1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{graphics} 

3: \usepackage{cite}

4: \usepackage{epsfig}

5: %UGLY \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2.0}

6: \textwidth 432pt

7: \flushbottom

8: \textheight 594pt

9: \topmargin 72pt 

10: \headheight 0pt

11: \headsep 0pt

12: \footskip 54pt

13: \oddsidemargin 0pt 

14: \parindent 0in

15: \parskip 3ex 

16: 

17: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.1}

18: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.9}

19: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.9}

20: \renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{1.0}

21: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

22: 

23: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

24: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

25: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}

26: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}

27: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

28: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

29: 

30: \newcommand   {\ev}[1]   {\langle #1\rangle}

31: \newcommand   {\Ca}      {C${}_{\alpha}$}

32: \newcommand   {\Cb}      {C${}_{\beta}$}

33: \newcommand   {\Cd}      {C${}_{\delta}$}

34: \newcommand   {\Cp}      {C${}^{\prime}$}

35: \newcommand   {\dpdb}    {\delta_{\mbox{{\scriptsize PDB}}}}

36: \newcommand   {\Qpdb}    {Q_{\mbox{{\scriptsize PDB}}}}

37: \newcommand   {\Eloc}    {E_{\mbox{{\scriptsize loc}}}}

38: \newcommand   {\Esa}     {E_{\mbox{{\scriptsize sa}}}}

39: \newcommand   {\Ehb}     {E_{\mbox{{\scriptsize hb}}}}

40: \newcommand   {\Eihb}    {e_{\mbox{{\scriptsize hb}}}}

41: \newcommand   {\Ecol}    {E_{\mbox{{\scriptsize col}}}}

42: \newcommand   {\Tc}      {T_{\mbox{{\scriptsize c}}}}

43: \newcommand   {\Cv}      {C_{\mbox{{\scriptsize v}}}}

44: \newcommand   {\ephi}    {\epsilon_\phi}

45: \newcommand   {\epsi}    {\epsilon_\psi}

46: \newcommand   {\esa}     {\epsilon_{\mbox{{\scriptsize sa}}}}

47: \newcommand   {\ehb}     {\epsilon_{\mbox{{\scriptsize hb}}}}

48: \newcommand   {\ecol}    {\epsilon_{\mbox{{\scriptsize col}}}}

49: \newcommand   {\xcl}     {\xi_{\mbox{{\scriptsize cl}}}}

50: \newcommand   {\shb}     {\sigma_{\mbox{{\scriptsize hb}}}}

51: \newcommand   {\scol}    {\sigma_{\mbox{{\scriptsize col}}}}

52: \newcommand   {\Dhs}     {D_{\mbox{{\scriptsize HS}}}}

53: \newcommand   {\Rg}      {R_{\mbox{{\scriptsize g}}}}

54: 

55: \newcommand  {\etal}     {{\it et al.}}

56: \newcommand  {\ACR}      {{\it Acc. Chem. Res.\ }}

57: \newcommand  {\APC}      {{\it Adv. Protein Chem.\ }}

58: \newcommand  {\APS}      {{\it Adv. Polym. Sci.\ }}

59: \newcommand  {\Bioch}    {{\it Biochemistry\ }}

60: \newcommand  {\Biomet}   {{\it Biometrika\ }}

61: \newcommand  {\Biopol}   {{\it Biopolymers\ }}

62: \newcommand  {\BC}       {{\it Biophys.\ Chem.\ }}

63: \newcommand  {\BJ}       {{\it Biophys.\ J.\ }}

64: \newcommand  {\CPC}      {{\it Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ }} 

65: \newcommand  {\CPL}      {{\it Chem. Phys. Lett.\ }}

66: \newcommand  {\COSB}     {{\it Curr.\ Opin.\ Struct.\ Biol.\ }}

67: \newcommand  {\EBJ}      {{\it Eur.\ Biophys.\ J.\ }}

68: \newcommand  {\EL}       {{\it Europhys.\ Lett.\ }}

69: \newcommand  {\FD}       {{\it Fold.\ Des.\ }}

70: \newcommand  {\IMP}      {{\it Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ }}

71: \newcommand  {\JBP}      {{\it J.\ Biol.\ Phys.\ \ }}  

72: \newcommand  {\JCC}      {{\it J.\ Comput.\ Chem.\ \ }}

73: \newcommand  {\JCoP}     {{\it J.\ Comput.\ Phys.\ }}

74: \newcommand  {\JCP}      {{\it J.\ Chem.\ Phys.\ }}

75: \newcommand  {\JMB}      {{\it J.\ Mol.\ Biol.\ }}

76: \newcommand  {\JP}       {{\it J.\ Phys.\ }}

77: \newcommand  {\JPC}      {{\it J.\ Phys.\ Chem.\ }}

78: \newcommand  {\JPCM}     {{\it J.\ Phys.: Condens. Matter\ }}

79: \newcommand  {\JPSJ}     {{\it J. Phys. Soc. (Jap)\ }}

80: \newcommand  {\JSP}      {{\it J.\ Stat.\ Phys.\ }}

81: \newcommand  {\JTB}      {{\it J.\ Theor.\ Biol.\ }}

82: \newcommand  {\Mac}      {{\it Macromolecules\ }}

83: \newcommand  {\MC}       {{\it Makromol.\ Chem.,\ Theory Simul.\ }}

84: \newcommand  {\MP}       {{\it Molec.\ Phys.\ }}

85: \newcommand  {\NAR}      {{\it Nucleic\ Acids\ Res.\ }}

86: \newcommand  {\Nat}      {{\it Nature\ }}

87: \newcommand  {\NSB}      {{\it Nat.\ Struct.\ Biol.\ }}

88: \newcommand  {\NP}       {{\it Nucl.\ Phys.\ }}

89: \newcommand  {\Phy}      {{\it Physica\ }}

90: \newcommand  {\Pro}      {{\it Proteins\ Struct.\ Funct.\ Genet.\ }}

91: \newcommand  {\ProEng}   {{\it Protein\ Eng.\ }}

92: \newcommand  {\ProSci}   {{\it Protein\ Sci.\ }}

93: \newcommand  {\Pa}       {{\it Physica\ }}

94: \newcommand  {\PL}       {{\it Phys.\ Lett.\ }}

95: \newcommand  {\PNAS}     {{\it Proc.\ Natl.\ Acad.\ Sci.\ USA\ }}

96: \newcommand  {\PR}       {{\it Phys.\ Rev.\ }}

97: \newcommand  {\PRL}      {{\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ }}

