Sensitivity of peptide conformational dynamics on clustering of a classical molecular dynamics trajectory
J. Chem. Phys. 128, 115107 (2008); doi:10.1063/1.2838980
Published 21 March 2008
You are not logged in to this journal. Log in
We investigate the sensitivity of a Markov model with states and transition probabilities obtained from clustering a molecular dynamics trajectory. We have examined a 500 ns molecular dynamics trajectory of the peptide valine-proline-alanine-leucine in explicit water. The sensitivity is quantified by varying the boundaries of the clusters and investigating the resulting variation in transition probabilities and the average transition time between states. In this way, we represent the effect of clustering using different clustering algorithms. It is found that in terms of the investigated quantities, the peptide dynamics described by the Markov model is sensitive to the clustering; in particular, the average transition times are found to vary up to 46%. Moreover, inclusion of nonphysical sparsely populated clusters can lead to serious errors of up to 814%. In the investigation, the time step used in the transition matrix is determined by the minimum time scale on which the system behaves approximately Markovian. This time step is found to be about 100 ps. It is concluded that the description of peptide dynamics with transition matrices should be performed with care, and that using standard clustering algorithms to obtain states and transition probabilities may not always produce reliable results.
©2008 American Institute of Physics
| History: | Received 10 July 2007; accepted 8 January 2008; published 21 March 2008 |
| Permalink: |
http://link.aip.org/link/?JCPSA6/128/115107/1 |
KEYWORDS and PACS
RELATED DATABASES
PUBLICATION DATA
0021-9606 (print)
1089-7690 (online)
REFERENCES (17)
For access to fully linked references, you need to log in.
For access to fully linked references, you need to Log in.
- K. F. Lau and K. A. Dill,
Macromolecules 22, 3986 (1989) . - S. A. Adcock and J. A. McCammon,
Chem. Rev. (Washington, D.C.) 106, 1589 (2006) . - D. Hamelberg, J. Mongan, and J. A. McCammon, J. Chem. Phys. 120, 11919 (2004).
- U. H. E. Hansmann,
Chem. Phys. Lett. 281, 140 (1997) . - Y. Sugita and Y. Okamoto,
Chem. Phys. Lett. 314, 141 (1999) . - X. W. Wu and S. M. Wang,
J. Phys. Chem. B 102, 7238 (1998) . - X. W. Wu and S. M. Wang, J. Chem. Phys. 110, 9401 (1999).
- S. V. Krivov, S. F. Chekmarev, and M. Karplus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 038101 (2002).
- N. Singhal, C. D. Snow, and V. S. Pande, J. Chem. Phys. 121, 415 (2004).
- G. Jayachandran, V. Vishal, and V. S. Pande, J. Chem. Phys. 124, 164902 (2006).
- W. C. Swope, J. W. Pitera, and F. Suits,
J. Phys. Chem. B 108, 6571 (2004) . - W. C. Swope, J. W. Pitera, F. Suits, M. Pitman, M. Eleftheriou, B. G. Fitch, R. S. Germain, A. Rayshubski, T. J. C. Ward, Y. Zhestkov, and R. Zhou,
J. Phys. Chem. B 108, 6582 (2004) . - D. Van der Spoel, E. Lindahl, B. Hess, G. Groenhof, A. E. Mark, and H. J. C. Berendsen,
J. Comput. Chem. 26, 1701 (2005) . - B. Hess and N. F. A. van der Vegt,
J. Phys. Chem. B 110, 17616 (2006) . - C. Oostenbrink, T. A. Soares, N. F. A. van der Vegt, and W. F. van Gunsteren,
Eur. Biophys. J. 34, 273 (2005) . - C. Oostenbrink, A. Villa, A. E. Mark, and W. F. Van Gunsteren,
J. Comput. Chem. 25, 1656 (2004) . - H. J. C. Berendsen, J. P. M. Postma, W. F. van Gunsteren, A. DiNola, and J. R. Haak, J. Chem. Phys. 81, 3684 (1984).








