This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: biophysj.106.090803v1 91/10/3589    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Erman, B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Erman, B.

The Gaussian Network Model: Precise Prediction of Residue Fluctuations and Application to Binding Problems

Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Koç University, Sariyer, 34450 stanbul, Turkey

Correspondence: Address reprint requests to B. Erman, Tel.: 90-212-338-1704; E-mail: berman{at}ku.edu.tr.

The single-parameter matrix of force constants proposed by the Gaussian Network Model (GNM) is iteratively modified to yield native state fluctuations that agree exactly with experimentally observed values. The resulting optimized matrix contains residue-specific force constants that may be used for an accurate analysis of ligand binding to single or multiple sites on proteins. Bovine Pancreatic Trypsin Inhibitor (BPTI) is used as an example. The calculated off-diagonal elements of the matrix, i.e., the optimized spring constants, obey a Lorentzian distribution. The mean value of the spring constants is –0.1, a value much weaker than –1 of the GNM. Few of the spring constants are positive, indicating repulsion between residues. Residue pairs with large number of neighbors have spring constants around the mean, –0.1. Large negative spring constants are between highly correlated pairs of residues. The fluctuations of the distance between anticorrelated pairs of residues are subject to smaller spring constants. The importance of the number of neighbors of residue pairs in determining the elements of the matrix is pointed out. Allosteric effects of binding on a single or multiple residues of BPTI are illustrated and discussed. Comparison of the predictions of the present model with those of the standard GNM shows that the two models agree at lower modes, i.e., those relating to global motions, but they disagree at higher modes. In the higher modes, the present model points to the important contributions from specific residues whereas the standard GNM fails to do so.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. G. Su, C. H. Li, R. Hao, W. Z. Chen, and C. Xin Wang Protein Unfolding Behavior Studied by Elastic Network Model Biophys. J., June 15, 2008; 94(12): 4586 - 4596. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. Zheng A Unification of the Elastic Network Model and the Gaussian Network Model for Optimal Description of Protein Conformational Motions and Fluctuations Biophys. J., May 15, 2008; 94(10): 3853 - 3857. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Z. Sen, M. Kloster, R. L. Jernigan, A. Kolinski, J. M. Bujnicki, and A. Kloczkowski Predicting the Complex Structure and Functional Motions of the Outer Membrane Transporter and Signal Transducer FecA Biophys. J., April 1, 2008; 94(7): 2482 - 2491. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]