Journal of Chemical Physics
Feedback | Help | Exit
The Journal of Chemical Physics
   
 
 
 
Previous Article
Solution effects and the order of the helix–coil transition in polyalanine
We study helix–coil transitions in an all-atom model of polyalanine. Molecules of up to length 30 residues are investigated by multicanonical simulations. Results from two implicit solvent models...
Next Article
An effective-colloid pair potential for Lennard-Jones colloid–polymer mixtures
We propose an effective one-component model that accurately reproduces the colloid–colloid radial distribution function gcc(r) of a colloid–polymer mixture. The particles of this effective m...

Non-Gaussian dynamics from a simulation of a short peptide: Loop closure rates and effective diffusion coefficients

J. Chem. Phys. 118, 2381 (2003); doi:10.1063/1.1532728

Issue Date: 1 February 2003

You are not logged in to this journal. Log in

John J. Portman
Center for Nonlinear Studies and Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
Intrachain contact formation rates, fundamental to the dynamics of biopolymer self-organization such as protein folding, can be monitored in the laboratory through fluorescence quenching measurements. The common approximations for the intrachain contact rate given by the theory of Szabo, Schulten, and Schulten (SSS) [J. Chem. Phys. 72, 4350 (1980)] and Wilemski–Fixman (WF) [J. Chem. Phys. 60, 878 (1973)] are shown to be complementary variational bounds: The SSS and WF approximations are lower and upper bounds, respectively, on the mean first contact times. As reported in the literature, the SSS approximation requires an effective diffusion coefficient 10 to 100 times smaller than expected to fit experimentally measured quenching rates. An all atom molecular dynamics simulation of an eleven residue peptide sequence in explicit water is analyzed to investigate the source of this surprising parameter value. The simulated diffusion limited contact time is [approximate]6 ns for a reaction radius of 4 Å for solvent viscosity corresponding to that of water at 293 K and 1 atm (eta= 1.0 cP). In analytical work, the polymer is typically modeled by a Gaussian chain of effective monomers. Compared to Gaussian dynamics, the simulated end-to-end distance autocorrelation has a much slower relaxation. The long time behavior of the distance autocorrelation function can be approximated by a Gaussian model in which the monomer diffusion coefficient D0 is reduced to D0/6. This value of the diffusion coefficient brings the mean end-to-end contact time from analytical approximations and simulation into agreement in the sense that the SSS and WF approximations bracket the simulated mean first contact time. ©2003 American Institute of Physics.
History: Received 30 July 2002; accepted 4 November 2002
Permalink: http://link.aip.org/link/?JCPSA6/118/2381/1
BUY THIS ARTICLE   (US$28)
Download HTML Download Sectioned HTML Download PDF (149 kB) View Cart

KEYWORDS and PACS

Keywords
PACS
  • 87.14.Ee
    Proteins
  • 87.15.He
    Biomolecular dynamics and conformational changes
  • 87.15.Mi
    Spectra, photodissociation, and photoionization of biomolecules; bioluminescence
  • 33.50.Hv
    Molecular radiationless transitions, quenching
  • YEAR: 2003

RELATED DATABASES


To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.
To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.

PUBLICATION DATA

ISSN:
0021-9606 (print)   1089-7690 (online)
Publisher:
AIP is a member of CrossRef AIP

