Figure 1. Molecules geometries of 5021 and Each neutral group in CHARMM topology was grouped in dash circle.

Similar documents
Potential Energy (hyper)surface

Molecular Mechanics. I. Quantum mechanical treatment of molecular systems

Oxygen Binding in Hemocyanin

Introduction to Comparative Protein Modeling. Chapter 4 Part I

Rotamers in the CHARMM19 Force Field

Secondary Structure. Bioch/BIMS 503 Lecture 2. Structure and Function of Proteins. Further Reading. Φ, Ψ angles alone determine protein structure

Sequential resonance assignments in (small) proteins: homonuclear method 2º structure determination

Protein Structure Bioinformatics Introduction

Supplementary Figure 3 a. Structural comparison between the two determined structures for the IL 23:MA12 complex. The overall RMSD between the two

Physiochemical Properties of Residues

CHMI 2227 EL. Biochemistry I. Test January Prof : Eric R. Gauthier, Ph.D.

Problem Set 1

read rtf card append * Initial topology guesses generated by * CHARMM General Force Field (CGenFF) program version 0.9.

Protein Structure Basics

NMR, X-ray Diffraction, Protein Structure, and RasMol

Semi Empirical Force Fields and Their Limitations. Potential Energy Surface (PES)

Supporting Information

Peptides And Proteins

A prevalent intraresidue hydrogen bond stabilizes proteins

Dihedral Angles. Homayoun Valafar. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, USC 02/03/10 CSCE 769

Force Fields for Classical Molecular Dynamics simulations of Biomolecules. Emad Tajkhorshid

Molecular Modeling lecture 2

Secondary and sidechain structures

Protein Data Bank Contents Guide: Atomic Coordinate Entry Format Description. Version Document Published by the wwpdb

Central Dogma. modifications genome transcriptome proteome

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

1. What is an ångstrom unit, and why is it used to describe molecular structures?

The Molecular Dynamics Method

Esser et al. Crystal Structures of R. sphaeroides bc 1

Using Higher Calculus to Study Biologically Important Molecules Julie C. Mitchell

Ranjit P. Bahadur Assistant Professor Department of Biotechnology Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, India. 1 st November, 2013

What makes a good graphene-binding peptide? Adsorption of amino acids and peptides at aqueous graphene interfaces: Electronic Supplementary

Protein Dynamics. The space-filling structures of myoglobin and hemoglobin show that there are no pathways for O 2 to reach the heme iron.

TOPOLOGIES AND FORCE FIELD PARAMETERS FOR NITROXIDE SPIN LABELS

Structure and evolution of the spliceosomal peptidyl-prolyl cistrans isomerase Cwc27

Computational Structural Biology and Molecular Simulation. Introduction to VMD Molecular Visualization and Analysis

Francisco Melo, Damien Devos, Eric Depiereux and Ernest Feytmans

NMR study of complexes between low molecular mass inhibitors and the West Nile virus NS2B-NS3 protease

Protein sidechain conformer prediction: a test of the energy function Robert J Petrella 1, Themis Lazaridis 1 and Martin Karplus 1,2

A single crystal investigation of L-tryptophan with Z = 16

Sensitive NMR Approach for Determining the Binding Mode of Tightly Binding Ligand Molecules to Protein Targets

Supplemental Materials for. Structural Diversity of Protein Segments Follows a Power-law Distribution

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Objective: Students will be able identify peptide bonds in proteins and describe the overall reaction between amino acids that create peptide bonds.

It s the amino acids!

