4.5 Article

The Shadow Map: A General Contact Definition for Capturing the Dynamics of Biomolecular Folding and Function

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B
卷 116, 期 29, 页码 8692-8702

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp300852d

关键词

-

资金

  1. Center for Theoretical Biological Physics
  2. NSF [PHY-0822283]
  3. Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas
  4. NSF through TeraGrid
  5. TACC [TGMCB110021]
  6. NIH [T32 GM08326]
  7. [NSF-MCB-1214457]
  8. Direct For Biological Sciences
  9. Div Of Molecular and Cellular Bioscience [1214457] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  10. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  11. Division Of Physics [1308264] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Structure-based models (SBMs) are simplified models of the biomolecular dynamics that arise from funneled energy landscapes.. We recently introduced an all-atom SBM that explicitly represents the atomic geometry of a biomolecule. While this initial :study showed the robustness of the all atom SBM Hamiltonian to changes in many of the energetic parameters, an important aspect, which has not been explored previously, is the definition of native interactions In this study, we propose a general definition for generating atomically grained contact maps called Shadow. The Shadow algorithm initially considers all atoms within a cutoff distance and then, controlled by a screening: parameter, discards the. occluded contacts. We show that this choice of contact map is not only well behaved for protein folding, since, it produces consistently cooperative folding behavior in SBMs but also desirable for exploring the dynamics of macromolecular assemblies: since, it distributes energy similarly between RNAs and proteins despite their disparate internal packing. All atom structure based models employing Shadow contact maps provide a general framework for exploring the geometrical features Of biomolecules, especially the connections between folding and function.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据