REFERENCES (55)
View in Separate Window/Tab
For access to fully linked references, you need to log in. For access to fully linked references, you need to Log in.
  1. L. J. Lapidus, W. A. Eaton, and J. Hofrichter, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 97, 7220 (1999).
  2. O. Bieri, J. Wirz, B. Hellrung, M. Schutkowski, M. Drewello, and T. Kiefhaber, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96, 9597 (1999).
  3. R. R. Hudgins, F. Huang, G. Gramlich, and W. M. Nau, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 124, 556 (2002).
  4. E. Haas, E. Katchalski-Katzir, and I. Z. Steinberg, Biopolymers 17, 11 (1978).
  5. E. Haas, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 2, 1088 (1996).
  6. M. I. Wallace, L. Ying, S. Balasubramanian, and D. Klenerman, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98, 5584 (2001).
  7. J. D. Bryngelson, J. N. Onuchic, N. D. Socci, and P. G. Wolynes, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet. 21, 167 (1995).
  8. S. E. Jackson, Folding Des. 3, R81 (1998).
  9. M. Gruebele, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 50, 485 (1999).
  10. A. R. Fersht, A. Matouschek, and L. Serrano, J. Mol. Biol. 224, 771 (1992).
  11. J. J. Portman, S. Takada, and P. G. Wolynes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5237 (1998).
  12. O. V. Galzitskaya and A. V. Finkelstein, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96, 112999 (1999).
  13. E. Alm and D. Baker, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96, 11305 (1999).
  14. V. Muñoz and W. A. Eaton, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96, 11311 (1999).
  15. B. A. Shoemaker, J. Wang, and P. G. Wolynes, J. Mol. Biol. 287, 675 (1999).
  16. D. A. Debe and W. A. Goddard, III, J. Mol. Biol. 294, 619 (1999).
  17. J. J. Portman, S. Takada, and P. G. Wolynes, J. Chem. Phys. 114, 5082 (2001).
  18. V. Muñoz, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 11, 212 (2001).
  19. D. E. Makarov, C. A. Keller, K. W. Plaxco, and H. Metiu, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 3535 (2002).
  20. R. Zwanzig, J. Chem. Phys. 60, 2717 (1974).
  21. M. Bixon and R. Zwanzig, J. Chem. Phys. 68, 1896 (1978).
  22. C. W. Manke and M. C. Williams, Macromolecules 18, 2045 (1985).
  23. M. Fixman, J. Chem. Phys. 89, 2442 (1988).
  24. R. Zwanzig, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 85, 2029 (1988).
  25. J. D. Bryngelson and P. G. Wolynes, J. Phys. Chem. 93, 6902 (1989).
  26. D. Thirumalai, V. Ashwin, and J. K. Bhattacharjee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 5385 (1996).
  27. S. Takada, J. J. Portman, and P. G. Wolynes, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 94, 2318 (1997).
  28. T. R. Kirkpatrick and D. Thirumalai, Phys. Rev. B 36, 5388 (1987).
  29. Very recently (Ref. 30), this problem has been reduced to the the solution of an integral equation for the special case when the quenching has a delta function distance dependence.
  30. I. M. Sokolov, cond-mat/0207159 (2002).
  31. G. Wilemski and M. Fixman, J. Chem. Phys. 60, 878 (1973).
  32. A. Szabo, K. Schulten, and Z. Schulten, J. Chem. Phys. 72, 4350 (1980).
  33. R. W. Pastor, R. Zwanzig, and A. Szabo, J. Chem. Phys. 105, 3878 (1996).
  34. G. Srinivas, A. Yethiraj, and B. Bagchi, J. Chem. Phys. 114, 9170 (2001).
  35. A. V. Barzykin, K. Seki, and M. Tachiya, J. Chem. Phys. 117, 1377 (2002).
  36. I.-C. Yeh and G. Hummer, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 124, 6563 (2002).
  37. L. J. Lapidus, W. A. Eaton, and J. Hofrichter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 258101 (2001).
  38. J. J. Portman and P. G. Wolynes, J. Phys. Chem. A 103, 10602 (1999).
  39. This form of the upper bound is given in Ref. 38 Eq. (B9) with g = xi.
  40. M. Doi, Chem. Phys. 11, 107 (1975).
  41. The variational bounds can be similarly developed for the single variable equation [[script L](R) + epsilonk]rho-hat = 1. For finite epsilon, bounds of this one-dimensional problem generated from different trial functions has been addressed in Ref. 38. We do not pursue this approach for Eq. (23) because the diffusion limited rate can be calculated exactly through Eq. (24).
  42. N. D. Socci, J. N. Onuchic, and P. G. Wolynes, J. Chem. Phys. 104, 5860 (1996).
  43. W. D. Cornell, P. Cieplak, C. I. Bailey, et al. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 117, 5179 (1995).
  44. D. Pearlman, D. A. Case, J. W. Caldwell, W. S. Ross, I. T. E. Cheatam, D. M. Ferguson, U. C. Singh, P. Weiner, and P. Kollman, AMBER 4.1 (1995).
  45. L. R. Pratt, G. Hummer, and A. E. Garcia, Biophys. Chem. 51, 147 (1994).
  46. G. Hummer, D. M. Soumpasis, and M. Neuman, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 6, A141 (1994).
  47. H. J. C. Berendsen, J. P. M. Postma, W. F. van Gunsteren, A. DiNola, and J. R. Haak, J. Chem. Phys. 81, 3684 (1984).
  48. R. Zwanzig and N. K. Ailawadi, Phys. Rev. 182, 280 (1969).
  49. L. J. Lapidus, W. A. Eaton, and J. Hofrichter, J. Mol. Biol. 319, 19 (2002).
  50. T. E. Creighton, Proteins: Structures and Molecular Properties (Freeman, New York, 1993), 2nd ed.
  51. M. Shen and K. F. Freed, Biophys. J. 82, 1791 (2002).
  52. The agreement, however, is to some degree accidental since the SSS approximation depends in part on the weight of Peq(R) at small distances, where the Gaussian is a poor approximation to the simulated potential of mean force. The additional weight of the Gaussian at small R is offset to some extent by the peak centered around 4 Å in the simulated Peq(R).
  53. Converting the effective diffusion coefficient to the viscosity etawat = 1.0 cP, gives 2D<sub>0</sub><sup>wat</sup> = 1.5×10–5 cm2/s and 2D-bar<sub>0</sub><sup>wat</sup> = 2.5×10–6 cm2/s.
  54. L. J. Lapidus, P. J. Steinbach, W. Eaton, A. Szabo, and J. Hofrichter, J. Phys. Chem. B 106, 11628 (2002).
  55. D. J. Bicout and A. Szabo, J. Chem. Phys. 109, 2325 (1998).

CITING ARTICLES
For access to citing articles, you need to log in.
For access to citing articles, you need to Log in.


Copyright © American Institute of Physics