Evidence Hub

Ensemble fits of restrained peptides' conformational equilibria to NMR data. Dependence on force fields: AMBER/8 ff03 versus ECEPP/3

Ciarkowski J, Łuczak S, Jagieła D, Sikorska E, Wójcik J, Oleszczuk M, Izdebski J

Journal of molecular graphics & modelling, 2012

Abstract

Two variants of NMR-based conformational analyses of flexible peptides are compared using two examples meeting the formula Tyr-D-Daa-Phe-Daa-NH₂ (Daa=diamino acid): 1 combining D-Dab² (α,γ-diaminobutyryl) with Lys⁴, and 2 -D-Dap² (α,β-diaminopropionyl) with Orn⁴. The ω-amino groups of D-Daa² and Daa⁴ are coupled with C=O into the urea, restraining 1 and 2 with 16- and 14-membered rings and leading to potent and impotent μ/δ opioid peptides, respectively. To the current task, we took from an earlier work (Filip et al, J. Pept. Sci. 11 (2005) 347-352) the NMR NOE- and J-data in H₂O/D₂O; and the selection of the ensembles of 1 and 2, 822 and 788 conformational families, respectively, obtained by using the EDMC/ECEPP3 method. Here, we generated ensembles of 1 and 2 using AMBER molecular dynamics in explicit water to eventually selected 686 and 761 conformers for 1 and 2, respectively. We did numbers of fits for both types of the conformational ensembles of 1 and 2 to their NOE- and J-data using a common method i.e. maximum entropy approach (Groth et al, J. Biomol. NMR 15 (1999) 315-330). Both types of the well structurally diversified ensembles fit to quite different equilibria in regressions to common experimental NOE- and J-restraints using maximum entropy principle, which is a disappointing message. Intriguing is startlingly small standard deviation in J-couplings: σ(JNHαH) ≈ 0.01 Hz for LES-MD/AMBER ensemble, contrary to σ(JNHαH) = 0.8 - 1.1 Hz for the EDMC/ECEPP ensemble,…

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free