Advanced Energy Minimization Protocols for Protein-Water Systems: From Fundamentals to Drug Development Applications

Abstract

This comprehensive guide explores energy minimization protocols for protein systems in aqueous environments, addressing critical needs for researchers and drug development professionals. Covering foundational principles of water's energetic role in molecular binding, the article provides practical methodologies using popular simulation tools like GROMACS and AMMOS2. It addresses common troubleshooting scenarios for convergence issues and topology errors, while presenting validation techniques and comparative analyses of water models. By integrating the latest research on high-energy water effects and solvent model selection, this resource aims to enhance simulation accuracy for therapeutic development and biomolecular engineering.

Understanding Water's Critical Role in Protein Energy Landscapes

The Fundamental Principles of Energy Minimization in Solvated Systems

The pursuit of understanding protein function through structure is a cornerstone of modern biology and drug discovery. As proteins perform their functions in an aqueous environment, any meaningful computational study of their structure and dynamics must adequately account for the effects of solvent. Energy minimization, a fundamental computational technique for finding low-energy conformational states, achieves its greatest biological relevance when applied to solvated systems. This application note details the core principles, methodologies, and practical protocols for performing energy minimization on proteins in water, a critical step in refining structural models and preparing systems for subsequent molecular dynamics simulations. The protocols outlined herein are designed for researchers and scientists engaged in computational biochemistry and structure-based drug design, providing a framework for obtaining biologically realistic protein models.

Theoretical Foundations of Energy Minimization in Solvent

The Role of Solvent in Protein Energy Landscapes

Proteins fold and function in aqueous environments, where water molecules profoundly influence the energy landscape by modulating electrostatic interactions and hydrophobic effects. Ignoring solvent effects during minimization leads to unrealistic structures with collapsed hydrophobic cores and compromised functional sites. Computationally, solvent can be incorporated via two primary approaches: explicit and implicit models [1].

• Explicit Solvent Models: The protein is immersed in a box of explicitly represented water molecules (e.g., SPC, TIP3P). This approach offers high physical fidelity by modeling specific water-protein interactions but is computationally demanding [1].
• Implicit Solvent Models: Water is represented as a continuous dielectric medium, and its mean effect is incorporated into the potential energy function of the protein via additional terms, as in the Generalized Born Surface Area (GBSA) model. This offers a favorable balance between computational efficiency and accuracy for many applications, particularly energy minimization [1].

The choice of model significantly impacts the minimization outcome. Studies have demonstrated that implicit solvent (GBSA) can create a "deep, smooth potential energy attractor basin" that effectively pulls protein decoys closer to their native structure. In contrast, molecular dynamics in explicit solvent sometimes moved decoys further from the native conformation, and energy minimization in explicit solvent was found to be less effective due to restricted movement, with the solvent acting "like ice" [1].

Core Energy Minimization Algorithms

Energy minimization algorithms navigate the potential energy surface to locate local minima. The choice of algorithm depends on the system size, desired accuracy, and computational resources. The following algorithms are commonly implemented in packages like GROMACS [2]:

Table 1: Core Energy Minimization Algorithms in GROMACS

Algorithm	Principle of Operation	Key Parameters	Strengths	Weaknesses
Steepest Descent	Moves atoms in the direction of the negative energy gradient (i.e., the force).	Maximum initial displacement (emstep), force tolerance (emtol).	Robust, memory-efficient, good for initial steps and removing large steric clashes.	Slow convergence near the minimum; inefficient for precise minimization.
Conjugate Gradient	Uses the gradient history to construct conjugate search directions for successive steps.	Force tolerance (emtol).	More efficient than Steepest Descent closer to the energy minimum.	Cannot be used with constraints (e.g., rigid water like SETTLE).
L-BFGS (Limited-memory Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno)	A quasi-Newton method that builds an approximation of the inverse Hessian matrix.	Number of correction steps (nbfgscorr), force tolerance (emtol).	Fastest convergence for a wide range of systems; requires fewer energy/force evaluations.	Not yet parallelized in GROMACS; memory use scales with system size and correction steps [2].

Practical Protocols for Solvated Systems

This section provides a detailed, step-by-step protocol for setting up and performing energy minimization of a protein in a solvated environment using common computational tools.

System Setup and Solvation

Objective: To create a biologically realistic simulation system containing the protein solvated in a periodic box of water.

Workflow:

Diagram Title: System Setup and Solvation Workflow

Methodology:

• Protein Structure Preparation:

  • Obtain an initial protein structure from a database like the PDB or from a computational model (e.g., AlphaFold2 [3]).
  • Use a tool like pdb2gmx (GROMACS) or LEaP (AMBER) to assign force field parameters (e.g., CHARMM36, AMBER99SB-ildn) to the protein.

• Define the Simulation Box:

  • Place the protein in the center of a periodic box. A dodecahedral box is often preferred as it most closely approximates a sphere and can be more efficient.
  • Ensure a minimum distance (e.g., 1.0 - 1.5 nm) between the protein and the box edges to avoid artificial interactions with periodic images. This can be done with the editconf module in GROMACS [4].

• Solvation:

  • Fill the box with water molecules using the solvate module in GROMACS or an equivalent tool.
  • Choose a water model consistent with your force field (e.g., TIP3P for CHARMM/AMBER, SPC for GROMOS) [4].

• Add Ions:

  • Add ions (e.g., Na⁺, Cl⁻) to neutralize the system's net charge.
  • Optionally, add ions to simulate a specific physiological concentration (e.g., 150 mM NaCl).

Energy Minimization Protocol

Objective: To relax the solvated system by removing steric clashes and unfavorable interactions, arriving at a stable, low-energy starting configuration for subsequent simulation.

Workflow:

Diagram Title: Two-Stage Energy Minimization Protocol

Methodology:

• Generate the Simulation Parameter File (.mdp):

  • Create a parameter file specifying the minimization options. Below is an example for GROMACS.

• Run the Minimization:

  • Use the grompp module to process the parameter file, structure, and topology into a binary input file (.tpr).
  • Execute the minimization using mdrun.

A typical two-stage minimization protocol uses different algorithms for efficiency and precision [2]:

Table 2: Example Two-Stage Minimization Protocol Parameters (GROMACS .mdp settings)

Parameter	Stage 1: Steepest Descent	Stage 2: L-BFGS / Conjugate Gradient
integrator	steep	l-bfgs or cg
emtol	1000.0	10.0
emstep	0.01	-
nsteps	500	-
nbfgscorr	-	10
constraints	none	none (or h-bonds if using a flexible water model with CG)

Convergence Criteria:

• The minimization is considered converged when the maximum force on any atom is less than the force tolerance (emtol), typically set to 10.0 - 100.0 kJ mol⁻¹ nm⁻¹ for preparation before molecular dynamics [2]. A reasonable value can be estimated based on the system and the desired precision.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Successful energy minimization relies on a suite of software tools and force fields. The following table details essential components of the computational workflow.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Software for Energy Minimization

Item Name	Type/Category	Primary Function	Example Use Case
GROMACS	Software Package	A high-performance molecular dynamics toolkit.	Performing all steps of system setup, energy minimization, and subsequent MD simulations [2].
CHARMM36	Force Field	A set of parameters defining atomistic interactions (bonds, angles, non-bonded).	Providing an accurate physical model for energy calculations of proteins and lipids [5].
AMBER99SB-ildn	Force Field	Another widely used and accurate all-atom force field for proteins.	Alternative to CHARMM36 for protein structure refinement and simulation [4].
TIP3P	Water Model	A 3-site model for explicit water molecules.	Solvating the protein system in a manner consistent with CHARMM/AMBER force fields [4].
GBSA (Implicit Solvent)	Solvation Method	An efficient continuum model for solvent effects.	Rapid energy minimization and refinement where explicit water is computationally prohibitive [1].
L-BFGS Minimizer	Algorithm	An efficient quasi-Newton minimization algorithm.	Achieving fast convergence to a low-energy structure after initial steepest descent steps [6] [2].
ParmEd	Utility Library	A tool for converting molecular topology and parameter files between different formats (e.g., AMBER to GROMACS).	Enabling interoperability between different simulation packages and force fields [7].

Advanced Applications and Integration

Integration with Structure Prediction and Refinement

Energy minimization in solvated systems is not an isolated task but a critical component of integrated computational workflows. It plays a vital role in protein structure refinement, where the goal is to improve rough homology models (within 1-3 Å of the native structure). Research shows that energy minimization with implicit solvent (GBSA) can provide greater improvement toward the native structure than some knowledge-based potentials, outperforming molecular dynamics in explicit solvent for this specific task [1].

Furthermore, advanced search algorithms can be hybridized with minimization. For example, memetic algorithms that combine Differential Evolution with Rosetta's fragment replacement technique use energy minimization to refine candidate structures, effectively searching the conformational space for low-energy native-like states [3].

Alchemical Free Energy Calculations

Energy minimization is also a prerequisite for more advanced thermodynamic calculations. In the context of solvation free energy calculations or protein-ligand binding free energy estimations, the system must be carefully minimized at each step. These protocols often use a non-equilibrium alchemy approach, which requires extensive sampling of end states (e.g., fully solvated and non-interacting solute). Energy minimization ensures that the simulations begin from a stable, strain-free configuration at each lambda value, which is crucial for obtaining accurate results [4].

The stability of proteins and their interactions with ligands in aqueous environments is a cornerstone of structural biology and rational drug design. Central to this is the process of energy minimization, a computational method that refines molecular structures into low-energy states that are statistically favored and more likely to represent their natural conformation [8]. Within this framework, the role of water has often been oversimplified. Recent groundbreaking research establishes that water trapped in confined molecular cavities is not a passive spectator but an active energetic participant. This so-called "high-energy water" can significantly influence molecular binding affinity and stability [9] [10]. This Application Note details the theory of high-energy water and provides practical protocols for exploiting this phenomenon in computational research, framed within the essential workflow of energy minimization for proteins in aqueous environments.

Quantitative Data on High-Energy Water

The following tables summarize key quantitative findings and methodological approaches related to high-energy water and its computational analysis.

Table 1: Experimental and Computational Evidence of High-Energy Water Effects

System / Domain Studied	Key Finding / Correlation	Energetic Contribution / Affinity Change	Method Used
Cucurbit[8]uril Model System	Energetic activation of confined water directly strengthens host-guest binding [9] [10].	Binding affinity increase correlated with the degree of water energetication [9].	Calorimetry & Computer Modeling
Erbin PDZ Domain	Trp at peptide P-1 position displaces high-energy water, contributing significantly to affinity [11].	1500-fold affinity loss (ΔΔG ~4.1 kcal/mol) upon Trp-to-Ala substitution [11].	WaterMap (MD Simulation)
Bromodomain Family VIII (e.g., SMARCA2)	Weakly bound conserved water network in the binding pocket [12].	Unfavorable water network stability (ΔGnetw = +7.0 kcal/mol) favors displacement [12].	Grand Canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC)
Bromodomain Family II (e.g., BRPF1B)	Highly stable conserved water network in the binding pocket [12].	Favorable water network stability (ΔGnetw = -4.4 kcal/mol) penalizes displacement [12].	Grand Canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC)

Table 2: Comparison of Energy Minimization Algorithms in GROMACS

Algorithm	Key Characteristics	Best Use Cases	Limitations
Steepest Descent	Robust, computationally efficient; uses force magnitude to determine step size [2].	Initial stages of minimization; rough energy descent from poorly structured starting points [2].	Less efficient close to the energy minimum [2].
Conjugate Gradient	More efficient than Steepest Descent near the energy minimum [2].	Minimization prior to normal-mode analysis [2].	Cannot be used with constraints (e.g., rigid water models like SETTLE) [2].
L-BFGS	Quasi-Newtonian method; fast convergence [2].	Efficient minimization for systems without parallelization constraints [2].	Not yet parallelized; performance benefits from switched/shifted interactions [2].

Experimental and Computational Protocols

Protocol: Identifying High-Energy Water in a Protein Binding Site

This protocol utilizes free energy calculations to pinpoint unstable, displaceable water molecules.

Objective: To identify and quantify the stability of water molecules within a protein's binding pocket to highlight targets for ligand displacement.

Workflow:

Detailed Methodology:

• System Setup:

  • Obtain a high-resolution crystal or NMR structure of the protein, preferably with a co-crystallized ligand or from which a ligand has been removed to expose the binding site.
  • Use molecular modeling software (e.g., GROMACS, YASARA, Schrodinger Suite) to prepare the system. This includes adding missing hydrogen atoms, assigning protonation states, and solvating the protein in a box of explicit water molecules (e.g., TIP3P, SPC).
  • Neutralize the system's charge by adding ions (e.g., Na⁺, Cl⁻) [13].

• Equilibration and Sampling:

  • Perform a series of energy minimization steps (e.g., using Steepest Descent or L-BFGS algorithms) to relieve any steric clashes introduced during system setup [2].
  • Run an MD simulation in the NVT (constant Number, Volume, Temperature) and NPT (constant Number, Pressure, Temperature) ensembles to equilibrate the system.
  • Conduct a production MD simulation for a sufficient duration (tens to hundreds of nanoseconds) to adequately sample the configurations of water molecules within the binding pocket.

• Water Thermodynamics Analysis:

  • Using WaterMap: This method post-processes the MD trajectory to identify hydrations sites (clusters of water densities). It then calculates the enthalpy (ΔH) and entropy (-TΔS) of each site relative to bulk water, yielding the binding free energy (ΔG) [11]. High-energy sites are identified by a positive ΔG value.
  • Using Grand Canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC): This approach directly estimates the binding free energy of water molecules at specific positions in the binding site in a single set of simulations, naturally accounting for cooperative effects in water networks [12].

Protocol: Energy Minimization of a Protein with Crystallographic Water Molecules

This protocol is critical for preparing a stable, relaxed structure for further analysis while preserving biologically relevant water molecules.

Objective: To energy minimize a protein-ligand complex, maintaining the positions of crystallographic water molecules and neutralizing the system's charge, to obtain a relaxed starting structure for subsequent analyses or MD simulations.

Workflow:

Detailed Methodology (using GROMACS):

• Topology Generation:

  • Use gmx pdb2gmx to generate the topology for the protein, ligand, and crystallographic water molecules, specifying your force field of choice (e.g., charmm36-jul2022.ff) and water model (e.g., tip3p) [13].
  • The command will generate a .top file that includes a line such as #include "./charmm36-jul2022.ff/tip3p.itp".

• System Building and Neutralization:

  • Create a simulation box using gmx editconf (e.g., -bt dodecahedron -c -d 1.2).
  • Calculate the net charge of the system from the topology. To neutralize, create a .pdb file with a single Na⁺ or Cl⁻ ion and use gmx insert-molecules to add the appropriate number of ions into the box. For example: gmx insert-molecules -f complex_box.gro -ci Na.pdb -nmol 6 -o output.gro [13].

• Applying Restraints:

  • To preserve the crystal geometry of the protein backbone and the positions of crystallographic waters while allowing side chains and ligands to relax, apply position restraints.
  • For Water: In the topol.top file, ensure position restraints are applied to all atoms of the water molecule to maintain orientation. This can be done by modifying the water model's .itp file inclusion or directly in the topology [13].

  • For Protein Backbone: Use gmx make_ndx to create an index group for the protein's main chain. Then, use gmx genrestr to generate a position restraint file for this group (-fc 1000 1000 1000). Include this file in your topology.
  • For Ions: To prevent ions from collapsing onto the protein in the absence of bulk solvent, consider applying weak position restraints or manually placing them far from the protein in the box [13].

• Energy Minimization:

  • Create a parameter (.mdp) file for minimization. Set integrator = steep or integrator = l-bfgs. For the neutralized but non-periodic system during initial steps, you may need to use coulombtype = Cutoff instead of PME [13].
  • Run gmx grompp to process inputs and generate a run input (.tpr) file.
  • Execute the minimization with gmx mdrun. A successful minimization is indicated by a maximum force (Fmax) below a specified threshold (e.g., 1000 kJ/mol/nm) [2].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for High-Energy Water Studies

Item / Reagent	Function / Application in Protocol
Molecular Dynamics Software (GROMACS, AMBER, YASARA)	Provides the computational environment for system setup, energy minimization, and running MD or MC simulations [13] [2] [8].
Force Fields (CHARMM36, AMBER, YASARA2)	A set of mathematical functions and parameters that define the potential energy of the molecular system, governing atomic interactions during simulation [13] [8].
Explicit Water Models (TIP3P, TIP4P, SPC)	Models that represent water as discrete molecules, crucial for accurately simulating the behavior and thermodynamics of water in confined spaces [12].
Analysis Tools (WaterMap, GCMC Codes)	Specialized software for post-processing MD trajectories to identify hydration sites and calculate their thermodynamic properties [11] [12].
High-Precision Calorimetry	An experimental method used to measure heat changes during molecular interactions, providing experimental validation for computational findings on binding affinity [9] [10].

Application in Drug Discovery and Materials Science

The strategic displacement of high-energy water offers a powerful paradigm for rational design.

• Drug Discovery: Identifying high-energy water sites in protein binding pockets allows medicinal chemists to design ligands that incorporate functional groups specifically tailored to displace these unstable waters. The release of high-energy water into the bulk solvent provides a favorable entropic and enthalpic contribution to the binding free energy, "supercharging" the ligand's affinity [9] [11] [10]. This approach can also inform selectivity, as the stability of water networks can vary between related protein subtypes [12].
• Materials Science: The principles of high-energy water displacement can be applied to the design of synthetic receptors and porous materials. Engineering molecular cavities that contain high-energy water can enhance the binding strength of target analytes, improving the sensitivity of chemical sensors. Similarly, designing materials that force out such water could lead to improved storage capabilities for gases or small molecules [9] [10].

Integrating the concept of high-energy water into the standard energy minimization protocols for protein-ligand systems marks a significant advancement. By moving beyond the view of water as merely a passive solvent and recognizing its active, energetic role in confined spaces, researchers can achieve more realistic simulations and more insightful predictions. The protocols outlined herein provide a roadmap for computationally identifying these energetic "hotspots" and for preparing structurally sound systems that account for them. Mastering these concepts and techniques will empower researchers in biophysics and drug discovery to leverage the hidden binding force of water, leading to more effective ligands and advanced functional materials.

The Energetic Impact of Water Displacement from Protein Binding Sites

Water displacement from protein binding sites is a critical thermodynamic process with profound implications for molecular recognition, protein stability, and drug design. The energetic contribution of displaced water molecules can significantly influence binding affinities in both protein-ligand interactions and protein-protein associations. Recent advances have demonstrated that water molecules trapped in confined molecular cavities can exist in a "highly energetic" state, actively driving binding interactions rather than merely acting as passive bystanders [9] [10]. This application note examines the quantitative energetics of water displacement within the broader context of energy minimization protocols for protein-in-water systems, providing researchers with practical methodologies for incorporating these effects into computational and experimental workflows.

Quantitative Energetics of Water Displacement

Free Energy Costs of Water Displacement

The thermodynamic favorability of displacing water molecules from binding sites varies significantly across different protein systems and cavity environments. Computational and experimental studies have revealed a wide spectrum of free energy costs associated with this process.

Table 1: Free Energy Costs of Water Displacement from Protein Binding Sites

Protein/System	Free Energy Cost (kcal/mol)	Experimental/Computational Method	Key Determinants
Cucurbit[8]uril-based host models	0 to +37	Molecular dynamics simulations & calorimetry [14] [15]	Energetic interactions between host and water
Scytalone dehydratase	Favorable (30-fold Ki improvement)	Free energy perturbation calculations [16]	Ease of displacement of ordered water
p38-α MAP kinase	Favorable (60-fold Ki improvement)	Crystallography & binding assays [16]	Additional interactions of water-displacing moiety
EGFR kinase	Unfavorable (3-fold activity decrease)	Free energy perturbation calculations [16]	Incomplete compensation for removal of bound water

Energetic Classification of Binding Site Water

The behavior of water molecules in binding sites can be categorized based on their energetic state and thermodynamic properties:

• "Highly Energetic" Water: Water molecules trapped in narrow molecular cavities that possess more energy than ordinary bulk water [9] [10]. These molecules exhibit a strong tendency to escape when alternative binding partners become available, thereby strengthening molecular bonds through their release.
• Ordered Water Molecules: Structurally defined water molecules that form specific hydrogen-bonding networks within protein binding sites. The displacement of these waters incurs significant free energy costs that must be compensated by ligand interactions [16].
• Anti-Correlated Water-Protein Energetics: Recent molecular dynamics simulations have revealed a strong anti-correlation between protein-protein and protein-water interaction energies, particularly for charged residues and salt-bridge interactions [17]. This coupling indicates that fluctuations in intra-protein energies are compensated by opposing fluctuations in solvation energies.

Experimental Protocols

Computational Analysis of Water Displacement Energetics

Free Energy Perturbation (FEP) Calculations

Purpose: To quantitatively evaluate the thermodynamic favorability of water displacement during ligand binding.

Workflow:

• System Preparation:

  • Obtain protein-ligand complex structures from PDB or homologous modeling
  • Add hydrogen atoms using protein preparation wizards (e.g., Maestro)
  • Retain protein residues within 15 Å of ligand atoms for simulation
  • Sample degrees of freedom for side chains within 10 Å of ligand atoms [16]

• Hydration Site Identification:

  • Implement the JAWS (Just Add Water Molecules) water-placement algorithm
  • Position a 3-D cubic grid with 1-Å spacing covering the binding site
  • Define spatial domain using overlapping spheres of 4-5 Å radius centered on ligand atoms
  • Perform Monte Carlo simulations with water molecules sampling grid positions while scaling intermolecular interactions between "on" and "off" states [16]

• Free Energy Calculations:

  • Conduct Monte Carlo/FEP calculations to determine absolute binding affinities of water molecules
  • Estimate absolute binding affinity from probability ratios of water molecules being "on" vs. "off" at hydration sites
  • Account for both entropic and enthalpic contributions to water binding affinities [16]

• Analysis:

  • Calculate free energy changes associated with water removal
  • Evaluate additional interactions introduced by water-displacing ligand modifications
  • Determine net binding affinity changes through complete thermodynamic analysis

Figure 1: Computational workflow for free energy perturbation calculations analyzing water displacement energetics.

Enhanced Force Field Parameterization for Hydration Effects

Purpose: To develop balanced force fields that accurately represent protein-water interactions for both folded and disordered protein systems.

Protocol:

• Force Field Selection:

  • Choose base force field (AMBER ff99SB, ff03, CHARMM36, etc.)
  • Select appropriate water model (TIP4P2005, OPC, TIP3P-modified) [18]

• Parameter Refinement:

  • Apply selective upscaling of protein-water interactions (e.g., amber ff03w-sc)
  • Implement targeted improvements to backbone torsional sampling (e.g., amber ff99SBws-STQ′) [18]
  • Adjust Lennard-Jones parameters to enhance backbone hydrogen bonding or protein-water interactions

• Validation:

  • Perform microsecond-timescale simulations of folded proteins (e.g., Ubiquitin, Villin HP35)
  • Simulate intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) and compare with SAXS data
  • Evaluate secondary structure propensities against NMR spectroscopy observables
  • Assess protein-protein association tendencies [18]

Experimental Determination of Water Displacement Energetics

High-Precision Calorimetry

Purpose: To experimentally measure heat changes during molecular interactions involving water displacement.

Workflow:

• Sample Preparation:

  • Select model host molecules with high symmetry (e.g., cucurbit[8]uril) for simplified analysis [10]
  • Prepare guest molecules with systematic variations to probe different displacement scenarios
  • Control solution conditions (pH, ionic strength, temperature) to match physiological or target conditions

• Calorimetric Measurements:

  • Perform isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) to measure binding enthalpies
  • Conduct differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) for thermal denaturation studies
  • Combine with structural data from X-ray crystallography or cryo-EM

• Data Analysis:

  • Correlate heat changes with structural modifications designed to displace water
  • Calculate binding free energies from calorimetric data
  • Compare experimental results with computational predictions [10]

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Tools for Studying Water Displacement Energetics

Tool/Reagent	Function	Application Notes
ColdBrew [19]	Computational tool predicting water displaceability in protein structures	Leverages data from >100,000 PDB structures; predicts likelihood of water positions at higher temperatures
JAWS Algorithm [16]	Water-placement method for identifying hydration sites	Uses 3-D grid with 1-Å spacing; detects putative hydration sites via MC simulations
Cucurbit[8]uril [9] [10]	Synthetic host molecule for modeling water displacement	High symmetry simplifies analysis compared to complex protein systems
AMBER ff03w-sc [18]	Force field with selective protein-water interaction scaling	Maintains folded protein stability while accurately simulating IDP ensembles
AMBER ff99SBws-STQ′ [18]	Force field with torsional refinements	Corrects overestimated helicity in polyglutamine tracts; balanced for diverse protein systems
TIP4P Water Model [16]	Four-site water model for simulations	Provides more accurate protein-water interactions vs. three-site models like TIP3P

Visualization and Analysis Tools

ColdBrew Implementation for Drug Discovery

The ColdBrew computational tool addresses critical limitations in analyzing water molecules from cryogenic structural data, which often carries temperature-based artifacts [19].

Implementation Protocol:

• Data Input:

  • Input experimental protein structures (PDB format)
  • Specify temperature conditions for prediction

• Water Displaceability Prediction:

  • Access comprehensive ColdBrew library with >100,000 predictions covering 46 million water molecules
  • Calculate probability metrics for water presence at higher temperatures
  • Identify tightly-bound waters to avoid in ligand design [19]

• Ligand Design Application:

  • Focus on binding sites and around ligands where predictions are most accurate
  • Prioritize displacement of water molecules with high displaceability scores
  • Avoid modification strategies that would displace tightly-bound waters

Figure 2: Classification of binding site water molecules by displaceability and predicted outcomes of displacement.

Application in Drug Discovery

The strategic displacement of water molecules from protein binding sites represents a powerful approach in structure-based drug design. Successful implementation requires:

• Identification of Target Waters:

  • Use ColdBrew or similar tools to identify highly energetic water molecules in binding sites [19]
  • Calculate binding free energies of specific water molecules using FEP or IFST methods
  • Prioritize waters with intermediate binding affinities for displacement [16]

• Ligand Optimization:

  • Design functional groups that displace target water molecules while forming favorable interactions with the protein
  • Balance the free energy cost of water removal with the energetic gain from new interactions
  • Avoid strategies that displace tightly-bound structural waters critical for protein stability [16]

• Validation:

  • Confirm water displacement through crystallography or computational analysis
  • Measure binding affinities using calorimetry or other biophysical methods
  • Correlate thermodynamic parameters with structural modifications

Recent studies have demonstrated that natural antibodies, including those against SARS-CoV-2, may derive part of their effectiveness from the strategic handling of water molecules in their binding cavities [10]. This highlights the biological relevance and therapeutic potential of understanding water displacement energetics.

The energetic impact of water displacement from protein binding sites represents a critical factor in molecular recognition with significant applications in drug design and protein engineering. Successful implementation requires integrated computational and experimental approaches that account for the complex thermodynamics of water molecules in confined spaces. The protocols and tools outlined in this application note provide researchers with robust methodologies for incorporating water displacement energetics into energy minimization frameworks and rational design strategies. As force fields continue to evolve toward better balancing protein-protein and protein-water interactions [18], and as tools like ColdBrew make water displaceability predictions more accessible [19], the strategic exploitation of water displacement energetics will become increasingly precise and effective in therapeutic development.

The traditional paradigm in structural biology and drug design has often treated proteins as static entities, with their three-dimensional structures considered the primary determinant of function. However, this view fails to capture the dynamic reality of proteins in solution, where water molecules play an active role in mediating structure, stability, and function. Recent advances in computational and structural biology have revealed that water-mediated interactions are not merely passive bystanders but critical components in molecular recognition, allosteric regulation, and catalytic mechanisms. This understanding opens new avenues for therapeutic intervention by explicitly targeting the solvent-mediated networks that underpin protein function. The ability to design drug candidates that manipulate these water-mediated interactions represents a paradigm shift in structure-based drug design, moving beyond direct protein-ligand contacts to encompass the entire solvation landscape.

The emerging recognition of proteins as dynamic energy converters further amplifies the importance of water in biological systems. Proteins in solution constantly absorb kinetic energy through collisions with water molecules via Brownian motion, converting this energy into potential energy stored within their structures, particularly in secondary elements like α-helices and β-sheets [20]. This stored energy is then directed to catalytic sites, where it reduces activation barriers and facilitates chemical transformations. This dynamic model conceptualizes proteins not as passive scaffolds but as active mechanical systems that directly contribute energy to catalytic reactions, with water serving as both the energy source and a functional mediator.

Theoretical Foundation: Mechanisms of Water-Mediated Interactions

Physical Principles of Water-Biomolecule Interactions

Water exhibits unique properties that are essential for biological processes. Its polarity and ability to form hydrogen bonds make it a critical solvent and functional participant in biomolecular systems. In aqueous environments, hydrogen bonds between water molecules undergo continuous breaking and reformation, a dynamic behavior explained by the "jump model" mechanism where water hydroxyl groups switch hydrogen bond acceptors through large-amplitude angular jumps [21]. This dynamic behavior enables water to mediate rapid molecular interactions while maintaining structural integrity through organized hydration shells.

Water molecules form robust, interconnected networks around biomolecules, significantly influencing their stability and function. Around DNA, for instance, water forms a hydration shell consisting of multiple layers: the first hydration shell (within ∼3 Å) with direct hydrogen bonds to molecular structures, the second hydration shell (∼3–8 Å) acting as a bridge to bulk water, and influenced layers extending as far as ∼18 Å from the molecular surface [21]. These ordered water molecules exhibit properties distinct from bulk water, including stronger binding, increased hydrogen bonding, and higher molecular ordering. One of the most prominent features is the "spine of hydration" observed in the minor groove of B-DNA, where water molecules form a complex, interdependent network critical for maintaining structural integrity [21].

Water in Protein Dynamics and Allostery

The role of water in mediating protein allostery and signal transduction has become increasingly apparent, particularly in membrane proteins like G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). In these systems, wet transmembrane helical interfaces, where solvent molecules bridge destabilizing buried polar residues, facilitate helical movements by preventing the breaking of hydrogen bond networks, thereby granting conformational flexibility essential for function [22]. Conversely, buried ion molecules can lock receptors in specific conformations through strong electrostatic interactions, demonstrating how solvent components can differentially regulate protein dynamics.

The dynamic energy conversion model provides a framework for understanding how proteins harness aqueous environments for function. This model proposes three fundamental principles: (1) proteins constantly absorb kinetic energy through collisions with water molecules via Brownian motion (occurring at 10⁹-10¹² times per second), (2) this kinetic energy is converted to potential energy stored within protein structures, particularly in secondary structures like α-helices and β-sheets, and (3) the stored potential energy is directed to catalytic sites where it reduces activation energy barriers (typically between 20-40 kJ/mol for enzyme reactions) and facilitates chemical transformations [20].

Table: Key Properties of Water in Biomolecular Contexts

Property	Structural Role	Functional Role	Design Implications
Hydrogen Bonding	Stabilizes secondary structures; forms hydration shells	Mediates proton transfer; facilitates molecular recognition	Target with isosteric replacements; design bridging interactions
Dynamic Networks	Maintains structural integrity under perturbation	Enables allosteric communication; confers functional plasticity	Engineer network stability to modulate function
Hydration Shells	Creates ordered water layers around biomolecules	Modulates binding affinity and specificity	Displace unfavorable waters; exploit high-energy water sites
Energy Transfer	Stores potential energy in structural elements	Lowers activation barriers for catalysis	Manipulate conformational landscapes for desired activity

Computational Methodologies and Protocols

Advanced Force Fields for Simulating Protein-Water Interactions

Accurate simulation of water-mediated interactions requires sophisticated force fields that properly balance protein-protein and protein-water interactions. Recent refinements to molecular dynamics force fields have addressed previous limitations in modeling both folded proteins and intrinsically disordered polypeptides. Two refined Amber force fields represent significant advances:

• amber ff03w-sc: Incorporates selective upscaling of protein-water interactions to improve folded protein stability while maintaining accurate ensembles for intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) [18].

• amber ff99SBws-STQ′: Includes targeted improvements to backbone torsional sampling, specifically correcting overestimated helicity in polyglutamine tracts through torsional refinements of glutamine residues [18].

These force fields were validated against experimental data from small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, demonstrating accurate reproduction of IDP chain dimensions and secondary structure propensities while maintaining folded protein and protein-protein complex stability over microsecond-timescale simulations [18].