Supplementary Material for A Hybrid Potential Simulation of the Acylation of Enterococcus faecium L,D-transpeptidase by Carbapenems

Lecture 10: Brownian Motion, Random Walk & Diffusion Side Chains of Amino Acids

Protein Folding & Stability. Lecture 11: Margaret A. Daugherty. Fall How do we go from an unfolded polypeptide chain to a

Exam I Answer Key: Summer 2006, Semester C

Biological Macromolecules

Design of a Novel Globular Protein Fold with Atomic-Level Accuracy

Biomolecules: lecture 10

Solvation Parameters for Predicting the Structure of Surface Loops in Proteins: Transferability and Entropic Effects

April, The energy functions include:

Fluorine in Peptide and Protein Engineering

Protein Structure Prediction

The Molecular Dynamics Method

Details of Protein Structure

NMR parameters intensity chemical shift coupling constants 1D 1 H spectra of nucleic acids and proteins

Supplementary figure 1. Comparison of unbound ogm-csf and ogm-csf as captured in the GIF:GM-CSF complex. Alignment of two copies of unbound ovine

Protein structures and comparisons ndrew Torda Bioinformatik, Mai 2008

Supplementary Information

Packing of Secondary Structures

Report of protein analysis

Nitrogenase MoFe protein from Clostridium pasteurianum at 1.08 Å resolution: comparison with the Azotobacter vinelandii MoFe protein

BSc and MSc Degree Examinations

Introduction to" Protein Structure

Properties of amino acids in proteins

Ramachandran Plot. 4ysz Phi (degrees) Plot statistics

Routine access to millisecond timescale events with accelerated molecular dynamics

Other Methods for Generating Ions 1. MALDI matrix assisted laser desorption ionization MS 2. Spray ionization techniques 3. Fast atom bombardment 4.

Understanding the determinants of selectivity in drug metabolism through modeling of dextromethorphan oxidation by cytochrome P450

BCH 4053 Exam I Review Spring 2017

BIRKBECK COLLEGE (University of London)

Model Mélange. Physical Models of Peptides and Proteins

Solutions In each case, the chirality center has the R configuration

90 o. (Note This could be worked out by analogy with N-chlorosuccinimide in (c), where chlorine clearly has an oxidation number of +1.

Biochemistry Quiz Review 1I. 1. Of the 20 standard amino acids, only is not optically active. The reason is that its side chain.

Programme Last week s quiz results + Summary Fold recognition Break Exercise: Modelling remote homologues

Table 1 Crystal data for three mutants of PLA2. Cell dimensions (A Ê ) a = 46.56, b = 64.57, c = 37.99

Report of protein analysis

Supplementary Information Intrinsic Localized Modes in Proteins

Force Fields for MD simulations

Lecture 15: Realities of Genome Assembly Protein Sequencing

Full wwpdb X-ray Structure Validation Report i

Atomistic Modeling of DNA and Protein Structures

A CONFORMATIONAL STUDY OF PROLINE DERIVATIVES. M.E. Kamwaya * and F.N. Ngassapa

Protein dynamics. Folding/unfolding dynamics. Fluctuations near the folded state

----- Ver October 24, 2014 Bug about reading MOPAC2012 Ver.14 calculations of 1 atom and 2 atoms molecule was fixed.

TOPOLOGY FILE TUTORIAL

Supporting information to: Time-resolved observation of protein allosteric communication. Sebastian Buchenberg, Florian Sittel and Gerhard Stock 1

Supporting Information

Presenter: She Zhang

A) at equilibrium B) endergonic C) endothermic D) exergonic E) exothermic.

Chapter 4: Amino Acids

Protein Struktur (optional, flexible)

Lecture 11: Protein Folding & Stability

Protein Folding & Stability. Lecture 11: Margaret A. Daugherty. Fall Protein Folding: What we know. Protein Folding

Supporting Online Material for

Supersecondary Structures (structural motifs)

Transcription:

