Skip to main content
. 2010 Nov 10;5(11):e13714. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013714

Figure 2. General statistical justification of PMFs.

Figure 2

The goal is to combine a distribution Inline graphic over a fine grained variable Inline graphic (top right), with a probability distribution Inline graphic over a coarse grained variable Inline graphic (top left). Inline graphic could be, for example, embodied in a fragment library (Inline graphic), a probabilistic model of local structure (Inline graphic) or an energy function (Inline graphic); Inline graphic could be, for example, the radius of gyration, the hydrogen bond network, or the set of pairwise distances. Inline graphic usually reflects the distribution of Inline graphic in known protein structures (PDB), but could also stem from experimental data (Inline graphic). Sampling from Inline graphic results in a distribution Inline graphic that differs from Inline graphic. Multiplying Inline graphic and Inline graphic does not result in the desired distribution for Inline graphic either (red box); the correct result requires dividing out the signal with respect to Inline graphic due to Inline graphic (green box). The reference distribution Inline graphic in the denominator corresponds to the contribution of the reference state in a PMF. If Inline graphic is only approximately known, the method can be applied iteratively (dashed arrow). In that case, one attempts to iteratively sculpt an energy funnel. The procedure is statistically rigorous provided Inline graphic and Inline graphic are proper probability distributions; this is usually not the case for conventional pairwise distance PMFs.