98: \newcommand  {\PRS}      {{\it Proc.\ Roy.\ Soc.\ }}

99: \newcommand  {\PS}       {{\it Protein\ Sci.\ }}

100: \newcommand  {\PTP}      {{\it Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ }}  

101: \newcommand  {\RMP}      {{\it Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ }}

102: \newcommand  {\Sci}      {{\it Science\ }}

103: \newcommand  {\SFD}      {{\it Struct.\ Fold.\ Des.\ }}

104: \newcommand  {\Str}      {{\it Structure\ }}

105: \newcommand  {\TBS}      {{\it Trends Biochem. Sci.\ }}

106: \newcommand  {\TRA}      {{\it IEEE Trans. Rob. Autom.\ }}

107: \newcommand  {\ZP}       {{\it Z.\ Physik\ }}                  

108: 

109: %\input{psfig}

110: 

111: \begin{document}

112: 

113: \begin{flushright}

114: LU TP 01-24\\

115: November 5, 2001

116: \end{flushright}

117: 

118: \vspace{0.4in}

119: 

120: \begin{center}

121: 

122: {\LARGE \bf Folding of a Small Helical Protein} 

123: 

124: {\LARGE \bf Using Hydrogen Bonds and} 

125: 

126: {\LARGE \bf Hydrophobicity Forces}

127: 

128: \vspace{.6in}

129: 

130: \large

131: Giorgio Favrin, Anders Irb\"ack and Stefan 

132: Wallin\footnote{E-mail: favrin,\,anders,\,stefan@thep.lu.se}\\   

133: \vspace{0.10in}

134: Complex Systems Division, Department of Theoretical Physics\\ 

135: Lund University,  S\"olvegatan 14A,  S-223 62 Lund, Sweden \\

136: {\tt http://www.thep.lu.se/complex/}\\

137: 

138: \vspace{0.3in}	

139: 

140: Submitted to \Pro

141: 

142: \end{center}

143: \vspace{0.2in}

144: \normalsize

145: Abstract:\\

146: A reduced protein model with five to six atoms per amino acid and 

147: five amino acid types is developed and tested on a three-helix-bundle

148: protein, a 46-amino acid fragment from staphylococcal protein A. 

149: The model does not rely on the widely used G\=o approximation where 

150: non-native interactions are ignored. We find that the collapse transition 

151: is considerably more abrupt for the protein A sequence than for 

152: random sequences with the same composition. The chain collapse is found

153: to be at least as fast as helix formation. Energy minimization 

154: restricted to the thermodynamically favored topology gives a structure 

155: that has a root-mean-square deviation of 1.8~\AA\ from the native structure. 

156: The sequence-dependent part of our potential is pairwise additive. Our

157: calculations suggest that fine-tuning this potential by parameter

158: optimization is of limited use.   

159: 

160: \newpage

161: 

162: \section{Introduction}

163: 

164: In recent years, several important insights have been gained into 

165: the physical principles of protein folding~\cite{Sali:94,Bryngelson:95,

166: Dill:97,Klimov:98,Nymeyer:98,Hao:98}.

167: Still, in terms of quantitative predictions, it is clear that it

168: would be extremely useful to be able to perform more realistic 

169: folding simulations than what is currently possible. In fact,

170: most models that have been used so far for statistical-mechanical

171: simulations of folding rely on one or both of two quite drastic

172: approximations, the lattice and G\=o~\cite{Go:78} approximations.        

173: 

174: The reason that lattice models have been used to 

175: study basics of protein folding is partly computational,

176: but also physical --- on the lattice, it is known what

177: potential to use in order for stable and fast-folding 

178: sequences to exist (a simple contact potential is 

179: sufficient). How to satisfy these criteria for 

180: off-lattice chains is, by contrast, largely unknown, 

181: and therefore many current off-lattice

182: models~\cite{Zhou:97,Nymeyer:98,Shea:98,Zhou:99,Shea:99,

183: Clementi:00a,Clementi:00b,Shimada:01} use G\=o-type 

184: potentials~\cite{Go:78} where non-native interactions 

185: are ignored. The use of the G\=o approximation has some 

186: support from the finding that the native structure is a 

187: determinant for folding kinetics~\cite{Plaxco:98,Baker:00}. 

188: However, it is an uncontrolled approximation, and it is, 

189: of course, useless when it comes to structure prediction, 

190: as it requires prior knowledge of the native structure. 

191: 

192: In this paper, we discuss an off-lattice model that does not follow the 

193: G\=o prescription. Using this model, we perform extensive 

194: folding simulations for a small helical protein. The force field of

195: the model is simple and based on hydrogen bonds and effective 

196: hydrophobicity forces (no explicit water). There exist other non 

197: G\=o-like models with more elaborate force fields that have 

198: been used for structure prediction with some 

199: success~\cite{Lee:99,Pillardy:00,Hardin:00}. However, it is 

200: unclear what the dynamical properties of these models are. 

201: 

202: The original version of our model was presented in Ref.~\cite{Irback:00}

203: and has three types of amino acids: hydrophobic, polar and glycine. 

204: This version was applied to a designed three-helix-bundle 

205: protein with 54 amino acids~\cite{Irback:00}. For a suitable

206: relative strength of the hydrogen bonds and hydrophobicity forces,

207: it was found that this sequence does form a stable three-helix 

208: bundle, except for a twofold topological degeneracy, and that its 

209: folding transition is first-order-like and coincides with the collapse 

210: transition (the parameter $\sigma$ of Ref.~\cite{Klimov:98} is zero). 

211: 

212: Here, we extend this model from three to five amino acid 

213: types, by taking alanine to be intermediate in 

214: hydrophobicity between the previous two hydrophobic and

215: polar classes, and by introducing a special geometric 

216: representation for proline, which is needed to be able to mimic 

217: the helix-breaking property of this amino acid. 

218: Otherwise, the model is the same as before. 

219: The modified model is tested on a real three-helix-bundle

220: protein, the 10--55-amino acid fragment 

221: of the B domain of staphylococcal protein A.

222: The structure of this protein has been 

223: determined by NMR~\cite{Gouda:92}, and an energy-based structure 

224: prediction method has been tested on the sequence~\cite{Lee:99}. 

225: The folding properties have been studied too, both 

226: experimentally~\cite{Bottomley:94,Bai:97} and theoretically~\cite{Zhou:97,

227: Zhou:99,Shea:99,Boczko:95,Guo:97,Kolinski:98}. In particular, this  

228: means that we can compare the behavior of previous G\=o-like models 

229: to that of our more realistic model.  

230: 

231: \section{Materials and Methods}\label{sec:mod}

232: 

233: \subsection{Geometry}

234:  

235: Our model is an extension of that introduced in Ref.~\cite{Irback:00}. 

