Statistical Contact Potentials in Protein Coarse-Grained Modeling: From Pair to Multi-body Potentials

  • Sumudu P. Leelananda
  • Yaping Feng
  • Pawel Gniewek
  • Andrzej Kloczkowski
  • Robert L. Jernigan
Chapter

Abstract

The basic concepts of coarse-graining protein structures led to the introduction of empirical statistical potentials in protein computations. We review the history of the development of statistical contact potentials in computational biology and discuss the common features and differences between various pair contact potentials. Potentials derived from the statistics of non-bonded contacts in protein structures from the Protein Data Bank (PDB) are compared with potentials developed for threading purposes based on the optimization of the selection of the native structures among decoys. The energy of transfer of amino acids from water to a protein environment is discussed in detail. We suggest that a next generation of statistical contact potentials should include the effects of residue packing in proteins to improve predictions of protein native three-dimensional structures. We review existing multi-body potentials that have been proposed in the literature, including our own recent four-body potentials. We show how these are related to amino acid substitution matrices.

References

  1. Anfinsen C, Haber E, Sela M, White F (1961) The kinetics of formation of native ribonuclease during oxidation of the reduced polypeptide chain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 47:1309–1314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anfinsen CB (1973) Principles that govern the folding of protein chains. Science 181:223–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bahar I, Kaplan M, Jernigan RL (1997) Short-range conformational energies, secondary structure propensities, and recognition of correct sequence-structure matches. Proteins: Struct Funct Genet 29:292–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bahar I, Jernigan RL (1997) Inter-residue potentials in globular proteins and the dominance of highly specific hydrophilic interactions at close separation. J Mol Biol 266:195–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Betancourt MR, Thirumalai D (1999) Pair potentials for protein folding: choice of reference states and sensitivity of predicted native states to variations in the interaction schemes. Protein Sci 8:361–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bordner AJ, Abagyan RA (2004) Large-scale prediction of protein geometry and stability changes for arbitrary single point mutations. Proteins 57:400–413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowie JU, Luthy R, Eisenberg D (1991) A method to identify protein sequences that fold into a known three-dimensional structure. Science 253:164–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carter C Jr, LeFebvre B, Cammer S, Tropsha A, Edgell M (2001) Fourbody potentials reveal protein-specific correlations to stability changes caused by hydrophobic core mutations. J Mol Biol 311:625–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Czaplewski C, Rodziewicz-Motowidlo S, Liwo A, Ripoll DR, Wawak RJ, Scheraga HA (2000) Molecular simulation study of cooperativity in hydrophobic association. Protein Sci 9:1235–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dehouck Y, Gilis D, Rooman M (2006) A new generation of statistical potentials for proteins. Biophys J 90:4010–4017PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deutsch JM, Kurosky T (1996) New algorithm for protein design. Phys Rev Lett 76:323–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeWitte RS, Shakhnovich EI (1996) SMoG: de novo design method based on simple, fast and accurate free energy estimates. 1. Methodology and supporting evidence. J Am Chem Soc 118:11733–11744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dobbs H, Orlandini E, Bonaccini R, Seno F (2002) Optimal potentials for predicting inter-helical packing in transmembrane proteins. Proteins 49:342–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dombkowski AA, Crippen GM (2000) Disulfide recognition in an optimized threading potential. Protein Eng 13:679–689PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dong Q, Wang X, Lin L (2006) Novel knowledge-based mean force potential at the profile level. BMC Bioinformatics 7:324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eisenberg D, Luthy R, Bowie JU (1997) VERIFY3D: Assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles. Methods Enzymol 277:396–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feng Y, Kloczkowski A, Jernigan RL (2007) Four-body contact potentials derived from two protein datasets to discriminate native structures from decoys. Proteins 68:57–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feng Y, Jernigan RL, Kloczkowski A (2008) Orientational distributions of contact clusters in proteins closely resemble those of an icosahedron. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinf 73:730–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feng Y, Kloczkowski A, Jernigan RL (2010) Potentials ‘R’Us web-server for protein energy estimations with coarse-grained knowledge-based potentials. BMC Bioinformatics 11:92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Finkelstein AV, Badretdinov AY, Gutin AM (1995) Why do protein architectures have Boltzmann-like statistics? Proteins 23:142–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldstein R, Luthey-Schulten ZA, Wolynes PG (1992) Protein tertiary structure recognition using optimized Hamiltonians with local interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89:9029–9033PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gatchell DW, Dennis S, Vajda S (2000) Discrimination of near-native protein structures from misfolded models by empirical free energy functions. Proteins 41:518–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Georgescu RE, Alexov EG, Gunner MR (2002) Combining conformational flexibility and continuum electrostatics for calculating pK(a)s in proteins. Biophys J 83:1731–1748PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gilis D, Rooman M (1996) Stability changes upon mutation of solvent accessible residues in proteins evaluated by database-derived potentials. J Mol Biol 257:1112–1126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gilis D, Rooman M (1997) Predicting protein stability changes upon mutation using database-derived potentials: Solvent accessibility determines the importance of local versus non-local interactions along the sequence. J Mol Biol 272:276–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gilis D (2004) Protein decoy sets for evaluating energy functions. J Biomol Struct Dyn 21:725–736PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guerois R, Nielsen JE, Serrano L (2002) Predicting changes in the stability of proteins and protein complexes: a study of more than 1000 mutations. J Mol Biol 320:369–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haji-Akbari A, Engel M, Keys AS, Zheng X, Petschek RG, Palffy-Muhoray P, Glotzer SC (2009) Disordered, quasicrystalline and crystalline phases of densely packed tetrahedra. Nature 462:773–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hao MH, Scheraga HA (1996) How optimization of potential functions affects protein folding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:4984–4989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hao MH, Scheraga HA (1999) Designing potential energy functions for protein folding. Curr Opin Struct Biol 9:184–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hendlich M, Lackner P, Weitckus S, Floechner H, Froschauer R, Gottsbachner K, Casari G, Sippl MJ (1990) Identification of native protein folds amongst a large number of incorrect models: the calculation of low energy conformations from potentials of mean force. J Mol Biol 216:167–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hill TL (1960) Statistical mechanics. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  33. Hinds DA, Levitt M (1992) A lattice model for protein structure prediction at low resolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci 89:2536–2540PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hoppe C, Schomburg D (2005) Prediction of protein thermostability with a direction- and distance-dependent knowledge-based potential. Protein Sci 14:2682–2692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hu C, Li X, Liang J (2004) Developing optimal non-linear scoring function for protein design. Bioinformatics 20:3080–3098PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hubner IA, Deeds EJ, Shakhnovich EI (2005) High-resolution protein folding with a transferable potential. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102:18914–18919PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jernigan RL, Bahar I (1996) Structure-derived potentials and protein simulations. Curr Opin Struct Biol 6:195–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jones DT, Taylor WR, Thornton JM (1992) A new approach to protein fold recognition. Nature 358:86–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Karplus M, Petsko GA (1990) Molecular dynamics simulations in biology. Nature 347:631–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Koehl P, Levitt M (1999a) De novo protein design. I. In search of stability and specificity. J Mol Biol 293:1161–1181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Koehl P, Levitt M (1999b) De novo protein design. II. Plasticity of protein sequence. J Mol Biol 293:1183–1193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kolinski A (2004) Protein modeling and structure prediction with a reduced representation. Acta Biochimica Polonica 51:349–371PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Koretke KK, Luthey-Schulten Z, Wolynes PG (1996) Self-consistently optimized statistical mechanical energy functions for sequence structure alignment. Protein Sci 5:1043–1059PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Koretke KK, Luthey-Schulten Z, Wolynes PG (1998) Self-consistently optimized energy functions for protein structure prediction by molecular dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:2932–2937PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kortemme T, Baker D (2002) A simple physical model for binding energy hot spots in protein–protein complexes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:14116–14121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kortemme T, Kim DE, Baker D (2004) Computational alanine scanning of protein–protein interfaces. Sci STKE 2004:pl2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Krishnamoorthy B, Tropsha A (2003) Development of a four-body statistical pseudo-potential to discriminate native from nonnative protein conformations. Bioinformatics 19:1540–1548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Laurents DV, Huyghes-Despointes BMP, Bruix M, Thurlkill RL, Schell D, Newsom S, Grimsley GR, Shaw KL, Trevi S, Rico M, Briggs JM, Antosiewicz JM, Scholtz JM, Pace CN (2003) Charge–charge interactions are key determinants of the pK values of ionizable groups in ribonuclease Sa (pI = 3.5) and a basic variant (pI = 10.2). J Mol Biol 325:1077–1092PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lee B (1993) Estimation of the maximum change in stability of globular proteins upon mutation of a hydrophobic residue to another of smaller size. Protein Sci 2:733–738PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Li H, Helling R, Tang C, Wingreen N (1996) Emergence of preferred structures in a simple model of protein folding. Science 273:666–669PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Li X, Hu C, Liang J (2003) Simplicial edge representation of protein structures and alpha contact potential with confidence measure. Proteins 53:792–805PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Li X, Liang J (2005a) Computational design of combinatorial peptide library for modulating protein–protein interactions. Pacific Symposium of Biocomputing 10:28–39Google Scholar
  53. Li X, Liang J (2005b) Geometric cooperativity and anti-cooperativity of three-body interactions in native proteins. Proteins 60:46–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Li X, Liang J (2007) Knowledge-based energy functions for computational studies of proteins. In: Xu Y, Xu D, Liang J (eds) Computational methods for protein structure prediction and modeling, 1st edn. Springer, New York, NY, pp 71–123Google Scholar
  55. Liu S, Zhang C, Zhou H, Zhou Y (2004) A physical reference state unifies the structure-derived potential of mean force for protein folding and binding. Proteins 56:93–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Liwo A, Czaplewski C, Pillardy J, Scheraga HA (2001) Cumulant-based expressions for the multibody terms for the correlation between local and electrostatic interactions in the united-residue force field. J Chem Phys 115:2323–2347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Liwo A, Kazmierkiewicz R, Czaplewski C, Groth M, Oldziej S, Wawak RJ, Rackovsky S, Pincus MR, Scheraga HA (1998) United-residue force field for off-lattice protein-structure simulations: III. Origin of backbone hydrogen-bonding cooperativity in united-residue potentials. J Com Chem 19:259–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Liwo A, Oldziej S, Pincus MR, Wawak RJ, Rackovsky S, Scheraga HA (1997a) A united-residue force field for off-lattice protein-structure simulations. 1. Functional forms and parameters of long-range side-chain interaction potentials from protein crystal data. J Com Chem 18:849–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Liwo A, Pincus MR, Wawak RJ, Rackovsky S, Oldziej S, Scheraga HA (1997b) A united-residue force field for off-lattice protein-structure simulations. 2. Parameterization of short-range interactions and determination of weights of energy terms by Z-score optimization. J Com Chem 18:874–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lu H, Skolnick J (2001) A distance-dependent atomic knowledge-based potential for improved protein structure selection. Proteins 44:223–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Maiorov VN, Crippen GM (1992) Contact potential that recognizes the correct folding of globular proteins. J Mol Biol 227:876–888PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McConkey BJ, Sobolev V, Edelman M (2003) Discrimination of native protein structures using atom–atom contact scoring. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:3215–3220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McGuffin LJ (2007) Benchmarking consensus model quality assessment for protein fold recognition. BMC Bioinformatics 8:345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mehler EL, Fuxreiter M, Simon I, Garcia-Moreno EB (2002) The role of hydrophobic microenvironments in modulating pKa shifts in proteins. Proteins 48:283–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Méndez R, Leplae R, Lensink MF, Wodak SJ (2005) Assessment of Capri predictions in rounds 3–5 shows progress in docking procedures. Proteins 60:150–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mirny LA, Shakhnovich EI (1996) How to derive a protein folding potential? A new approach to an old problem. J Mol Biol 264:1164–1179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mitchell BO, Laskowski RA, Alex A, Thornton JM (1999) BLEEP: Potential of mean force describing protein–ligand interactions: II. Calculation of binding energies and comparison with experimental data. J Comp Chem 20:1177–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL (1985) Estimation of effective interresidue contact energies from protein crystal structures: Quasi-chemical approximation. Macromolecules 18:534–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL (1994) Protein stability changes for single substitution mutants and the extent of local compactness in the denatured state. Prot Eng 7:1209–1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL (1996) Residue–residue potentials with a favorable contact pair term and an unfavorable high packing density term, for simulation and threading. J Mol Bio 256:623–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL (1999a) Evaluation of short-range interactions as secondary structure energies for protein fold and sequence recognition. Proteins 36:347–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL (1999b) Self-consistent estimation of interresidue protein contact energies based on an equilibrium mixture approximation of residues. Proteins 34:49–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL (1999c) An empirical energy potential with a reference state for protein fold and sequence recognition. Proteins Struct Funct Genet 36:357–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Muegge I, Martin YC (1999) A general and fast scoring function for protein–ligand interactions: A simplified potential approach. J Med Chem 42:791–804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Munson PJ, Singh RK (1997) Statistical significance of hierarchical multi-body potentials based on Delaunay tessellation and their application in sequence structure alignment. Protein Science 6:1467–1481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Park BH, Levitt M (1996) Energy functions that discriminate X-ray and near native folds from well-constructed decoys. J Mol Biol 258:367–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Pillardy J, Czaplewski C, Liwo A, Lee J, Ripoll DR, Kazmierkiewicz R, Oldziej S, Wedemeyer WJ, Gibson KD, Arnautova YA, Saunders J, Ye YJ, Scheraga HA (2001) Recent improvements in prediction of protein structure by global optimization of a potential energy function. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 98:2329–2333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Pokarowski P, Kloczkowski A, Jernigan RL, Kothari NS, Pokarowska M, Kolinski A (2005) Inferring ideal amino acid interaction forms from statistical protein contact potentials. Proteins: Struct Func Bioinf 59:49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Qiu, J, Elber R (2005) Atomically detailed potentials to recognize native and approximate protein structures. Proteins 61:44–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Samudrala R, Levitt M (2000) Decoys ‘R’ Us: A database of incorrect conformations to improve protein structure prediction. Protein Sci 9:1399–1401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Samudrala R, Moult J (1998) An all-atom distance-dependent conditional probability discriminatory function for protein structure prediction. J Mol Biol 275:895–916PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sandberg L, Edholm O (1999) A fast and simple method to calculate protonation states in proteins. Proteins 36:474–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Shakhnovich EI, Gutin AM (1993) Engineering of stable and fast-folding sequences of model proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:7195–7199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Shen MY, Sali A (2006) Statistical potential for assessment and prediction of protein structures. Protein Sci 15:2507–2524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Simons KT, Ruczinski I, Kooperberg C, Fox BA, Bystroff C, Baker D (1999) Improved recognition of native-like protein structures using a combination of sequence-dependent and sequence-independent features of proteins. Proteins 34:82–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Singh RK, Tropsha A, Vaisman II (1996) Delaunay tessellation of proteins: four body nearest-neighbor propensities of amino acid residues. J Comp Biol 3:213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sippl MJ (1990) Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of the main force. J Mol Biol 213:167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sippl MJ (1993) Boltzmann’s principle, knowledge-based mean fields and protein folding. An approach to the computational determination of protein structures. J Comp Aided Mol Des 7:473–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Skolnick J (2006) In quest of an empirical potential for protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol 16:166–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Skolnick J, Jaroszewski L, Kolinski A, Godzik A (1997) Derivation and testing of pair potentials for protein folding. When is the quasichemical approximation correct? Protein Sci 6:676–688Google Scholar
  91. Tanaka S, Scheraga HA (1976) Medium- and long-range interaction parameters between amino acids for predicting three-dimensional structures of proteins. Macromolecules 9:945–950PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Thomas PD, Dill KA (1996a) An iterative method for extracting energy-like quantities from protein structures. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:11628–11633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Thomas PD, Dill KA (1996b) Statistical potentials extracted from protein structures: How accurate are they? J Mol Biol 257:457–469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tobi D, Elber R (2000) Distance-dependent, pair potential for protein folding: Results from linear optimization. Proteins 41:40–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Tobi D, Shafran G, Linial N, Elber R (2000) On the design and analysis of protein folding potentials. Proteins 40:71–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Tollinger M, Crowhurst KA, Kay LE, Forman-Kay JD (2003) Site specific contributions to the pH dependence of protein stability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:4545–4550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Vajda S, Sippl M, Novotny J (1997) Empirical potentials and functions for protein folding and binding. Curr Opin Struc Biol 7:222–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Vendruscolo M, Domanyi E (1998) Pairwise contact potentials are unsuitable for protein folding. J Chem Phys 109:11101–11108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Vendruscolo M, Najmanovich R, Domany E (2000) Can a pairwise contact potential stabilize native protein folds against decoys obtained by threading? Proteins-Struc Funct Genet 38:134–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wolynes PG, Onuchic JN, Thirumalai D (1995) Navigating the folding routes. Science 267:1619–1620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wu Y, Chen M, Lu M, Wang Q, Ma J (2005a) Determining protein topology from skeletons of secondary structures. J Mol Biol 350:571–586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Wu YH, Lu MY, Chen MZ, Li JL, Ma JP (2007) OPUS-Ca: a knowledge-based potential function requiring only C alpha positions. Protein Sci 16:1449–1463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Wu Y, Tian X, Lu M, Chen M, Wang Q, Ma J (2005b) Folding of small helical proteins assisted by small-angle X-ray scattering profiles. Structure 13:1587–1597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Yang L, Tan CH, Hsieh MJ, Wang J, Duan Y, Cieplak P, Caldwell J, Kollman PA, Luo R (2006) New-generation amber united-atom force field. J Phys Chem B 110:13166–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Zhang C, Kim SH (2000)  Environment-dependent residue contact energies for proteins. Proc Nat Acad Sci 97:2550–2555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Zhang C, Liu S, Zhu Q, Zhou Y (2005) A knowledge-based energy function for protein–ligand, protein–protein, and protein–DNA complexes. J Med Chem 48:2325–2335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Zhang J, Chen R, Liang J (2006) Empirical potential function for simplified protein models: Combining contact and local sequence-structure descriptors. Proteins 63:949–960PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Zheng W, Cho SJ, Vaisman II, Tropsha A (1997) A new approach to protein fold recognition based on Delaunay tessellation of protein structure. Pac Symp Biocomp 1997:486–497Google Scholar
  109. Zhou H, Zhou Y (2002) Distance-scaled, finite ideal-gas reference state improves structure-derived potentials of mean force for structure selection and stability prediction. Protein Sci 11:2714–2726PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sumudu P. Leelananda
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yaping Feng
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pawel Gniewek
    • 2
    • 3
  • Andrzej Kloczkowski
    • 1
    • 2
  • Robert L. Jernigan
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biochemistry, Biophysics, and Molecular BiologyIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  2. 2.L.H.Baker Center for Bioinformatics and Biological StatisticsIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  3. 3.Laboratory of Theory of Biopolymers, Faculty of ChemistryUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations