* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download simplified models for proteins in coarse
Rosetta@home wikipedia , lookup
Protein design wikipedia , lookup
Structural alignment wikipedia , lookup
Immunoprecipitation wikipedia , lookup
Bimolecular fluorescence complementation wikipedia , lookup
Circular dichroism wikipedia , lookup
Protein domain wikipedia , lookup
Protein purification wikipedia , lookup
Protein moonlighting wikipedia , lookup
Implicit solvation wikipedia , lookup
List of types of proteins wikipedia , lookup
Protein folding wikipedia , lookup
Homology modeling wikipedia , lookup
Western blot wikipedia , lookup
Protein structure prediction wikipedia , lookup
Protein mass spectrometry wikipedia , lookup
Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy of proteins wikipedia , lookup
Alpha helix wikipedia , lookup
Intrinsically disordered proteins wikipedia , lookup
SIMPLIFIED MODELS FOR PROTEINS IN COARSE-GRAINED MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATIONS Agustí Emperador Institute for Research in Biomedicine, Barcelona OUTLINE 0. Introduction 1. Coarse-grained models at residue level resolution (one bead per residue): 1.1. for folded proteins 1.2. for intrinsically disordered proteins 2. Coarse-grained models at intermediate resolution (several beads per residue) 2.1 for folded proteins interacting with the environment 2.2 for intrinsically disordered proteins 3. More accurate CG potentials INTRODUCTION Why coarse-graining? it allows to explore larger systems and timescales It is convenient to have a transferable potential, suitable for different systems Objective: a potential as transferable as the atomistic force fields. 1- A coarse grained potential can be systematically constructed from atomistic molecular dynamics trajectories for a given protein with a high level of precision, but this will not be suitable for another system (no transferability) Izvekov & Voth, J. Phys. Chem. B 109, 2469 (2005) 2- Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDP) are appropriate to be treated with coarse-grained (CG) force fields, since there is no native conformation to reproduce and they are prone to aggregation, so many proteins have to be included in the simulation. Existing transferable CG potentials work fine for IDP proteins, but not for natively folded proteins. 3- The higher the resolution, the better reproduced the atomistic results (UNRES, OPEP). But the simulation is slower than with strong coarse-graining 4- Hydrogen bonding (fundamental in proteins) demands a high detail of the structures (dipole-dipole interaction): high resolution, slight degree of coarse-graining: not so fast simulations 5- Lipids can be strongly coarse-grained without significant loss of precision because these are mostly non polar (no hydrogen bonds) Structure-based potentials: folded proteins Most popular coarse-grained model: residue-level representation, use of structure-based potentials Minimum energy when the residue-residue distances are those of the native conformation. Good reproduction of the summation of the forces in the system, BUT zero transferability (each structure has a different force field) Residue-residue potentials defined up to a cutoff distance of 8 A (determined from simulations: shorter cutoff leads to unstable structures, higher cutoff leads to very rigid structures with low flexibility) Very good results for the flexibility of a protein: average displacement of each residue, deformation modes With this CG potential one can generate easily realistic trajectories of the protein sampling the native conformation A. Emperador, O. Carrillo, M. Rueda and M. Orozco, Biophys. J. 95, 2127 (2008) Structure-based potentials: folded proteins Potentials like those used in elastic network models (ENM). Normal Mode Analysis of ENM gives flexibility patterns that reproduce very well the results of atomistic molecular dynamics. How can it work so well? Flexibility depends strongly on the shape and topology of the protein. Sequence has a minor effect in the global dynamics of the protein. Structure-based potentials can be only defined when the Native conformation is known. Useless for studying proteins interacting with anything The tube model: intrinsically disordered proteins Most simplified representation: only CA. Formation of backbone hydrogen bonds depending on geometrical conditions Achievement: reproduce the hydrogen bond structure in amyloid fibrils with a resolution of one bead per residue The tube model: intrinsically disordered proteins Phase diagram (changing the parameters of the tube model) Hoang et al, PNAS 101, 7960 (2004) No sequence (all residues the same): homopolymer with hydrogen bonding + hydrophobic interactions The balance between hydrogen bonding energy and hydrophobicity produces different phases. (Monte Carlo sampling) The process of aggregation of IDP is independent of the sequence. First oligomerization in amorphous aggregates, after rearrangement into amyloid fibrils Intermediate resolution INTERACTING PROTEINS: PHYSICAL INTERACTIONS MUST BE INCLUDED TWO-BEAD MODEL: One particle (bead) for the backbone and another bead for the sidechain Structure-based interactions between backbone beads (maintain the structure of each protein by fixing the dihedrals) Hydrogen bonds cannot be represented. BAR domains: extra structure bonds between helixes. Specific physical interactions between sidechain beads, based on hydrophobicity and charge. HIDROPHOBICITY: Water molecules form hydrogen bonds with polar residues. Nonpolar residues are repelled by water, and tend to join in hydrophobic cores. Defining hydrophobicity allows to consider implicitly the solvent Arkhipov, Biophys. J. 