University of Maryland, Baltimore

All-Atom Empirical Potential for Molecular Modeling and Dynamics Studies of Proteins

New protein parameters are reported for the all-atom empirical energy function in the CHARMM program. The parameter evaluation was based on a self-consistent approach designed to achieve a balance between the internal (bonding) and interaction (nonbonding) terms of the force field and among the solvent-solvent, solvent-solute, and solute-solute interactions. Optimization of the internal parameters used experimental gas-phase geometries, vibrational spectra, and torsional energy surfaces supplemented with ab initio results. The peptide backbone bonding parameters were optimized with respect to data for N-methylacetamide and the alanine dipeptide. The interaction parameters, particularly the atomic charges, were determined by fitting ab initio interaction energies and geometries of complexes between water and model compounds that represented the backbone and the various side chains. In addition, dipole moments, experimental heats and free energies of vaporization, solvation and sublimation, molecular volumes, and crystal pressures and structures were used in the optimization. The resulting protein parameters were tested by applying them to noncyclic tripeptide crystals, cyclic peptide crystals, and the proteins crambin, bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor, and carbonmonoxy myoglobin in vacuo and in crystals. A detailed analysis of the relationship between the alanine dipeptide potential energy surface and calculated protein φ, χ angles was made and used in optimizing the peptide group torsional parameters. The results demonstrate that use of ab initio structural and energetic data by themselves are not sufficient to obtain an adequate backbone representation for peptides and proteins in solution and in crystals. Extensive comparisons between molecular dynamics simulations and experimental data for polypeptides and proteins were performed for both structural and dynamic properties. Energy minimization and dynamics simulations for crystals demonstrate that the latter are needed to obtain meaningful comparisons with experimental crystal structures. The presented parameters, in combination with the previously published CHARMM all-atom parameters for nucleic acids and lipids, provide a consistent set for condensed-phase simulations of a wide variety of molecules of biological interest.

A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is thatthere is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the completeprocess including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defined as increasedautophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in manycases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as forreviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multipleassays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagyrelated protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

Genetic variants in novel pathways influence blood pressure and cardiovascular disease risk