Table: Comparison of Modern Force Fields for Protein-Water Simulations

Force Field	Key Features	Strengths	Validated Performance
amber ff03w-sc	Selective protein-water interaction scaling	Balanced folded/IDP stability; reduced over-collapsing	Maintains Ubiquitin, Villin HP35 stability; accurate IDP dimensions
amber ff99SBws-STQ′	Targeted glutamine torsional refinements	Corrects polyQ helicity bias; improved secondary structure balance	Accurate disordered ensembles; folded state stability
CHARMM36m	Modified TIP3P with LJ parameters on hydrogens	Enhanced protein-water interactions; reduced left-handed helix formation	Improved IDP conformational sampling; correct Aβ16-22 aggregation prediction
DES-Amber	Reparameterized dihedral and non-bonded interactions	Increased protein complex stability; better osmotic pressure agreement	Improved association free energies for some systems

The following diagram illustrates the key decision process for selecting appropriate computational methods based on research objectives:

The SPaDES Protocol for Designing Solvent-Mediated Networks

The SPaDES (Solvent-Mediated Protein Design Engineering Software) computational method enables the design of protein interiors with customized solvent-mediated interaction networks. This approach has been successfully applied to engineer G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) with enhanced stability and signaling activity [22]. The protocol involves:

Step 1: System Preparation and Modeling

• Model receptor conformations in specific functional states (e.g., inactive and active) using homology modeling with tools like IPHoLD, referencing structures with related functions
• Define "switchable" regions (undergoing conformational changes) and "static" regions (remaining largely unperturbed) during activation
• For GPCRs, typically define TMHs 6 and 7 as switchable and TMHs 1-5 as static

Step 2: Interface Design with Explicit Solvent

• Use SPaDES to search for amino acid combinations and associated solvent molecules that form coordinated networks of solvent-mediated interactions between static and switchable regions
• Restrict sequence search space to hydrophobic, uncharged polar residues, and small charged amino acids compatible with folding and packing constraints in transmembrane cores
• Calculate water-mediated hydrogen bond connectivity using graph analysis

Step 3: Evaluation and Selection Criteria

• Calculate conformational stability differences between functional states to predict state occupancy and constitutive activity
• Assess water-mediated hydrogen bond connectivity between static and switchable regions, where increased interface plasticity facilitates activation
• Evaluate protein-ion interactions through grid sampling, hydration, and repacking/minimization cycles to identify designs with specific state stabilization

Step 4: Experimental Validation

• Express designed receptors in mammalian cells, purify, and test for constitutive and ligand-induced activation
• Measure ligand binding affinity and active-state stability
• Correlate functional properties with designed solvent network topologies

Practical Applications in Drug Design

Engineering Molecular Glues and PPIs

Molecular glues represent a promising therapeutic strategy for modulating protein-protein interactions (PPIs) by inducing novel contacts or stabilizing existing ones. Water-mediated interactions play a crucial role in molecular glue mechanisms, as revealed through molecular dynamics simulations that provide atomic-resolution snapshots of ternary complexes, including their water-mediated interaction networks [23]. These simulations reveal how molecular glues function through two primary pathways:

• Interface Stabilization: A protein-protein binary interface forms initially, followed by incorporation of a small molecule ligand that strengthens the interaction through water-mediated contacts
• Induced Association: A small molecule first binds to one protein partner, inducing conformational changes that facilitate association with another protein through solvent-mediated interactions

Computational workflows for molecular glue discovery integrate complex structural modeling, protein-protein docking, small molecule-protein docking, ternary complex conformation modeling, and dynamic simulations of molecular mechanisms. These approaches have been successfully applied to systems like the GluN2B-ifenprodil-GluN1b NMDA receptor complex, where molecular glues stabilize subunit interactions at the interface between GluN1b and GluN2B N-terminal domains [23].

GPCR Engineering with Enhanced Signaling Properties

The application of water-focused design to GPCRs has demonstrated remarkable success in creating receptors with enhanced therapeutic properties. Using the SPaDES approach, researchers designed 14 membrane receptors that catalyze G protein nucleotide exchange through diverse engineered allosteric pathways mediated by cooperative networks of intraprotein, protein-ligand, and solvent molecule interactions [22].

The most promising design, termed Hyd_high7, exhibited considerably enhanced thermostability and signaling activity compared to natural receptors, adopting an unexpected signaling-active conformation that validated the design models [22]. Analysis revealed that signaling activity correlated well with the level of plasticity of water-mediated networks at flexible transmembrane helical interfaces, with the best designs displaying allosteric network topologies bearing limited similarity to those of natural receptors, revealing a broader designable interaction space.

Table: Research Reagent Solutions for Water-Mediated Interaction Studies

Reagent/Resource	Function/Application	Key Features	Design Considerations
SPaDES Software	Designs solvent-mediated protein interaction networks	Explicit solvent modeling; hydrogen bond network optimization	Requires homology models of multiple functional states
Amber ff03w-sc Force Field	Molecular dynamics simulations	Selective protein-water interaction scaling	Balanced performance for folded and disordered proteins
TIP4P2005/OPC Water Models	Accurate solvation in MD simulations	Four-site models with improved electrostatics	Computationally more expensive than 3-site models
AlphaFold-Multimer	Protein complex structure prediction	Deep learning-based interface modeling	Useful for initial complex structure generation
Hyd_high7 GPCR Variant	Engineered receptor with enhanced signaling	High density of water-mediated interactions	Exemplar of successful water-focused design

The following workflow illustrates the implementation of the SPaDES protocol for designing proteins with enhanced solvent-mediated functions:

Experimental Validation and Characterization Methods

Biophysical and Structural Validation Techniques

Validating designed water-mediated interactions requires orthogonal experimental approaches that probe different aspects of structure and function:

Small-Angle X-Ray Scattering (SAXS) provides validation of global chain dimensions and ensemble properties, particularly important for verifying that designed proteins and their hydration shells maintain appropriate conformational sampling in solution [18].

Solution NMR Spectroscopy offers residue-specific information on local structure, dynamics, and hydration through measurements of chemical shifts, scalar couplings, and relaxation parameters, enabling experimental verification of designed water interaction networks [18].

X-ray Crystallography at high resolution (typically <2.0 Å) can directly visualize ordered water molecules in designed structures, allowing comparison with computational models and verification of designed hydration sites and water-mediated hydrogen bond networks [22].

Functional Assays for Validated Design Outcomes

Functional characterization is essential to confirm that designed water-mediated interactions produce the intended phenotypic outcomes:

Thermal Stability Assays measure the melting temperature (Tm) of designed variants, with increased stability often correlating with optimized internal hydration networks and enhanced packing [22].

Signaling Activity Profiling quantifies constitutive and ligand-induced activation of designed receptors, with enhanced activity frequently associated with increased plasticity of water-mediated networks at critical helical interfaces [22].

Ligand Binding Affinity Measurements using techniques like surface plasmon resonance or radioligand binding assess whether designed water networks modulate molecular recognition properties as intended [22].

The explicit consideration of water-mediated interactions represents a transformative advance in structure-based drug design, moving beyond static structural models to embrace the dynamic, solvated reality of biological systems. Methodologies like SPaDES that enable computational design of solvent-mediated networks have demonstrated remarkable success in engineering proteins with enhanced stability and function, particularly for therapeutically important membrane receptors. These approaches reveal a broader designable interaction space than previously inferred from natural proteins alone, opening new possibilities for creating therapeutics with novel mechanisms of action.

The integration of advanced force fields, explicit solvent modeling, and experimental validation creates a powerful framework for leveraging water-mediated interactions in drug design. As these methodologies continue to mature, we anticipate increasing application across target classes, from molecular glues that stabilize specific protein complexes to allosteric modulators that exploit conserved water networks for selective functional control. By explicitly incorporating the active role of water in biomolecular function, drug designers can access a rich landscape of previously untapped opportunities for therapeutic intervention.

Implementing Practical Energy Minimization Workflows: Tools and Protocols

In molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of biological systems, water is far more than a passive spectator; it is an active participant that directs protein structure, provides vital stability, and steers function [24]. The selection of an appropriate water model is therefore a fundamental parameter in computational studies, critically influencing the accuracy of simulations ranging from protein folding and conformational dynamics to drug-binding affinity predictions. This application note provides a structured framework for selecting and implementing water models, specifically contextualized within energy minimization and simulation protocols for protein systems. We focus on widely used three-site models (TIP3P, SPC/E) and more advanced, higher-accuracy variants (OPC, TIP4P-Ewald), synthesizing recent benchmarking studies to guide researchers and drug development professionals in making informed choices for their specific applications.

Comparative Analysis of Water Models

The performance of a water model is intrinsically linked to its parameterization and the balance it strikes between computational cost and physical accuracy. The following section provides a detailed comparison of popular and specialized water models.

Table 1: Key Characteristics and Parameterization of Common Water Models

Water Model	Number of Interaction Sites	Key Parameterization Features	Primary Strengths	Documented Limitations
TIP3P [25] [26]	3	Original transferable intermolecular potential with 3 points; a standard in many force fields.	Low computational cost; widely tested and validated.	Less accurate for binding free energies in some protein-glycan systems [25].
SPC/E [25] [26]	3	Extended Simple Point Charge model; includes polarization correction.	Improved liquid properties over SPC/TIP3P; still computationally efficient.	Can lead to obvious fluctuations in specific protein-glycan complexes [25].
OPC [25] [26]	4	Optimized Potential for Liquid Simulations; reparameterized for optimal charge distribution.	Exceptional consistency with experimental binding affinity data [25]; excellent structural accuracy [27].	Higher computational cost than 3-site models.
TIP4P-Ewald [25]	4	TIP4P model parameterized for Ewald summation techniques.	Accurate treatment of long-range electrostatics; good for bulk water properties.	Performance can be system-dependent.
TIP3P-FB [25]	3	A TIP3P variant within the FB (ForceBalance) parameterization framework.	Modern re-parameterization aiming to improve upon standard TIP3P.	Less extensively benchmarked in complex biomolecular systems.

Table 2: Documented Performance in Biomolecular Simulations

Water Model	Performance in Protein-Glycan Binding Affinity (ABFE) [25]	Performance in IDP Chain Dimensions & Folded Protein Stability [18]	Recommended Pairing
TIP3P	Less accurate compared to experimental data.	Tends to overly collapse IDP ensembles; weak temperature-dependent folding cooperativity.	ff19SB, CHARMM36 (with modifications).
SPC/E	Intermediate performance.	Similar issues as TIP3P with protein-water interactions.	ff19SB, GLYCAM06.
OPC	Exceptional consistency with experimental data.	Improved performance when paired with modern force fields (e.g., ff19SB-OPC).	ff19SB-OPC, ff99SB-disp.
TIP4P-Ewald	Not the top performer in tested protein-glycan systems.	Improved modeling of IDPs when paired with specific force fields (e.g., ff99SBws).	ff99SBws, ff03ws.
TIP4P/2005 (Related Model)	Not benchmarked in [25].	Helps yield accurate hydration shell contrast in SAXS/SANS validation [28].	ff99SBws, ff03ws.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol 1: System Preparation, Solvation, and Neutralization

This protocol, adapted from studies evaluating water models in protein-glycan complexes, details the initial setup for a robust MD simulation [25].

• Initial Structure Preparation: Obtain the protein structure from the Protein Data Bank (PDB). Prepare the molecular structure using a tool like the tleap module from AmberTools. Assign force fields (e.g., Amber ff19SB for proteins, GLYCAM06 for glycans/carbohydrates).
• Solvation with Selected Water Model:
  • Place the solute (e.g., protein or protein-ligand complex) in the center of a predefined rectangular box.
  • Solvate the system by adding explicit water molecules, ensuring a minimum distance (e.g., 10 Å) between any solute atom and the box edges. This creates a sufficient water shell around the solute.
  • Specify the desired water model (e.g., TIP3P, OPC, SPC/E) during this step.
• System Neutralization and Ion Concentration:
  • Add counterions (e.g., Na+ for negatively charged solutes, Cl- for positively charged solutes) to achieve a net neutral charge for the system.
  • Further add ions to adjust the ionic strength to physiological conditions (e.g., 0.15 M NaCl).

Protocol 2: Assessment of Hydration Shell Properties with SAXS/SANS

This protocol outlines how to use small-angle scattering to validate the hydration shell structure generated by MD simulations, a critical test for water model and force field accuracy [28].

• MD Simulation Execution: Perform multiple independent, all-atom MD simulations of the target protein in explicit solvent using the water model and force field combination to be tested.
• Trajectory Analysis and Solvent Density Calculation: From the simulation trajectories, calculate the three-dimensional solvent density around the protein to visualize the first and second hydration layers.
• Explicit-Solvent SAS Calculation: Compute theoretical SAXS and SANS (in D2O) curves from the MD trajectories using methods that explicitly account for the electron and neutron scattering length density of all atoms, including water.
• Radius of Gyration (Rg) Extraction and Comparison:
  • Extract the Rg from the calculated SAXS and SANS curves, typically via a Guinier fit at low scattering angles.
  • Compute the difference, ΔRg, between the Rg from the SAS curve and the Rg calculated from the protein atoms alone. This ΔRg quantifies the hydration shell effect.
  • Compare the computed ΔRg values with high-precision, consensus experimental SAS data to validate the simulation's representation of the hydration shell.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Table 3: Key Software, Force Fields, and Tools for Water Model Implementation

Item Name	Category	Function & Application Notes
AMBER	MD Software Suite	Includes pmemd, AmberTools; widely used for biomolecular simulation with support for many water models and force fields [25].
GLYCAM06	Force Field	Specialized force field for carbohydrates and glycans; often paired with protein force fields like ff19SB in protein-glycan studies [25] [26].
Amber ff19SB	Force Field	One of the modern protein force fields; often paired with OPC or TIP3P water for simulating folded proteins and complexes [25] [18].
Amber ff99SBws	Force Field	A "balanced" force field designed for use with four-site water models (e.g., TIP4P/2005) to improve IDP ensemble accuracy and reduce over-association [18] [28].
ColdBrew	Computational Tool	Predicts the likelihood of water molecule positions in experimental protein structures at physiological temperatures, aiding drug discovery [24].
Grand Canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC)	Computational Method	Models how water molecules occupy binding sites; useful for predicting water displacement and its contribution to binding affinity in drug design [29].

The choice of a water model is a critical determinant of simulation outcome and should be aligned with the specific biological question and system under investigation. Based on recent quantitative benchmarking:

• For calculating binding affinities in systems like protein-glycan complexes, the OPC water model has demonstrated exceptional consistency with experimental data, outperforming the more commonly used TIP3P model [25].
• For studies where the hydration shell structure or the behavior of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) is paramount, moving beyond simple three-point models is advised. Four-site models like TIP4P/2005 and OPC, paired with modern "balanced" force fields (e.g., ff99SBws, ff19SB-OPC), provide a more accurate description of protein-water interactions and chain dimensions [18] [28].
• The standard TIP3P model remains a computationally efficient choice for general-purpose simulations where specific water interactions are less critical. However, users should be aware of its documented limitations in over-stabilizing protein-protein interactions and collapsing IDP ensembles [18] [26].

Ultimately, the development of force fields and water models is an iterative process. Researchers are encouraged to consult the latest literature and validate their simulation observables against experimental data whenever possible, particularly as new force fields and refined water models continue to emerge.

Step-by-Step Protocol for Protein-Water System Preparation and Minimization

Within the broader scope of energy minimization research for proteins in aqueous environments, the initial preparation of the protein-water system is a critical foundational step. Proper system setup ensures that subsequent molecular dynamics (MD) simulations or energy-based analyses are biologically relevant and computationally stable [30]. The core objective of this protocol is to transform an initial protein structure into a solvated, neutralized, and energetically stable system ready for detailed simulation studies. A crucial consideration throughout this process is maintaining the proper balance between protein-protein and protein-water interactions, as an overestimation of protein-protein interactions can lead to unrealistic behavior, such as excessive compaction of intrinsically disordered proteins or non-physical aggregation in crowded solutions [31]. The following sections provide a comprehensive, application-oriented protocol for achieving this state, complete with specific parameter recommendations and validation procedures.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 1: Essential software, force fields, and resources required for protein-water system preparation and minimization.

Item Name	Type/Example	Primary Function
Molecular Dynamics Software	GROMACS MD Suite [30]	Primary engine for simulation setup, energy minimization, and MD runs.
Protein Force Field	CHARMM36m [31], AMBER, OPLS [32]	Defines energy function parameters (bonds, angles, dihedrals, non-bonded interactions) for the protein.
Water Model	Modified TIP3P [31]	Solvent model defining water geometry and interaction parameters.
Structure File	PDB Format (.pdb) [30]	Initial atomic coordinates from experiments or homology modeling.
Visualization Tool	RasMol [30]	For visual inspection of the initial and intermediate protein structures.
Topology File	GROMACS .top format [30]	Molecular description including parameters, bonding, and charges.

Step-by-Step Protocol for System Preparation

Initial System Setup

• Obtain and Prepare Protein Coordinates: Download your protein structure of interest in PDB format from the RCSB Protein Data Bank (http://www.rcsb.org/). Visually inspect the structure using a tool like RasMol [30].
• Generate Topology and Coordinate Files: Use the pdb2gmx command to convert the PDB file into GROMACS-specific formats and generate the topology. This step adds missing hydrogen atoms and assigns force field parameters.
  • Selection Prompt: When prompted, select an appropriate force field (e.g., CHARMM36m for proteins with explicit solvent is recommended) [30].
  • Note on Ligands and Water: If the original PDB contains ligand coordinates or external water molecules, these typically need to be removed and handled separately. The ligand's chemistry must be explicitly defined, and a separate topology must be constructed and integrated into the main topology file [30].
• Define the Simulation Box: Place the protein in the center of a periodic box to avoid edge effects. A cubic box with a minimum distance of 1.0 nm (10 Å) between the protein and the box edge is generally suitable.

• Solvate the System: Add water molecules to the box using the solvate command. This step updates the topology file to include water molecules.

System Neutralization and Energy Minimization

• Add Counterions: Neutralize the system's net charge by adding ions like Na+ or Cl- using the genion command. This requires first generating a pre-processed input file (.tpr) via grompp.
  • Interactive Selection: The genion command will prompt you to select a group of atoms (e.g., "SOL") to be replaced by ions.
• Perform Energy Minimization: Run an energy minimization to relieve any steric clashes, bad stereochemistry, or unfavorable contacts introduced during the setup process [32]. This is achieved by finding a set of atomic coordinates representing a local minimum on the potential energy surface [32] [33].

The following workflow diagram summarizes the entire protocol:

Critical Parameters and Configuration

Energy Minimization Parameters

The parameter file (em.mdp) supplied to the grompp command dictates the minimization algorithm and convergence criteria. Key parameters are detailed in the table below.

Table 2: Key parameters for the energy minimization .mdp file.

Parameter	Recommended Value	Purpose
define	-DFLEXIBLE	Can be used for simple vacuum simulations, but often omitted in solvated systems.
integrator	steep / cg	Algorithm: steep (steepest descent) for initial steps, cg (conjugate gradient) for final convergence [32].
nsteps	5000 - 50000	Maximum number of minimization steps.
emtol	10.0 - 1000.0	Convergence threshold; minimization stops when maximum force < emtol kJ·mol⁻¹·nm⁻¹.
nstlist	10	Frequency for updating the neighbor list.
coulombtype	PME	Particle Mesh Ewald method for long-range electrostatics.
rcoulomb	1.0	Short-range electrostatic cut-off (in nm).
rvdw	1.0	Van der Waals cut-off (in nm).
pbc	xyz	Periodic Boundary Conditions in all dimensions.

Optimizing Protein-Water Interactions

A significant advancement in simulation accuracy involves fine-tuning the Lennard-Jones (LJ) interactions between protein and water to prevent unrealistic protein aggregation or overly compact disordered regions [31]. This is achieved by applying a scaling parameter (λ) to the protein-water LJ interactions.

Table 3: Impact of protein-water LJ interaction scaling on simulation properties.

Scaling Parameter (λ)	Impact on (AAQAA)₃ Helicity	Impact on Crowded Solutions	Recommendation
1.00 (Default)	Fraction of helix at 300 K: 0.17 ± 0.01 (close to experimental ~0.2) [31]	Can lead to overly sticky protein-protein interactions and slow diffusion [31]	Baseline for CHARMM36m.
1.03	Fraction of helix at 300 K: 0.15 ± 0.01 (still close to experiment) [31]	Avoids formation of too-sticky interactions, improving diffusive properties [31]	Recommended optimal value for CHARMM36m with modified TIP3P.
1.09 - 1.10	Not suitable for (AAQAA)₃; fails to maintain helical peptide stability [31]	Proposed for other force fields like AMBER ff99SB/ff03 and CHARMM36 [31]	Not recommended for CHARMM36m.

Validation and Troubleshooting

• Validating Minimization: After running the minimization, check the output using the energy command to analyze the potential energy (Potential) over time. A successful minimization shows a steady decrease in energy that plateaus. The maximum force should be below the specified emtol.
• Checking the Final Structure: Use visualization software to inspect the minimized structure for any remaining steric clashes or abnormal geometry.
• Troubleshooting Common Issues:
  • Minimization does not converge: Increase nsteps or switch from steep to cg integrator after initial steepest descent steps. Check for initial steric clashes that may be too severe.
  • Unphysical distortions: Verify the integrity of the initial structure and the appropriateness of the chosen force field.

This protocol provides a robust framework for preparing and minimizing a protein-water system, a prerequisite for reliable molecular dynamics simulations. The careful selection of parameters, particularly the scaling of protein-water interactions, is shown to be critical for achieving a proper balance that yields biologically accurate thermodynamic and kinetic properties [31]. By following this detailed guide, researchers can establish a solid foundation for subsequent computational studies, from folding and binding investigations to drug design.

Molecular mechanics optimization serves as a critical step in structure-based drug design, enabling the refinement of predicted protein-ligand complexes to achieve more physiologically relevant and energetically favorable models. The AMMOS2 web server represents a significant advancement in this field by providing an efficient platform for the computational refinement of protein-small organic molecule complexes through atomic-level energy minimization [34]. Unlike its predecessor and other refinement tools, AMMOS2 introduces a crucial capability: the explicit inclusion of water molecules and metal ions during the minimization process [34] [35]. This capability addresses a fundamental challenge in molecular modeling, as water molecules present at protein-ligand interfaces often form direct hydrogen bonds and contribute significantly to complex stability, while metal ions present in many binding sites play essential roles in mediating interactions [34]. The protocol employs the physics-based force field AMMP sp4 and offers five distinct levels of protein flexibility, allowing researchers to balance computational expense with refinement precision for virtual screening campaigns and individual complex optimization [34].

AMMOS2 System Preparation and Parameters

Input Requirements and Preparation

Proper system preparation is essential for successful minimization using AMMOS2. The server requires specific input files with defined format and characteristics, as detailed below.

Table 1: AMMOS2 Input Requirements and Specifications

Input Component	Format Requirements	Size Limitations	Preparation Guidelines
Protein Receptor	PDB format	Maximum of 1000 residues	Must be properly protonated; metal ions can be added using services like MIB or IonCom [34]
Ligands	Mol2 format	Maximum of 300 atoms per ligand; Collections of 1000-5000 ligands depending on flexibility case	Hydrogen atoms can be user-assigned or added by AMMOS2
Water Molecules	Included in protein PDB file	No explicit limit specified	Can include selected key waters or all waters within a defined radius of the binding site
Metal Ions	Included in protein PDB file	Treated as part of the receptor	Handled as cofactors during minimization [34]

Flexibility and Minimization Options

AMMOS2 provides researchers with a spectrum of flexibility options during minimization, allowing customization based on computational resources and precision requirements. These options control which protein atoms are permitted to move during the energy minimization process, significantly impacting both the quality of results and computational demand [34].

• Case 1 - Fully Flexible: All protein atoms can move during minimization. This approach is most computationally demanding but allows complete structural relaxation.

• Case 2 - Side Chain Flexibility: All protein side chain atoms are flexible while the backbone remains fixed, offering a balance between flexibility and computational efficiency.

• Case 3 - Spherical Full Flexibility: All protein atoms within a user-defined sphere (4-8Å recommended) around the ligand can move, focusing computational resources on the binding site.

• Case 4 - Spherical Side Chain Flexibility: Only side chain atoms within a defined sphere around the ligand are flexible, providing the most computationally efficient option for binding site refinement.

• Case 5 - Rigid Protein: The entire protein structure remains fixed during minimization, with only the ligand able to move. This approach is fastest but provides the least structural adjustment.

The strategic selection of flexibility level depends on the specific research context. Cases 3 and 4, which utilize a spherical region around the ligand, permit the processing of larger ligand libraries (up to 5000 compounds) and are particularly suited for virtual screening applications [34]. For higher-level flexibility options (Cases 1 and 2), the server can handle collections of up to 1000 ligands [34]. When explicit water molecules or metal ions are included in the system, they are allowed to move during minimization if they are located within the flexible region of the protein receptor, enabling optimization of their positions and interactions [34].

Experimental Protocol and Workflow

Step-by-Step Application Procedure

The following protocol describes a typical workflow for using AMMOS2 to refine protein-ligand complexes with explicit water molecules, based on established methodologies from the literature [34] [36].

• Protein Preparation: Begin with a crystal structure or modeled structure of the protein receptor. Protonate the structure appropriately at physiological pH, ensuring correct assignment of protonation states for residues in the binding site. If metal ions are present in the binding site, include them as part of the receptor structure.

• Water Molecule Selection: Identify structurally important water molecules for inclusion. These may be:

  • Crystallographic water molecules from experimental structures
  • Key water molecules predicted to form bridging interactions between protein and ligand
  • All water molecules within a specific radius (e.g., 6Å) of the native ligand or binding site [34]

• Ligand Preparation: Prepare ligand structures in mol2 format. For virtual screening applications, ensure all ligands in the collection adhere to the size limitation of 300 atoms. Assign correct protonation states and tautomers relevant to the biological context.

• Parameter Selection:

  • Choose the appropriate protein flexibility level based on computational constraints and refinement needs
  • For spherical flexibility approaches (Cases 3 and 4), define an appropriate radius (typically 4-8Å) around the ligand [34]
  • Select the option to include explicit water molecules and metal ions as part of the receptor

• Server Submission: Upload the prepared protein structure (including any water molecules and metal ions) and ligand file(s) to the AMMOS2 web server. Submit the job with selected parameters.

• Results Analysis: Upon completion, download and analyze:

  • Minimized ligand structures in mol2 format
  • Complete minimized protein-ligand complexes in PDB format
  • Computed interaction energies for ranking
  • Interaction analysis reports generated by PLIP software [34]

Validation and Performance Assessment

The AMMOS2 methodology has been rigorously validated on diverse protein-ligand systems, demonstrating consistent improvement over initial complex structures. Performance assessment on 21 protein-ligand complexes from the CCDC/Astex Test Set revealed significant reductions in protein-ligand interaction energies across all flexibility levels following AMMOS2 minimization [34].

Table 2: AMMOS2 Performance on Protein-Ligand Complex Refinement

System Characteristic	Performance Metric	Impact of Water Inclusion
Protein-Ligand Binding Energies	Consistent improvement after minimization [34]	Enhanced with more explicit water molecules in most cases [34]
Water Position Optimization	Improved positioning of key water molecules	Direct optimization of water-mediated protein-ligand interactions
Flexibility Impact	More favorable interaction energies with flexible protein (Cases 1-4) vs rigid (Case 5) [34]	Water molecules in flexible regions can adjust positions
Target Diversity	Validated on serine proteases, kinases, metalloproteinases, receptors [34]	Consistent benefits across diverse target classes

The validation studies demonstrated that including explicit water molecules generally resulted in more favorable computed binding energies compared to minimizations that omitted water molecules [34]. In most test cases, incorporating a higher number of explicit water molecules further improved the computed binding energies, highlighting the importance of solvation effects in molecular recognition [34]. The optimization of protein-water-ligand interactions proved particularly valuable for identifying key water molecules that serve as bridges between the protein and ligand, which are of fundamental importance for identifying high-affinity bioactive molecules [34].

Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details essential computational tools and resources that support the implementation of the AMMOS2 protocol and related structure-based drug design approaches.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Tool/Resource	Type/Function	Role in AMMOS2 Workflow
AMMOS2 Web Server	Interactive web server for protein-ligand complex refinement	Primary platform for energy minimization calculations [34]
AMMP sp4 Force Field	Physics-based molecular mechanics force field	Energy evaluation and minimization engine [34]
PLIP Software	Protein-ligand interaction profiler	Analysis of minimized complexes and interaction characterization [34]
MIB Server	Metal Ion-Binding site prediction	Prediction and placement of metal ions in protein structures [34]
IonCom	Metal ion binding site prediction	Alternative resource for adding metal ions to protein structures [34]
PDB_HYDRO/AquaSol	Solvation analysis tool	Identification of strongly solvated surfaces on proteins [34]
AutoDock4.2	Molecular docking software	Generation of initial protein-ligand complexes for refinement [34]

Technical Considerations and Applications

Strategic Implementation Guidelines

Successful implementation of AMMOS2 for protein-ligand complex refinement requires careful consideration of several technical aspects. The selection of appropriate protein flexibility levels should align with research goals: high-flexibility options (Cases 1-2) provide more thorough optimization but demand greater computational resources and are limited to smaller ligand libraries (1000 compounds), while spherical flexibility approaches (Cases 3-4) offer practical solutions for virtual screening applications with larger compound collections (up to 5000 ligands) [34]. The strategic inclusion of explicit water molecules significantly impacts results; studies indicate that including crystallographic waters within 6Å of the native ligand often produces optimal results, though targeting specific bridging waters known to mediate protein-ligand interactions may provide sufficient accuracy with reduced computational expense [34].

The handling of metal ions requires special attention, particularly for metalloenzymes where metal ions form integral components of the active site. These should be included as part of the protein structure during minimization, as AMMOS2 can properly handle their specific coordination geometry and interaction parameters [34]. For post-processing, the integration of PLIP software provides valuable analysis of interaction patterns in minimized complexes, identifying preserved or newly formed hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic contacts, and other key interactions that contribute to binding affinity [34].

Applications in Drug Discovery

AMMOS2 serves multiple roles in structure-based drug design pipelines, particularly benefiting projects where solvation effects and metal-mediated interactions significantly influence ligand binding. The server demonstrates particular utility for virtual screening post-processing, where it refines docked poses from initial screening campaigns and reranks compounds based on minimized binding energies, often improving the identification of true active compounds [34]. For lead optimization, researchers can use AMMOS2 to explore how structural modifications to lead compounds affect interaction geometries and binding energies in hydrated binding sites, providing insights for medicinal chemistry efforts [34].

The technology also offers value in structural biology applications, enabling refinement of experimental or homology-modeled structures to optimize the positions of key water molecules and resolve steric clashes while maintaining physiologically relevant hydration patterns [34]. Additionally, the platform supports water displacement analysis, as researchers can strategically include and exclude specific water molecules to estimate the energetic consequences of water displacement upon ligand binding, informing the design of compounds that effectively displace unfavorable waters or maintain favorable water-mediated interactions [34].

The incorporation of explicit water molecules and metal ions during molecular mechanics optimization represents a significant advancement in protein-ligand complex refinement. AMMOS2 provides researchers with an accessible, web-based platform that implements this sophisticated approach through a carefully designed computational protocol. The system's ability to optimize protein-ligand interactions at multiple levels of protein flexibility while explicitly considering structurally important water molecules and metal ions addresses critical limitations in conventional docking and scoring methodologies. The rigorous validation across diverse protein target classes demonstrates consistent improvement in binding energy estimation and structural refinement, particularly through the optimization of water-mediated interactions that contribute significantly to binding affinity and specificity. As structure-based drug discovery continues to evolve toward more physiologically accurate models, tools like AMMOS2 that explicitly account for the complex role of water in molecular recognition will become increasingly essential for successful drug development campaigns.

The study of complex biological systems requires sophisticated techniques to understand and manipulate the interactions between various molecular components. Membrane proteins, glycans, and non-standard residues represent three critical facets of this complexity, playing vital roles in cellular functions, host-pathogen interactions, and therapeutic development. This article provides application notes and protocols for researchers investigating these systems, with particular emphasis on methodologies relevant to energy minimization protocols for proteins in aqueous environments. The integration of these approaches enables more accurate modeling of biological systems and facilitates advances in drug discovery and protein engineering.

Research Reagent Solutions for Complex System Analysis

Table 1: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Key Characteristics
Orthogonal aaRS/tRNA Pairs [37]	Site-specific incorporation of NSAAs	Derived from phylogenetically distinct organisms (e.g., M. jannaschii TyrRS/tRNA, M. barkeri PylRS/tRNA)
GlycanDIA Workflow [38]	Comprehensive glycomic analysis	DIA-based method utilizing HCD-MS/MS and staggered windows for identification and quantification of glycans
PGC Chromatography Column [38]	Separation of glycan isomers	Resolves native glycans based on size, hydrophobicity, and polar interactions; critical for isomer separation
Energy Minimization Software [8] [13]	Structural refinement of protein complexes	Tools like YASARA and GROMACS implement force fields (AMBER, CHARMM) to minimize molecular torsions and clashes
Cell-Free Protein Synthesis System [37]	In vitro protein synthesis with NSAAs	Utilizes crude cell extracts with transcriptional/translational machinery; bypasses cellular toxicity issues

Table 2: Quantitative Parameters for Membrane Protein Glycosylation and NSAA Incorporation

Parameter	Value/Observation	System/Context
Membrane Protein Glycosylation [39]	81.5% (2515 of human membrane proteins)	Predicted or reported glycosylation in human membrane proteins from UniProt database
Predicted O-type vs N-type Glycosylation [39]	~3 times more O-type sequences	Human membrane glycoproteins; particularly pronounced in highly glycosylated molecules
Optimal NCE for HCD Fragmentation [38]	20%	GlycanDIA workflow; balances sequence information and fragment ion retention
Staggered DIA Window Size [38]	24 m/z	GlycanDIA analysis; yields ~10 data points for Gaussian peaks and higher quantification precision
Required Contrast Ratio [40]	≥ 3:1	WCAG guideline for non-text contrast in data visualization; ensures accessibility
PylRS Activity Improvement [37]	45-fold increase (kcat/KMtRNA)	After PACE evolution; enhances NSAA incorporation efficiency

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Analyzing Glycan Composition and Inhibition of Viral Uptake

Background: Cell surface glycans form a physical barrier that nonspecifically inhibits viral particle uptake, with the total glycan content negatively correlating with infection levels. This protocol outlines methods to quantify this inhibitory effect [39].

Materials:

• HEK293T cell lines
• Selected glycoprotein genes (e.g., MUC1, truncation mutants)
• Viral particles for infection assays
• Machine learning-based glycosylation prediction software (NetNGlyc, NetOGlyc, GlycoEP)

Procedure:

• Generate Glycoprotein List: Compile a comprehensive list of human membrane glycoproteins from databases (e.g., UniProt) based on transmembrane domain presence [39].
• Predict Glycosylation Sites: Use prediction software (NetNGlyc/NetOGlyc) to identify glycosylated amino acid residues in ectodomains. Cross-reference predictions from multiple software packages [39].
• Express Sample Molecules: Select and exogenously express sample glycoproteins (including highly glycosylated molecules and receptors) in HEK293T cells [39].
• Measure Glycan Content: Quantify total glycan amounts on cell surfaces using appropriate biochemical methods.
• Infection Assay: Expose glycoprotein-expressing cells to viral particles and quantify infection levels.
• Correlate Data: Analyze the correlation between total surface glycan content and viral infection levels to establish the kinetic barrier effect.

