Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) aor re highly prevalent and play important roles in biology and human diseases. It is now also recognized that many IDPsgions (IDRs), compared to the well-structural proteins, do not have stable tertiary structures under physiological conditions, and even remain dynamic even in specific complexes and functional assemblies. Computer simulations are essential for deriving a molecular description of the It is now recognized that they are highly prevalent and play important roles in biology and human diseases due to the presence of many representative conformational states and potential dynamic interactions, which requires computer simulations for describing disordered protein ensembles and dynamic interactions for a mechanistic understanding of IDPs involved in biologyical functions, diseases, and therapeutics.
Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) or regions (IDRs), compared to well-structured proteins, do not have stable tertiary structures under physiological conditions. Nevertheless, IDPs or IDRs can be or IDRs can be found in nearly a third of proteins encoded in the human proteome [1], and they play key roles in a variety of biological processes that underlie vital cellular functions ranging from signaling and regulation to transport [2][3]. The inherent thermodynamic instability of an IDP’s conformation allows it to respond sensitively to numerous stimuli, including binding, changes in cellular environments (e.g., pH), and post-translational modifications [4][5][6][7][8]. Such conformational plasticity arguably enables IDPs to interact with multiple signaling pathways and serve as scaffolds to form multi-protein complexes [9]. Importantly, IDPs and IDRs can housave around 25% of disease-associated missense mutations [10]. They have been considered promising therapeutic targets for treating various diseases (such as chronic diseases) [11][12][13]. While many IDPs have been shown to undergo binding-induced folding transitions upon specific binding [3], many examples are also emerging to demonstrate that IDPs can remain unstructured even in specific complexes and functional assemblies [14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Such a dynamic mode of specific protein interactions seems much more prevalent than previously thought [21][22][23].
It is very challenging to provide reliable descriptions of the conformational ensembles of IDPs and IDRs. A disordered state does not lend itself to traditional structural determination methods that are geared toward describing a coherent set of similar structures. Biophysical techniques, such as NMR, SAXS, and FRET, can provide complementary information on various local and long-range structural organizations [7]. However, these ensemble-averaged measurements alone are not sufficient to unambiguously define the heterogeneous ensemble, due to the severely underdetermined nature of the structure calculation problem [8][24][25]. As a result, studies of IDPs have relied heavily in the traditional structure-function paradigm, by solving the folded structure of the bound state, analyzing coupled binding and folding mechanisms, or identifying putative pre-existing functional structures in the unbound state [3]. However, the disordered ensemble itself is arguably the central conduit of cellular signaling. The functional mechanism of an IDP is encoded in how the disordered ensemble as a whole responds to various stimuli, be it cooperative binding-induced folding or the redistribution of conformational sub-states in dynamic interactions. Multiple cellular signals can be naturally integrated through cooperative responses of the whole dynamic ensemble [26][27][28]. Therefore, there is a critical need for reliable characterization of disordered protein conformation ensembles, in both bound and unbound states, in order to establish the molecular basis of IDPs and IDRs in various physiological and pathophysiological processes.
Given the fundamental challenges of characterizing disordered protein states based on ensemble-averaged measurements alone, molecular modeling and simulations have a crucial and unique role to play in mechanistic studies of IDPs and IDRs [29][30][31][32][33]. This is reflected inby continuously the ever-increasing numbers of research articles that contain keywords “intrinsically disordered” and “molecular dynamics” published in the last 10 years ( Figure 1 )in our research communities. A particularly attractive approach is to first generate the disordered ensemble using transferable, physics-based force fields without any experimental restraints and then use the later for independent validation [7]. Such de novo simulations of disordered protein ensembles require both high force field accuracy and adequate sampling of relevant conformational space, pushing the limit of these two central ingredients of molecular dynamics (MD) and Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. The challenges of simulating disordered proteins have driven significant interest in developing better protein force fields and advanced sampling methods ( Figure 1 ). In particular, important advances have been made in the state-of-the-art atomistic force fields for describing the conformational equilibria of ordered and disordered proteins [13]. Enhanced sampling techniques have played crucial roles in both the development and application of atomistic force fields, by allowing one to cross energy barriers faster and accelerate the conformational sampling of IDPs [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]. Nonetheless, atomistic simulations still have limited capability in describing large systems such as biological condensates [42]. For this, multi-scale approaches are necessary to bridge the gaps in experimental and computational time- and length-scales, including implicit solvent models, which remove the solvent degrees of freedom [8], and various coarse-grained models, which significantly reduce both proteins and solvent degrees of freedom [43].
Compared to the globular proteins that have one or a few well-defined global energy minima, the energy landscape of an IDP is flatter and generally includes many local energy minima separated by modest energy barriers [44]. IDPs and IDRs typically have fewer hydrophobic residues, but a larger number of polar or charged as well as disorder-promoting residues (such as glycine and proline) [45]. These sequence features hamper the formation of hydrophobic cores that drive protein folding and thus prevent the formation of stable tertiary structures. Instead, IDPs and IDRs favor forming an ensemble of unfolded or partially folded states. This presents a major challenge for simulation and depends critically on the ability of the force fields to accurately describe the energetics of relevant conformational states, especially for capturing both folded and unfolded states of an IDP. For example, one recent study tested atomistic simulations of IDPs for eight force fields and found marked differences in the describing the conformational ensembles of IDPs, in particular the secondary structure content [46]. Similar observations have also been made in other benchmark studies, consistently showing that protein force fields previously optimized for folded proteins are not suitable for simulating disordered protein states, largely due to over-stabilization of protein-protein interactions [47]. These benchmark studies also suggested that the key towards better protein force field was to rebalance protein–protein, protein–water, and water–water interactions. Moreover, it can be also anticipated that polarizable force fields will be needed and become increasingly important for simulating IDP structure and interactions, because they explicitly consider the electronic polarization using various empirical models to provide better description of charged and polar protein motifs in heterogeneous biomolecular environments [48].
Besides accurate force fields, reliable simulation of IDPs also hinges on sufficient sampling of many relevant conformation states within a reasonable simulation time (Figure 1). Standard MD simulations are generally insufficient to generate representative conformational ensembles, even using the most accurate protein force fields coupled with advance of GPU computing or specialized hardware such as the ANTON supercomputer [4849]. For example, a recent reanalysis of a 30-μs ANTON trajectory of a 40-residue Aβ40 peptide in explicit solvent revealed very limited convergence even at the secondary structure level [13]. This can be attributed to the diverse and large accessible conformational space of an IDP and the potentially high free energy barriers separating various sub-states that require exponentially longer time to cross. Note that typical simulation times on conventional hardware (such as GPUs) are at least one-order of magnitude shorter. There is thus great danger in relying on standard MD to calculate disordered protein conformational ensembles at the atomistic level. There is a critical need to develop and leverage so-called enhanced sampling techniques, which aim to generate statistically meaningful conformational ensembles with dramatically less computation.
Com Repuresentational studies of IDP interaction and assembly are even more demanding. The conformational equilibrium of an IDP can respond sensitively to specific and nonspecific binding,ve enhanced methods have been proposed by introducing bias potentially shifting from a disordered to somewhat ordered state or fully folded state. In principle, simulations could provide the much-needed spatial and time resolutions to elucidate the kinetics and thermos, changing the effective temperature, or using the protocols of replica exchange molecular dynamics of coupled folding and binding processes and characterize the mechanistic features. However, the challenge is that this coupled process of folding and binding is a complex reaction involving the formation of many noncovalent interactions, which requires extremely long simulations generally beyond the current capabilities at the atomistic level. As such, coarse-grained models are generally required for computational studi(REMD). Importantly, all biased sampling strategies can be readily incorporated within the REX framework to benefit from both classes of IDP interaction and assembly.
Emenhanced sampirical protein force fields are potential energy functions that typically include physics-motivated bonded and non-bonded terms carefully parameterized based on a wide range of theoretical anding, including metadynamics (MTD) experimental data [50][4951]., These force fields can in principle be transferable between folded proteins and IDPs.accelerated MD (aMD) To achieve this[52], it is also critical to develop suitable water models and better describe the water–protein interactionsumbrella sampling (US) [5053][5154]., Two recent review articles have already provided comprehensive descriptionsand integrated tempering sampling on[55]. Ithe latest development of better protein force fields has been reported [49][52]. We therefore briefly summarize the state-of-the-art of nonpolarizable and polarizable force fields for IDP dynamics and interactions.