Project I Chemistry 8021, Spring 2005/2/23 This document was turned in by a student as a homework paper. 1. Methods First, the cartesian coordinates of 5021 and 8021 molecules (Fig. 1) are generated, in which the total number of atoms are 16 and 23, respectively. In the topology file, each neutral group in these two molecules was grouped as shown in Fig. 1. Since the cartesian coordinates of these two compounds were already built up, therefore, no internal coordinates were necessarily included in the topology (see Supplement). Afterwards, give specifically unique names and atomic charges for the atoms of these two molecules by typing in ATOM cards, respectively. Following, make covalent bonds we needed between the unique atoms on the BOND card (see Supplement). The missing parameters in these two compounds were added in the parameter file (see Table 1). 5021 8021 Figure 1. Molecules geometries of 5021 and 8021. Each neutral group in CHARMM topology was grouped in dash circle. Table 1. Parameters Added in CHARMM Parameter File bond k b (kcal/mol/å 2 ) b 0 (Å) HA3 CT3 322.000 1.1110 angle k θ (kcal/mol/rad 2 ) θ (degrees) k ub (kcal/mol/å 2 ) s 0 (Å) HA3 CT3 HA3 35.500 109.00 5.40 1.802 NH1 CT2 CA 50.000 110.8000 Dihedrals k φ (kcal/mol) n δ(degrees) C NH1 CT2 CA 0.2000 1 170.60 H NH1 CT2 CA 0.0000 1 16.6 C O NH1 CT3 90.0000 0 0.0000 NH1 H CT2 C 20.0000 0 0.0000 Structure optimizations were calculated by adopted-basis Newton Raphson (ABNR) minimization, and then followed by Newton-Raphson (NRAP) minimization. The optimization steps were stopped while the root-mean-square gradient was less than 0.0001 kcal/mol/å during a cycle of the geometry minimization.

Once satisfactory geometries of 5021 and 8021 were obtained, these optimization geometries were used to calculate the vibration frequencies (Table 4 and Table 6, respectively) and project them onto the internal coordinates in CHARMM (Table 5 and Table 7), respectively. The vibration frequencies were also calculated at HF/6-31G(d) level by using the geometries optimized at the same theoretical level. Results Comparison of Geometries. The geometric data for the experimental (CSD entry: CRESOL01, R- factor = 8.5%) 3 and computational structures of 4-methylphenol (5021) calculated with CHARMM and by ab initio methods at HF/6-31G(d) level were summarized in Table 2. And the geometric data for 8021 were summarized in Table 3. For 5021 (see Table 2), the bond lengths and angles are in satisfactory agreement with the experimental data with rmsd of 0.0527 and 1.495 in bond length and angle. Although the NRAP optimization structure has smaller rmsd in bond length compared with the geometry computed at HF/6-31G(d) level, its rmsd of bond angle is larger than that computed at HF/6-31G(d) level. This is mainly due to the underestimated CZ OH HH bond angle and the overestimated CD1 CG CD2 bond angle in the NRAP optimization geometry. Further, the HH OH CZ CE1 dihedral angle obtained in NRAP and ab initio optimization geometries are both overestimated the experimental structure with 7.4º and 7.2º, respectively. Table 2. Geometric Data b on 4-methylphenol (5021) bond length c exp. e CHARMM b HF/6-31G(d) CG CB 1.512 1.50 1.51 CB HB a 1.057 1.11 1.09 CG CD a 1.394 1.40 1.39 CD CE a 1.397 1.40 1.38 CZ CE a 1.380 1.40 1.38 CZ OH 1.422 1.41 1.35 OH HH 1.086 0.96 0.95 rmsd 0.0527 f 0.0599 f angle d exp. e CHARMM b HF/6-31G(d) CB CG CD1 121.1 120.4 121.3 CD1 CG CD2 117.9 119.1 117.5 CE1 CZ CE2 120.6 120.1 119.5 CZ OH HH 110.0 107.4 110.8 rmsd 1.495 f 0.716 f dihedral angle d exp. e CHARMM b HF/6-31G(d) CB CG CD1 CE1 179.7 179.6 179.8 HH OH CZ CE1 172.6 180.0 179.8

