizing the CHARMM22* and CHARMM36 force fields were performed. All force fields yield sampled ensembles of conformations with collision cross sectional areas for the dimer that are statistically significantly larger than experimental results. All force fields, with the exception of AMBER-ff99sb-ILDN (8.8±6.4%) and CHARMM36 (2.7±4.2%), tend to overestimate the α-helical content compared to experimental CD (5.3±5.2%). Using the AMBER-ff99sb-NMR force field resulted in the greatest degree of variance (41.3±12.9%). Except for the AMBER-ff99sb-NMR force field, the others tended to under estimate the expected amount of β-sheet and over estimate the amount of turn/bend/random coil conformations. All force fields, with the exception AMBER-ff99sb-NMR, reproduce a theoretically expected β-sheet-turn-β-sheet conformational motif, however, only the CHARMM22* and CHARMM36 force fields yield results compatible with collapse of the central and C-terminal hydrophobic cores from residues 17-21 and 30-36. Although analyses of essential subspace sampling showed only minor variations between force fields, secondary structures of lowest energy conformers are different.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalProteins: Structure, Function and Bioinformatics
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

Molecular Dynamics Simulation
Amyloid
Dimers
Molecular dynamics
Nuclear magnetic resonance
Amyloid beta-Peptides
Computer simulation
Conformations
Temperature
Oligomers
Sampling
Peptides

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Structural Biology
  • Biochemistry
  • Molecular Biology

Cite this

@article{e16882b6b12b4c23ac3897a5943d6f6b,
title = "Effects of force fields on the conformational and dynamic properties of amyloid β(1-40) dimer explored by replica exchange molecular dynamics simulations",
abstract = "The conformational space and structural ensembles of amyloid beta (Aβ) peptides and their oligomers in solution are inherently disordered and proven to be challenging to study. Optimum force field selection for molecular dynamics (MD) simulations and the biophysical relevance of results are still unknown. We compared the conformational space of the Aβ(1-40) dimers by 300 ns replica exchange MD simulations at physiological temperature (310 K) using: the AMBER-ff99sb-ILDN, AMBER-ff99sb*-ILDN, AMBER-ff99sb-NMR, and CHARMM22* force fields. Statistical comparisons of simulation results to experimental data and previously published simulations utilizing the CHARMM22* and CHARMM36 force fields were performed. All force fields yield sampled ensembles of conformations with collision cross sectional areas for the dimer that are statistically significantly larger than experimental results. All force fields, with the exception of AMBER-ff99sb-ILDN (8.8±6.4{\%}) and CHARMM36 (2.7±4.2{\%}), tend to overestimate the α-helical content compared to experimental CD (5.3±5.2{\%}). Using the AMBER-ff99sb-NMR force field resulted in the greatest degree of variance (41.3±12.9{\%}). Except for the AMBER-ff99sb-NMR force field, the others tended to under estimate the expected amount of β-sheet and over estimate the amount of turn/bend/random coil conformations. All force fields, with the exception AMBER-ff99sb-NMR, reproduce a theoretically expected β-sheet-turn-β-sheet conformational motif, however, only the CHARMM22* and CHARMM36 force fields yield results compatible with collapse of the central and C-terminal hydrophobic cores from residues 17-21 and 30-36. Although analyses of essential subspace sampling showed only minor variations between force fields, secondary structures of lowest energy conformers are different.",
author = "Watts, {Charles R.} and Andrew Gregory and Cole Frisbie and S{\'a}ndor Lovas",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/prot.25439",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics",
issn = "0887-3585",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effects of force fields on the conformational and dynamic properties of amyloid β(1-40) dimer explored by replica exchange molecular dynamics simulations

AU - Watts, Charles R.

AU - Gregory, Andrew

AU - Frisbie, Cole

AU - Lovas, Sándor

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - The conformational space and structural ensembles of amyloid beta (Aβ) peptides and their oligomers in solution are inherently disordered and proven to be challenging to study. Optimum force field selection for molecular dynamics (MD) simulations and the biophysical relevance of results are still unknown. We compared the conformational space of the Aβ(1-40) dimers by 300 ns replica exchange MD simulations at physiological temperature (310 K) using: the AMBER-ff99sb-ILDN, AMBER-ff99sb*-ILDN, AMBER-ff99sb-NMR, and CHARMM22* force fields. Statistical comparisons of simulation results to experimental data and previously published simulations utilizing the CHARMM22* and CHARMM36 force fields were performed. All force fields yield sampled ensembles of conformations with collision cross sectional areas for the dimer that are statistically significantly larger than experimental results. All force fields, with the exception of AMBER-ff99sb-ILDN (8.8±6.4%) and CHARMM36 (2.7±4.2%), tend to overestimate the α-helical content compared to experimental CD (5.3±5.2%). Using the AMBER-ff99sb-NMR force field resulted in the greatest degree of variance (41.3±12.9%). Except for the AMBER-ff99sb-NMR force field, the others tended to under estimate the expected amount of β-sheet and over estimate the amount of turn/bend/random coil conformations. All force fields, with the exception AMBER-ff99sb-NMR, reproduce a theoretically expected β-sheet-turn-β-sheet conformational motif, however, only the CHARMM22* and CHARMM36 force fields yield results compatible with collapse of the central and C-terminal hydrophobic cores from residues 17-21 and 30-36. Although analyses of essential subspace sampling showed only minor variations between force fields, secondary structures of lowest energy conformers are different.

AB - The conformational space and structural ensembles of amyloid beta (Aβ) peptides and their oligomers in solution are inherently disordered and proven to be challenging to study. Optimum force field selection for molecular dynamics (MD) simulations and the biophysical relevance of results are still unknown. We compared the conformational space of the Aβ(1-40) dimers by 300 ns replica exchange MD simulations at physiological temperature (310 K) using: the AMBER-ff99sb-ILDN, AMBER-ff99sb*-ILDN, AMBER-ff99sb-NMR, and CHARMM22* force fields. Statistical comparisons of simulation results to experimental data and previously published simulations utilizing the CHARMM22* and CHARMM36 force fields were performed. All force fields yield sampled ensembles of conformations with collision cross sectional areas for the dimer that are statistically significantly larger than experimental results. All force fields, with the exception of AMBER-ff99sb-ILDN (8.8±6.4%) and CHARMM36 (2.7±4.2%), tend to overestimate the α-helical content compared to experimental CD (5.3±5.2%). Using the AMBER-ff99sb-NMR force field resulted in the greatest degree of variance (41.3±12.9%). Except for the AMBER-ff99sb-NMR force field, the others tended to under estimate the expected amount of β-sheet and over estimate the amount of turn/bend/random coil conformations. All force fields, with the exception AMBER-ff99sb-NMR, reproduce a theoretically expected β-sheet-turn-β-sheet conformational motif, however, only the CHARMM22* and CHARMM36 force fields yield results compatible with collapse of the central and C-terminal hydrophobic cores from residues 17-21 and 30-36. Although analyses of essential subspace sampling showed only minor variations between force fields, secondary structures of lowest energy conformers are different.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85038890382&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85038890382&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/prot.25439

DO - 10.1002/prot.25439

M3 - Article

JO - Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics

JF - Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics

SN - 0887-3585

ER -