Using Density Functional Theory for Testing the Robustness of Mobile-Proton Molecular Dynamics Simulations on Electrosprayed Ions: Structural Implications for Gaseous Proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current experiments only provide low-resolution information on gaseous protein ions generated by electrospray ionization (ESI). Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations can yield complementary insights. Unfortunately, conventional MD does not capture the mobile nature of protons in gaseous proteins. Mobile-proton MD (MPMD) overcomes this limitation. Earlier MPMD data at 300 K indicated that protein ions generated by “native” ESI retain solution-like structures with a hydrophobic core and zwitterionic exterior [ Bakhtiari, M.; Konermann, L. J. Phys. Chem. B 2019, 123, 1784−1796]. MPMD redistributes protons using electrostatic and proton affinity calculations. The robustness of this approach has never been scrutinized. Here, we close this gap by benchmarking MPMD against density functional theory (DFT) at the B3LYP/6-31G* level, which is well suited for predicting proton affinities. The computational cost of DFT necessitated the use of small peptides. The MPMD energetic ranking of proton configurations was found to be consistent with DFT single-point energies, implying that MPMD can reliably identify favorable protonation sites. Peptide MPMD runs converged to DFT-optimized structures only when applying 300–500 K temperature cycling, which was necessary to prevent trapping in local minima. Temperature cycling MPMD was then applied to gaseous protein ions. Native ubiquitin converted to slightly expanded structures with a zwitterionic core and a nonpolar exterior. Our data suggest that such inside-out protein structures are intrinsically preferred in the gas phase, and that they form in ESI experiments after moderate collisional excitation. This is in contrast to native ESI (with minimal collisional excitation, simulated by MPMD at 300 K), where kinetic trapping promotes the survival of solution-like structures. In summary, this work validates the MPMD approach for simulations on gaseous peptides and proteins.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".