Three force fields' views of the 3(10) helix.

Slowly but steadily bibliographic evidence is accumulating that the apparent convergence of the various biomolecular force fields as evidenced from simulations of proteins in the folded state does not hold true for folding simulations. Here we add one more example to the growing list of peptides and proteins for which different force fields show irreconcilable differences in their folding predictions, even at such a fundamental level as that of a peptide's secondary structure. We show that for an undecamer peptide that is known from two independent NMR structure determinations to have a mainly 3(10)-helical structure in solution, three mainstream biomolecular force fields give completely disparate predictions: The CHARMM force field (with the CMAP correction) predicts an outstandingly stable α-helical structure, in disagreement not only with the experimental structures, but also with experimental evidence obtained from circular dichroism. OPLS-AA shows an almost totally disordered peptide with the most frequently observed folded conformation corresponding to a β-hairpin-like structure, again in disagreement with all available experimental evidence. Only the AMBER99SB force field appears to qualitatively agree with not only the general structural characteristics of the peptide (on the account of both NMR- and CD-based experiments), but to also correctly predict some of the experimentally observed interactions at the level of side chains. Possible interpretations of these findings are discussed.