Notes: The inhibitory effect is molecularly nonspecific but additively enhanced by glycan amount. The repulsion created by branched glycans forms a kinetic energy barrier against viral packing into protein interstitial spaces [39].

Protocol 2: GlycanDIA Workflow for Comprehensive Glycomic Analysis

Background: The GlycanDIA workflow enables sensitive identification and precise quantification of glycans using data-independent acquisition mass spectrometry, facilitating analysis of underrepresented glycans such as those attached to RNA [38].

Graph 1: GlycanDIA analysis workflow for comprehensive glycomic profiling.

Materials:

• Porous graphitic carbon (PGC) column
• Mass spectrometer with HCD fragmentation capability
• GlycanDIA Finder search engine
• N-glycans, O-glycans, or human milk oligosaccharides

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Isolate and prepare glycans from target sources (cells, tissues, RNA extracts).
• Chromatographic Separation: Separate glycans using PGC chromatography with positive MS mode to resolve isomers based on molecular size, hydrophobicity, and polar interactions [38].
• Mass Spectrometry Setup:
  • Set mass-to-charge range to 600-1800 m/z
  • Implement staggered DIA with 24 m/z windows and 50 total windows
  • Apply HCD fragmentation with normalized collision energy set to 20% [38]
• Data Acquisition: Run the GlycanDIA method to generate comprehensive fragment ion spectra.
• Data Analysis: Process data using GlycanDIA Finder with iterative decoy searching for confident glycan identification.
• Validation: Use MS1-centric method to extract precursor ion masses and confirm fragmentation patterns from MS2 spectra.

Notes: This workflow distinguishes glycan composition and isomers, reveals low-abundance modified glycans, and has shown that RNA-glycans have different abundant forms compared to protein-glycans with tissue-specific differences [38].

Protocol 3: Incorporation of Non-Standard Amino Acids into Proteins

Background: Genetic code expansion enables incorporation of non-standard amino acids (NSAAs) into proteins, providing enhanced or novel properties for diverse applications including drug development and protein engineering [37].

Graph 2: Orthogonal translation system workflow for NSAA incorporation.

Materials:

• Orthogonal aaRS/tRNA pairs (e.g., M. jannaschii TyrRS/tRNA, M. barkeri PylRS/tRNA)
• NSAA of interest
• Cell-free protein synthesis system or appropriate expression host
• Vectors with target gene containing amber stop codons at desired positions

Procedure:

• Select Orthogonal System: Choose appropriate orthogonal aaRS/tRNA pair based on host system and desired NSAA [37].
• Engineer Expression Vector: Incorporate amber stop codon (UAG) at target positions in gene of interest.
• Optimize Translation Machinery: Coordinate expression of orthogonal tRNA, aaRS, and EF-Tu using tuned promoter combinations to maximize incorporation efficiency [37].
• Protein Expression:
  • For in vivo expression: Deliver NSAA to cells and express protein with orthogonal system
  • For cell-free synthesis: Add NSAA, orthogonal tRNA, and orthogonal aaRS directly to CFPS reaction [37]
• Purification and Validation: Purify resulting protein and verify NSAA incorporation through mass spectrometry or other analytical methods.

Notes: Efficiency improvements can be achieved through:

• Engineering orthogonal aaRS/tRNA pairs and EF-Tu
• Using phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE) to develop highly active aaRSs
• Co-expressing orthogonal tRNA and target gene with hammerhead ribozyme for tRNA processing [37]

Protocol 4: Energy Minimization of Protein Complexes in Water

Background: Energy minimization refines protein structures by transforming them into low-energy states more likely to correspond to natural conformations, particularly important for systems with membrane proteins, glycans, or NSAAs [8].

Materials:

• Molecular modeling software (YASARA, GROMACS)
• Protein structure file (PDB format)
• Appropriate force field (AMBER, CHARMM)
• Solvation box

Procedure:

• System Preparation:
  • Obtain or generate initial protein structure
  • Create topology for protein, ligand, and water molecules using selected force field [13]
• Solvation and Ion Addition:
  • Create solvation box around protein (e.g., using gmx editconf with dodecahedron box and 1.2 nm distance)
  • Add ions to neutralize system charge using gmx insert-molecules [13]
• Position Restraints Setup:
  • Apply restraints to protein mainchain atoms using gmx genrestr (force constant 1000 kJ/mol/nm²)
  • Implement water restraints by adding [position_restraints] section to water model ITP file [13]
• Energy Minimization:
  • Choose minimization algorithm (steepest descent, conjugate gradient)
  • Set up parameters (coulombtype=cutoff for charged systems without bulk water)
  • Run minimization until maximum force reaches tolerance (typically < 1000 kJ/mol/nm)
• Validation: Analyze resulting structure for reasonable geometry and improved energy state.

Notes: For systems without bulk water, ions may be attracted to the protein. Increasing restraint forces or manually positioning ions farther from the protein can mitigate this. The use of a bounding box around ions before insertion may improve results [13].

Technical Applications and Integration

Integrated Workflow for Complex System Analysis

The individual protocols described can be integrated into a comprehensive workflow for studying complex systems involving membrane proteins, glycans, and non-standard residues. This integrated approach enables researchers to:

• Characterize Native Systems: Use GlycanDIA to profile natural glycan compositions on membrane proteins and correlate with functional data [39] [38].
• Engineer Modified Proteins: Incorporate NSAAs to probe function or create novel properties, then characterize resulting structural and functional changes [37].
• Computational Refinement: Apply energy minimization to generate accurate structural models of the characterized or engineered complexes [8] [13].

Data Visualization Considerations

When presenting data from these protocols, ensure accessibility by maintaining minimum 3:1 contrast ratio for all non-text elements (graphs, diagrams, interface components) as per WCAG guidelines [40]. This is particularly important for scientific visualizations that must be interpretable by all researchers, including those with visual impairments.

The protocols presented here provide detailed methodologies for investigating membrane proteins, glycans, and non-standard residues within the framework of energy minimization studies. The integration of experimental and computational approaches enables more accurate modeling of these complex systems, advancing our understanding of their roles in biological processes and facilitating their application in therapeutic development. As these techniques continue to evolve, they will provide increasingly powerful tools for manipulating and analyzing biological systems at the molecular level.

Solving Common Energy Minimization Errors and Optimizing Performance

Addressing Force Convergence Failures and System Instabilities

Force convergence failures and system instabilities represent significant challenges in computational molecular biology, particularly within energy minimization protocols for proteins in aqueous environments. These issues can compromise the predictive accuracy of simulations, leading to erroneous conclusions in drug discovery and protein engineering efforts. This application note synthesizes current research to detail the origins of these instabilities and provides validated, detailed protocols to address them. The guidance is framed within the critical context of ensuring that molecular dynamics (MD) and energy minimization procedures accurately represent underlying physical principles to achieve reliable, predictive science.

Key Parameters Influencing Simulation Stability

Table 1: Identified Sources of Simulation Instability and Quantitative Mitigation Strategies

Source of Instability	Impact on Simulation	Recommended Parameter	Experimental Support
Excessive MD Time Step [41]	Violates equipartition principle; introduces errors in system density, volume, and thermodynamics [41]	0.5 femtoseconds for rigid-body water models (vs. standard 2 fs) [41]	Errors in system volume can exceed typical volume changes in protein folding [41]
Non-Conservative Machine Learning Potentials [42]	Causes energy drift in NVE MD; poor performance in property prediction [42]	Use MLIPs with conservative forces derived from an energy potential [42]	Direct-force models show significantly larger errors in downstream tasks [42]
Imbalanced Coarse-Grained (CG) Force Fields [43]	Produces overly compact conformational ensembles of IDPs and multidomain proteins [43]	Martini 3: rescale protein-protein (λPP=0.88) or protein-water (λPW=1.10) interactions [43]	Rescaling improves agreement with SAXS and PRE data for 15 multidomain proteins and 12 IDPs [43]
Inadequate Energy Minimization [44]	Fails to relieve steric clashes from initial models, leading to simulation crashes [44]	Multi-step minimization with positional restraints (e.g., 5 kcal/mol·Å⁻²) [44]	Protocol relaxes water/ions first, then protein side-chains, followed by full system [44]

Experimental Protocols for Stabilization

Protocol 1: Energy Minimization of a Protein-Solvent System

This protocol is designed to systematically eliminate steric clashes in a protein-water system prior to molecular dynamics simulation [44].

• Step 1: Solvent and Ion Relaxation

  • Procedure: Apply harmonic positional restraints with a force constant of 5 kcal/mol·Å⁻² to all protein atoms. Perform 5,000 steps of energy minimization using the steepest descent algorithm, allowing only water molecules and ions to move [44].
  • Purpose: To relax the solvent and ion atmosphere around the fixed protein coordinates, resolving clashes within the solvent and between the solvent and the protein surface.

• Step 2: Protein Side-Chain Relaxation

  • Procedure: Apply the same harmonic positional restraints (5 kcal/mol·Å⁻²) to the protein's main-chain (backbone) atoms only. Perform another 5,000 steps of energy minimization using the steepest descent method, allowing protein side-chains, water, and ions to move freely [44].
  • Purpose: To relieve steric clashes involving protein side-chains while maintaining the overall secondary and tertiary structure of the protein.

• Step 3: Full System Relaxation

  • Procedure: Remove all positional restraints. Perform a final 5,000 steps of energy minimization using the steepest descent algorithm, allowing all atoms in the system (protein, water, ions) to move [44].
  • Purpose: To achieve a fully relaxed, sterically feasible starting structure for subsequent MD simulation.

Protocol 2: Validating MD Time Step for Aqueous Systems

This protocol outlines a procedure to verify the appropriateness of the integration time step, a critical factor for simulation stability and physical accuracy [41].

• Step 1: Converged Reference Simulation

  • Procedure: Configure a simulation of the protein-water system using a very short time step (0.5 fs). Run the simulation to equilibrium and use the resulting properties (e.g., system density, volume) as a converged reference [41].
  • Purpose: To establish a ground truth for thermodynamic properties against which longer time steps can be benchmarked.

• Step 2: Comparative Time Step Analysis

  • Procedure: Run a series of simulations of the same system using progressively longer time steps (e.g., 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 femtoseconds). For each simulation, ensure all other parameters (temperature, pressure, force field) remain identical [41].
  • Purpose: To systematically isolate the effect of the time step on simulation outcomes.

• Step 3: Monitoring for Equipartition Violation

  • Procedure: For each simulation in the series, calculate the average kinetic energy for each degree of freedom. A violation of the equipartition principle (non-uniform average kinetic energies) indicates the time step is too long [41].
  • Purpose: To use a fundamental physical principle as a diagnostic for simulation integrity.

• Step 4: Quantifying Thermodynamic Drift

  • Procedure: Measure key thermodynamic properties, such as system volume and density, from each simulation. Compare these values to the converged reference from Step 1. A deviation in volume greater than the change associated with a biological process of interest (e.g., protein folding) indicates an unacceptable error [41].
  • Purpose: To assess the practical impact of time step choice on biologically relevant observables.

Diagnostic and Remediation Workflows

Diagnostic Workflow for Instabilities

The following diagram outlines a logical pathway for diagnosing the root cause of force convergence failures and system instabilities during energy minimization and molecular dynamics setup.

Energy Minimization Protocol Flow

This diagram details the specific sequence of operations for the multi-step energy minimization protocol, which is critical for resolving steric clashes.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Essential Materials and Software for Simulation

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Item Name / Software	Type/Category	Function in Protocol
Steepest Descent Algorithm	Optimization Algorithm	The core minimizer used in the stepwise protocol to efficiently relieve steric clashes by moving atoms along the direction of the greatest decrease in energy [44].
Positional Restraints	Simulation Parameter	Harmonic potentials applied to specific atoms (e.g., protein backbone) during minimization to allow selective relaxation of different system components, preventing structural collapse [44].
Rigid-Body Water Model	Solvent Model	A molecular model for water that constrains bond vibrations and angles, allowing for longer MD time steps, though recent research recommends a maximum of 0.5 fs [41].
Machine Learning Interatomic Potential (MLIP)	Force Field	A machine-learned model that approximates quantum mechanical calculations at a fraction of the cost; must be conservative (forces derived from an energy potential) for reliable MD [42].
Coarse-Grained (CG) Force Field (e.g., Martini 3)	Force Field	A simplified model where groups of atoms are represented as single beads, improving computational efficiency for large systems; may require rescaling for accurate protein dimensions [43].
Variational Force-Matching	Training Method	A bottom-up approach for parameterizing machine-learned CG force fields to match the equilibrium distribution of an all-atom model, enhancing transferability and physical accuracy [45].

Within the framework of developing a robust energy minimization protocol for proteins in aqueous environments, constructing a topologically correct molecular system is a critical prerequisite. The accuracy of the resulting energy-minimized structures is fundamentally dependent on an error-free topology, which defines the chemical connectivity, atom types, and potential energy parameters for the system. Among the most frequently encountered and potentially disruptive issues during system setup are moleculetype redefinition and atom type conflicts. These errors, if unresolved, can lead to simulation failures, non-physical results, or misinterpretation of data. This application note details the identification, resolution, and prevention of these specific topology errors, providing structured protocols for researchers engaged in rational drug design and protein engineering.

Understanding the Topology Errors

Error Classification and Origins

Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations rely on topology files that precisely define all molecules within the system. The following table classifies the two primary topology errors discussed in this note.

Table 1: Classification of Common Topology Errors in MD Simulations

Error Type	Core Definition	Common Manifestation	Impact on Energy Minimization
Moleculetype Redefinition	A specific [moleculetype] is defined more than once within the topology.	ERROR 1 [file mef.itp, line 18]: moleculetype mef is redefined [46]	Prevents simulation initialization; system topology is ambiguous.
Atom Type Conflicts	An atom type is used in the system but is not defined in the force field parameters, or has conflicting definitions.	ERROR 1 [file lig.itp, line 5]: moleculetype lig is redefined [46]	Leads to incorrect potential energy calculations, resulting in unrealistic forces and unstable minimization.

The moleculetype redefinition error occurs when the same molecular entity is declared multiple times, often due to inadvertent duplication in topology files or incorrect file inclusion [46]. Atom type conflicts typically arise from mismatches between ligand parameterizations and the chosen force field for the protein and solvent, or from the use of non-standard residues without proper parameterization.

The Critical Role of Topology in Energy Minimization

Energy minimization aims to relieve steric clashes and find a low-energy state of the system, a step critical for obtaining a realistic starting structure for subsequent MD simulations [8]. The minimization algorithm computes forces based on the potential energy landscape defined by the topology and force field. Incorrect atom types or molecular definitions distort this energy landscape, potentially leading to:

• Convergence Failure: The minimizer cannot find a stable minimum.
• Structural Artifacts: Minimization may produce distorted bond geometries or non-physical side-chain rotamers.
• Inaccurate Hydration: improperly defined atom types can disrupt the delicate balance of protein-water interactions, which are crucial for stability and function [47] [48].

Experimental Protocols for Error Resolution

Systematic Workflow for Diagnosing Topology Errors

Adherence to a systematic diagnostic workflow is essential for efficient troubleshooting. The following diagram outlines the logical sequence for identifying the root cause of topology errors.

Protocol 1: Resolving Moleculetype Redefinition

Objective: To identify and eliminate duplicate [moleculetype] definitions in the topology.

Materials:

• Primary topology file (e.g., topol.top)
• All included topology files (e.g., *.itp)
• Text editor or IDE with search functionality

Methodology:

• Locate the Error Source: From the error message (e.g., ERROR 1 [file mef.itp, line 18]: moleculetype mef is redefined [46]), note the filename and line number of the first definition.
• Manual File Inspection:
  • Open the reported .itp file and examine the [moleculetype] section.
  • Use a search tool to find all instances of [moleculetype] mef across all topology files (topol.top and every included .itp file).
• Check File Inclusions: In the main topol.top file, ensure that the ligand topology (#include "jz4.itp" or similar) is included only once [46]. A common mistake is adding this inclusion statement multiple times or in incorrect sections.
• Verify File System Case Sensitivity: If working in an environment with a case-insensitive file system (e.g., macOS default), chains labeled 'A' and 'a' might be overwritten, leading to redefinition errors. Move the simulation to a case-sensitive file system if this is the root cause [46].
• Rectification: Remove or comment out all duplicate [moleculetype] definitions, ensuring only one unique definition exists for each molecule in the final assembled topology.

Protocol 2: Correcting Atom Type Conflicts and System Charging

Objective: To ensure all atom types are consistently defined and the system is electrically neutral prior to minimization.