236: It uses three different amino acid representations: one for glycine, 

237: one for proline and one for the rest. The non-glycine, non-proline 

238: representation is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}a, and is identical to 

239: that of hydrophobic and polar amino acids in the original model. 

240: The three backbone atoms N, \Ca\ and \Cp\ 

241: are all included, whereas the side chain is represented 

242: by a single atom, a large \Cb. The remaining two 

243: atoms, H and O, are used to define hydrogen bonds. 

244: The representation of glycine is the same  

245: except that \Cb\ is missing. 

246: 

247: \begin{figure}

248: \vspace{0mm}

249: \begin{center}

250: \epsfig{figure=fig1a.eps,width=6cm,height=5.4cm}

251: \hspace{10mm}

252: \epsfig{figure=fig1b.eps,width=6cm,height=5.4cm}

253: \end{center}

254: \caption{(a) Schematic figure showing the common geometric

255: representation for all amino 

256: acids except glycine and proline. 

257: (b) The representation of proline. The \Cd\ atom is 

258: assumed to lie in the plane of the N, \Ca\ and \Cb\ atoms. The N-\Cd\ bond 

259: vector $\bar w$ is given by $\bar w=-0.596\bar u+0.910\bar v$, where the

260: vectors $\bar u$ and $\bar v$ are defined in the figure. The 

261: numerical factors were obtained by an analysis of structures

262: from the Protein Data Bank (PDB)~\cite{Bernstein:77}.} 

263: \label{fig:1}

264: \end{figure}

265: 

266: The representation of proline is new compared to the original model. 

267: The side chain of proline is attached to the backbone not only at \Ca, 

268: but also at N. A well-known consequence of this is that  

269: proline can act as a helix breaker. For the model to 

270: be able to capture this important property, we introduce  

271: a special representation for proline, which is  

272: illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}b. It differs from that in

273: Fig.~\ref{fig:1}a  in two ways: first, the Ramachandran angle 

274: $\phi$ is held constant, at $-65^\circ$; and second, the H atom 

275: is replaced by a side-chain atom, \Cd. This more realistic 

276: representation of proline is needed when studying 

277: the protein A fragment which has one proline at each of

278: the two turns.  

279: 

280: All amino acids except proline have the Ramachandran 

281: torsion angles $\phi$ and $\psi$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:1}a)   

282: as their degrees of freedom, whereas $\psi$ is the only   

283: degree of freedom for proline. All bond lengths, bond angles and

284: peptide torsion angles ($180^\circ$) are held fixed. Numerical values of 

285: the bond lengths and bond angles can be found in Ref.~\cite{Irback:00} and 

286: Fig.~\ref{fig:1}b.

287: 

288: The helix-breaking property of proline manifests itself clearly 

289: in the shape of the $\psi$ distribution for amino acids that are

290: followed by a proline in the sequence (with the proline on their 

291: \Cp\ side). Helical values of $\psi$ are suppressed for such amino 

292: acids. This is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}a, where the peak on 

293: the left corresponds to $\alpha$-helix. From Fig.~\ref{fig:2}b, it can be

294: seen that the model shows a qualitatively similar behavior. 

295: 

296: \begin{figure}

297: \vspace{0mm}

298: \begin{center}

299: \epsfig{figure=fig2a.eps,width=6cm}

300: \hspace{10mm}

301: \epsfig{figure=fig2b.eps,width=6cm}

302: \end{center}

303: \caption{(a) Distributions of the Ramachandran angle $\psi$,

304: based on PDB data. The full (dashed) line represents 

305: non-glycine, non-proline amino acids that are followed 

306: by a non-proline (proline) in the sequence. 

307: (b) The corresponding histograms for the model, as obtained by 

308: simulations of Gly-X-X (full line) and Gly-X-Pro (dashed line) at $kT=0.55$, 

309: where X denotes polar amino acids (shown is the $\psi$ distribution  

310: for the middle of the three amino acids).} 

311: \label{fig:2}

312: \end{figure}

313: 

314: \subsection{Force Field}

315:  

316: Our energy function 

317: \beq

318: E=\Eloc+\Esa+\Ehb+\Ecol

319: \label{e}\eeq

320: is composed of four terms. The first two terms $\Eloc$ and

321: $\Esa$ are local $\phi,\psi$ and self-avoidance potentials,

322: respectively (see Ref.~\cite{Irback:00}). 

323: The third term is the hydrogen-bond energy $\Ehb$,

324: which is given by    

325: \begin{eqnarray} 

326: \Ehb&=&\ehb \sum_{ij}

327: \left[5\left(\frac{\shb}{r_{ij}}\right)^{12}-

328: 6\left(\frac{\shb}{r_{ij}}\right)^{10}\right] 

329: v(\alpha_{ij},\beta_{ij})\label{hb1}\\

330: v(\alpha_{ij},\beta_{ij})&=&\left\{ 

331:         \begin{array}{ll}

332:  \cos^2\alpha_{ij}\cos^2\beta_{ij} & \ \alpha_{ij},\beta_{ij}>90^{\circ}\\

333:  0                      & \ \mbox{otherwise}\label{hb2}

334:          \end{array} \right. 

335: \end{eqnarray}

336: where $i$ and $j$ represent H and O atoms, respectively, 

337: and where $r_{ij}$ denotes the HO distance, $\alpha_{ij}$ the NHO 

338: angle, and $\beta_{ij}$ the HO\Cp\ angle. 

339: 

340: The last term in Eq.~(\ref{e}), the hydrophobicity or 

341: collapse energy $\Ecol$, has the form  

342: \beq

343: \Ecol=\ecol\sum_{i<j}

344: \Delta(s_i,s_j)\left[

345: \left(\frac{\scol}{r_{ij}}\right)^{12}-

346: 2\left(\frac{\scol}{r_{ij}}\right)^{6}

347: \right]\,,

348: \label{ecol}\eeq

349: where the sum runs over all possible \Cb\Cb\ pairs and $s_i$ denotes  

350: amino acid type. To define $\Delta(s_i,s_j)$, we divide the 

351: amino acids into three classes: hydrophobic (H; Leu, Ile, Phe), 

352: alanine (A; Ala) and polar (P; Arg, Asn, Asp, Gln, Glu, His, Lys, Pro, Ser, 

353: Tyr).\footnote{

354: Cys, Met, Thr, Trp and Val do not occur in the sequence studied.} 

355: There are then six kinds of \Cb\Cb\ pairs, and

356: the corresponding $\Delta(s_i,s_j)$ values are taken to be

357: \beq

358: \Delta(s_i,s_j)=\left\{ \begin{array}{rl}

359: 1 & \textnormal{for HH and HA pairs}\\

360: 0 & \textnormal{for HP, AA, AP and PP pairs} 

361: \end{array}\right.

362: \label{delta}\eeq

363: 

364: The main change in the force field compared to Ref.~\cite{Irback:00}

365: is that alanine forms its own hydrophobicity class, besides the previous two 

366: hydrophobic and polar classes. Alanine is taken as intermediate in 

367: hydrophobicity, meaning that there is a hydrophobic interaction 

368: between HA pairs but not between AA pairs. In addition, the interaction 

369: strength $\ecol$ is increased slightly, from 2.2 to 

370: 2.3.\footnote{The energy unit is dimensionless and such that $k\Tc=0.62$, 

371: $\Tc$ being the collapse temperature (see Sec.~\protect\ref{sec:res}).}       

372: Finally, in the self-avoidance potential, 

373: the \Cd\ atom of proline is assigned the same size as \Cb\ atoms. 

374: Otherwise, the entire force field, including parameter values, is

375: exactly the same as in Ref.~\cite{Irback:00}. 

376: 

377: With these changes in geometry and force field, we end up with  

378: five different amino acid types in the new model. First, we have 

379: hydrophobic, alanine and polar which share the same geometric

380: representation but differ in hydrophobicity, and then  

381: glycine and proline with their special geometries. 

382: 

383: In this paper, we test this model on the 10--55-amino acid fragment 

384: of the B domain of staphylococcal protein A. Calculated structures are  

385: compared to the minimized average NMR structure~\cite{Gouda:92}

386: with PDB code 1bdd. Throughout the paper, this structure is

387: referred to as the native structure.   

388:   

389: As a first test of our model, two different fits to the native 

390: structure were made. The first fit is purely geometrical.

391: Here, we simply minimized the root-mean-square deviation (rmsd) 

392: from the native structure, $\delta$ (calculated over all backbone atoms). 

393: This was done by using simulated annealing, 

394: and the best result was $\delta=0.14$~\AA.

395: In the second fit, we took into account 

396: the limitations imposed by the first three terms of 

397: the potential, by minimizing the function 

398: \beq

399: \tilde E=\Eloc+\Esa+\Ehb+

400: \kappa \sum_{i} ({\mathbf r}_{i}-{\mathbf r}_{i}^{0})^2\,,

401: \label{eaux}\eeq

402: where $\kappa=1$~\AA${}^{-2}$ and $\{{\bf r}^0_i\}$ denotes 

403: the structure obtained from the first fit. The minimum-$\tilde E$     

404: structure had $\delta=0.32$~\AA. These results show that our 

405: model, in spite of relatively few degrees of freedom,

406: permits a quite accurate description of the real structure. 

407: 

408: \subsection{Numerical Methods} 

409: 

410: To simulate the thermodynamic behavior of this model, we use simulated 

411: tempering~\cite{Lyubartsev:92,Marinari:92,Irback:95}, which means that 

412: the temperature is a dynamical variable (for details, see 

413: Refs.~\cite{Lyubartsev:92,Marinari:92,Irback:95}). The temperature update is

414: a standard Metropolis step. Our conformation updates are of two 

415: different types: the simple non-local pivot move where a single 

416: torsion angle is turned, and the semi-local biased Gaussian step 

417: proposed in Ref.~\cite{Favrin:01}. The latter method works with the 

418: Ramachandran angles of four adjacent amino acids. These are turned 

419: with a bias toward local rearrangements of the chain. The degree of 

420: bias is governed by a parameter $b$. In our thermodynamic simulations, 

421: we take $b=10$ (rad/\AA)${}^2$, which gives a strong bias toward 

422: deformations that are approximately local~\cite{Favrin:01}.

423: 

424: Figure~\ref{fig:3} shows the evolution of the energy in a 

425: simulated-tempering run that took about two weeks on an 800~MHz processor. 

426: Data corresponding to all the different temperatures are 

427: shown (eight temperatures, ranging from $kT=0.54$ to $kT=0.90$). 

428: We see that there are many independent visits to low-energy states, which is

429: necessary in order to get a reliable estimate of the relative populations of 

430: the folded and unfolded states. To test the usefulness of the semi-local

431: update, we repeated the same calculation using pivot moves only. 

432: The difference in performance was not quantified, but it was clear       

433: that the sampling of low energies was less efficient in the run 

434: relying solely on pivot moves.  

435: 

436: \begin{figure}

437: \vspace{0mm}

438: \begin{center}

439: \epsfig{figure=fig3.eps,width=10cm,height=5.7cm,angle=0}

440: \caption{Monte Carlo evolution of the energy in a simulated-tempering run.}  

441: \label{fig:3}

442: \end{center}

443: \end{figure}

444: 

445: For our kinetic simulations, we do not use the pivot update but

446: only the semi-local method. The parameter $b$ is taken to be

447: 1~(rad/\AA)${}^2$ in the kinetic runs, which turned out to give an 

448: average change  in the end-to-end vector squared of about 0.5~\AA${}^2$. 

449: 

450: \newpage

451: 

452: \section{Results and Discussion}\label{sec:res}

453: 

454: \subsection{Thermodynamics}\label{sec:thermo}

455: 

456: We begin our study of the model defined in Sec.~\ref{sec:mod}

457: by locating the collapse transition. In Fig.~\ref{fig:4}, we show 

458: the radius of gyration (calculated over all backbone atoms)

459: against temperature for both the protein A sequence and three 

460: random sequences with the same length and composition.

461: The random sequences were generated keeping the two prolines of the 

462: protein A sequence fixed at their positions, one at each turn. 

463: The remaining 44 amino acids were randomly reshuffled.

464: 

465: \begin{figure}

466: \vspace{0mm}

467: \begin{center}

468: \epsfig{figure=fig4.eps,width=6cm,height=6cm,angle=270}

469: \end{center}

470: \caption{The radius of gyration (in \AA) against temperature.

471: Full and dashed lines represent the protein A sequence and 

472: the three random sequences (see the text), respectively.}

473: \label{fig:4}

474: \end{figure}

475: 

476: Naively, one may expect these sequences to show similar collapse

477: behaviors, since the composition is the same. However, the protein A 

478: sequence turns out to collapse much more efficiently than the 

479: random sequences (see Fig.~\ref{fig:4}). The native structure has 

480: a radius of gyration of 9.25~\AA, which is significantly smaller than 

481: one finds for the random sequences in this temperature range. 