Many prt these sampling methods can accevious nonpolarizable force fields have significant shortcomings for describing the unfolded or disordered proteins. For example, they typically provide a poor description of the secondary structure content for IDPs erate the crossing of energy barriers to achieve better sampling efficiency and have a preference to give too compact conformations with respect to the experimentally measured dimension of IDPsbeen used to sample the IDP [46][53]. These problems were likely attributed to the unbalanced parameterization of dihedral torsion space and the description of protein–protein and protein–waterformations and dynamic interactions [54].
Figure 1. As a result, most of the Simproved force fields managed to give more accurate secondary structure propensities by adjusting dihedral parameters or adding grid-based energy correction map (CMAP) parameters [52]. The ulating IDP confover-compactness of disordered proteins can be alleviated by modifying protein–water van der Waals mational dynamics and interactions or combining with refined water modelrequires [50].both Representativhe state-of-the-art force fields includes the latest CHARMM36m/TIP3P* [55], ff19SB/OPC [56], and advanced a99SB-disp/TIP4P-D [48]. Masamplinyg benchmark studies have consmethods.
Addistently demonstrated that these refined force fields do provide significant improvements in describing not only single folded and disordered proteins, but also the multiprotein systems that are either soluble or aggregate in the solutioionally, many key multi-scale approaches allow one to simulate longer time-scale bioprocesses and more complex systems within [53][57][58][59][60]. At the scapame time, these studies also identified significant remaining limicity of current computations in the description of the noncovalent interactions in the multiprotein systems [58]al capability, namely implicit solvent and coarse-grained (CG) models. Recognizing Implimitations in the ability of a99SB-disp/TIP4P-D force field to accurately describe the protein–protein interactions, a new force field, DES-Amber, was recently developed to provide more accurate simulations of protein–protein complexes while maintaining reliable descriptions of both ordered and disordered single-chain proteins [59]cit treatment of solvent is an effective approach to reduce the computational cost of atomistic IDP simulations. HowThever, DES-Amber is still limited in reproducing the experimental protein–protein associ basic idea is to directly estimate the solvation free energies of some protein complexes, in particular for the systems with highly polar interfaces [59]. In y to capture the mean effecthe latter case, it was found that the charged sidechains were buried at the protein–of solvent on the thermodynamic properties of the solute [56]. Improtein linterface instead of being cit solvent-exposed. It was further suggested that nonpolarizable force fields were fundamentally limited in achieving a balanced description of charged groups that were is essentially a multi-scale model, where the solvent-exposed or buried at a protein–protein interface.
Polarizable is represented force fieldus explicitly consider the electronic polarization using various empiriing certain physical models to provide better description of charged and polar protein motifs in heterogeneous biomolecular environments [61]. Exciting progress h while keeping atomistic detas been made in the last few years and several polarizable force fields are now available for the stable simulation of proteins in both aqueous and membrane environmentsls of the solute. These models have emerged [62][63]. Simulations using the latest polarizable force fields have also showed a high level of consistency with experimental observattractive alternatives for simulations, particularly the ion solvation and binding thermodynamics, permeation free energy of ions or small charged molecules into the cell membrane, and protein–ligand binding of IDPs and their interactions compared to explicit [61]. Fsor example, the Drude-2013 polarizable force field, compared to CHARMM36 force field, is more accurate in describing the folding cooperativity of (AAQAA) 3 peptide, which can be attributed to enhanced backbone dipole moments in the helix state [64]. Addvent. Several of these GB models can be optimized to provide a balance between computatitional studies are still needed to show the necessity of considering polarizable force fields in efficiency and accuracy desired for IDP simulations [57][58][59], whereby the significantly higher computational cost adds to the challenge of generating converged ensembles [61].systematic optimization of key physical parameters Existing comparisons suggest that polarizable force fields, including AMOEBA and Drude models, still frequently have problems in reproducing the nature structures and folding of proteins [65][66][67]. Fouch as atomic radii to balance solvation and intr example, stronger protein–wateolecular interactions in polarizable force fields can destabilize the native protein structure, in opposition to the observations from nonpolarizable force fields where protein–water interactions have traditionally been underestimated [42]. No. Applied to various model IDPs with extensive experimenetheless, it can be anticipated that polarizable force fields will continue to be improved and become increasingly al data, implicit solvent simulations have provided important for simulating IDP structure and interactions.
Enhinsights on detanced sampling techniques generally accelerate the crossing of energy barriers to achieve better sampling efficiency, such as by introducing bias potentials, modifying the potential energy itself, and changing the effective temperature. These techniques have proven essential in atomistic simulationsled conformational properties of the unbound state and how these properties may support function of IDPs [32][33][60][6861][6962], yi.
Thelding levels of convergence that could not be achieved even with drastically longer standard constant-temperature MD simulationscoarse-graining has also remained an attractive and often effective strategy for [13]. The cxtentral idea of biased MD simulations is similar to importance sampling in MCding the accessible time and length-scales of MD simulations, where a biased potential is introduced to construct a flat free energy landscape along single or . By grouping multiple collective variables of interest, such that many states can be readily sampled due to the removal of free energy barriers. The replica-exchange (REX) class of sampling methods, particularly replica exchange molecular dynamics (REMD), has been one of the most popular methods for simulating protein conformations.(protein) atoms into CG beads and using simplified potential energy functions, CG modeling does not Figure 2 shows the general scheme of REMD simulations, where the key point is to first set up multiple replicas with different unitless unbiased or biased potentials, given as the energy over k B T ( T is the temperature), and then use the Metropolis rule to allow MC to exchange the replicas and maintain the detailed balance. A key advantage of using multiple replicas and maintaining detailed balance is avoiding the reweighting problem generally required for biased simulations. Note that virtually all biased sampling strategies can be readily incorporated within the REX framework to benefit from both classes of enhanced sampling, including metadynamics (MTD) [70][71], accly reduce the system size, often by ~10-fold, but also allows much larger MD integration time steps up to 20 fs. Together, many CG models can be several orders of magnitude more efficient than atomistic ones. Numerous CG models have achieved varying levels of success in studies of protein folding, binding, and asselerated MD (aMD) [72], umbrellay sampling (US) [7343][7463],. and integrated tempering sampling [75]. In practiceNonetheless, effective REMD protocols require a proper choice of (1) the optimal number of replicas and proper distributions of conditions, to ensure a uniform exchange acceptance rate and efficient random walk in the condition space, and (2) the choice of those unitless (biased) potentials for effective conformational diffusion at each condition [76]. Herehere are important distinctions between the conformational properties between globular proteins and IDPs, as well as the relative importance of electrostatic, hydrophobic, weand divide various enhanced sampling strategies into two general groups depending on the need for collective variables and discuss hydrogen-bonding interactions in governing their recent applications to IDP conconformational sampling. These methods are summarequilibria. Therefore, CG models optimized Table 1for .
Types | Sampling Methods | Key Features | References |
---|---|---|---|
CV-based | WT-MTD | History-based adaptive bias potentials | [70][71] |
Bias-exchange MTD | Multiple replicas with bias on different CVs | [77] | |
Umbrella sampling | Pre-determined bias potentials | [78] | |
Machine learning | On-the-fly discover optimal CVs | [79][80] | |
Tempering-based | Simulated tempering | Random walk in the temperature space | [81] |
Parallel tempering | Multiple replicas to avoid the need for estimating the density of states | [36] | |
Integrated tempering | Integral of Boltzmann distributions over a range of temperatures as the bias | [75] | |
Solute tempering | Scaling the energies of only selected atoms or terms to achieve effective tempering | [37][82][83] | |
Accelerated MD | GaMD | Boost potentials to accelerate barrier crossing | [84] |
Combinations | MSES | Temperature/Hamiltonian replica exchange simulation by coupling CG and atomistic models | [34] |
REUS/REST | Combined REUS and REST | [85] | |
REUS/GaMD | Combined REUS and GaMD | [86] | |
Integrated aMD | Integrated aMD and integrated tempering | [67][87] | |
PT-MTD | Combined the WT-MTD with PT | [77] |
MTDthe anfolded its variants have been considered one of the most important collective variables (CV)-based sampling methods for proteinproteins are generally not suitable for the IDP simulations [88]. MTD uses a hisItory-dependent bias potential, which is generally a sum of Gaussians, to eventually construct a flat free energy landscape along the predetermined CV(s). A well-tempered MTD (WT-MTD) was later developed to increase the convergence, by gradually reducing the size of Gaussians based on the total accumulated bias potential [70][71]. Furth is often necessary to readjust the parameters of protein–protein and protein–solvent intermore, the parallel tempering MTD (PT-MTD) and the combinactions with other biased sampling methods have been also developed to increase the sampling efficiency and convergence of free energy calculations [89][90]or add new terms for more accurate description of IDP conformations. Re
Compresenutative examples include the PT-MTD that combines WT-MTD with PT or bias-exchange MTD that uses a different CV in each replica, rather than exchanging the temperatures. For example, the PT-WTD and bias-exchange MTD has been employed to obtain the onal studies of IDP interaction and assembly are even more demanding. The conformational ensembles and coupled binding and folding of disordered pKID and KID proteins, using the α-score of helical structures as CVs [77]. Iquilibrium of an IDP can respond sensitively t has also been shown that the REMD-based MTD, compared to conventional MTD or T-REMD, can enhance the conformational sampling of N-Glycans using dihedral angles as CVs to characterize the global motions [91]. Tspecific and nonspecific binding, potentially she binding mechanism of two fting from a disordered peptides, NRF2 and PTMA, was simulated by the WT-MTD, and the results showed that the WT-MTD method could provide converged free energy profiles with 1.5 μs of sampling time [92]to somewhat ordered state or fully folded state. Together, these applicatioIns have shown that MTD-class of sampling methods can be effectively applied to IDP principle, simulations. Beside MTD, another important class of CV-based sampling strategy is the US metho could provide the much-needed [74]. US is nopat strictly an enhanced sampling method like MTD. It typically uses multiple harmonic potentials to focus on sampling various states along the collective variables of interest. US is often combined with REMD in studies of IDPs, as illustrated in a recent 2D window-exchange US simulation of the ial and time resolutions to elucidate the kinetics and thermodynamics of coupled folding and binding mechanism of HdeA homodimer [78]. The procesimulation was able to capture rare unfolding transitions of the dimer at neutral pH and provided a detailed description of the transition pathways.
REST has proves and characterizen to be one of the most reliable choices for enhanced sampling of protein folding and particularly disordered conformational ensembles [93][94]he mechanistic features. Sugita and cHo-workers leveraged gREST to target the dihedral-angle energy term and successfully sampled folding transitions of beta-hairpins and Trp-cage in explicit water, using fewer replicas but covering wider conformational space compared to REST2 [82]. Wwever, the challenge is that this coupled process of folding and binding is a complex realsh ect al. applied REST to investigate n16N disordered peptide conion involving the formational ensembles [95]. The c onformations obtained via REST methods showed a high consistency with NMR experimental data. Furthermore, REST are specifically appropriate in many noncovalent interactions, which requires extremely long simulating IDRs as the disordered region can be targeted in REST without tempering the well-structured region (or water). Zhou and co-workers studied the disordered loop of Staphylococcus aureus sortase A (SrtA) to order transition upon binding to calcium [96]. Chons generally beyond the current capabilitiens and Liu characterized Bcl-xL interfacial conformational dynamics in explicit solvent [97]at the atomistic level. BothAs works directly showed that REST covered broader conformational spaces for intrinsically disordered regions and led to faster convergence compared to either standard MD or T-REMD simulations. REST simulations have also been successfully integrated with experiments to study how cancer-associated mutations and drug molecules may modulate the disordered ensembles of p53-TAD and Aβ peptides in recent years [98][99][100][101]such, coarse-grained models are generally required for computational studies of IDP interaction and assembly.
Despite the success Fof REST for CV-free enhanced sampling, it does not benefit from targeted acceleration along specific CVs that are known to be rate limiting. For this, REST (or REX in general) has been combined with CV-based enhanced sampling to maximize the efficiency of sampling the complex, high dimensional conformational space of proteins. Some of the examples are discussed in the sections above. Here, we note a couple additional recent examples. By integrating free energy perturbation (FEP) and REST methods, Abel et al. obtained more thorough samplings of different ligand conformations around the active site and realized relative binding affinity predictir example, they have been used to study many biological processes, including liquid-liquid phase transitions [102].(LLPS) Okamoto and co-workers have applied the REUS/REST two-dimensional replica-exchange method to predict two protein–ligand complex systems with the help of REST to weaken the solute–solvent interactions but improve the binding events and REUS to enhance the samplinghat are frequently mediated by IDPs along with the reaction coordinates [29][45][64][8565].