Implicit Solvent Electrostatics in Biomolecular Simulation

  • Nathan A. Baker
  • Donald Bashford
  • David A. Case
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering book series (LNCSE, volume 49)


We give an overview of how implicit solvent models are currently used in protein simulations. The emphasis is on numerical algorithms and approximations: since even folded proteins sample many distinct configurations, it is of considerable importance to be both accurate and efficient in estimating the energetic consequences of this dynamical behavior. Particular attention is paid to calculations of pH-dependent behavior, as a paradigm for the analysis of electrostatic interactions in complex systems.

Key words

Electrostatics biomolecular simulation implicit solvent continuum solvent Poisson-Boltzmann Generalized Born 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    N. A. Baker and J. A. McCammon. Electrostatic interactions. In P. Bourne and H. Weissig, editors, Structural Bioinformatics, pages 427–440. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 2003.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. Gilson. Introduction to continuum electrostatics. In D. A. Beard, editor, Biophysics Textbook Online, volume Computational Biology. Biophysical Society, Bethesda, MD, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    B. Roux. Implicit solvent models. In O. M. Becker, Jr. MacKerell, A. D., B. Roux, and M. Watanabe, editors, Computational Biochemistry and Biophysics, pages 133–152. Marcel Dekker, New York, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    M. E. Davis and J. A. McCammon. Electrostatics in biomolecular structure and dynamics. Chem. Rev., 94:7684–7692, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    B. Honig and A. Nicholls. Classical electrostatics in biology and chemistry. Science, 268(5214):1144–9, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    N. A. Baker. Poisson-boltzmann methods for biomolecular electrostatics. Meth. Enzymol., 383:94–118, 2004.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Christian Holm, Patrick Kekicheff, and Rudolf Podgornik, editors. Electrostatic effects in soft matter and biophysics, volume 46 of NATO Science Series. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    L. Onsager. Electric moments of molecules in liquids. J. Amer. Chem. Soc., 58:1486–1493, 1936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    S. Miertus, E. Scrocco, and J. Tomasi. Electrostatic interaction of a solute with a continuum. A direct utilization of ab initio molecular potentials for the prevision of solvent effects. Chem. Phys., 55:117–129, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    J. Tomasi and M. Persico. Molecular interactions in solution: an overview of methods based on continuous distributions of solvent. Chem. Rev., 94:2027–2094, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    J. Tomasi. Thirty years of continuum solvation chemistry: a review, and prospects for the near future. Theor. Chem. Acc., 112:184–203, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    C. Lim, D. Bashford, and M. Karplus. Absolute pKa calculations with continuum dielectric methods. J. Phys. Chem., 95:5610–5620, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    W.H. Richardson, C. Peng, D. Bashford, L. Noodleman, and D.A. Case. Incorporating solvation effects into density functional theory: Calculation of absolute acidities. Int. J. Quantum Chem., 61:207–217, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    J.J. Klicic, R.A. Friesner, S.Y. Liu, and W.C. Guida. Accurate prediction of acidity constants in aqueous solution via density functional theory and self-consistent reaction field methods. J. Phys. Chem. A, 106:1327–1335, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    D.M. Chipman. Computation of pKa from Dielectric Continuum Theory. J. Phys. Chem. A, 106:7413–7422, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    M.S. Busch and E.W. Knapp. Accurate pKa Determination for a Heterogeneous Group of Organic Molecules. Chemphyschem, 5:1513–1522, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    D. Sitkoff, K.A. Sharp, and B. Honig. Accurate calculation of hydration free energies using macroscopic solvent models. J. Phys. Chem., 98:1978–1988, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    M. Nina, D. Beglov, and B. Roux. Atomic radii for continuum electrostatics calculations based on molecular dynamics free energy simulations. J. Phys. Chem. B, 101:5239–5248, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    E. Gallicchio, L.Y. Zhang, and R.M. Levy. The SGB/NP Hydration Free Energy Model Based on the Surface Generalized Born Solvent Reaction Field and Novel Nonpolar Hydration Free Energy Estimators. J. Comput. Chem., 23:517–529, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    E. Gallicchio and R.M. Levy. AGBNP: An Analytic Implicit Solvent Model Suitable for Molecular Dynamics Simulations and High-Resolution Modeling. J. Comput. Chem., 25:479–499, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    M. Born. Volumen und hydratationswärme der ionen. Z. Phys., 1:45–48, 1920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    K. Linderstrøm-Lang. On the ionisation of proteins. Comptes-rend Lab. Carlsberg, 15(7):1–29, 1924.