482: The specific heat (data not shown) has a pronounced peak

483: in the region where the collapse occurs. Taking the maximum 

484: as the collapse temperature $\Tc$, we obtain $k\Tc=0.62$ for the 

485: protein A sequence. 

486: 

487: The chain collapse is not as abrupt for the protein A sequence

488: as for the designed sequence studied in Ref.~\cite{Irback:00}. 

489: This is not surprising, as that sequence has a hydrophobicity

490: pattern that fits its native structure perfectly. The protein

491: A sequence does not have a fully perfect hydrophobicity pattern,      

492: but still the collapse behavior is highly cooperative, as can be seen 

493: from the comparison with the random sequences.  

494: 

495: Next, we turn to the structure of the collapsed state. 

496: As a measure of similarity with the native structure, 

497: we use  

498: \beq

499: Q=\exp(-\delta^2/100~{\rm \AA}^2)\,,

500: \label{Q}\eeq

501: where $\delta$, as before, denotes rmsd. An alternative  

502: would be to base the similarity measure on the number of 

503: native contacts present, rather than rmsd. The problem with 

504: such a definition is that it does not provide an efficient 

505: discrimination between the two possible topologies of a three-helix 

506: bundle~\cite{Wallin:01} --- the third helix can be either in front of

507: or behind the U formed by the first two helices.

508: This problem is avoided by using rmsd.

509: 

510: In Fig.~\ref{fig:5}a, we show the free-energy profile $F(Q)$ in the

511: collapsed phase at $kT=0.54$. 

512: %

513: \begin{figure}[t]

514: \vspace{0mm}

515: \begin{center}

516: \epsfig{figure=fig5a.eps,width=6cm,angle=270}

517: \hspace{10mm}

518: \epsfig{figure=fig5b.eps,width=6cm,angle=270}

519: \end{center}

520: \caption{(a) Free-energy profile $F(Q)=-kT\ln P(Q)$ at $kT=0.54$ (full line),

521: where $P(Q)$ is the probability distribution of $Q$. Also shown 

522: (dashed line) is the result for one of the random sequences at $kT=0.50$.

523: (b) $Q,E$ scatter plot for quenched conformations with low energy.}

524: \label{fig:5}

525: \end{figure}

526: %

527: We see that there is a broad minimum 

528: at $Q\approx0.8$--0.9, with two distinct local minima at   

529: $Q=0.78$ and $Q=0.90$, respectively. Both these

530: minima correspond to the native overall topology. There is also a 

531: minimum at $Q=0.50$, which corresponds to

532: the wrong topology. The $Q=0.50$ minimum is more

533: narrow and slightly higher, so the native topology is the

534: favored one. However, it should be stressed that it is difficult

535: to discriminate between the two topologies using a pairwise 

536: additive potential (see Sec.~\ref{sec:f-t}). To be able to do that

537: in a proper way, it is likely that one has to include multibody

538: terms and/or more side-chain atoms in the model. 

539: 

540: The main difference between the two minima at $Q=0.78$ and $Q=0.90$ 

541: lies in the shape and orientation of helix III, 

542: which comprises amino acids 41--55 in the native structure. At the 

543: $Q=0.78$ minimum, there tends to be a sharp bend in this segment, 

544: and the amino acids before the bend, 41--44, are disordered rather 

545: than helical. The remaining amino acids, 45--55, tend to make a helix, 

546: but its orientation differs from that in the native structure. 

547: Relative to the $Q=0.90$ minimum, where helix III is much more 

548: native-like, we find that the $Q=0.78$ minimum is entropically favored 

549: but energetically disfavored. The separation in energy between  

550: these minima is probably underestimated by our model. There is, 

551: for example, a stabilizing electrostatic interaction between helices 

552: I and III in the native structure (Glu16-Lys50), which should favor

553: the $Q=0.90$ minimum but is missing in our model. 

554: 

555: Also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:5}a is the result for one of the 

556: random sequences. The probability of finding this sequence in

557: the vicinity of the native structure is, not unexpectedly, very low.  

558: The same holds true for the other two random sequences 

559: too (data not shown).  

560: 

561: To extract representative conformations for the collapsed

562: state, we used simulated annealing followed by a  

563: conjugate-gradient minimization. Using this procedure, a large  

564: set of low-temperature Monte Carlo conformations were quenched to

565: zero temperature. In Fig.~\ref{fig:5}b, we show the quenched 

566: conformations with lowest energy in a $Q,E$ scatter plot. Our

567: minimum-energy structure is found at $Q=0.44$, corresponding to  

568: $\delta=9.1$~\AA. However, our thermodynamic calculations 

569: show that this conformation is not very relevant, in spite of 

570: its low energy. If we restrict ourselves to conformations with the 

571: native-like and thermodynamically most relevant topology, then 

572: the lowest energy is at $Q=0.97$, corresponding to $\delta=1.8$~\AA.   

573: This conformation is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:6} along with the

574: native structure. It is worth noting that the

575: $Q=0.44$ and $Q=0.97$ minima both were revisited in independent

576: runs.  

577: 

578: These results can be compared with those of Scheraga and 

579: coworkers~\cite{Lee:99}, 

580: who tested an energy-based structure prediction method on the same 

581: sequence. With their energy function, the global minimum was found to have 

582: an rmsd of 3.8~\AA\ from the native structure (calculated over \Ca\ atoms).

583: 

584: \begin{figure}

585: \vspace{0mm}

586: \begin{center}

587: \epsfig{figure=fig6a.eps,width=5cm}

588: \hspace{25mm}

589: \epsfig{figure=fig6b.eps,width=5cm}

590: \end{center}

591: \caption{Schematic illustrations of the native structure (left) and our 

592: minimum-energy structure for the native topology (right). 

593: Drawn with RasMol~\cite{Sayle:95}.}

594: \label{fig:6}

595: \end{figure}

596: 

597: \subsection{Helix Stability}

598: 

599: Having discussed the overall thermodynamic behavior, we 

600: now take a closer look at the stability of the secondary structure

601: and how it varies along the chain. To this end, we  

602: monitored the hydrogen-bond energy  

603: between the CO group of amino acid $i$ and the NH group of amino acid $i+4$

604: [see Eqs.~(\ref{hb1},\ref{hb2})], $\Eihb(i)$, as a function of $i$.

605: This was done not only for the protein A sequence, but also 

606: for the corresponding three one-helix segments, which are 

607: listed in Table~\ref{tab:1}. An experimental study~\cite{Bai:97} of 

608: essentially the same three segments found segment III to be the

609: only one that shows some stability on its own.  

