Skip to main content
. 2012 Apr 18;102(8):1897–1906. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2012.03.024

Table 1.

Comparison between experimental and calculated data

Force field Criterion Folded Misfolded All
ff03 Sum of NOE violations (Å) 1.92 30.93 1.20
ff03w Sum of NOE violations (Å) 1.76 39.70 1.16
ff99SB Sum of NOE violations (Å) 3.07 31.69 1.58
C22/CMAP Sum of NOE violations (Å) 2.97 33.31 4.19
NMR Sum of NOE violations (Å) 0.77
ff03 RMS Hα c.s.d. (ppm) 0.31 0.34 0.21
ff03w RMS Hα c.s.d. (ppm) 0.30 0.34 0.28
ff99SB RMS Hα c.s.d. (ppm) 0.38 0.38 0.35
C22/CMAP RMS Hα c.s.d. (ppm) 0.33 0.32 0.28
NMR RMS Hα c.s.d. (ppm) 0.21
ff03 RMS 3JHNHα dev. (Hz) 0.91 1.13 0.89
ff03w RMS 3JHNHα dev. (Hz) 0.92 1.25 0.91
ff99SB RMS 3JHNHα dev. (Hz) 1.32 1.80 1.41
C22/CMAP RMS 3JHNHα dev. (Hz) 1.22 1.65 1.24
NMR RMS 3JHNHα dev. (Hz) 0.96
ff03 RMS 3JHαHβ dev. (Hz) 2.38 2.06 2.18
ff03w RMS 3JHαHβ dev. (Hz) 2.35 2.04 2.08
ff99SB RMS 3JHαHβ dev. (Hz) 2.36 2.09 2.09
C22/CMAP RMS 3JHαHβ dev. (Hz) 2.56 2.97 2.13
NMR RMS 3JHαHβ dev. (Hz) 2.02

Match of back-calculated data is estimated from the sum of the NOE violations (Å), and the RMS deviations of Hα chemical shifts at 293 K. Column 2: c.s.d., chemical shift deviation; dev., deviation.