Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Jul 26.
Published in final edited form as: J Phys Chem B. 2012 Apr 5;116(29):8610–8620. doi: 10.1021/jp300129u

Table 2.

Clustering of sampled trp-cage conformations

#1 Cluster populations Representative structure2
ε = 5 [%] ε = 20 [%] ε = 40 [%] ε = 80 [%] ε=80 + crowders [%] Cα RMSD [Å] Radius of gyration [Å] Bending angle [°]
1 0 13.0 (3.2) 58.6 (7.2) 53.9 (3.3) 21.9 (6.2) 2.25 7.25 45.9
2 63.0 (16.5) 40.7 (13.4) 4.2 (1.8) 2.7 (0.9) 16.0 (1.6) 1.56 7.09 18.5
3 1.3 (1.1) 7.6 (1.7) 30.5 (6.0) 32.3 (4.4) 35.8 (4.1) 1.1 7.4 9.5
4 13.9 (4.5) 34.5 (11.4) 2.0 (0.7) 1.8 (0.5) 11.0 (3.5) 2.37 7.14 43.9
5 21.8 (12.7) 3.8 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1) 0 0.4 (0.4) 1.75 7.1 13.9
6 0 0 0 0 6.0 (1.8) 6.53 9.54 118.1
7 0 0 0 0.4 (0.2) 5.0 (0.7) 3.26 7.79 57.9
8 0 0 0 0 3.2 (0.4) 3.59 8.04 36.6

K-means clustering of a combined ensemble based on the mutual structural similarity, using Cα RMSD and a 3.0 Å clustering radius. 9000 structures were selected each from simulations 1 through 4 and another 9000 structures were taken from simulations 5 through 7 to yield a total of 45000 structures that were clustered together. Populations of >10% are indicated in bold face. Uncertainties given in parentheses are estimated from block analysis according to σ/N, where σ is the standard deviation and N = 3 since 3 blocks of data were used (see individual block averages in Tables S1 and S2 of supporting information).

1

Cluster number.

2

Structure nearest to the respective cluster centroid.