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    C. Tanford and J. G. Kirkwood. Theory of protein titration curves. I. General equations for impenetrable spheres. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 79:5333–5339, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    M. A. Flanagan, G. K. Ackers, J. B. Matthew, G. I. H. Hanania, and F. R. N. Gurd. Electrostatic contributions to the energetics of dimer-tetramer assembly in human hemoglobin: pH dependence and effect of specifically bound chloride ions. Biochemistry, 20:7439–7449, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    J. Warwicker and H. C. Watson. Calculation of the electric potential in the active site cleft due to alpha-helix dipoles. J. Mol. Biol., 157(4):671–9, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    E. Demchuk, D. Bashford, G. Gippert, and D.A. Case. Thermodynamics of a reverse turn motif. Solvent effects and side-chain packing. J. Mol. Biol., 270:305–317, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    J. Srinivasan, T.E. Cheatham, III, P. Kollman, and D.A. Case. Continuum Solvent Studies of the Stability of DNA, RNA, and Phosphoramidate-DNA Helices. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 120:9401–9409, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    P.A. Kollman, I. Massova, C. Reyes, B. Kuhn, S. Huo, L. Chong, M. Lee, T. Lee, Y. Duan, W. Wang, O. Donini, P. Cieplak, J. Srinivasan, D.A. Case, and T.E. Cheatham, III. Calculating Structures and Free Energies of Complex Molecules: Combining Molecular Mechanics and Continuum Models. Accts. Chem. Res., 33:889–897, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    J. O. Bockris and A. K. N. Reddy. Modern Electrochemistry: Ionics. Plenum Press, New York, 1998.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    John David Jackson. Classical Electrodynamics. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2nd edition, 1975.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    C. J. Bötcher. Theory of Electric Polarization. Elsevier Science, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    B. Lee and F. M. Richards. The interpretation of protein structures: estimation of static accessibility. J. Mol. Biol., 55(3):379–400, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    M. L. Connolly. The molecular surface package. J. Mol. Graph., 11(2):139–41, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    W. Im, D. Beglov, and B. Roux. Continuum solvation model: electrostatic forces from numerical solutions to the Poisson-Boltzmann equation. Comp. Phys. Commun., 111(1–3):59–75, 1998.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    J. Andrew Grant, Barry T. Pickup, and Anthony Nicholls. A smooth permittivity function for Poisson-Boltzmann solvation methods. J. Comput. Chem., 22(6):608–640, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    M. Nina, W. Im, and B. Roux. Optimized atomic radii for protein continuum electrostatics solvation forces. Biophys. Chem., 78(1–2):89–96, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    F. Dong, M. Vijaykumar, and H. X. Zhou. Comparison of calculation and experiment implicates significant electrostatic contributions to the binding stability of barnase and barstar. Biophys. J., 85(1):49–60, 2003.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    J. Wagoner and N. A. Baker. Solvation forces on biomolecular structures: A comparison of explicit solvent and Poisson-Boltzmann models. J. Comput. Chem., 25(13):1623–9, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    K. A. Sharp and B. Honig. Calculating total electrostatic energies with the nonlinear Poisson-Boltzmann equation. J. Phys. Chem., 94(19):7684–7692, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    F. Fogolari and J. M. Briggs. On the variational approach to Poisson-Boltzmann free energies. Chemical Physics Letters, 281(1–3):135–139, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. [41]
    A. M. Micu, B. Bagheri, A. V. Ilin, L. R. Scott, and B. M. Pettitt. Numerical considerations in the computation of the electrostatic free energy of interaction within the Poisson-Boltzmann theory. J. Comput. Phys., 136(2):263–271, 1997.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. [42]
    M. K. Gilson, M. E. Davis, B. A. Luty, and J. A. McCammon. Computation of electrostatic forces on solvated molecules using the Poisson-Boltzmann equation. J. Phys. Chem., 97(14):3591–3600, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. [43]
    D. Beglov and B. Roux. Solvation of complex molecules in a polar liquid: an integral equation theory. J. Chem. Phys., 104(21):8678–8689, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    B. Egwolf and P. Tavan. Continuum description of solvent dielectrics in molecular-dynamics simulations of proteins. J. Chem. Phys., 118(5):2039–56, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. [45]
    B. Egwolf and P. Tavan. Continuum description of ionic and dielectric shielding for molecular-dynamics simulations of proteins in solution. J. Chem. Phys., 120(4):2056–2068, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. [46]
    M. Holst and F. Saied. Multigrid solution of the Poisson-Boltzmann equation. J. Comput. Chem., 14(1):105–13, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. [47]
    M. J. Holst and F. Saied. Numerical solution of the nonlinear Poisson-Boltzmann equation: developing more robust and efficient methods. J. Comput. Chem., 16(3):337–64, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. [48]
    Dietrich Braess. Finite Elements. Theory, Fast Solvers, and Applications in Solid Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. [49]
    O. Axelsson and V. A. Barker. Finite Element Solution of Boundary Value Problems. Theory and Computation. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, 1984.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. [50]
    M. Holst. Adaptive numerical treatment of elliptic systems on manifolds. Advances in Computational Mathematics, 15(1–4):139–191, 2001.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  51. [51]
    M. Holst, N. Baker, and F. Wang. Adaptive multilevel finite element solution of the Poisson-Boltzmann equation. I. Algorithms and examples. J. Comput. Chem., 21(15):1319–1342, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. [52]
    N. Baker, M. Holst, and F. Wang. Adaptive multilevel finite element solution of the Poisson-Boltzmann equation II. Refinement at solvent-accessible surfaces in biomolecular systems. J. Comput. Chem., 21(15):1343–1352, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. [53]
    C. M. Cortis and R. A. Friesner. An automatic three-dimensional finite element mesh generation system for the Poisson-Boltzmann equation. J. Comput. Chem., 18:1570–1590, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. [54]
    C. M. Cortis and R. A. Friesner. Numerical solution of the Poisson-Boltzmann equation using tetrahedral finite-element meshes. J. Comput. Chem., 18:1591–1608, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. [55]
    P E Dyshlovenko. Adaptive numerical method for Poisson-Boltzmann equation and its application. Comp. Phys. Commun., 147:335–338, 2002.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. [56]
    R. E. Bank and M. Holst. A new paradigm for parallel adaptive meshing algorithms. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 22(4):1411–1443, 2000.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. [57]
    N. A. Baker, D. Sept, M. J. Holst, and J. A. McCammon. The adaptive multilevel finite element solution of the Poisson-Boltzmann equation on massively parallel computers. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 45(3–4):427–438, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. [58]
    R. J. Zauhar and R. S. Morgan. The rigorous computation of the molecular electric potential. J. Comput. Chem., 9(2):171–187, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. [59]
    A. H. Juffer, E. F. F. Botta, B. A. M. van Keulen, A. van der Ploeg, and H. J. C. Berendsen. The electric potential of a macromolecule in a solvent: a fundamental approach. J. Comput. Phys., 97:144–171, 1991.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. [60]
    S. A. Allison and V. T. Tran. Modeling the electrophoresis of rigid polyions: application to lysozyme. Biophys. J., 68(6):2261–70, 1995.Google Scholar
  61. [61]
    A. J. Bordner and G. A. Huber. Boundary element solution of the linear Poisson-Boltzmann equation and a multipole method for the rapid calculation of forces on macromolecules in solution. J. Comput. Chem., 24:353–367, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. [62]
    A. H. Boschitsch and M. O. Fenley. Hybrid boundary element and finite difference method for solving the nonlinear Poisson-Boltzmann equation. J. Comput. Chem., 25(7):935–955, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. [63]
    Z. Zhou, P. Payne, M. Vasquez, N. Kuhn, and M. Levitt. Finite-difference solution of the Poisson-Boltzmann equation: complete elimination of self-energy. J. Comput. Chem., 17:1344–1351, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. [64]
    Y. N. Vorobjev and H. A. Scheraga. A fast adaptive multigrid boundary element method for macromolecular electrostatic computations in a solvent. J. Comput. Chem., 18(4):569–583, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. [65]
    A. Nicholls and B. Honig. A rapid finite difference algorithm, utilizing successive over-relaxation to solve the Poisson-Boltzmann equation. J. Comput. Chem., 12(4):435–445, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. [66]
    M. E. Davis and J. A. McCammon. Solving the finite difference linearized Poisson-Poltzmann equation: a comparison of relaxation and conjugate gradient methods. J. Comput. Chem., 10:386–391, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. [67]
    N. A. Baker, D. Sept, S. Joseph, M. J. Holst, and J. A. McCammon. Electrostatics of nanosystems: Application to microtubules and the ribosome. Proc Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 98(18):10037–10041, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. [68]
    M. K. Gilson and B. H. Honig. Calculation of electrostatic potentials in an enzyme active site. Nature, 330(6143):84–6, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. [69]
    K. A. Sharp and B. Honig. Electrostatic interactions in macromolecules-theory and applications. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biophys. Chem., 19:301–332, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. [70]
    G. T. Balls and P. Colella. A finite difference domain decomposition method using local corrections for the solution of Poisson’s equation. J. Comput. Phys., 180(1):25–53, 2002.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  71. [71]
    W. Rocchia, S. Sridharan, A. Nicholls, E. Alexov, A. Chiabrera, and B. Honig. Rapid grid-based construction of the molecular surface and the use of induced surface charge to calculate reaction field energies: applications to the molecular systems and geometric objects. J. Comput. Chem., 23(1):128–37, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. [72]
    A. Nicholls, K. A. Sharp, and B. Honig. Protein folding and association: insights from the interfacial and thermodynamic properties of hydrocarbons. Proteins, 11(4):281–96, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. [73]
    D. Bashford. An object-oriented programming suite for electrostatic effects in biological molecules. In Y. Ishikawa, R. R. Oldehoeft, J. V. W. Reynders, and M. Tholburn, editors, Scientific Computing in Object-Oriented Parallel Environments, volume 1343 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 233–240. Springer, Berlin, 1997.Google Scholar
  74. [74]
    J. D. Madura, J. M. Briggs, R. C. Wade, M. E. Davis, B. A. Luty, A. Ilin, J. Antosiewicz, M. K. Gilson, B. Bagheri, L. R. Scott, and J. A. McCammon. Electrostatics and diffusion of molecules in solution-simulations with the university of houston brownian dynamics program. Comp. Phys. Commun., 91(1–3):57–95, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. [75]
    Jr. MacKerell, A. D., B. Brooks, III Brooks, C. L., L. Nilsson, B. Roux, Y. Won, and M. Karplus. Charmm: the energy function and its parameterization with an overview of the program. In P. v. R. Schleyer, editor, The Encyclopedia of Computational Chemistry, volume 1, pages 271–277. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 1998.Google Scholar
  76. [76]
    R. Luo, L. David, and M. K. Gilson. Accelerated Poisson-Boltzmann calculations for static and dynamic systems. J. Comput. Chem., 23(13):1244–53, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. [77]
    W.C. Still, A. Tempczyk, R.C. Hawley, and T. Hendrickson. Semianalytical treatement of solvation for molecular mechanics and dynamics. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 112:6127–6129, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. [78]
    A. Onufriev, D.A. Case, and D. Bashford. Effective Born radii in the generalized Born approximation: The importance of being perfect. J. Comput. Chem., 23:1297–1304, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. [79]
    J.D. Jackson. Classical Electrodynamics. Wiley and Sons, New York, 1975.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  80. [80]
    M. Scarsi, J. Apostolakis, and A. Caflisch. Continuum Electrostatic Energies of Macromolecules in Aqueous Solutions. J. Phys. Chem. A, 101:8098–8106, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. [81]
    M.S. Lee, F.R. Salsbury, Jr., and C.L. Brooks, III. Novel generalized Born methods. J. Chem. Phys., 116:10606–10614, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. [82]
    M.S. Lee, M. Feig, F.R. Salsbury, and C.L. Brooks. New Analytic Approximation to the Standard Molecular Volume Definition and Its Application to Generalized Born Calculations. J. Comput. Chem., 24:1348–1356, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. [83]
    M. Schaefer and C. Froemmel. A precise analytical method for calculating the electrostatic energy of macromolecules in aqueous solution. J. Mol. Biol., 216:1045–1066, 1990.Google Scholar
  84. [84]
    G.D. Hawkins, C.J. Cramer, and D.G. Truhlar. Pairwise solute descreening of solute charges from a dielectric medium. Chem. Phys. Lett., 246:122–129, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. [85]
    G.D. Hawkins, C.J. Cramer, and D.G. Truhlar. Parametrized models of aqueous free energies of solvation based on pairwise descreening of solute atomic charges from a dielectric medium. J. Phys. Chem., 100:19824–19839, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. [86]
    J. G. Kirkwood. Theory of solutions of molecules containing widely separated charges with special applications to zwitterions. J. Chem. Phys., 2:351–361, 1934.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  87. [87]
    D. Bashford and D.A. Case. Generalized Born Models of Macromolecular Solvation Effects. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem., 51:129–152, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. [88]
    M. Feig and C.L. Brooks, III. Recent advances in the development and application of implicit solvent models in biomolecule simulations. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 14:217–224, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. [89]
    M. Feig, A. Onufriev, M.S. Lee, W. Im, D.A. Case, and C.L. Brooks. Performance Comparison of Generalized Born and Poisson Methods in the Calculation of Electrostatic Solvation Energies for Protein Structures. J. Comput. Chem., 25:265–284, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. [90]
    M. Schaefer and M. Karplus. A comprehensive analytical treatment of continuum electrostatics. J. Phys. Chem., 100:1578–1599, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. [91]
    A. Onufriev, D. Bashford, and D.A. Case. Modification of the Generalized Born Model Suitable for Macromolecules. J. Phys. Chem. B, 104:3712–3720, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. [92]
    A. Onufriev, D. Bashford, and D.A. Case. Exploring Protein Native States and Large-Scale Conformational Changes With a Modified Generalized Born Model. Proteins, 55:383–394, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. [93]
    M.L. Connolly. Solvent-accessible surfaces of proteins and nucleic acids. Science, 221:709–713, 1983.Google Scholar
  94. [94]
    A. Ghosh, C.S. Rapp, and R.A. Friesner. Generalized Born Model Based on a Surface Integral Formulation. J. Phys. Chem. B, 102:10983–10990, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. [95]
    A. H. Elcock. Prediction of functionally important residues based solely on the computed energetics of protein structure. J. Mol. Biol., 312(4):885–896, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. [96]
    M. J. Ondrechen, J. G. Clifton, and D. Ringe. Thematics: a simple computational predictor of enzyme function from structure. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 98(22):12473–8, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. [97]
    Z. Y. Zhu and S. Karlin. Clusters of charged residues in protein three-dimensional structures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 93(16):8350–5, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. [98]
    A. M. Richard. Quantitative comparison of molecular electrostatic potentials for structure-activity studies. J. Comput. Chem., 12(8):959–69, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. [99]
    R. Norel, F. Sheinerman, D. Petrey, and B. Honig. Electrostatic contributions to protein-protein interactions: Fast energetic filters for docking and their physical basis. Prot. Sci., 10(11):2147–2161, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. [100]
    S. M. de Freitas, L. V. de Mello, M. C. da Silva, G. Vriend, G. Neshich, and M. M. Ventura. Analysis of the black-eyed pea trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitor-alpha-chymotrypsin complex. FEBS Lett, 409(2):121–7, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. [101]
    L. Lo Conte, C. Chothia, and J. Janin. The atomic structure of protein-protein recognition sites. J Mol Biol, 285(5):2177–98, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. [102]
    J. Janin and C. Chothia. The structure of protein-protein recognition sites. J. Biol. Chem., 265(27):16027–30, 1990.Google Scholar
  103. [103]
    V. A. Roberts, H. C. Freeman, A. J. Olson, J. A. Tainer, and E. D. Getzoff. Electrostatic orientation of the electron-transfer complex between plastocyanin and cytochrome c. J. Biol. Chem., 266(20):13431–41, 1991.Google Scholar
  104. [104]
    R. C. Wade, R. R. Gabdoulline, and F. De Rienzo. Protein interaction property similarity analysis. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 83(3–4):122–127, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. [105]
    J. Novotny and K. Sharp. Electrostatic fields in antibodies and antibody/antigen complexes. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol., 58(3):203–24, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. [106]
    A. J. McCoy, V. Chandana Epa, and P. M. Colman. Electrostatic complementarity at protein/protein interfaces. J. Mol. Biol., 268(2):570–84, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. [107]
    A. Arbuzova, L. B. Wang, J. Y. Wang, G. Hangyas-Mihalyne, D. Murray, B. Honig, and S. McLaughlin. Membrane binding of peptides containing both basic and aromatic residues. experimental studies with peptides corresponding to the scaffolding region of caveolin and the effector region of marcks. Biochemistry, 39(33):10330–10339, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. [108]
    Jung-Hsin Lin, Nathan Andrew Baker, and J. Andrew McCammon. Bridging the implicit and explicit solvent approaches for membrane electrostatics. Biophys. J., 83(3):1374–1379, 2002.Google Scholar
  109. [109]
    D. Murray and B. Honig. Electrostatic control of the membrane targeting of C2 domains. Molecular Cell, 9(1):145–154, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. [110]
    R. R. Gabdoulline and R. C. Wade. Simulation of the diffusional association of barnase and barstar. Biophys J, 72(5):1917–29, 1997.Google Scholar
  111. [111]
    S. H. Northrup, S. A. Allison, and J. A. McCammon. Brownian dynamics simulation of diffusion-influenced biomolecular reactions. J. Chem. Phys., 80:1517–1524, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. [112]
    J. L. Smart, T. J. Marrone, and J. A. McCammon. Conformational sampling with Poisson-Boltzmann forces and a stochastic dynamics monte carlo method: Application to alanine dipeptide. J. Comput. Chem., 18(14):1750–1759, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. [113]
    N. V. Prabhu, P. Zhu, and K. A. Sharp. Implementation and testing of stable, fast implicit solvation in molecular dynamics using the smooth-permittivity finite difference Poisson-Boltzmann method. J. Comput. Chem., 25(16):2049–2064, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. [114]
    Q. Lu and R. Luo. A Poisson-Boltzmann dynamics method with nonperiodic boundary condition. J. Chem. Phys., 119(21):11035–11047, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. [115]
    B.Z. Lu, W.Z. Chen, C.X. Wang, and X. Xu. Protein Molecular Dynamics With Electrostatic Force Entirely Determined by a Single Poisson-Boltzmann Calculation. Proteins, 48:497–504, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. [116]
    F. Fogolari, A. Brigo, and H. Molinari. Protocol for MM/PBSA molecular dynamics simulations of proteins. Biophys. J., 85(1):159–166, 2003.Google Scholar
  117. [117]
    P. A. Kollman, I. Massova, C. Reyes, B. Kuhn, S. Huo, L. Chong, M. Lee, T. Lee, Y. Duan, W. Wang, O. Donini, P. Cieplak, J. Srinivasan, D. A. Case, and III Cheatham, T. E. Calculating structures and free energies of complex molecules: combining molecular mechanics and continuum models. Accounts of Chemical Research, 33(12):889–97, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. [118]
    J. M. J. Swanson, R. H. Henchman, and J. A. McCammon. Revisiting free energy calculations: A theoretical connection to MM/PBSA and direct calculation of the association free energy. Biophys. J., 86(1):67–74, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. [119]
    J. E. Nielsen and J. A. McCammon. On the evaluation and optimization of protein x-ray structures for pKa calculations. Prot. Sci., 12(2):313–26, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. [120]
    R. E. Georgescu, E. G. Alexov, and M. R. Gunner. Combining conformational flexibility and continuum electrostatics for calculating pKas in proteins. Biophys. J., 83(4):1731–1748, 2002.Google Scholar
  121. [121]
    J. Warwicker. Improved pKa calculations through flexibility based sampling of a water-dominated interaction scheme. Prot. Sci., 13(10):2793–805, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. [122]
    J. Wyman and S.J. Gill. Binding and linkage. University Science Books, Mill Valley, CA, 1990.Google Scholar
  123. [123]
    R.A. Alberty. Thermodynamics of Biochemical Reactions. John Wiley, New York, 2003.Google Scholar
  124. [124]
    J.B. Matthew, F.R.N. Gurd, B. Garcia-Moreno E., M.A. Flanagan, K.L. March, and S.J. Shire. pH-dependent processes in proteins. CRC Crit. Rev. Biochem., 18:91–197, 1985.Google Scholar
  125. [125]
    P. Beroza and D.A. Case. Calculations of proton-binding thermodynamics in proteins. Meth. Enzymol., 295:170–189, 1998.Google Scholar
  126. [126]
    D. Bashford. Macroscopic electrostatic models for protonation states in proteins. Frontiers Biosci., 9:1082–1099, 2004.Google Scholar
  127. [127]
    B. García-Moreno and C.A. Fitch. Structural interpretation of pH and salt-dependent processes in proteins with computaional methods. Meth. Enzymol., 380:20–51, 2004.Google Scholar
  128. [128]
    C. Tanford and J.G. Kirkwood. Theory of titration curves. I. General equations for impenetrable spheres. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 79:5333–5339, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. [129]
    C. Tanford. Theory of protein titration curves. II. Calculations for simple models at low ionic strength. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 79:5340–5347, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. [130]
    C. Tanford and R. Roxby. Interpretation of protein titration curves. Biochemistry, 11:2192–2198, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. [131]
    S.J. Shire, G.I.H. Hanania, and F.R.N. Gurd. Electrostatic effects in myoglobin. Hydrogen ion equilibria in sperm whale ferrimyoglobin. Biochemistry, 13:2967–2974, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. [132]
    J.B. Matthew and F.R.N. Gurd. Calculation of electrostatic interactions in proteins. Meth. Enzymol., 130:413–436, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. [133]
    A. Onufriev, D.A. Case, and G.M. Ullmann. A novel view of pH titration in biomolecules. Biochemistry, 40:3413–3419, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. [134]
    D. Poland. Free energy of proton binding in proteins. Biopolymers, 69:60–71, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. [135]
    P. Beroza, D.R. Fredkin, M.Y. Okamura, and G. Feher. Protonation of interacting residues in a protein by Monte Carlo method: Application to lysozyme and the photosynthetic reaction center of Rhodobacter sphaeroides. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 88:5804–5808, 1991.Google Scholar
  136. [136]
    A.M. Baptista, P.J. Martel, and S.B. Petersen. Simulation of protein conformational freedom as a function of pH: Constant-pH molecular dynamics using implicit titration. Proteins, 27:523–544, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. [137]
    U. Börjesson and P.H. Hünenberger. Explicit-solvent molecular dynamics simulation at constant pH: Methodology and application to small amines. J. Chem. Phys., 114:9706–9719, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. [138]
    A.M. Baptista. Comment on “Explicit-solvent molecular dynamics simulation at constant pH: Methodology and application to small amines”. J. Chem. Phys., 116:7766–7768, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. [139]
    U. Börjesson and P.H. Hünenberger. pH-dependent stability of a decalysine α-helix studied by explicit-solvent molecular dynamics simulations at constant pH. J. Phys. Chem. B, 108:13551–13559, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. [140]
    M.S. Lee, F.R. Salsbury, and C.L. Brooks. Constant-pH molecular dynamics using continuous titration coordinates. Proteins, 56:738–752, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. [141]
    X. Kong and C.L. Brooks, III. λ-dynamics: A new approach to free energy calculations. J. Chem. Phys., 105:2414–2423, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. [142]
    A.M. Baptista, V.H. Teixeira, and C.M. Soares. Constant-pH molecular dynamics using stochastic titration. J. Chem. Phys., 117:4184–4200, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. [143]
    M. Dlugosz and J.M. Antosiewicz. Constant-pH molecular dynamics simulations: a test case for succinic acid. Chem. Phys., 302:161–170, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. [144]
    M. Dlugosz, J.M. Antosiewicz, and A.D. Robertson. Constant-pH molecular dynamics study of protonation-structure relationship in a hexapeptide derived from ovomucoid third domain. Phys. Rev. E, 69:021915, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. [145]
    J. Mongan, D.A. Case, and J.A. McCammon. Constant pH molecular dynamics in generalized Born implicit solvent. J. Comput. Chem., 25:2038–2048, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. [146]
    R. Zhou, G. Krilov, and B. J. Berne. Comment on “can a continuum solvent model reproduce the free energy landscape of a-hairpin folding in water?” the poisson-boltzmann equation. J. Phys. Chem. B, 108(22):7528–30, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. [147]
    J. Wagoner and N.A. Baker. Solvation Forces on Biomolecular Structures: A Comparison of Explicit Solvent and Poisson-Boltzmann Models. J. Comput. Chem., 25:1623–1629, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. [148]
    M. Nina, W. Im, and B. Roux. Optimized atomic radii for protein continuum electrostatics solvations forces. Biophys. Chem., 78:89–96, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathan A. Baker
    • 1
  • Donald Bashford
    • 2
  • David A. Case
    • 3
  1. 1.Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular BiophysicsWashington UniversitySt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Dept. of Molecular BiotechnologySt. Jude Childrens Research HospitalMemphisUSA
  3. 3.Dept. of Molecular BiologyThe Scripps Research InstituteLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations