Proteins: Interactions and Dynamics

  • R. L. Somorjai
Part of the Progress in Mathematics book series (NSSA)


Enzymes (proteins) have characteristic, stable three-dimensional structures. Despite their apparently miraculous feats of discrimination and catalytic power, enzymes are stabilized and functionally primed by the same physical forces that operate on less glamorous systems such as liquids and solids. Nevertheless, it is important to characterize these forces as they appear to act in proteins since first-principle quantum mechanical calculations on such large systems are entirely impractical. We are faced with inevitable approximations and simplifications when attempting to calculate protein structure and dynamics.


Free Energy Difference Peptide Group Nonbonded Interaction Relative Free Energy Nonpolar Solute 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Creighton, Th. E., 1983 “Proteins”, W.H. Freeman & Co. N.Y.Google Scholar
  2. Israeï, J.N., 1985 “Intermolecular and Surface Forces”, Academic Press, N.Y.Google Scholar
  3. Franks, F. (ed.), 1982 “Biophysics of Water”, Wiley-interscience, N.Y.Google Scholar
  4. McCammon, J.A. and Harvey, S.C. (1987) “Dynamics of Proteins and Nucleic Acids”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Schulz, G.E. and Schirmer, R.H. (1979) “Principles of Protein Structure”, Springer-Verlag, V.Y.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, E.Y. and Hubbard, R.E. Prog. Biophys. Molec. Biol. (1984) 44, 97–179Google Scholar
  7. Hydrogen Bonding in Globular ProteinsGoogle Scholar
  8. Cornette, J.L., Cease, K.B., Margalit, H., Sponge, J.L., Berzofsky, J.A. and DeLisi, Ch., J. Mol. Biol. (1987) 195, 659–685Google Scholar
  9. Hydrophobicity Scales and Computational Techniques for Detecting Amphipatic Structures in ProteinsGoogle Scholar
  10. Eisenberg, D, Wilcox, W. and McLachlan, A.D. J. Cellular Biochem. (1986) 31, 11–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hydrophilicity and Amphiphilicity in Protein StructureGoogle Scholar
  12. Hermans, J., Berendsen, H.J.C., van Gunsteren, W.F. and Postma, J.P.M., (1984), Biopolymers 23, 1513–1518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. A Consistent Empirical Potential for Water-Protein Interactions Hvidt, A., Ann. Rev. Biopys. (1983) 12, 1–20Google Scholar
  14. Interactions of Water with Nonpolar SolutesGoogle Scholar
  15. Némethy, G., Peer, W.J. and Scheraga, H.A., Ann. Rev. Biophys. Bioeng. (1981), 10, 459–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Effect of Protein-Solvent Interactions on Protein ConformationGoogle Scholar
  17. Beeman, D. (1976) J. Comp. Phys. 20, 130–139Google Scholar
  18. Some Multistep Methods for Use in Molecular Dynamics Calculations Bennett, Ch. (1975) J. Comp. Phys. 19, 267–279Google Scholar
  19. Mass Tensor Molecular DynamicsGoogle Scholar
  20. Binder, K. (ed.) (1979) “Monte Carlo Methods in Statistical Physics”, Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  21. van Gunsteren, W.F. (1988) Protein Engineering 2, 5–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. The Role of Computer Simulation Techniques in Protein EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacucci, G. and Rahman, A. Il Nuovo Cimento (1984) 4D, 341–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Comparing the Efficiency of Metroplis Monte Carlo and Molecular-Dynamics Methods for Configuration Space SamplingGoogle Scholar
  25. Wood, W.W. and Erpenbeck, J.J. (1976) Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem. 27, 319–348Google Scholar
  26. Molecular Dynamics and Monte Carlo Calculations in Statistical MechanicsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. L. Somorjai
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Biological SciencesNational Research Council of CanadaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations