Unraveling motion in proteins by combining NMR relaxometry and molecular dynamics simulations: A case study on ubiquitin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) relaxation experiments shine light onto the dynamics of molecular systems in the picosecond to millisecond timescales. As these methods cannot provide an atomically resolved view of the motion of atoms, functional groups, or domains giving rise to such signals, relaxation techniques have been combined with molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to obtain mechanistic descriptions and gain insights into the functional role of side chain or domain motion. In this work, we present a comparison of five computational methods that permit the joint analysis of MD simulations and NMR relaxation experiments. We discuss their relative strengths and areas of applicability and demonstrate how they may be utilized to interpret the dynamics in MD simulations with the small protein ubiquitin as a test system. We focus on the aliphatic side chains given the rigidity of the backbone of this protein. We find encouraging agreement between experiment, Markov state models built in the χ1/χ2 rotamer space of isoleucine residues, explicit rotamer jump models, and a decomposition of the motion using ROMANCE. These methods allow us to ascribe the dynamics to specific rotamer jumps. Simulations with eight different combinations of force field and water model highlight how the different metrics may be employed to pinpoint force field deficiencies. Furthermore, the presented comparison offers a perspective on the utility of NMR relaxation to serve as validation data for the prediction of kinetics by state-of-the-art biomolecular force fields.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".