610: 

611: \begin{table}[t]

612: \begin{center}

613: \begin{tabular}{clc}

614: Segment & Sequence               & Amino acids \\ \hline

615: I       & QQNAFYEILHL            & 10--20 \\

616: II      & NEEQRNGFIQSLKDD        & 24--38 \\

617: III     & QSANLLAEAKKLNDA        & 41--55 

618: \end{tabular}

619: \caption{The one-helix fragments studied.}

620: \label{tab:1}

621: \end{center}

622: \end{table}

623: 

624: \begin{figure}[t]

625: \vspace{0mm}

626: \begin{center}

627: \epsfig{figure=fig7.eps,width=10cm,height=5.7cm}

628: \end{center}

629: \caption{Hydrogen-bond profile showing the normalized average  

630: energy of $\alpha$-helical hydrogen bonds, $\ev{\Eihb(i)}/\ehb$, against  

631: amino acid number $i$, at $kT=0.58$. The full line represents the

632: protein A sequence, whereas the dashed lines represent the

633: corresponding three one-helix segments (see Table~\ref{tab:1}). The thick 

634: horizontal lines indicate hydrogen bonds present in the 

635: native structure.}

636: \label{fig:7}

637: \end{figure}

638: 

639: The results of our calculations are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:7},

640: from which we see that the difference between the full sequence

641: and the one-helix segments is not large in the model. However,

642: the segments I and II definitely make less stable helices

643: on their own than as interacting parts of the full system;

644: they are stabilized by interhelical interactions. Furthermore,

645: among the three one-helix segments, the model correctly predicts

646: segment III to be the most stable one. That this segment does 

647: not get more stable as part of the full system is probably 

648: related to the observation above that helix III is distorted

649: at the $Q=0.78$ minimum.  

650: 

651: A striking detail in Fig.~\ref{fig:7} is that the beginning 

652: of segment II is quite unstable. This can be easily understood.   

653: This segment has a flexible glycine at position 30, and the amino acids 

654: before the glycine, 24--29, are all polar, so there are   

655: no hydrophobic interactions that can help to stabilize this part.  

656: 

657: \subsection{Kinetics}

658: 

659: Using the semi-local update~\cite{Favrin:01}, we performed

660: a set of 30 kinetic simulations at $kT=0.54$. The runs were 

661: started from random coils. There are big differences between

662: these runs, partly because the system, as it should, sometimes

663: spent a significant amount of time in the wrong topology.

664: Nevertheless, the data show one stable and interesting trend,

665: namely, that the formation of helices was never 

666: faster than the collapse. This is illustrated in 

667: Fig.~\ref{fig:8}, which shows the evolution of the similarity

668: parameter $Q_0$, the hydrogen-bond energy $\Ehb$ and the 

669: radius of gyration, $\Rg$, in one of the runs. $Q_0$ is  

670: defined as $Q$ in Eq.~(\ref{Q}), except that it measures 

671: similarity to the optimized model structure in Fig.~\ref{fig:6} 

672: rather than the native structure. In Fig.~\ref{fig:8}, we see that $\Ehb$ 

673: converges slowly, whereas the collapse occurs relatively early.

674: 

675: \begin{figure}

676: \vspace{0mm}

677: \begin{center}

678: \epsfig{figure=fig8.eps,width=8cm,height=8.5cm,angle=270}

679: \end{center}

680: \caption{Monte Carlo evolution of the similarity parameter $Q_0$ (top), 

681: the hydrogen-bond energy $\Ehb$ (middle) and the radius of gyration 

682: $\Rg$ (bottom) in a kinetic simulation at $kT=0.54$.}

683: \label{fig:8}

684: \end{figure}

685: 

686: Now, at a first glance, it may seem easy to make the helix formation 

687: faster by simply increasing the strength of the hydrogen bonds. Therefore,

688: it is important to note that the hydrogen bonds cannot be made

689: much stronger without making the ground state non-compact and

690: thus destroying the three-helix bundle~\cite{Irback:00b}. This means

691: that the conclusion that the collapse is at least as fast as 

692: helix formation holds for any reasonable choice of parameters in this 

693: model.  

694: 

695: It is interesting to compare these results to those of

696: Zhou and Karplus~\cite{Zhou:99}, who studied the same protein

697: using a  G\=o-type potential and observed fast folding when

698: the G\=o forces were strong. Under these conditions, the helix

699: formation was found to be fast, whereas the collapse was the

700: rate-limiting step. 

701: 

702: However, a G\=o-like model ignores a large fraction of the 

703: interactions that drive the collapse, which can make the 

704: collapse artificially slow. In a recent G\=o model study~\cite{Shimada:01}, 

705: this problem was addressed by eliminating backbone terms from 

706: the potential until a reasonable helix stability was achieved. 

707: No such calibration was carried out in Ref.~\cite{Zhou:99}.  

708: This may explain why these authors find a behavior that 

709: our model cannot reproduce. 

710: 

711: Let us finally mention that we also performed the same type of

712: kinetic simulations for the designed sequence studied in 

713: Ref.~\cite{Irback:00} which, as discussed earlier, has a very 

714: abrupt collapse transition. It turns out that $\Ehb$ and $\Rg$ 

715: evolve in a strongly correlated manner in this case. So, the helix 

716: formation and collapse occur simultaneously for this sequence.

717:   

718: \subsection{Fine-tuning?}\label{sec:f-t}

719: 

720: In Sec.~\ref{sec:thermo}, we discussed the relative weights 

721: of the two possible overall topologies, which is a delicate

722: issue. What changes are needed in order for the model to

723: more strongly suppress the wrong topology? Is it necessary

724: to change the form of the energy function, or would it be

725: sufficient to fine-tune the interaction matrix  

726: $\Delta(s_i,s_j)$ in Eq.~(\ref{ecol})?

727: 

728: One way to do such a fine-tuning of $\Delta(s_i,s_j)$ 

729: would be to maximize $\ev{Q}'$, where $Q$ is the similarity

730: parameter and $\ev{\cdot}'$ denotes a thermodynamic average 

731: restricted to compact conformations ($\Rg<10$~\AA\ say). 

732: This is essentially the overlap method of Ref.~\cite{Bastolla:00}.

733: The gradient of the quantity $\ev{Q}'$ can be written as 

734: \beq

735: \frac{\partial\ev{Q}'}{\partial\Delta(s_i,s_j)}=

736: -\frac{\ecol}{kT}\left(\ev{QX}'-\ev{Q}'\ev{X}'\right)\,,

737: \label{grad}\eeq

738: where $X$ is a sum of Lennard-Jones terms, 

739: $(\scol/r_{ij})^{12}-2(\scol/r_{ij})^6$, over all possible

740: \Cb\Cb\ pairs of type $s_i,s_j$. 

