Lost in Projection? Gaussian Filtering Recovers Hidden Conformational States
Source abstract
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide To interpret molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, it is common practice to reduce the dimensionality of the molecular coordinates to a low-dimensional collective variable x . Projecting the high-dimensional MD data onto x yields a free energy landscape Δ G ( x ), which highlights low-energy regions corresponding to conformational states. The accurate definition of these states, however, is often impeded by projection artifacts, resulting in artificially shortened state lifetimes or even the complete disappearance of states from the analysis. As demonstrated for a two-dimensional toy model, Gaussian low-pass filtering of the high-dimensional feature trajectory can restore the underlying free energy landscape, allowing recovery of previously hidden states. When applied to an all-atom folding trajectory of HP35, the number of microstates increases by an order of magnitude, which leads to metastable states that are long-lived and much better defined structurally, even compared to dynamically cored state trajectories.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Machine Learning in Materials Science · Quantum many-body systems · Advanced Physical and Chemical Molecular Interactions
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Biomolecular Dynamics, Institute of Physics
University of Freiburg
Funding
Albert-Ludwigs-Universit?t Freiburg · Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft · Zentrum f?r Datenverarbeitung, Eberhard Karls Universit?t T?bingen
References (47)
Show source-provided references
1. Berendsen H. J. · 200710.1017/CBO9780511815348 ↗
2. 10.1137/06065146X10.1137/06065146X ↗
3. 10.1021/jp076166510.1021/jp0761665 ↗
4. 10.1063/1.321656710.1063/1.3216567 ↗
5. 10.1063/1.356503210.1063/1.3565032 ↗
6. Bowman G. R. · 201410.1007/978-94-007-7606-7 ↗
7. 10.1002/wcms.134310.1002/wcms.1343 ↗
8. 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b0074310.1021/acs.jctc.5b00743 ↗
9. 10.1021/ct200463m10.1021/ct200463m ↗
10. 10.21105/joss.0533910.21105/joss.05339 ↗
11. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.02810210.1103/PhysRevLett.98.028102 ↗
12. 10.1038/s41598-017-11873-y10.1038/s41598-017-11873-y ↗
13. 10.1002/prot.34017040810.1002/prot.340170408 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.sbi.2019.12.01610.1016/j.sbi.2019.12.016 ↗
15. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c0119510.1021/acs.chemrev.0c01195 ↗
16. 10.1063/1.330114010.1063/1.3301140 ↗
17. 10.1126/science.124207210.1126/science.1242072 ↗
18. 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b0123310.1021/acs.jctc.5b01233 ↗
19. 10.1002/jcc.2466410.1002/jcc.24664 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.patrec.2009.09.01110.1016/j.patrec.2009.09.011 ↗
21. 10.1063/1.504963710.1063/1.5049637 ↗
22. 10.1063/1.359010810.1063/1.3590108 ↗
23. 10.1063/1.496544010.1063/1.4965440 ↗
24. 10.1021/jp410398a10.1021/jp410398a ↗
25. 10.1063/1.508176710.1063/1.5081767 ↗
26. 10.1021/acs.jctc.4c0024910.1021/acs.jctc.4c00249 ↗
27. 10.1063/5.028214710.1063/5.0282147 ↗
28. 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c0024010.1021/acs.jctc.3c00240 ↗
29. 10.1021/acs.jpclett.3c0156110.1021/acs.jpclett.3c01561 ↗
30. Deng G. · 1993 IEEE Conference Record Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference · 1993 · 3 · 161510.1109/NSSMIC.1993.373563 ↗
31. 10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b0532910.1021/acs.jpcc.7b05329 ↗
32. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.100668610.1371/journal.pcbi.1006686 ↗
33. 10.1021/ct300829210.1021/ct3008292 ↗
34. Diez, G. Markov Modeling of Nonequilibrium Biomolecular Data. M.Sc. thesis , University of Freiburg, Germany, 2020.
35. The improvement is modest for the simple 2D model: for t cor = 10 frames standard and iterative coring reassign 5.14% vs 5.33% of the MD frames, respectively; for t cor = 50 frames, though, we already find 5.29% vs 13.95%. For a complex system such as HP35 considered below, the effect is more substantial already at short coring times; e.g., we obtain 7.79% vs 11.57% for t cor = 2 ns and 8.98% vs 15.03% for t cor = 4 ns.
36. 10.1073/pnas.080860010510.1073/pnas.0808600105 ↗
37. 10.1073/pnas.120181110910.1073/pnas.1201811109 ↗
38. 10.1021/acs.jcim.9b0032010.1021/acs.jcim.9b00320 ↗
39. 10.1021/acs.jctc.2c0033710.1021/acs.jctc.2c00337 ↗
40. 10.1073/pnas.131159911010.1073/pnas.1311599110 ↗
41. This is related to fact that in one case we filter a distance (i.e., a single 1D variable), in the other case we separately filter two sets of coordinates (i.e. two independent 3D variables) that are also independently noisy. In the former case, various combinations of the positions of the two atoms may result in the same value for the distance, which is smoothed subsequently. Filtering the atoms’ coordinates separately, however, changes these positions and therefore results in general in different values for the distance compared to the first case.
42. 10.1063/1.493824910.1063/1.4938249 ↗
43. 10.1021/ct300077q10.1021/ct300077q ↗
44. 10.1021/acs.jpcb.5c0773710.1021/acs.jpcb.5c07737 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.sigpro.2019.10729910.1016/j.sigpro.2019.107299 ↗
46. 10.1080/01621459.2021.190959810.1080/01621459.2021.1909598 ↗
47. 10.1063/1.499825910.1063/1.4998259 ↗