a Average distance. b Newton-Raphson (NRAP) minimization. c Bond lengths in Å. d Angle in degree. e Ref. 3. f Compare with experimental crystal structure (CSD entry: CRESOL01, R-factor = 8.5%). For 8021 (see Table 3), comparing the NRAP optimization structure with that optimized at HF/6-31G(d) level, the bond lengths, angles, and dihedral angles are in difference of ±0.06 Å, ±3.13º, and ±18.4º. The main deviation of the dihedral angle is due to the C N CB CG dihedral angle, which is overestimated (18.4º) in the NRAP optimization structure. Table 3. Geometric Data on 8021 bond length c CHARMM b HF/6-31G(d) CG CB 1.50 1.51 CB HB a 1.11 1.09 CB N 1.44 1.45 N HN 0.99 0.99 N C 1.34 1.35 C=O 1.22 1.20 C CO 1.48 1.51 CO HC a 1.11 1.08 CG CD a 1.40 1.39 CD CE a 1.40 1.38 CZ CE a 1.40 1.39 CZ OH 1.41 1.35 OH HH 0.96 0.95 angle d CHARMM b HF/6-31G(d) CO C N 116.42 115.6 C N CB 123.35 122.3 N CB CG 110.29 111.1 CB CG CD a 120.44 121.0 CD1 CG CD2 119.00 118.0 CE1 CZ CE2 120.11 119.7 CZ OH HH 107.57 110.7 dihedral angle d CHARMM b HF/6-31G(d) O=C N CB 0.0 5.1 C N CB CG 178.0 159.6 CB CG CD1 CE1 179.9 179.4 HH OH CZ CE1 179.2 179.2 a Average distance. b Newton-Raphson (NRAP) minimization. c Bond lengths in Å. d Angle in degree.

Analysis of Vibration Modes. The total number of the vibration frequencies of 5021 is 42 (3N 6, N = 16, see Table 4). The lowest vibration frequency of 5021 was 21.52 cm 1 (mode 7). After projecting vectors onto the internal coordinates in CHARMM, we can find that the largest component for mode 7 vector is the torsion rotation of the HB CB CG CD dihedral angle (Table 5). This result is in agreement with that computed at HF/6-31G(d). Table 4. Vibrational Data a for 5021 b (298 K) 7 21.52 14 440.81 21 920.81 28 1120.09 35 1425.29 42 2915.81 8 148.37 15 486.96 22 952.58 29 1168.27 36 1455.49 43 2916.54 9 285.38 16 613.52 23 1014.24 30 1216.73 37 1457.93 44 3053.64 10 287.17 17 662.95 24 1016.22 31 1282.06 38 1493.19 45 3055.11 11 337.07 18 675.06 25 1052.15 32 1352.54 39 1509.79 46 3056.59 12 408.33 19 838.68 26 1059.31 33 1418.4 40 1544.68 47 3059.79 13 413.53 20 907.43 27 1094.79 34 1424.07 41 2844.93 48 3683.41 a Frequencies in cm 1. b Structure optimization at NRAP minimization. Table 5. Lowest Vibrational Modes for 8021 CHARMM HF/6-31G(d) mode frequencies a assignment frequencies a assignment 7 21.52 HB CB CG CD b 39.30 τch 3 CG a Frequencies in cm 1. τ indicates torsion rotation. b From the result of projection of the HB CB CG CD dihedral angle. The total number of the vibration frequencies of 8021 is 63 (3N 6, N = 23, see Table 6). The lowest vibration frequency of 8021 was 22.84 cm 1 (mode 7). After projection of the internal coordinates, we can find that the two largest component for mode 7 vector is the torsion of the HB CB CG CD dihedral angle and the CB CG CD angle (Table 5). On the other hand, In the ab initio calculation at HF/6-31+G(d) level, the vibration mode of the lowest vibration frequency is torsion rotation between the ( CH 2 NH CO CH 3 ) group and the phenol ring via the CB N bond. Table 6. Vibrational Data a for 8021 b 7 22.84 16 334.84 25 675.65 34 967.92 43 1250.47 52 1450.78 61 2916.78 8 33.20 17 406.40 26 687.27 35 1014.75 44 1260.82 53 1452.63 62 2975.43 9 63.64 18 413.06 27 811.92 36 1040.29 45 1282.97 54 1489.40 63 2975.49 10 65.25 19 442.57 28 824.61 37 1053.76 46 1369.04 55 1500.71 64 3053.59 11 167.10 20 474.58 29 849.43 38 1086.04 47 1379.84 56 1539.83 65 3055.07 12 181.80 21 526.83 30 918.94 39 1097.25 48 1411.85 57 1602.22 66 3056.53 13 198.46 22 567.62 31 922.24 40 1124.84 49 1419.32 58 1682.52 67 3059.72 14 289.69 23 655.46 32 925.52 41 1170.50 50 1424.74 59 2805.99 68 3326.23 15 291.04 24 674.51 33 952.95 42 1217.16 51 1434.64 60 2845.75 69 3683.25 a Frequencies in cm 1. b Structure optimization at Newton-Raphson (NRAP) minimization.