741: 

742: We calculated the $Q,X$ correlation in Eq.~(\ref{grad}) 

743: for all pairs $s_i,s_j$ with

744: $\Delta(s_i,s_j)=1$ at $kT=0.54$, and found that 

745: $|\partial\ev{Q}'/\partial\Delta(s_i,s_j)|$ 

746: was small ($\le0.15$) for all these pairs. Hence, there is no 

747: sign that a significant increase in $\ev{Q}'$ can be achieved by  

748: fine-tuning $\Delta(s_i,s_j)$; the contact patterns seem to be 

749: too similar in the two topologies. To include

750: more side-chain atoms and/or multibody terms in the model 

751: is likely to be a more fruitful approach.  

752:   

753: \section{Conclusion}

754: 

755: We have explored a five-letter protein model with five to 

756: six atoms per amino acid, where the formation of native 

757: structure is driven by hydrogen bonding and effective hydrophobicity 

758: forces. This model, which does not follow the G\=o prescription,  

759: was tested on a small but real sequence, a three-helix-bundle 

760: fragment from protein A.

761: 

762: Using this model, the protein A sequence was found 

763: to collapse much more efficiently than random sequences with 

764: the same composition. In the collapsed phase, we found that 

765: the native topology dominates, although the suppression 

766: of the wrong three-helix-bundle topology is not strong. 

767: Energy minimization constrained to the thermodynamically    

768: favored topology gave a structure with an rmsd of 1.8~\AA\ from

769: the native structure. 

770:    

771: In our kinetic simulations, the collapse was always at least as

772: fast as helix formation, which is in sharp contrast with previous 

773: results for the same protein that were obtained using a G\=o-like 

774: \Ca\ model~\cite{Zhou:99}. A possible explanation for the 

775: conflicting conclusions is that the G\=o approximation makes the collapse

776: artificially slow by ignoring a large fraction of the interactions

777: driving the collapse. In our model, the conclusion that the helix formation

778: is not faster than collapse seems unavoidable; if one tries to speed 

779: up the helix formation by increasing the strength of the hydrogen bonds, 

780: then the chain does not fold into a compact helical bundle. 

781: 

782: The force field of our model was deliberately kept simple. In particular,

783: the hydrophobicity potential was taken to be pairwise additive,

784: with a simple structure for the interaction matrix $\Delta(s_i,s_j)$

785: [see Eq.~(\ref{delta})]. In the future, it would be very interesting 

786: to look into the behavior of the model in the presence of multibody terms. 

787: A simpler alternative is to stick to the pairwise additive potential 

788: and fine-tune the parameters $\Delta(s_i,s_j)$. However, the calculations 

789: in this paper give no indication that there is much to be gained from 

790: such a fine-tuning.

791: 

792: \subsection*{Acknowledgments}

793: 

794: This work was in part supported by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic 

795: Research.

796: 

797: \newpage

798: 

799: \begin{thebibliography}{}

800: 

801: \bibitem{Sali:94}

802: S\u{a}li~A, Shakhnovich~E, Karplus M.

803: Kinetics of protein folding: A lattice model study

804: of the requirements for folding to the native state.

805: \JMB 1994\,;\,235\,:\,1614--1636.

806: 

807: \bibitem{Bryngelson:95}

808: Bryngelson~JD, Onuchic~JN, Socci~ND, Wolynes~PG.

809: Funnels, pathways, and the energy landscape of protein

810: folding: A synthesis.

811: \Pro 1995\,;\,21\,:\,167--195.

812: 

813: \bibitem{Dill:97}

814: Dill KA, Chan~HS.

815: From Levinthal to pathways to funnels.

816: \NSB 1997\,;\,4\,:\,10--19.

817: 

818: \bibitem{Klimov:98}

819: Klimov DK, Thirumalai D.

820: Linking rates of folding in lattice models of proteins

821: with underlying thermodynamic characteristics.

822: \JCP 1998\,;\,109\,:\,4119--4125.

823: 

824: \bibitem{Nymeyer:98}

825: Nymeyer H, Garc\'\i a~AE, Onuchic~JN.

826: Folding funnels and frustration in off-lattice minimalist

827: protein landscapes.

828: \PNAS 1998\,;\,95\,:\,5921--5928.

829: 

830: \bibitem{Hao:98}

831: Hao~M-H, Scheraga~HA.

832: Theory of two-state cooperative folding of proteins.

833: \ACR 1998\,;\,31\,:\,433--440.

834: 

835: \bibitem{Go:78}

836: G\=o~N, Taketomi~H.

837: Respective roles of short- and long-range interactions

838: in protein folding.

839: \PNAS 1978\,;\,75\,:\,559--563.

840: 

841: \bibitem{Zhou:97}

842: Zhou~Y, Karplus~M.

843: Folding thermodynamics of a model three-helix-bundle protein.

844: \PNAS 1997\,;\,94\,:\,14429--14432.

845: 

846: \bibitem{Shea:98}

847: Shea~J-E, Nochomovitz~YD, Guo~Z, Brooks~CL~III.

848: Exploring the space of protein folding Hamiltonians:

849: The balance of forces in a minimalist $\beta$-barrel model.

850: \JCP 1998\,;\,109\,:\,2895--2903.

851: 

852: \bibitem{Zhou:99}

853: Zhou~Y, Karplus~M.

854: Interpreting the folding kinetics of helical proteins.

855: \Nat 1999\,;\,401\,:\,400--403.

856: 

857: \bibitem{Shea:99}

858: Shea~J-E, Onuchic~JN, Brooks~CL~III.

859: Exploring the origins of topological frustration:

860: Design of a minimally frustrated model of fragment B of protein A.

861: \PNAS 1999\,;\,96\,:\,12512--12517.

862: 

863: \bibitem{Clementi:00a}

864: Clementi~C, Nymeyer~H, Onuchic~JN.

865: Topological and energetic factors: What determines the structural

866: details of the transition state ensemble and `en-route' intermediates

867: for protein folding? An investigation for small globular proteins.

868: \JMB 2000\,;\,298\,:\,937--953.

869: 

870: \bibitem{Clementi:00b}

871: Clementi~C, Jennings~PA, Onuchic~JN.

872: How native-state topology affects the folding of

873: dihydrofolate reductase and interleukin-1$\beta$.

874: \PNAS 2000\,;\,97\,:\,5871--5876.

875: 

876: \bibitem{Shimada:01}

877: Shimada~J, Kussell~EL, Shakhnovich~EI.

878: The folding thermodynamics and kinetics of crambin using

879: an all-atom Monte Carlo simulation.

