↓ Skip to main content

Systematic Validation of Protein Force Fields against Experimental Data

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
588 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
743 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Systematic Validation of Protein Force Fields against Experimental Data
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0032131
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kresten Lindorff-Larsen, Paul Maragakis, Stefano Piana, Michael P. Eastwood, Ron O. Dror, David E. Shaw

Abstract

Molecular dynamics simulations provide a vehicle for capturing the structures, motions, and interactions of biological macromolecules in full atomic detail. The accuracy of such simulations, however, is critically dependent on the force field--the mathematical model used to approximate the atomic-level forces acting on the simulated molecular system. Here we present a systematic and extensive evaluation of eight different protein force fields based on comparisons of experimental data with molecular dynamics simulations that reach a previously inaccessible timescale. First, through extensive comparisons with experimental NMR data, we examined the force fields' abilities to describe the structure and fluctuations of folded proteins. Second, we quantified potential biases towards different secondary structure types by comparing experimental and simulation data for small peptides that preferentially populate either helical or sheet-like structures. Third, we tested the force fields' abilities to fold two small proteins--one α-helical, the other with β-sheet structure. The results suggest that force fields have improved over time, and that the most recent versions, while not perfect, provide an accurate description of many structural and dynamical properties of proteins.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 743 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 23 3%
Germany 10 1%
United Kingdom 10 1%
Canada 4 <1%
Australia 4 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Other 10 1%
Unknown 673 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 214 29%
Researcher 161 22%
Student > Master 66 9%
Student > Bachelor 59 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 33 4%
Other 111 15%
Unknown 99 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 174 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 158 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 108 15%
Physics and Astronomy 70 9%
Engineering 28 4%
Other 86 12%
Unknown 119 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,405,573
of 23,435,471 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#30,322
of 200,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,600
of 157,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#463
of 3,532 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,435,471 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 200,534 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 157,720 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,532 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.