Materials:

• Structure file (e.g., .gro or .pdb)
• Topology file (topol.top)
• GROMACS utilities: gmx pdb2gmx, gmx insert-molecules, gmx genion

Methodology:

• Ligand Parameterization: Generate ligand parameters using tools like acpype (for GAFF) or the CGenFF suite, ensuring compatibility with the chosen force field (e.g., CHARMM36, AMBER). Manually check the generated .itp file for any missing or unrecognized atom types.
• System Neutralization:
  • After constructing the protein-ligand-water complex, calculate the net charge of the system from the topology.
  • Use gmx insert-molecules to randomly place the appropriate number of ions (e.g., Na⁺ or Cl⁻) into the simulation box to achieve a net zero charge [13].
  • Critical Note: When using gmx genion to replace solvent molecules with ions, always select a contiguous solvent group (e.g., "SOL") as the replacement group. Never select "System" as this corrupts the topology [46].
• Position Restraints for Crystallographic Waters: When working with crystal water molecules that must be preserved, apply position restraints to prevent them from moving excessively during minimization.
  • Copy the water model file (e.g., tip3p.itp) to your working directory and modify the main topology to point to this local copy.
  • Add a [ position_restraints ] section to the water model file or in the main topology under #ifdef POSRES_WATER to apply force constants to all atoms in the water molecule [13].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Software and Force Fields for Topology Management

Tool/Reagent	Type	Primary Function in Topology Resolution
GROMACS	MD Software Suite	Performs topology validation during grompp, energy minimization, and MD simulations. Provides utilities for system building [46] [13].
AMBER Tools / GAFF	Force Field & Parameterization	Provides parameters for small molecules (ligands) compatible with the AMBER family of force fields (e.g., AMBER14, AMBER99) [8].
CHARMM Force Field	Force Field	A comprehensive force field for biomolecules; includes parameters for proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and some small molecules [13].
YASARA	Modeling & Simulation Software	Offers automated structure cleanup and energy minimization protocols, which can help resolve subtle steric conflicts post-topology correction [8] [49].
SwissParam	Web Service	Provides topologies and parameters for drug-like molecules compatible with the CHARMM force field.
CGenFF	Web Service & Program	The official parameterization tool for the CHARMM General Force Field for ligands and small molecules.

Moleculetype redefinition and atom type conflicts represent significant barriers to initiating successful energy minimization and subsequent molecular dynamics simulations. By adhering to the structured diagnostic workflow and detailed experimental protocols outlined in this document, researchers can systematically identify and resolve these topology errors. A correct topology is not merely a technical requirement but the foundation for obtaining physically realistic energy-minimized structures, particularly in complex systems involving proteins with explicit solvent and ligands. Mastering these troubleshooting techniques ensures the reliability of simulation results, thereby accelerating research in computational drug development and protein science.

Strategies for Restraining Water Molecules and Ions in Crystal Structures

Within structural biology and drug development, the accurate modeling of solvent components—specifically water molecules and ions—is critical for understanding protein function and ligand interactions. These components are often poorly resolved in experimental electron density maps due to high mobility or disorder, leading to challenges in conventional crystallographic refinement. This application note details advanced strategies for restraining these entities, framed within a broader energy minimization protocol for protein in water research. By integrating quantum chemical calculations with crystallographic least-squares refinement, these methods significantly improve the fit to experimental diffraction data and provide a more reliable structural model for downstream drug discovery efforts [50].

The following sections provide a comparative analysis of methodological approaches, detailed experimental protocols for their application, and visualization of the integrated workflows that combine computational and experimental data.

Method Comparison and Data Presentation

Table 1: Core Strategies for Restraining Solvent and Ions

Strategy	Primary Function	Key Quantitative Parameters	Applicable System	Key Considerations
Molecule-in-Cluster with Restraints [50]	Restrain disordered water/ion conformations using optimized geometries.	Energy differences within RT (crystallization temperature); Positional and displacement parameter restraints.	Disordered crystal structures with multiple solvent/ion conformations.	Simplifies and standardizes disorder refinement; Superior fit to diffraction data.
Energy Minimization Pitfalls [51]	Highlights limitations of energy minimization for ion selectivity studies.	Energy difference variations up to 4-5 kcal/mol in small clusters; >7 kcal/mol error in large systems.	Ion coordination sites (e.g., in ion channels).	Requires thermal averaging (e.g., FEP/MD); Single minimized configurations are unreliable.
NMR wNOE/wROE Dynamics [52]	Detect site-specific protein hydration dynamics and water release.	wNOE/wROE ratio for identifying water molecules with long residency times.	Characterizing metal-binding sites and allosteric regulation driven by solvent entropy.	Quantifies solvent entropy contribution to binding equilibria.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Item	Function in Protocol
Quantum Crystallography Software	Performs molecule-in-cluster geometry optimizations to generate restraint libraries for disordered components [50].
Molecular Dynamics (MD) Software	Enables Free Energy Perturbation (FEP/MD) simulations to account for thermal fluctuations and entropic effects in ion selectivity studies [51].
Polarizable Force Fields	Provides a more accurate representation of microscopic interactions for ions and water in MD simulations (e.g., Drude-based models) [51].
Cambridge Structural Database (CSD)	Provides access to experimental crystal structures, including a dedicated "drug subset," for extracting initial coordinates for archetype structures [50].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Restraining Disordered Solvent Using Molecule-in-Cluster Optimizations

This protocol uses quantum chemical calculations to create restraints for improved crystallographic refinement of disordered water molecules and ions [50].

• Extract Archetype Structures: From the disordered experimental crystal structure, extract separate molecular models for each distinct conformation of the disordered solvent or ion. These are your initial "archetype structures."
• Molecule-in-Cluster Optimization: For each archetype structure, perform a quantum chemical geometry optimization. The calculation should model the molecule within a cluster of its immediate chemical environment to approximate crystal packing effects.
• Generate Restraint Libraries: From the optimized geometries, extract ideal values for positional parameters (bond lengths, angles) and atomic displacement parameters (ADPs). These values form the restraint library.
• Re-combine and Refine: Re-introduce the optimized archetype structures into the crystallographic model. Use the generated library to apply positional restraints and constrain displacement parameters during subsequent least-squares (LSQ) refinement against the experimental Bragg diffraction data.
• Validation: The final model should achieve a superior fit to the experimental data (e.g., improved R-factors) compared to a model refined using experimental information alone.

Protocol 2: Characterizing Hydration Dynamics via NMR

This protocol employs solution NMR to probe water molecules with long residency times at protein surfaces, particularly relevant for metal-binding sites [52].

• Sample Preparation: Prepare a stable, isotopically labeled protein sample in an aqueous buffer suitable for NMR spectroscopy.
• wNOE/wROE Data Collection: Perform water Nuclear Overhauser Effect (wNOE) and water Rotating-frame Overhauser Effect (wROE) experiments. The sign and magnitude of these effects are sensitive to water dynamics.
• Ratio Analysis: Calculate the wNOE/wROE ratio. A positive ratio indicates water molecules that are in slow exchange with the bulk solvent, suggesting specific binding or long residency times.
• Integration with MD and ITC: Complement NMR data with Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations to obtain a spatial model of the hydration shell. Use Isothermal Titration Calorimetry (ITC) to determine the thermodynamic parameters (e.g., entropy change) of metal binding.
• Correlation: Correlate the site-specific hydration dynamics from NMR with the solvent entropy changes from ITC to identify water molecules that drive binding events.

Workflow Visualization

Molecular simulations have become indispensable tools in structural biology and computer-aided drug discovery, providing atomic-level insights into biomolecular interactions. However, the accurate computational modeling of complex systems—including flexible peptides, diverse ligands, and proteins in mixed-solvent environments—remains a formidable challenge. The reliability of these simulations critically depends on the careful optimization of force field parameters, sampling protocols, and solvation models. This application note details specialized methodologies for parameterizing these challenging systems, with a particular focus on integration within a broader energy minimization framework for proteins in aqueous environments. We present specific protocols for peptide design, ligand polarization, and mixed-solvent simulations, providing researchers with practical tools to enhance the predictive accuracy of their computational studies.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 1: Key software tools and their applications in optimizing parameters for challenging molecular systems.

Tool Name	Primary Function	Application Context	Key Reference
mPARCE Protocol	Iterative optimization of modified peptides	Peptide design using non-natural amino acids; uses Rosetta framework [53].	[53]
Rosetta Framework	Macromolecular modeling & design	Backbone for mPARCE; provides sampling & scoring functions [53].	[53]
FoldX	Protein stability & interaction analysis	Predicting folding and binding ΔΔG values for peptide mutants [54].	[54]
QM/MM-PB/SA	Binding free energy calculation	Calculates binding affinity with quantum mechanical treatment of ligands [55].	[55]
BLaDE Engine	Alchemical free energy simulations	Efficient multisite λ dynamics (MSλD) on GPUs for protein design & drug discovery [56].	[56]
AMBER Force Fields	All-atom molecular dynamics	Includes refined variants (ff03w-sc, ff99SBws-STQ') for balanced protein-solvent interactions [18].	[18]

Optimizing Peptide-Protein Interactions with Modified Amino Acids

Background and Challenge

Peptides are highly promising therapeutic agents due to their high affinity and specificity. However, their application is limited by poor stability, easy degradation, and susceptibility to proteolysis. A key strategy to overcome these limitations involves replacing natural amino acids with non-natural amino acids (NNAAs), which can protect the molecule from cleavage and improve its affinity for the target protein [53].

The mPARCE Protocol

The mPARCE protocol is a computational pipeline designed to optimize peptides by incorporating NNAAs to improve binding affinity. It functions as an iterative computational evolution algorithm, inspired by the PARCE protocol, that performs single-point mutations on the peptide sequence [53].

Workflow Overview:

• Input: A 3D structure of a protein-peptide complex is required.
• Parameterization of NNAAs: A set of NNAAs are parameterized for use with the Rosetta framework. Their physicochemical properties (charge, hydrophobicity, size) are clustered, allowing users to guide modifications based on knowledge of the target binding site [53].
• Sampling and Mutation: The protocol explores sequence space through a stochastic search.
  • The protein-peptide complex is protonated and subjected to conformational sampling using the Backrub method in Rosetta (typically 20,000 trials with a kT of 1).
  • Single-point mutations are introduced into the peptide sequence using the parameterized NNAAs.
• Affinity Estimation: For each mutation, the binding affinity is estimated by sampling complex conformations and applying a consensus metric using various open-source protein-ligand scoring functions (e.g., DLigand2, Vina, Cyscore, NNscore, Rosetta docking score) [53].
• Mutation Acceptance: Mutations are accepted based on score differences, allowing for the iterative optimization of the initial peptide. A common threshold is acceptance when four or more scoring functions agree on a favorable mutation [53].

Application Example: Targeting Protease-Peptide Complex

In an application targeting a granzyme H protease bound to a 9-mer peptide, mPARCE was run for 100 mutation attempts. Two strategies were employed: one allowing any parameterized NNAA at four positions, and another restricting mutations to NNAAs with specific physicochemical properties (neutral, hydrophobic, medium size). The protocol successfully generated a pool of candidate sequences with predicted improved affinity [53].

Accounting for Ligand Polarization in Binding Affinity Calculations

Background and Challenge

Classical molecular mechanics force fields typically use fixed partial atomic charges derived from quantum mechanical calculations of the molecule in isolation or a homogeneous water environment. This approach neglects polarization effects from the heterogeneous protein environment, which can lead to significant errors in binding free energy predictions [55] [57].

QM/MM-PB/SA and Protein-Induced Polarization (PIP) Charges

To address this limitation, hybrid quantum mechanics/molecular mechanics (QM/MM) approaches and specialized charge parametrization schemes have been developed.

QM/MM-PB/SA Protocol: This method combines a quantum mechanical treatment of the ligand with a molecular mechanical treatment of the protein, providing a more accurate description of electronic contributions and polarization effects that are missed in purely classical calculations [55].

• System Setup: The protein-ligand complex is prepared using a standard molecular dynamics package like AMBER. The ligand parameters are typically prepared using ab initio methods (e.g., Gaussian at the HF/6-31G* level) [55].
• QM/MM MD Simulation: MD simulations are performed where the ligand is treated with a semi-empirical QM method (e.g., DFTB-SCC, PM3) while the protein and solvent are modeled classically [55].
• Free Energy Analysis: The binding free energy is decomposed as: ( \Delta G{bind} = \Delta E{QM/MM} + \Delta G{solv} - T\Delta S ) where ( \Delta E{QM/MM} ) is the interaction energy from QM/MM, ( \Delta G_{solv} ) is the solvation free energy (calculated with Poisson-Boltzmann and surface area methods), and ( -T\Delta S ) is the entropic contribution [55].

Protein-Induced Polarization (PIP) Charges: This is a simpler parametrization scheme designed to include protein polarization in free energy calculations without the full cost of QM/MM MD.

• Method: PIP charges are derived by performing single-point QM/MM calculations on the ligand within the protein-water environment, effectively "capturing" the polarization effect from the protein surroundings [57].
• Application: These polarized charges are then used in standard relative binding free energy (RBFE) calculations. Studies show that RBFEs computed with PIP charges are significantly improved or at least comparable to those computed with standard non-polarized charges (like GAFF), while adding minimal computation time to standard parametrization procedures [57].

Navigating Mixed Solvent Systems with MDmix

Background and Challenge

Understanding solvent structure and its reorganization is crucial for accurately predicting protein-ligand binding sites and affinities. Water molecules at binding sites can be displaced by a ligand or act as bridges in specific interactions. The thermodynamics of this solvent reorganization is a key contribution to binding affinity [58].

Mixed Solvent Molecular Dynamics (MDmix)

MDmix simulations use organic solvents (e.g., isopropanol, acetone) as molecular probes to identify interaction "hot spots" on protein surfaces. These probes, simulated at high concentrations, compete with water to bind to the protein, revealing regions with high affinity for specific chemical functionalities [58].

Workflow and Applications:

• System Setup: The protein is solvated in an aqueous solution containing a high concentration (1-5%) of one or more organic probe solvents.
• Simulation: Extended MD simulations are performed, allowing the probe molecules to dynamically bind and unbind from the protein surface.
• Analysis: The simulation trajectories are analyzed to identify regions with a high probability of finding a probe molecule. These regions correspond to binding hot spots for hydrophobic, hydrogen-bond donor, or acceptor moieties, mimicking fragments of drug-like molecules [58].
• Application in Drug Design: The information gleaned from MDmix simulations can be used to guide the design of small molecules or peptides by identifying key interactions required for binding. This knowledge can also be incorporated into molecular docking protocols to improve virtual screening outcomes [58].

Table 2: Comparison of Advanced Sampling and Free Energy Methods.

Method	Primary Use Case	Key Advantage	Computational Cost
mPARCE	Peptide optimization with NNAAs	Iterative search with consensus scoring improves affinity & stability [53].	Medium-High
QM/MM-PB/SA	Binding affinity for specific ligands	Includes electronic polarization & charge transfer effects [55].	High
PIP Charges	Relative binding free energies (RBFE)	Simple scheme to include protein polarization in standard FEP/TI [57].	Low (add-on)
MDmix	Mapping protein interaction hot spots	Identifies key binding regions without prior knowledge of ligands [58].	Medium
BLaDE (MSλD)	Alchemical free energy for drug design	Highly efficient & scalable exploration of large chemical spaces [56].	Medium-High (but efficient)

Foundational Energy Minimization and Force Field Selection

Multistep Energy Minimization Protocol

Before initiating any production molecular dynamics simulation, a robust energy minimization process is essential to relieve steric clashes and bad contacts in the initial structure. The following multistep protocol is recommended:

• Step 1 (5000 steps): Minimize only water molecules and ions while keeping all protein atoms fixed with a harmonic positional restraint of 5 kcal/mol·Å² [44].
• Step 2 (5000 steps): Minimize water, ions, and protein side chains, while keeping the protein's main-chain atoms fixed with the same restraint [44].
• Step 3 (5000 steps): Perform a full minimization of all atoms in the system without any restraints [44].

This gradual relaxation ensures the solvent is optimized around the protein and the protein itself is gently relaxed into a stable, low-energy configuration.

Selecting a Balanced Force Field

The choice of force field is critical for achieving accurate and reliable results. Recent developments have focused on creating "balanced" force fields that can simultaneously describe folded proteins and disordered polypeptides. Key refinements involve optimizing protein-water interactions and backbone torsional parameters [18].

Recommended Force Fields:

• AMBER ff99SBws-STQ' and ff03w-sc: These are refined variants that incorporate either a selective upscaling of protein-water interactions (ff03w-sc) or targeted improvements to backbone torsional sampling (ff99SBws-STQ'). Extensive validation shows they accurately reproduce the chain dimensions of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) while maintaining the stability of folded proteins and protein-protein complexes over microsecond simulations [18].
• Using Four-Site Water Models: For improved accuracy, these protein force fields should be paired with more sophisticated four-site water models (e.g., TIP4P2005, OPC) instead of the standard three-site TIP3P model. This pairing helps rebalance protein-water interactions, leading to more accurate modeling of IDP ensembles and reduced excessive protein-protein association [18].