Table 7. Lowest Two Vibrational Modes for 8021 CHARMM HF/6-31G(d) mode frequencies a assignment frequencies a assignment 7 22.84 CD CG CB N b CB CG CD c 21.49 τ CB N a Frequencies in cm 1. τ indicates torsion rotation. b From the result of projecting the CD CG CB N dihedral angle. c From the result of projecting the CB CG CD angle.

2. Bovine Pancreatic Trypsin Inhibitor (BPTI): Methods The BPTI structure was selected from the Protein Data Bank 1 crystal structure 4PTI 2 with resolution of 1.5 Å. This crystal structure contains 58 amino acid residues and 60 crystal water molecules, with no other hetero atoms or groups, for example, metal ions (e.g. Mg 2+ ) or anions (e.g. Cl or SO 2 4 ). Hydrogen atoms of the BPTI protein and crystal waters were then added with HBUILD facility in CHARMM. Further, there are three disulfide bonds within this BPTI structure. Cys5 Cys55 connects a 3 10 helix (Asp3 to Glu7) with a α-helix (Ser47 to Gly56). Cys14 Cys38 join the α-helix to a double-stranded antiparallel β-sheet (Ala16 to Asn24 and Gly28 to Gly36), which is the main body of the protein. And Cys30 Cys51 connects the loop region at Gly12 to Lys15 with the other loop region at Gly37 to Ala40. Therefore, these disulfide bonds were afterward built by PATCH facility in CHARMM. Structure optimizations were calculated by adopted-basis Newton Raphson (ABNR) minimization with 123, 500, 1000, and 5000 steps in CHARMM, respectively. TOLERENCE was applied in the 5000-step ABNR minimization. Therefore, the minimization routine will stop if the energy change is less than or equal to 0.0001 kcal/mol during a cycle of the minimization. Room-mean-square (rms) differences between the calculated structures and 4PTI crystal structure were calculated for the whole protein structure and for the specified backbone atoms (C, N, C α, O) after the minimization with 123, 500, 1000, 2304 steps, respectively (Table 8). Results After optimizing the BPTI structure with a 2304-step ABNR minimization, the room-mean-square gradient (GRMS) of the final structure was 0.004 kcal/mol/å. Compare the optimization structure with the initial PDB structure, the rmsd for the whole protein and for the backbone were 1.81 Å and 1.21 Å, respectively. This indicates that the fluctuation of the side chain is larger than that of the backbone. The 4PTI crystal structure and ABNR minimization structure were superimposed to understand how well the peptide backbone of the optimization structure matching that of the initially experimental structure (Fig. 2). The superimposing result shows that the peptide backbone of the ABNR minimization structure was quite close to the experimental structure, although the initial x- ray structure was not in the energetic minimum state since the rmsd of the whole protein was 1.81 Å between the experimental and theoretical structures.

Table 8. Rms Differences of the Bovine Pancreatic Trypsin Inhibitor (BPTI) Crystal number of steps a GRMS b overall RMS c backbone RMS d (kcal/mol/å) (Å) (Å) 123 1.44 0.48 0.31 500 0.47 1.17 0.73 1000 0.11 1.17 0.73 2304 0.004 1.81 1.21 a Number of minimization steps in ABNR calculation. b Rms gradient. c Rms difference in Å for all the atoms to the 4PTI crystal structure. d Rms difference in Å for the specified backbone atoms (C, N, C α, O) to the 4PTI crystal structure. Figure 2. Diagram of superimposing the 4PTI crystal structure (purple) and the ABNR optimization structure with 2304 minimization steps (green). Reference (1) Bernstein, F. C., Koetzle, T. F., Williams, G. J. B., Meyer, E. F. Jr., Brice, M. D., Rodgers, J. R., Kennard, O. Shimanouchi, T., Tasumi, M., J. Mol. Biol., 1977, 112, 535-542. (2) Marquart, M., Walter, J., Deisenhofer, J., Bode, W., Huber, R., Acta Crystallogr. B, 1983, 39, 480-490. (3) Bois, C., Acta. Crystallogr., Sec. B, 1 9 7 0, 2 6, 2086.

Supplement 1. The original topology file of 5021: RESI PHEN! 0.00 HD1 HE1! ATOM CG CA! 0.00 HB1 CD1--CE1! // \\ ATOM CD1 CA! -0.115HB3--CB--CG CZ--OH ATOM HD1 HP 0.115! \ / \! HB2 CD2--CE2 HH ATOM CE1 CA! -0.115 ATOM HE1 HP! 0.115 HD2 HE2 ATOM CZ CA 0.11 ATOM OH OH1-0.54 ATOM HH H 0.43 ATOM CD2 CA -0.115 ATOM HD2 HP 0.115 ATOM CE2 CA -0.115 ATOM HE2 HP 0.115 ATOM CB CT3-0.27 ATOM HB1 HA3 0.09 ATOM HB2 HA3 0.09 ATOM HB3 HA3 0.09 BOND CB CG CG CD2 CG CD1 CD1 CE1 BOND CD2 CE2 CE1 CZ CE2 CZ CZ OH BOND OH HH CB HB1 CB HB2 CB HB3 BOND CD1 HD1 CE1 HE1 CD2 HD2 CE2 HE2 D O N O R H H O H A C C E P T O R O H PATCHING FIRST NONE LAST NONE

2. The original topology file of 8021: RESI TYR1! 0.00 HD1 HE1! ATOM C C! HN 0.51 HB1 CD1--CE1 ATOM O O! -0.51\ // \\! N--CB--CG CZ--OH ATOM N NH1-0.47! / \ / \ ATOM HN H 0.31! O=C HB2 CD2--CE2 HH ATOM CB CT2! -0.02 \ ATOM HB1 HA! 0.09HC1-CO-HC2 HD2 HE2 ATOM HB2 HA 0.09!! HC3 ATOM CO CT3-0.27 ATOM HC1 HA 0.09 ATOM HC2 HA 0.09 ATOM HC3 HA 0.09 ATOM CG CA 0.00 ATOM CD1 CA -0.115 ATOM HD1 HP 0.115 ATOM CE1 CA -0.115 ATOM HE1 HP 0.115 ATOM CZ CA 0.11 ATOM OH OH1-0.54 ATOM HH H 0.43 ATOM CD2 CA -0.115 ATOM HD2 HP 0.115 ATOM CE2 CA -0.115 ATOM HE2 HP 0.115 BOND N HN N C C O N CB BOND C CO CO HC1 CO HC2 CO HC3 BOND CB CG CG CD2 CG CD1 CD1 CE1 BOND CD2 CE2 CE1 CZ CE2 CZ CZ OH BOND OH HH CB HB1 CB HB2 BOND CD1 HD1 CE1 HE1 CD2 HD2 CE2 HE2 IMPR N HN CB C C O N CO D O N O R H N N D O N O R H H O H A C C E P T O R O H A C C E P T O R O PATCHING FIRST NONE LAST NONE