880: \JMB 2001\,;\,308\,:\,79--95.

881: 

882: \bibitem{Plaxco:98}

883: Plaxco~KW, Simons~KT, Baker~D.

884: Contact order, transition state placement and the

885: refolding rates of single domain proteins.

886: \JMB 1998\,;\,277\,:\,985--994.

887: 

888: \bibitem{Baker:00}

889: Baker~D.

890: A surprising simplicity to protein folding.

891: \Nat 2000\,;\,405\,:\,39--42.

892: 

893: \bibitem{Lee:99}

894: Lee~J, Liwo~A, Scheraga~HA.

895: Energy-based {\it de novo} protein folding by conformational

896: space annealing and an off-lattice united-residue force field:

897: Application to the 10--55 fragment of staphylococcal protein A

898: and to apo calbindin D9K.

899: \PNAS 1999\,;\,96\,:\,2025--2030.

900: 

901: \bibitem{Pillardy:00}

902: Pillardy~J, Czaplewski~C, Liwo~A, Lee~J, Ripoll~DR,

903: Ka\'zmierkiewicz~R, O\l dziej~S, Wedemeyer~WJ, Gibson~KD,

904: Arnautova~YA, Saunders~J, Ye~Y-J, Scheraga~HA.

905: Recent improvements in prediction of protein structure by

906: global optimization of a potential energy function.

907: \PNAS 2000\,;\,98\,:\,2329--2333.

908: 

909: \bibitem{Hardin:00}

910: Hardin~C, Eastwood~MP, Luthey-Schulten~Z, Wolynes~PG.

911: Associative memory Hamiltonians for structure prediction

912: without homology: alpha-helical proteins.

913: \PNAS 2000\,;\,97\,:\,14235--14240.

914: 

915: \bibitem{Irback:00}

916: Irb\"ack~A, Sjunnesson~F, Wallin~S.

917: Three-helix-bundle protein in a Ramachandran model.

918: \PNAS 2000\,;\,97\,:\,13614--13618.

919: 

920: \bibitem{Gouda:92}

921: Gouda~H, Torigoe~H, Saito~A, Sato~M, Arata~Y, Shimada~I.

922: Three-dimensional solution structure of the B domain of

923: staphylococcal protein A: comparisons of the solution and

924: crystal structures.

925: \Bioch 1992\,;\,31\,:\,9665--9672.

926: 

927: \bibitem{Bottomley:94}

928: Bottomley~SP, Popplewell~AG, Scawen~M, Wan~T, Sutton~BJ,

929: Gore~MG.

930: The stability and unfolding of an IgG binding protein based upon

931: the B domain of protein A from {\it Staphylococcus Aureus} probed

932: by tryptophan substitution and fluorescence spectroscopy.

933: \ProEng 1994\,;\,7\,:\,1463--1470.

934: 

935: \bibitem{Bai:97}

936: Bai~Y, Karimi~A, Dyson~HJ, Wright~PE.

937: Absence of a stable intermediate on the folding pathway of protein A.

938: \ProSci 1997\,;\,6\,:\,1449--1457.

939: 

940: \bibitem{Boczko:95}

941: Boczko~EM, Brooks~CL~III.

942: First-principles calculation of the folding free energy

943: of a three-helix bundle protein.

944: \Sci 1995\,;\,269\,:\,393--396.

945: 

946: \bibitem{Guo:97}

947: Guo~Z, Brooks~CL~III, Boczko~EM.

948: Exploring the folding free energy surface of a three-helix

949: bundle protein.

950: \PNAS 1997\,;\,94\,:\,10161-10166.

951: 

952: \bibitem{Kolinski:98}

953: Kolinski~A, Galazka~W, Skolnick~J.

954: Monte Carlo studies of the thermodynamics and kinetics of reduced

955: protein models: Application to small helical, $\beta$ and $\alpha/\beta$

956: proteins.

957: \JCP 1998\,;\,108\,:\,2608--2617.

958: 

959: \bibitem{Bernstein:77}

960: Bernstein~FC, Koetzle~TF, Williams~GJB, Meyer~EF, Brice~MD,

961: Rodgers~JR, Kennard~O, Shimanouchi~T, Tasumi~M.

962: The Protein Data Bank: A computer based archival file for

963: macromolecular structures.

964: \JMB 1977\,;\,112\,:\,535--542.

965: 

966: \bibitem{Lyubartsev:92}

967: Lyubartsev~AP, Martsinovski~AA, Shevkunov~SV,

968: Vorontsov-Velyaminov~PV.

969: New approach to Monte Carlo calculation of the free energy:

970: Method of expanded ensembles.

971: \JCP 1992\,;\,96\,:\,1776--1783.

972: 

973: \bibitem{Marinari:92}

974: Marinari~E, Parisi~G.

975: Simulated tempering: A new Monte Carlo scheme.

976: \EL 1992\,;\,19\,:\,451--458.

977: 

978: \bibitem{Irback:95}

979: Irb\"ack~A, Potthast~F.

980: Studies of an off-lattice model for protein folding: Sequence

981: dependence and improved sampling at finite temperature.

982: \JCP 1995\,;\,103\,:\,10298--10305.

983: 

984: \bibitem{Favrin:01}

985: Favrin~G, Irb\"ack~A, Sjunnesson~F.

986: Monte Carlo update for chain molecules: Biased Gaussian steps

987: in torsional space.

988: \JCP 2001\,;\,114\,:\,8154--8158.

989: 

990: \bibitem{Wallin:01}

991: Bastolla~U., Farwer~J, Wallin~S.

992: On distance measures for protein structures.

993: Manuscript in preparation.

994:  

995: \bibitem{Sayle:95}

996: Sayle~R, Milner-White~EJ.

997: RasMol: Biomolecular graphics for all.

998: \TBS 1995\,;\,20\,:\,374--376.

999:  

1000: \bibitem{Irback:00b}

1001: Irb\"ack~A, Sjunnesson~F, Wallin~S.

1002: Hydrogen bonds, hydrophobicity forces and the character

1003: of the collapse transition.

1004: e-print cond-mat/0107177 (to appear in {\it J.\ Biol.\ Phys.}).

1005:  

1006: \bibitem{Bastolla:00}

1007: Bastolla~U, Vendruscolo~M, Knapp~E-W.

1008: A statistical mechanical method to optimize energy functions

1009: for protein folding.

1010: \PNAS 2000\,;\,97\,:\,3977--3981.

1011:                                          

1012: \end{thebibliography}

1013: 

1014: \end{document}

1015: 

1016: 

1017: 

1018: 

1019: 

1020: 

1021: 

1022: