The Enzyme Catalysis Process pp 25-40 | Cite as
Proteins: Interactions and Dynamics
Chapter
Abstract
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.
Keywords
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.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Creighton, Th. E., 1983 “Proteins”, W.H. Freeman & Co. N.Y.Google Scholar
- Israeïachvi.li, J.N., 1985 “Intermolecular and Surface Forces”, Academic Press, N.Y.Google Scholar
- Franks, F. (ed.), 1982 “Biophysics of Water”, Wiley-interscience, N.Y.Google Scholar
- McCammon, J.A. and Harvey, S.C. (1987) “Dynamics of Proteins and Nucleic Acids”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schulz, G.E. and Schirmer, R.H. (1979) “Principles of Protein Structure”, Springer-Verlag, V.Y.Google Scholar
- Baker, E.Y. and Hubbard, R.E. Prog. Biophys. Molec. Biol. (1984) 44, 97–179Google Scholar
- Hydrogen Bonding in Globular ProteinsGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Hydrophobicity Scales and Computational Techniques for Detecting Amphipatic Structures in ProteinsGoogle Scholar
- Eisenberg, D, Wilcox, W. and McLachlan, A.D. J. Cellular Biochem. (1986) 31, 11–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hydrophilicity and Amphiphilicity in Protein StructureGoogle Scholar
- Hermans, J., Berendsen, H.J.C., van Gunsteren, W.F. and Postma, J.P.M., (1984), Biopolymers 23, 1513–1518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- A Consistent Empirical Potential for Water-Protein Interactions Hvidt, A., Ann. Rev. Biopys. (1983) 12, 1–20Google Scholar
- Interactions of Water with Nonpolar SolutesGoogle Scholar
- Némethy, G., Peer, W.J. and Scheraga, H.A., Ann. Rev. Biophys. Bioeng. (1981), 10, 459–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Effect of Protein-Solvent Interactions on Protein ConformationGoogle Scholar
- Beeman, D. (1976) J. Comp. Phys. 20, 130–139Google Scholar
- Some Multistep Methods for Use in Molecular Dynamics Calculations Bennett, Ch. (1975) J. Comp. Phys. 19, 267–279Google Scholar
- Mass Tensor Molecular DynamicsGoogle Scholar
- Binder, K. (ed.) (1979) “Monte Carlo Methods in Statistical Physics”, Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- van Gunsteren, W.F. (1988) Protein Engineering 2, 5–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- The Role of Computer Simulation Techniques in Protein EngineeringGoogle Scholar
- Jacucci, G. and Rahman, A. Il Nuovo Cimento (1984) 4D, 341–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Comparing the Efficiency of Metroplis Monte Carlo and Molecular-Dynamics Methods for Configuration Space SamplingGoogle Scholar
- Wood, W.W. and Erpenbeck, J.J. (1976) Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem. 27, 319–348Google Scholar
- Molecular Dynamics and Monte Carlo Calculations in Statistical MechanicsGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989