Paper detail

Computer Folding of RNA Tetraloops: Identification of Key Force Field Deficiencies

The computer-aided folding of biomolecules, particularly RNAs, is one of the most difficult challenges in computational structural biology. RNA tetraloops are fundamental RNA motifs playing key roles in RNA folding and RNA-RNA and RNA-protein interactions. Although state-of-the-art Molecular Dynamics (MD) force fields correctly describe the native state of these tetraloops as a stable free-energy basin on the microsecond time scale, enhanced sampling techniques reveal that the native state is not the global free energy minimum, suggesting yet unidentified significant imbalances in the force fields. Here, we tested our ability to fold the RNA tetraloops in various force fields and simulation settings. We employed three different enhanced sampling techniques, namely, temperature replica exchange MD (T-REMD), replica exchange with solute tempering (REST2), and well-tempered metadynamics (WT-MetaD). We aimed to separate problems caused by limited sampling from those due to force-field inaccuracies. We found that none of the contemporary force fields is able to correctly describe folding of the 5'-GAGA-3' tetraloop over a range of simulation conditions. We thus aimed to identify which terms of the force field are responsible for this poor description of TL folding. We showed that at least two different imbalances contribute to this behavior, namely, overstabilization of base-phosphate and/or sugar-phosphate interactions and underestimated stability of the hydrogen bonding interaction in base pairing. The first artifact stabilizes the unfolded ensemble, while the second one destabilizes the folded state. The former problem might be partially alleviated by reparametrization of the van der Waals parameters of the phosphate oxygens suggested by Case et al., while in order to overcome the latter effect we suggest local potentials to better capture hydrogen bonding interactions.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access7 authors4 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.