Biomod/2011/PSU/BlueGenes/results: Difference between revisions
Jessie Liang (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Jessie Liang (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:Figure 1: Fluctuation data for HIV-1 protease predicted by GNM and compared with temperature factor (TF) | :Figure 1: Fluctuation data for HIV-1 protease predicted by GNM and compared with temperature factor (TF) | ||
Qualitatively, it is very easy to see that the GNM results (shown in red) match very well to the TF results (shown in black). Each dot represents a node and lines are simply to help guide your eyes. GNM has been successful in calculating protein fluctuations because of well matching results such as the one in Figure 1. | |||
Line 16: | Line 17: | ||
There haven’t been many applications of GNM on DNA structures. But since GNM filters out the chemistry of the atoms, there is no reason why it shouldn’t work. | There haven’t been many applications of GNM on DNA structures. But since GNM filters out the chemistry of the atoms, there is no reason why it shouldn’t work. | ||
In Figure 2, we tried it with DNA of PDB ID 307D. We used the phosphate atoms as the nodes and a cutoff distance of 13 angstroms. There are 60 nodes. | In Figure 2, we tried it with DNA of PDB ID 307D. We used the phosphate atoms as the nodes and a cutoff distance of 13 angstroms. There are 60 nodes. Results are pretty satisfactory but are slightly less accurate than the comparison with protein. This is because proteins have longer chains than DNA and more nodes, thus it rules out randomness. DNA is more flexible and thus harder to calculate the flexibility. We chose 307D strictly because it had a long chain. | ||
[[Image:307d.png]] | [[Image:307d.png]] | ||
:Figure 2: Fluctuations of nodes for 307D (PDB ID) predicted by GNM and compared with TF | :Figure 2: Fluctuations of nodes for 307D (PDB ID) predicted by GNM and compared with TF | ||
Again, DNA fluctuation results from GNM (in red) are compared to TF results (in black). Points represent nodes and lines are to guide your eyes. | |||
Line 37: | Line 39: | ||
=== | ===Advantages=== | ||
There are multiple advantages of our GNM method. They include: | |||
*Fast calculation time: results take from seconds to minutes depending on size. | |||
*Large deformations: there is a solution to every problem. Because GNM only considers the bonds and distances between nodes, it can calculate fluctuations for even large deformations in the structure. | |||
*Physical relevance: the diagonal of the Kirchhoff matrix corresponds to fluctuation of the structure. Each value corresponds to a node which in turn represents an atom within the structure. | |||
*Feedback ability: explained below. | |||
====Feedback==== | |||
Structure feedback is one of the most advantageous parts of our GNM method. | |||
[[Image:Feedback1.png]] | [[Image:Feedback1.png]] | ||
Revision as of 09:00, 29 October 2011
Home ::: Overview ::: Methods ::: Results ::: Application ::: Literature ::: Team |
ResultsGNM with ProteinGNM has already been thoroughly and successfully applied to proteins. There is even a database known as iGNM that has calculated protein fluctuations for over 20,000 structures from the protein data bank or PDB. In most cases, carbon atoms are chosen as the nodes to represent the network. A common cutoff value is 7 angstroms. To show you that GNM works, in Figure 1, we calculated the fluctuation for HIV-1 protease and compared it to the temperature factor, which are experimental values. There are 200 nodes in this structure.
Qualitatively, it is very easy to see that the GNM results (shown in red) match very well to the TF results (shown in black). Each dot represents a node and lines are simply to help guide your eyes. GNM has been successful in calculating protein fluctuations because of well matching results such as the one in Figure 1.
GNM with DNAThere haven’t been many applications of GNM on DNA structures. But since GNM filters out the chemistry of the atoms, there is no reason why it shouldn’t work. In Figure 2, we tried it with DNA of PDB ID 307D. We used the phosphate atoms as the nodes and a cutoff distance of 13 angstroms. There are 60 nodes. Results are pretty satisfactory but are slightly less accurate than the comparison with protein. This is because proteins have longer chains than DNA and more nodes, thus it rules out randomness. DNA is more flexible and thus harder to calculate the flexibility. We chose 307D strictly because it had a long chain.
Again, DNA fluctuation results from GNM (in red) are compared to TF results (in black). Points represent nodes and lines are to guide your eyes.
GNM with Synthetic DNANow that we have shown that GNM is applicable in both proteins and DNA, we want to use it to calculate fluctuations of synthetic DNA. Below you can see 2 structures that we've made using NanoEngineer-1, a cube and a prism. High fluctuations are show in warm colors (red, orange, yellow/yellow-green) and low fluctuations are shown in cool colors (green, blue, dark blue). Both structures show similar satisfactory results. It makes sense to think that the vertices of the structure are the least flexible because they are the most confined. The legs of the prism are more flexible because they are not as rigidly confined.
AdvantagesThere are multiple advantages of our GNM method. They include:
FeedbackStructure feedback is one of the most advantageous parts of our GNM method. |