Watts Charles R, Gregory Andrew, Frisbie Cole, Lovas Sándor
Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota.
Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic Health System, La Crosse, Wisconsin.
Proteins. 2018 Mar;86(3):279-300. doi: 10.1002/prot.25439. Epub 2017 Dec 25.
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.
淀粉样β(Aβ)肽及其寡聚体在溶液中的构象空间和结构集合本质上是无序的,并且已证明难以研究。分子动力学(MD)模拟的最佳力场选择以及结果的生物物理相关性仍然未知。我们在生理温度(310K)下通过300 ns的副本交换MD模拟比较了Aβ(1-40)二聚体的构象空间,使用了:AMBER-ff99sb-ILDN、AMBER-ff99sb*-ILDN、AMBER-ff99sb-NMR和CHARMM22力场。对模拟结果与实验数据以及先前使用CHARMM22和CHARMM36力场发表的模拟进行了统计比较。所有力场产生的二聚体碰撞截面积的构象采样集合在统计学上显著大于实验结果。除了AMBER-ff99sb-ILDN(8.8±6.4%)和CHARMM36(2.7±4.2%)外,与实验圆二色性(CD)(5.3±5.2%)相比,所有力场都倾向于高估α-螺旋含量。使用AMBER-ff99sb-NMR力场导致最大程度的方差(41.3±12.9%)。除了AMBER-ff99sb-NMR力场,其他力场往往低估了预期的β-折叠量,高估了转角/弯曲/无规卷曲构象的量。除了AMBER-ff99sb-NMR力场,所有力场都重现了理论上预期的β-折叠-转角-β-折叠构象基序,然而,只有CHARMM22*和CHARMM36力场产生的结果与17-21和30-36位残基的中央和C端疏水核心的塌缩兼容。尽管对本质子空间采样的分析表明力场之间只有微小差异,但最低能量构象的二级结构不同。