95 2806 (2008) Marrink's coarse-grained model: defined for lipids (impressive results) Marrink, J. Phys. Chem. B 108, 750 (2004) Lennard-Jones potentials between beads (hardcore distance 4.7 A between all beads) Different interaction strengths between different bead types Plus electrostactic interactions ( summed charge in the bead) Explicit solvent: 1 bead (type P) = 4 H2O Interaction strengths calibrated by trial and error to reproduce several experimental properties: - density of water and of alkanes: butane, hexane, octane, etc - solubility of alkanes and water - diffusion rates Translation into proteins: remapping of sidechains Monticelli et al, JCTC 4, 819 (2008) Lots of restrictions to prevent unfolding No hydrogen backbone bonds: the secondary structure should be restrained. Fixed backbone dihedrals AGGREGATION OF MEMBRANE PROTEINS Periole, JACS 129 10126 (2007) Simulations made with rigid proteins (only moving sidechains) Intrinsically disordered proteins with sequence effects A higher resolution description of the structure allows to define physics-based interactions Four-bead model: backbone N, Cα, C and one bead for the sidechains (except Gly) Allows to define hydrogen bonds between backbones: secondary structure well described INTERACTIONS BETWEEN SIDECHAINS: -HYDROPHOBIC Dipoles in a hydrogen bond -ELECTROSTATIC ATTRACTION/REPULSION Hidrophobic interactions: Kyte & Doolitle hydropathy scale J. Mol. Biol. 157, 105 (1982) Weight of the hydrophobic, hydrogen bond and electrostatic terms adjusted To reproduce experiment: Urbanc et al, PNAS 101, 17345 (2004) To study the formation of oligomers, a large number of proteins should be included in the simulation. LARGE SIZE And aggregation takes place in a very long time scale. LONG TIME Therefore, an explicit-solvent atomistic molecular dynamics simulation is unfeasible. Solution: use simplified models of the proteins and make coarse-grained simulations (reduced number of particles + implicit solvent) Aim: study the global behaviour of the proteins, not detailed structural features Experimental finding: AB42 tends to form higher order oligomers than AB40 Simulations of oligmerization of amyloid-beta peptide Four-bead model Backbone hydrogen bonds + hydrophobic interactions between sidechain beads, based on an empirical aminoacid hydropathy scale Cutoff distance: 7.5 A between all CB Results compare well with the experimental oligomer size distributions Urbanc et al, JACS 132, 4266 (2010) Amyloid fibrils formed by amyloid-beta protein in Alzheimer’s disease. The oligomers have internal rearrangements transforming in protofibrils In general protein misfolding is necessary for amyloidogenesis Discrete molecular dynamics Oligomerization of amyloid-beta protein driven by hydrophobic interactions and formation of intermolecular beta-strands monomer Stanley, PNAS 101, 17345 (2004) dimer The predicted distributions of oligomer sizes compare well with the experiment. Amorphous oligomers obtained Study which are the key residues for the aggregation. pentamer Shortcoming: deficient representation of the sidechains (one bead CB for all the aminoacids) If applied to natively folded proteins, the native structure is rapidly destroyed. An intermediate resolution model for polyglutamine peptides: Marchut & Hall, Biophys. J. 90, 4574 (2006) Too many beads, try to simulate larger systems with less beads per protein, but still a model that includes the physical features of the protein: hydrogen bonds, sidechain packing, hydrophobic regions. HIGHER RESOLUTION COARSE-GRAINED MODELS Almost atomistic (slower simulations than with strong coarse-graining) High accuracy and transferability UNRES (United Residue) Parametrized with trajectories of all-atom MD simulations, and optimized using a training set of protein experimental structures. Liwo et al., J. Phys. Chem. B 111, 260 (2007) OPEP (Optimized Potential for Efficient peptide structure Prediction) Derreumaux, J. Chem. Phys. 111 2301 (1999) Interaction potentials parametrized with a training set of protein structures Boucher et al., Proteins 68 877 (2006) Ideal CG model: 1- Minimum number of beads 2- Allows formation of hydrogen bonds (formation of secondary structure) 3- Sequence-dependent: consider properly the interaction between sidechain beads, and the size of the sidechains (packing) Simulation method: DMD Faster because no need to integrate equations of motion Linear movement with constant velocity until collision ri (t + tc ) = ri (t ) + vi (t )tc Collision: conservation of linear momentum and energy mi vi + m j v j = mi vi '+ m j v j ' 1 1 1 1 2 2 mi vi + m j v j = mi vi '2 + m j v j '2 + ∆V 2 2 2 2 Change in velocities: mi vi = mi vi '+ ∆p m j v j + ∆p = m j v j ' The DMD algorithm spends 99% of the time looking which will be the next collision. Number of collisions proportional to number of potential steps The timestep decreases with the number of discontinuities in the potential SLOW FAST Urbanc et al, PNAS 101, 17345 (2004) Interaction potentials between sidechain beads Hydrophobic/hydrophilic cutoff distance: 7.5 A Electrostatic interactions. Discrete molecular dynamics MODELLING PHYSICAL INTERACTIONS IN DMD A higher resolution description of the structure allows to define physics-based interactions Four-bead model: backbone N, Cα, C and one bead for the sidechains (except Gly) Allows to define hydrogen bonds between backbones: secondary structure well described Pseudobonds allow to conserve bond angles and diedrals (planarity of the peptide bonds) Due to the use of quantum wells, only short-range interactions can be included in the model INTERACTIONS BETWEEN SIDECHAINS: -HYDROPHOBIC -ELECTROSTATIC ATTRACTION/REPULSION