1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Geometry optimization for peptides and proteins: Comparison of Cartesian and internal coordinates
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1063/1.2807227
/content/aip/journal/jcp/127/23/10.1063/1.2807227
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/jcp/127/23/10.1063/1.2807227
View: Figures

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

(Color) Structures for the three polypeptides (GB1, EnH, and CypA) used in the benchmarks. (a) A conformation from the native ensemble for each system, optimized to a convergence tolerance of rms force units. (b) Two of the 50 starting points used in the L-BFGS optimization benchmarks. The conformations were obtained by stepping off from randomly selected transition states parallel to the Hessian eigenvector corresponding to the unique negative Hessian eigenvalue.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

(Color online) Efficiency of Cartesian (C), primitive internal (P), and natural internal (N) coordinate systems in optimizing peptide structures. Fifty different starting structures were minimized for each of three polypeptides (GB1, EnH, and CypA). The average number of L-BFGS steps and the average total CPU time is plotted as a function of the number of previous steps used to build up the inverse Hessian approximation . The results for primitive and natural internals are indistinguishable in some cases. The rms force convergence criterion for all minimizations was .

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

(Color online) Effect of parameters on GB1 energy minimization with primitive (P) and natural (N) internal coordinates. The average CPU time required to minimize 50 starting structures to an rms force of units is plotted as a function of the spectral shift used to make the matrix positive definite and of the convergence tolerance for the iterative back transformation.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

(Color online) Comparison of Cartesian (C), primitive internal (P), and natural internal (N) coordinate systems for optimizing polyalanine helices of different sizes. The L-BFGS memory parameter is for Cartesian coordinates and for internal coordinates. A spectral shift parameter of was used in this calculation. The rms force convergence criterion was .

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

(Color online) Structures of 100 residue polyalanine helices after minimization with (a) natural internal and (b) Cartesian coordinates. Structures were minimized to an rms force tolerance of .

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

(Color online) Comparison of Cartesian (C), primitive internal (P), natural internal (N), and mixed internal (M) coordinate systems for optimizing polyalanine helices that have been previously minimized and perturbed. The number of gradient calls and CPU time are averaged over 50 different perturbed structures for each helix size. Parameters are the same as in Fig. 4. For the mixed coordinate system, -matrix coordinates were used for the backbone atoms only, with natural coordinates used for the side chains. The rms force convergence criterion was .

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

(Color online) Efficiency of Cartesian (C), primitive internal (P), and natural internal (N) coordinate systems in optimizing GB1 structures close to a local minimum. Fifty different starting structures were obtained by perturbing an optimized hairpin configuration. The average number of L-BFGS steps and the average total CPU time (in seconds) is plotted as a function of the number of previous steps used to build up the inverse Hessian approximation . The rms force convergence criterion was .

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aip/journal/jcp/127/23/10.1063/1.2807227
2007-12-19
2014-04-19
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Geometry optimization for peptides and proteins: Comparison of Cartesian and internal coordinates
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/jcp/127/23/10.1063/1.2807227
10.1063/1.2807227
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM