Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Biophysical Journal logoLink to Biophysical Journal
. 2000 Sep;79(3):1537–1553. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(00)76405-8

On the truncation of long-range electrostatic interactions in DNA.

J Norberg 1, L Nilsson 1
PMCID: PMC1301047  PMID: 10969015

Abstract

Long-range interactions are known to play an important role in highly polar biomolecules like DNA. In molecular dynamics simulations of nucleic acids and proteins, an accurate treatment of the long-range interactions are crucial for achieving stable nanosecond trajectories. In this report, we evaluate the structural and dynamic effects on a highly charged oligonucleotide in aqueous solution from different long-range truncation methods. Two group-based truncation methods, one with a switching function and one with a force-switching function were found to fail to give accurate stable trajectories close to the crystal structure. For these group-based truncation methods, large root mean square (rms) deviations from the initial structure were obtained and severe distortions of the oligonucleotide were observed. Another group-based truncation scheme, which used an abrupt truncation at 8. 0 A or at 12.0 A was also investigated. For the short cutoff distance, the conformations deviated far away from the initial structure and were significantly distorted. However, for the longer cutoff, where all necessary electrostatic interactions were included, the trajectory was quite stable. For the particle mesh Ewald (PME) truncation method, a stable DNA simulation with a heavy atom rms deviation of 1.5 A was obtained. The atom-based truncation methods also resulted in stable trajectories, according to the rms deviation from the initial B-DNA structure, of between 1.5 and 1.7 A for the heavy atoms. In these stable simulations, the heavy atom rms deviations were approximately 0.6-1.0 A lower for the bases than for the backbone. An increase of the cutoff radius from 8 to 12 A decreased the rms deviation by approximately 0.2 A for the atom-based truncation method with a force-shifting function, but increased the computational time by a factor of 2. Increasing the cutoff from 12 to 18 A for the atom-based truncation method with a force-shifting function requires 2-3 times more computational time, but did not significantly change the rms deviation. Similar rms deviations from the initial structure were found for the atom-based method with a force-shifting function and for the PME method. The computational cost was longer for the PME method with a cutoff of 12. 0 A for the direct space nonbonded calculations than for the atom-based truncation method with a force-shifting function and a cutoff of 12.0 A. If a nonperiodic boundary, e.g., a spherical boundary, was used, a considerable speedup could be achieved. From the rms fluctuations, the terminal nucleotides and especially the cytidines were found to be more flexible than the nonterminal nucleotides. The B-DNA form of the oligonucleotide was maintained throughout the simulations and is judged to depend on the parameters of the energy function and not on the truncation method used to handle the long-range electrostatic interactions. To perform accurate and stable simulations of highly charged biological macromolecules, we recommend that the atom-based force-shift method or the PME method should be used for the long-range electrostatics interactions.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (251.8 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Auffinger P., Westhof E. H-bond stability in the tRNA(Asp) anticodon hairpin: 3 ns of multiple molecular dynamics simulations. Biophys J. 1996 Aug;71(2):940–954. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(96)79298-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Berendsen H. J., Van Gunsteren W. F., Zwinderman H. R., Geurtsen R. G. Simulations of proteins in water. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1986;482:269–286. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1986.tb20961.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bevan D. R., Li L., Pedersen L. G., Darden T. A. Molecular dynamics simulations of the d(CCAACGTTGG)(2) decamer: influence of the crystal environment. Biophys J. 2000 Feb;78(2):668–682. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(00)76625-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Borer P. N., LaPlante S. R., Kumar A., Zanatta N., Martin A., Hakkinen A., Levy G. C. 13C-NMR relaxation in three DNA oligonucleotide duplexes: model-free analysis of internal and overall motion. Biochemistry. 1994 Mar 8;33(9):2441–2450. doi: 10.1021/bi00175a012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cheatham T. E., 3rd, Cieplak P., Kollman P. A. A modified version of the Cornell et al. force field with improved sugar pucker phases and helical repeat. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 1999 Feb;16(4):845–862. doi: 10.1080/07391102.1999.10508297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cheatham T. E., 3rd, Kollman P. A. Observation of the A-DNA to B-DNA transition during unrestrained molecular dynamics in aqueous solution. J Mol Biol. 1996 Jun 14;259(3):434–444. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Darden T., Perera L., Li L., Pedersen L. New tricks for modelers from the crystallography toolkit: the particle mesh Ewald algorithm and its use in nucleic acid simulations. Structure. 1999 Mar 15;7(3):R55–R60. doi: 10.1016/s0969-2126(99)80033-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Duan Y., Wilkosz P., Crowley M., Rosenberg J. M. Molecular dynamics simulation study of DNA dodecamer d(CGCGAATTCGCG) in solution: conformation and hydration. J Mol Biol. 1997 Oct 3;272(4):553–572. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1997.1247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Duan Y., Wilkosz P., Rosenberg J. M. Dynamic contributions to the DNA binding entropy of the EcoRI and EcoRV restriction endonucleases. J Mol Biol. 1996 Dec 6;264(3):546–555. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Feig M., Pettitt B. M. Sodium and chlorine ions as part of the DNA solvation shell. Biophys J. 1999 Oct;77(4):1769–1781. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(99)77023-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Feig M., Pettitt B. M. Structural equilibrium of DNA represented with different force fields. Biophys J. 1998 Jul;75(1):134–149. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(98)77501-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Guenot J., Kollman P. A. Molecular dynamics studies of a DNA-binding protein: 2. An evaluation of implicit and explicit solvent models for the molecular dynamics simulation of the Escherichia coli trp repressor. Protein Sci. 1992 Sep;1(9):1185–1205. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560010912. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Harvey S. C. Treatment of electrostatic effects in macromolecular modeling. Proteins. 1989;5(1):78–92. doi: 10.1002/prot.340050109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kitson D. H., Avbelj F., Moult J., Nguyen D. T., Mertz J. E., Hadzi D., Hagler A. T. On achieving better than 1-A accuracy in a simulation of a large protein: Streptomyces griseus protease A. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993 Oct 1;90(19):8920–8924. doi: 10.1073/pnas.90.19.8920. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Langley D. R. Molecular dynamic simulations of environment and sequence dependent DNA conformations: the development of the BMS nucleic acid force field and comparison with experimental results. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 1998 Dec;16(3):487–509. doi: 10.1080/07391102.1998.10508265. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Loncharich R. J., Brooks B. R. The effects of truncating long-range forces on protein dynamics. Proteins. 1989;6(1):32–45. doi: 10.1002/prot.340060104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Norberg J., Nilsson L. Internal mobility of the oligonucleotide duplexes d(TCGCG)2 and d(CGCGCG)2 in aqueous solution from molecular dynamics simulations. J Biomol NMR. 1996 Jun;7(4):305–314. doi: 10.1007/BF00200432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Norberg J., Nilsson L. Potential of mean force calculations of the stacking-unstacking process in single-stranded deoxyribodinucleoside monophosphates. Biophys J. 1995 Dec;69(6):2277–2285. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(95)80098-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Norberg J., Nilsson L. Solvent influence on base stacking. Biophys J. 1998 Jan;74(1):394–402. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(98)77796-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Norberto de Souza O., Ornstein R. L. Effect of warmup protocol and sampling time on convergence of molecular dynamics simulations of a DNA dodecamer using AMBER 4.1 and particle-mesh Ewald method. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 1997 Apr;14(5):607–611. doi: 10.1080/07391102.1997.10508160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Norberto de Souza O., Ornstein R. L. Molecular dynamics simulations of a protein-protein dimer: particle-mesh Ewald electrostatic model yields far superior results to standard cutoff model. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 1999 Jun;16(6):1205–1218. doi: 10.1080/07391102.1999.10508328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Pastor N., Pardo L., Weinstein H. Does TATA matter? A structural exploration of the selectivity determinants in its complexes with TATA box-binding protein. Biophys J. 1997 Aug;73(2):640–652. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(97)78099-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Sagui C., Darden T. A. Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules: long-range electrostatic effects. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct. 1999;28:155–179. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biophys.28.1.155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Schreiber H., Steinhauser O. Cutoff size does strongly influence molecular dynamics results on solvated polypeptides. Biochemistry. 1992 Jun 30;31(25):5856–5860. doi: 10.1021/bi00140a022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Schreiber H., Steinhauser O. Taming cut-off induced artifacts in molecular dynamics studies of solvated polypeptides. The reaction field method. J Mol Biol. 1992 Dec 5;228(3):909–923. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(92)90874-j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Young M. A., Ravishanker G., Beveridge D. L. A 5-nanosecond molecular dynamics trajectory for B-DNA: analysis of structure, motions, and solvation. Biophys J. 1997 Nov;73(5):2313–2336. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(97)78263-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Zuegg J., Gready J. E. Molecular dynamics simulations of human prion protein: importance of correct treatment of electrostatic interactions. Biochemistry. 1999 Oct 19;38(42):13862–13876. doi: 10.1021/bi991469d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. de Souza O. N., Ornstein R. L. Effect of periodic box size on aqueous molecular dynamics simulation of a DNA dodecamer with particle-mesh Ewald method. Biophys J. 1997 Jun;72(6):2395–2397. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(97)78884-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Biophysical Journal are provided here courtesy of The Biophysical Society

RESOURCES