This application note has outlined key strategies for optimizing simulation parameters for some of the most challenging systems in computational structural biology. The integration of specialized protocols—such as mPARCE for peptide design, QM/MM and PIP charges for ligand polarization, and MDmix for mapping binding sites—within a robust framework of energy minimization and balanced force fields, provides a comprehensive pathway to enhanced simulation accuracy. As these methods continue to mature and computational power grows, their combined application holds the promise of significantly accelerating progress in areas ranging from basic science to rational drug design.

Validating Results and Comparing Water Model Performance

Water is not merely a passive solvent in biological processes but an active participant that critically influences the structure, dynamics, and function of biomolecules. In the specific context of protein-glycan interactions, which are pivotal to cellular recognition, immune response modulation, and disease pathogenesis, water molecules mediate interactions through hydrogen bonding, shape binding pockets through displacement, and alter binding thermodynamics through solvent reorganization [59]. The choice of computational water model—the set of parameters defining water's behavior in molecular simulations—therefore directly impacts the accuracy of predicting these complex interactions.

This application note establishes rigorous benchmarking protocols for evaluating water models in protein-glycan systems, framed within the broader objective of developing optimized energy minimization protocols for proteins in aqueous environments. We provide comparative performance data for popular water models, detailed experimental methodologies for their evaluation, and practical guidance for researchers engaged in computational glycoscience and drug discovery.

Comparative Performance of Water Models

The accuracy of molecular dynamics (MD) simulations and free energy calculations hinges on selecting an appropriate water model. Different models exhibit distinct strengths and weaknesses in capturing the delicate balance of protein-water and protein-glycan interactions.

Table 1: Key Water Models and Their Characteristics in Biomolecular Simulations

Water Model	Type	Key Features	Performance in Protein-Glycan Systems
TIP3P [60] [61]	3-site	Standard for many force fields; computational efficiency	Overall stable protein-glycan complexes, but obvious fluctuations with some systems; may promote overly compact structures [60] [61].
SPC/E [60]	3-site	Improved thermodynamics over simple 3-site models	Better suited for dynamics of protein-glycosaminoglycan (GAG) complexes compared to TIP3P [60].
TIP4P [60]	4-site	Additional site for electron density; improved properties	Variants like TIP4P/2005 and TIP4PEw show superior performance in carbohydrate solvation and protein-GAG complex stability [60].
TIP5P [60]	5-site	Explicit lone pairs; accurate geometry	Capable of reproducing HP's molecular descriptors effectively in MD simulations [60].
OPC [60]	4-site	Optimized for charge distribution; high accuracy	Among the best models for studying dynamics of protein-GAG complexes, offering a good balance of properties [60].

The stability of the binding motif's conformation in protein-glycan complexes is particularly dependent on the water model chosen when the protein residues form weak hydrogen bonds with the glycan [60]. Furthermore, the balance between protein-protein and protein-water interactions is critical. Overestimation of protein-protein interactions can lead to unrealistic aggregation in crowded solutions and overly compact structures for intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) or peptides [61]. Modifying Lennard-Jones (LJ) interactions between protein and water can optimize this balance. For the CHARMM36m force field with a modified TIP3P model, a 3% increase (scaling parameter λ = 1.03) in protein-water LJ interactions was found to maintain the stability of small peptides like (AAQAA)₃ while improving the behavior of proteins in crowded solutions without altering their thermodynamic properties in dilute conditions [61].

Table 2: Impact of Water Models on Binding Affinity Prediction Methods

Computational Method	Role of Water Molecules	Performance Enhancement with Explicit Water
Molecular Docking	Often ignored or treated implicitly in scoring functions.	Limited direct data from results, but knowledge of key water sites can guide docking.
MM/PBSA & MM/GBSA	Implicit solvation models; cannot capture specific water-mediated bonds.	Not the primary focus of reviewed studies; explicit solvent simulations recommended for refinement.
Alchemical Free Energy	Explicit sampling in rigorous calculations (FEP, TI).	Crucial for accuracy; water models directly impact predicted binding affinities [60].
Machine Learning (GraphWater-Net)	Explicitly included as nodes in topological network.	Significantly improved prediction performance (Rp increased by 0.022-0.129) [59].

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking

Protocol 1: Assessing Stability of Protein-Glycan Complexes

Application: This protocol evaluates how different water models affect the stability and conformational dynamics of a known protein-glycan complex during molecular dynamics simulations [60] [62].

Procedure:

• System Setup:
  • Obtain the 3D structure of a protein-glycan complex from the PDB or model it using tools like MODELLER or SwissPDBViewer [63].
  • Prepare the protein and glycan input files using standard software (e.g., CHARMM, AMBER, or GROMACS).
  • Solvate the complex in a cubic or rhombic dodecahedron water box, ensuring a minimum distance (e.g., 1.2 nm) between the solute and box edge.
  • Add ions to neutralize the system and achieve a physiologically relevant salt concentration (e.g., 150 mM NaCl).
• Simulation Parameters:
  • Employ a force field with compatible parameters for both proteins and glycans (e.g., CHARMM36m, AMBER ff19SB).
  • Run energy minimization using steepest descent or conjugate gradient algorithms until the maximum force is below a threshold (e.g., 1000 kJ/mol/nm).
  • Equilibrate the system in two phases: first with positional restraints on heavy atoms of the solute (NVT ensemble, ~100 ps), then without restraints (NPT ensemble, ~100 ps).
  • Conduct production MD simulations for a sufficient duration to capture relevant dynamics (typically ≥100 ns per replica). Use a time step of 2 fs, with bonds involving hydrogen atoms constrained.
• Analysis:
  • Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD): Calculate for the protein backbone and the glycan to assess overall stability.
  • Root Mean Square Fluctuation (RMSF): Analyze per-residue fluctuations, particularly in the binding site.
  • Hydrogen Bond Analysis: Quantify the number and occupancy of hydrogen bonds, including protein-glycan, protein-water, and water-glycan interactions. Specific attention should be paid to water-mediated hydrogen bonds.
  • Binding Site Conformation: Monitor the dihedral angles of key glycosidic linkages and side-chain rotamers of binding site residues.

Protocol 2: Validating with Binding Affinity Calculations

Application: This protocol benchmarks the accuracy of different water models in predicting experimental binding affinities (e.g., Kd, Ki) using alchemical free energy calculations [60] [59].

Procedure:

• System Preparation:
  • For a protein-glycan complex with known affinity, prepare the bound state (complex) and unbound states (separated protein and glycan).
  • Solvate each state (complex, protein, glycan) identically using the water model being tested.
• Alchemical Transformation:
  • Set up a free energy perturbation (FEP) or thermodynamic integration (TI) calculation to decouple the glycan from the solvated protein in the complex.
  • Use a sufficient number of intermediate λ windows (e.g., 12-20) to ensure smooth transformation.
  • Run equilibration and production sampling at each λ window. Long sampling times are critical for convergence.
• Analysis and Validation:
  • Calculate the relative binding free energy (ΔΔG) from the alchemical transformation.
  • Compare the predicted ΔΔG with experimentally measured values.
  • Benchmarking should be performed across a diverse set of protein-glycan pairs. The model yielding the highest correlation (e.g., Pearson's R) and lowest error (e.g., RMSE) against experimental data is the most accurate.

Protocol 3: Optimizing Protein-Water Interactions for Force Fields

Application: This protocol determines the optimal scaling factor (λ) for protein-water Lennard-Jones interactions to prevent overly sticky protein-protein interactions and ensure realistic behavior in dilute and crowded environments [61].

Procedure:

• Test System Selection:
  • Choose a small, well-characterized peptide like (AAQAA)₃ for its reversible folding.
  • Use enhanced sampling methods (e.g., Replica Exchange MD - REMD) to adequately sample folded and unfolded states.
• Systematic Screening:
  • Perform a series of REMD simulations with different scaling parameters (λ) for protein-water LJ interactions, typically in the range of 1.00 (original) to 1.10.
  • For each λ, calculate the temperature-dependent helicity of the peptide from the simulations.
• Validation in Crowded Systems:
  • Simulate multiple copies of a globular protein (e.g., villin) in a crowded box at high concentration using the candidate λ values.
  • Monitor for abnormal aggregation and calculate translational diffusion coefficients.
• Criteria for Optimal λ:
  • The optimal λ should: a) reproduce the experimental folding stability of the test peptide, and b) maintain realistic protein diffusion without excessive aggregation in crowded simulations.

Successful benchmarking studies require a curated set of computational tools and resources. The following table details essential components of the research toolkit.

Table 3: Key Computational Tools for Protein-Glycan Simulations

Tool Category	Example Software/Resource	Function
Force Fields	CHARMM36m [61], AMBER ff19SB [60], CHARMM36 [61]	Provides parameters for bonded and non-bonded interactions for proteins, glycans, and lipids.
Water Models	TIP3P, TIP4P, OPC, SPC/E [60]	Defines the geometry and interaction parameters for explicit water molecules in the simulation.
Simulation Engines	GROMACS, NAMD, AMBER, CHARMM	Software that performs the energy minimization, molecular dynamics, and free energy calculations.
System Preparation	CHARMM-GUI, tleap, MOE [62]	Tools for building simulation systems, solvation, ion addition, and file format conversion.
Trajectory Analysis	MDTraj, VMD, CPPTRAJ, GROMACS tools	Software for analyzing simulation outputs (RMSD, RMSF, H-bonds, energies, etc.).
Free Energy Analysis	Alchemical analysis tools, ParseFEP, Bennett Acceptance Ratio (BAR)	Methods and scripts for processing FEP/TI data to compute binding free energies.

Benchmarking water models is an essential step in establishing reliable energy minimization and molecular dynamics protocols for studying protein-glycan interactions. The data and protocols presented herein demonstrate that the choice of water model significantly influences the predicted stability, dynamics, and binding affinity of these complexes. Researchers are advised to select water models like OPC or TIP4P variants for high-accuracy studies of protein-glycan systems, and to consider fine-tuning protein-water interactions when using specific force fields like CHARMM36m to avoid artifacts. The explicit inclusion of water molecules in advanced binding affinity prediction methods, such as machine learning models, represents a promising avenue for achieving higher accuracy in computational drug discovery and glycoscience.

The accuracy of molecular dynamics (MD) simulations in biomolecular research is critically dependent on the choice of solvation model. Water models are fundamental components of these simulations, directly influencing the prediction of structural stability, molecular interactions, and binding affinities. Among the numerous available models, the three-site TIP3P and the four-site OPC represent different generations of water parameterization approaches, with significant implications for simulating biologically relevant systems. This Application Note provides a comparative analysis of OPC versus TIP3P performance across multiple experimental validation benchmarks, with specific focus on their application within energy minimization protocols for protein research. The findings synthesized herein aim to guide researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals in selecting appropriate hydration models for specific computational investigations, particularly those involving protein folding, protein-glycan interactions, and ligand binding affinity calculations.

Theoretical Foundations and Parameterization Approaches

Fundamental Differences in Model Design

The TIP3P (Transferable Intermolecular Potential with 3 Points) and OPC (Optimal Point Charge) water models employ fundamentally different philosophical approaches to parameterization, which accounts for their divergent performance characteristics in biomolecular simulations.

TIP3P represents a traditional approach where point charges are placed near hydrogen nuclei positions, with geometry constraints imposed on bond lengths and angles during parameter optimization. This model utilizes a three-site configuration with fixed, "intuitive" charge placement consistent with the physical atomic structure of water. While computationally efficient, this approach may not optimally reproduce the electrostatic characteristics of the water molecule due to constraints on charge distribution variations.

In contrast, the OPC model adopts a novel parameterization strategy that completely abandons intuitive constraints on point charge geometry (other than the fundamental C2v symmetry of the water molecule). Instead, OPC optimizes the distribution of point charges to best describe the electrostatics of the water molecule by searching for optimal parameters in the electrostatically relevant subspace of lowest multipole moments. This approach enables OPC to more accurately represent the dipole, quadrupole, and octupole moments of water, resulting in significantly improved reproduction of bulk water properties and molecular interactions [64].

Key Structural and Electrostatic Parameters

Table 1: Key parameter differences between TIP3P and OPC water models

Parameter	TIP3P	OPC	Functional Significance
Number of Sites	3 points	4 points	Computational cost; electrostatic accuracy
Charge Distribution	Nucleus-centered	Optimized placement	Hydrogen bonding directionality and strength
Dipole Moment (D)	~2.35	~2.48	Dielectric properties; ion solvation
Quadrupole Moments	Approximate	Optimized to QM targets	Liquid structure; hydration free energies
Parameterization Basis	Bulk properties with geometry constraints	Multipole moment optimization	Transferability across different properties

Performance Benchmarks in Biomolecular Systems

Bulk Water Properties and Temperature Transferability

Large-scale evaluations of water models demonstrate significant differences in the ability of TIP3P and OPC to reproduce experimental water properties across temperature ranges. A comprehensive assessment of 44 classical water potential models revealed that recent three-site models like OPC3 (a three-site variant of OPC) and four-site TIP4P-type models provide the best fits to experimental diffraction data across wide temperature ranges. The study concluded that while recent three-site models have made considerable progress, the best agreement with experimental data over the entire temperature range was achieved with four-site, TIP4P-type models [27].

Notably, the OPC model achieves an average error of just 0.76% relative to experimental bulk water properties across temperatures, significantly outperforming TIP3P and other commonly used rigid models. This improved accuracy holds over a wide range of temperatures, making OPC particularly valuable for studies investigating temperature-dependent biomolecular processes [64].

Hydration Free Energy Calculations

Accurate prediction of hydration free energies is crucial for drug development applications, particularly in predicting ligand binding affinities and solubility. In validation studies, OPC demonstrates superior performance in hydration free energy calculations for small molecules, achieving root-mean-square error (RMSE) of <1 kcal/mol compared to experimental data. This approaches the desired "chemical accuracy" threshold of 1 kcal/mol that is critical for rational drug design efforts [64].

Counterintuitively, the simpler TIP3P model predicts hydration free energies of small neutral molecules more accurately than some intermediate models like TIP4PEw that fixed several TIP3P flaws, though it still falls short of OPC's accuracy. This highlights the complex interplay between model parameterization and specific computational applications [64].

Performance in Protein and Protein-Glycan Systems

Protein Stability and Intrinsically Disordered Proteins

The choice of water model significantly impacts the stability of folded proteins and the conformational ensembles of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs). Modern force fields paired with primitive three-site water models like TIP3P consistently lead to weak temperature-dependent cooperativity for protein folding, overly collapsed structural ensembles for IDPs, and excessive protein-protein association [18].

Force fields like ff99SBws and ff03ws were specifically developed with strengthened protein-water interactions to address the tendency of TIP3P-based simulations to produce overly compact IDP structures. However, these modifications sometimes come at the cost of destabilizing folded protein domains. For instance, ff03ws simulations demonstrated significant instability for ubiquitin and Villin HP35, with unfolding events observed during microsecond-timescale simulations, while ff99SBws maintained structural integrity [18].

Protein-Glycan Interactions and Binding Affinity Prediction

Protein-glycan interactions present particular challenges for water models due to the extensive hydrogen bonding between glycan hydroxyl groups and water molecules. A systematic evaluation of five water models in six protein-glycan complex systems revealed significant differences in performance between OPC and TIP3P [25].

Table 2: Performance comparison in protein-glycan binding affinity prediction

Water Model	RMS Error in Binding Affinity (kcal/mol)	Structural Stability	Hydrogen Bonding Accuracy
OPC	0.69	Excellent	High fidelity to experimental geometries
TIP3P	1.51	Moderate	Weaker binding motif stabilization
SPC/E	1.42	Moderate	Intermediate performance
TIP3P-FB	1.25	Good	Improved over TIP3P
TIP4P-Ewald	1.38	Good	Similar to SPC/E

The study found that while most protein-glycan complexes maintain overall structural stability regardless of water model, the stability of binding motif conformations shows significant dependence on water model selection, particularly when binding site residues form weak hydrogen bonds with the glycan. OPC exhibited exceptional consistency with experimental binding affinity data, whereas TIP3P showed significantly larger errors [25].

Additionally, the water model influenced the conformational stability of glycans in their bound state, with OPC producing ensembles that most closely matched experimental observations and density functional theory calculations [25].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

System Setup and Equilibration Protocol

For consistent and reproducible results when comparing water models, the following standardized protocol is recommended:

Step 1: Molecular System Preparation

• Obtain protein coordinates from Protein Data Bank or generate using homology modeling
• Process structures using tleap module from AmberTools23 to add hydrogen atoms
• Parameterize proteins using Amber ff19SB force field
• Parameterize glycans/ligands using GLYCAM06j force field (for carbohydrates) or appropriate equivalent

Step 2: Solvation and Neutralization

• Solvate the system in a rectangular water box with minimum 10 Å distance from any box edge to the nearest solute atom
• Maintain system neutrality by adding appropriate counterions (Na+/Cl-)
• Adjust ionic strength to physiological conditions (0.15 M NaCl)

Step 3: Energy Minimization

• Perform initial minimization with harmonic restraints on solute atoms (force constant 10-25 kcal/mol/Ų)
• Execute subsequent minimization without restraints
• Use steepest descent algorithm for initial steps (500-1000 cycles)
• Transition to conjugate gradient algorithm for convergence (until gradient <0.1 kcal/mol/Å)

Step 4: System Equilibration

• Gradually heat system from 0K to target temperature (typically 300K) over 50-100ps using weak restraints
• Conduct density equilibration with constant pressure (NPT ensemble) for 100-500ps
• Ensure proper equilibration by monitoring stability of potential energy, density, and root-mean-square deviation (RMSD)

Production Simulation Parameters

• Integration time step: 2 fs with SHAKE constraints on all bonds involving hydrogen
• Nonbonded cutoff: 8-12 Å for van der Waals and short-range electrostatic interactions
• Long-range electrostatics: Particle Mesh Ewald (PME) method
• Temperature control: Langevin thermostat with collision frequency of 1-2 ps⁻¹
• Pressure control: Berendsen or Monte Carlo barostat (for NPT simulations)
• Trajectory output: Save coordinates every 10-100ps for analysis

Water Model Selection Workflow

Diagram 1: Water model decision workflow for different research scenarios. OPC is recommended for most applications requiring high accuracy, while TIP3P remains suitable for preliminary screening or resource-constrained scenarios.

Table 3: Essential research reagents and computational tools for water model comparisons

Resource	Function/Purpose	Example Implementations
Molecular Dynamics Software	Simulation execution and trajectory analysis	AMBER, GROMACS, NAMD, OpenMM
Force Fields	Parameterization of biomolecular interactions	AMBER ff19SB (proteins), CHARMM36, GLYCAM06j (carbohydrates)
Water Model Parameters	Solvation and hydrogen bonding	TIP3P, OPC, SPC/E, TIP4P variants
System Preparation Tools	Molecular structure setup and parameterization	tleap (AmberTools), CHARMM-GUI, PACKMOL
Trajectory Analysis Tools	Quantifying structural and dynamic properties	CPPTRAJ, MDTraj, VMD, PyMOL
Free Energy Calculation Methods	Binding affinity prediction	MM/PBSA, MM/GBSA, Alchemical Absolute Binding Free Energy (ABFE)
High-Performance Computing	Execution of microsecond-timescale simulations	GPU-accelerated computing clusters, Cloud computing resources

Based on comprehensive experimental validation across multiple biomolecular systems, OPC consistently demonstrates superior performance over TIP3P in reproducing experimental observables. The optimized electrostatic parameterization of OPC translates to more accurate prediction of hydration free energies, protein-glycan binding affinities, and structural properties of both folded and intrinsically disordered proteins.

For research applications where computational accuracy is paramount—particularly in drug development contexts requiring precise binding affinity predictions or studies of conformational dynamics—OPC represents the recommended water model. TIP3P remains a viable option for large-scale screening applications or preliminary investigations where computational efficiency outweighs accuracy requirements. As the field progresses toward more integrated and multi-scale modeling approaches, the selection of appropriate hydration models will continue to play a critical role in ensuring the biological relevance and predictive power of computational simulations.

Within the context of developing an energy minimization protocol for proteins in water, the rigorous validation of the resulting three-dimensional structures is paramount. Accurate protein models are crucial for reliable applications in drug design and functional analysis [65]. Validation encompasses multiple facets: assessing the global and local stereochemical quality of the structure itself, evaluating the energy scores that indicate its thermodynamic stability, and determining its correspondence with experimental data [66]. This document outlines detailed application notes and protocols for employing these validation metrics, providing researchers with a framework to critically assess the quality of their solvated protein systems.

Assessing Structural Quality

The assessment of structural quality involves checking the geometric and topological plausibility of a protein model. This process utilizes a suite of validation scores that evaluate various aspects of the structure, from backbone torsion angles to atomic packing.

Key Validation Metrics and Tools

A universal structural quality assessment method effectively combines multiple individual scores into a single, meaningful quantity [65]. The following table summarizes the primary tools and scores used by structural biologists.

Table 1: Key Protein Structure Validation Tools and Metrics

Tool / Metric	Type of Analysis	Key Parameters Assessed
MolProbity [66]	All-atom contact & geometry	Ramachandran plot outliers, rotamer outliers, Cβ deviations, all-atom clashes [65].
Procheck [66]	Stereochemical quality	Residues in Ramachandran plot core/allowed/generous/disallowed regions (phi/psi angles) [65].
Verify3D [66]	Sequence-structure compatibility	3D-1D profile score measuring compatibility of a residue's environment with its amino acid type [65].
Prosa-II [65]	Knowledge-based potential	Z-score indicating overall model quality; residue-wise energy plots to locate problematic regions [65].
WHAT_CHECK/WHAT IF [66]	Comprehensive structure verification	Packing quality, atom nomenclature, bond lengths/angles, torsion angles, and steric clashes.

Protocol: Implementing a Generalized Linear Model for RMSD Prediction

A powerful approach to integrating multiple quality scores is to use a Generalized Linear Model (GLM) to predict the coordinate root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) between a model and the unavailable "true" structure, a method known as GLM-RMSD [65].

Procedure:

• Data Set Preparation: Compile a set of protein structural models with known accuracies, meaning their RMSD values relative to a high-quality reference structure have been calculated. Suitable data sets include those from the Critical Assessment of protein Structure Prediction (CASP) or the Critical Assessment of protein Structure Determination by NMR (CASD-NMR) projects [65].
• Score Calculation: For each model in the data set, compute a suite of validation scores. The following eight scores were used in the original implementation [65]:
  • Discrimination Power (DP) score
  • Verify3D score
  • ProsaII score
  • Procheck-φ/ψ score (P-φ/ψ)
  • Procheck-All score (P-All)
  • Molprobity score (MolProb)
  • Gaussian Network Model (GNM) score
  • Protein size (number of residues)
• Model Selection and Fitting: A GLM with a gamma distribution is chosen to fit the relationship between the calculated validation scores (independent variables) and the known RMSD values (dependent variable). The identity function, g(x) = x + 1, is used as the link function. This statistical fitting can be performed using the glm() function in the R software environment [65].
• Validation and Application: The performance of the fitted GLM-RMSD model is evaluated by measuring the correlation between its predicted RMSD values and the actual RMSD values for a separate test set of structures. Once validated, the model can be applied to predict the accuracy of new protein models where the "true" structure is unknown [65].

Energy Scores and Solvation Effects

Beyond geometric checks, the thermodynamic plausibility of a structure is evaluated through energy scores. The role of water is critical in these calculations, as it directly influences the strength of molecular interactions.

The Role of Water in Energetics

Water is not merely a passive solvent but an active participant in biomolecular recognition. Its inclusion in energy functions is essential for accurate predictions.

• Water-Mediated Interactions: Proteins have evolved to use water to help guide folding. Long-range, water-mediated interactions can smooth the underlying folding funnel and facilitate the native-like packing of supersecondary structural elements [67]. Knowledge-based potentials show that highly polar and even like-charged residues can form stabilizing interactions when bridged by water, which would be destabilizing if forced into direct contact [67].
• High-Energy Trapped Water: Recent research highlights that water trapped in confined molecular cavities can be highly energetic. When a ligand displaces this water, the energetic release can significantly boost the strength of the resulting molecular bond, a crucial consideration in drug design [9].
• Force Field Balancing: Modern force field development focuses on achieving a balance between protein-protein and protein-water interactions. For instance, the AMBER ff99SBws and ff03ws force fields incorporate strengthened protein-water interactions, which improves the modeling of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) but must be carefully refined to avoid destabilizing folded domains [18]. Subsequent refinements, such as in the ff03w-sc force field, apply selective water-scaling to maintain this balance [18].

Protocol: Energy Minimization of a Solvated Protein System

Energy minimization transforms a initial protein structure into a low-energy state, relieving steric clashes and bad geometries. The following protocol uses OpenMM [68].

Procedure:

• System Setup:
  • Obtain a protein structure (e.g., PDB ID: 1AKI).
  • Load the PDB file into OpenMM and define the forcefield (e.g., ForceField('amber14-all.xml', 'amber14/tip3pfb.xml')).
  • Use the Modeller class to delete crystallographic waters and add missing hydrogen atoms.
  • Solvate the protein in a water box with a specified padding (e.g., 1.0 nm) using modeller.addSolvent(). This step also adds ions to neutralize the system charge [68].
• Energy Minimization:
  • Create the system object with appropriate parameters (e.g., PME for long-range electrostatics, 1.0 nm nonbonded cutoff, HBonds constraints).
  • Define an integrator, such as LangevinMiddleIntegrator(300*kelvin, 1/picosecond, 0.004*picoseconds).
  • Create a Simulation object and set the initial positions to the solvated model.
  • Run the minimization with simulation.minimizeEnergy() until convergence [68].
• Equilibration and Production:
  • Equilibrate the system in the NVT ensemble (constant Number of particles, Volume, and Temperature) by running the simulation for a short time (e.g., 10,000 steps) with position restraints on the protein backbone.
  • Switch to the NPT ensemble (constant Number, Pressure, and Temperature) by adding a barostat (e.g., MonteCarloBarostat(1*bar, 300*kelvin)) and running a production simulation [68].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the complete process of preparing, minimizing, and validating a solvated protein structure.

Workflow for energy minimization and validation of a solvated protein structure.

Correspondence with Experimental Data

The ultimate test of a computational model is its agreement with experimental observations. For proteins, key data includes high-resolution crystal structures and solution-phase measurements from techniques like NMR and SAXS.

Metrics for Experimental Correspondence

• Root-Mean-Square Deviation (RMSD): A standard measure of the average distance between atoms in a model and a reference structure. It provides a direct measure of coordinate accuracy [65].
• Small-Angle X-ray Scattering (SAXS): Provides data on the global dimensions and shape of a protein in solution, such as the radius of gyration (Rg). Balanced force fields like AMBER ff03w-sc and ff99SBws-STQ′ are validated against SAXS data to ensure they accurately reproduce the chain dimensions of both folded proteins and IDPs [18].
• Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR): Provides a wealth of data for validation, including chemical shifts, scalar couplings, and residual dipolar couplings. Modern force fields are extensively validated against NMR observables to ensure they capture correct secondary structure propensities and conformational dynamics [18].

Protocol: Validating a Model Against an Experimental Reference Structure

This protocol is applied when an experimental structure (e.g., from X-ray crystallography) is available to serve as a benchmark.

Procedure:

• Obtain the Experimental Reference: Download the high-resolution reference structure from the PDB. It is good practice to consult the wwPDB validation report for the structure to be aware of any potential issues [69].
• Calculate Global Metrics:
  • Heavy-Atom RMSD: Superimpose your model onto the reference structure using the protein backbone atoms (Cα, C, N). Then, calculate the RMSD for all heavy atoms. A lower RMSD indicates closer agreement. Tools like CE can be used for sequence-independent alignment [67].
  • Contact Overlap (Q): Use a stringent contact overlap measure that evaluates not only the correctness of native contacts present but also the correctness of distances between all residue pairs, even those far apart in the native state [67].
• Validate Local Geometry: Run the experimental reference structure and your model through the validation pipeline described in Section 2.1 (e.g., MolProbity, Procheck). Compare the outputs, such as the percentage of residues in the favored regions of the Ramachandran plot, to ensure your model's stereochemical quality is on par with the experimental standard.

The Scientist's Toolkit

This section details essential reagents and computational tools for conducting energy minimization and validation experiments.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Protein Energy Minimization and Validation

Item Name	Function/Description	Example Use Case
Force Fields	Physics-based energy functions for MD simulations.	AMBER14 [68], AMBER99SB-ILDN [18], CHARMM36 [18]. Select based on system (e.g., ff99SB-disp for IDPs [18]).
Water Models	Molecular models for simulating solvent water.	TIP3P [68], TIP4P2005 [18]. Choice impacts balance of protein-water vs. protein-protein interactions [18].
Validation Suites	Software for structural quality assessment.	MolProbity [66], PROCHECK [65], PSVS [65]. Used to calculate geometric quality scores pre- and post-minimization.
Solvation Tools	Software modules to add explicit water solvent.	OpenMM Modeller.addSolvent() [68], GROMACS solvate [70]. Creates a physiological environment for simulation.
Specialized Algorithms	Tools for predicting specific interactions.	MUMBO with water-prediction algorithm [71]. Predicts explicit water positions for designing ligand-binding pockets.

Protein engineering has fundamentally transformed the landscape of modern therapeutics, enabling the development of highly specific and effective treatments for complex diseases. This advancement is critically dependent on a robust understanding of protein dynamics and interactions, particularly in biologically relevant environments. Energy minimization protocols are a foundational computational tool in this process, used to find low-energy conformations of protein structures. However, these protocols must be applied with a deep awareness of their limitations, as they can produce strongly configuration-dependent results if used without accounting for essential thermal fluctuations [51]. The following application notes detail specific case studies where sophisticated computational approaches, including properly contextualized energy minimization within broader molecular dynamics (MD) frameworks, have successfully driven innovation in drug discovery and protein engineering.

Case Study 1: Engineering a Stabilized Immunotoxin for HER2-Positive Breast Cancer

Background and Objective

The human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) is a well-validated target in certain aggressive breast cancers. The objective of this project was to computationally design and evaluate a novel immunotoxin—a fusion protein combining a targeting element with a toxic payload—specific for HER2-positive cancer cells. A major challenge was to ensure the stability and binding affinity of the engineered protein for it to be a viable therapeutic candidate [72].

Experimental Protocol: Computational Design and Stability Assessment

Step 1: Initial Structure Preparation

• Obtain the three-dimensional structures of the targeting moiety (e.g., a antibody fragment) and the toxin domain from the Protein Data Bank (PDB) or via homology modeling.
• Construct the initial model of the immunotoxin fusion protein.
• Energy Minimization Protocol: Employ a steepest descent algorithm to perform an initial energy minimization of the fused structure in vacuum. This step removes any steric clashes introduced during the fusion process and relaxes the structure into a local energy minimum.

Step 2: Solvation and Equilibration

• Solvate the minimized immunotoxin structure in a pre-equilibrated water box, such as TIP3P or OPC, using periodic boundary conditions. Add ions to neutralize the system and achieve physiological salt concentration.
• Gradually heat the system to 310 K (body temperature) and apply gentle positional restraints on the protein backbone, allowing the solvent and side chains to equilibrate.

Step 3: Molecular Dynamics Simulation and Analysis

• Conduct multiple, independent, all-atom MD simulations for several hundred nanoseconds to microseconds. This allows the protein to sample a wide range of conformations and overcome the limitations of a single, minimized structure [51].
• Analyze the trajectories to calculate:
  • Backbone Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD): To assess overall structural stability.
  • Root Mean Square Fluctuation (RMSF): To identify flexible regions.
  • Binding Affinity: Using methods like Molecular Mechanics/Generalized Born Surface Area (MM/GBSA) to estimate the interaction energy at the protein-HER2 interface.

Key Results and Discussion

The application of this protocol demonstrated that the designed immunotoxin maintained stable folding and strong binding characteristics towards HER2 throughout the simulation timescale [72]. The energy minimization in Step 1 was crucial for generating a physically plausible starting structure, preventing the simulation from crashing due to bad contacts. However, the subsequent MD simulations were indispensable for validating that this stability was maintained under dynamic, near-physiological conditions, providing confidence to proceed with in vitro and in vivo experimental validation.

Case Study 2: Force Field Refinement for Balanced Protein-Water Interactions

Background and Objective

Modern molecular dynamics simulations rely on force fields—mathematical models of molecular interactions. A persistent challenge has been creating force fields that can simultaneously model both rigid, folded proteins and flexible, intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs). This case study highlights the refinement of the AMBER ff03ws force field, which initially over-stabilized protein-water interactions, leading to the instability of some folded proteins [18].

Experimental Protocol: Force Field Validation on Folded Proteins

Step 1: System Setup for Validation

• Select stable, folded protein structures for validation (e.g., Ubiquitin [PDB: 1D3Z] and the Villin headpiece [HP35, PDB: 2F4K]).
• Prepare these systems with the original force field (ff03ws) and the refined force field (ff03w-sc), which incorporates selective upscaling of protein-water interactions and torsional refinements [18].
• Solvate each system in an appropriate water model and neutralize with ions.

Step 2: Extended Sampling via Molecular Dynamics

• For each protein and force field combination, run multiple independent, microsecond-long MD simulations (e.g., 2.5 µs per replica). This extensive sampling is critical to observe rare unfolding events and obtain statistically meaningful results [51] [18].

Step 3: Quantitative Trajectory Analysis

• Calculate the backbone Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD) relative to the native crystal structure to monitor global stability.
• Compute per-residue Root Mean Square Fluctuation (RMSF) to identify locally unstable regions.
• Monitor secondary structure elements (e.g., alpha-helices) over time to detect unfolding.

Key Results and Discussion

The quantitative results from the validation simulations are summarized in the table below.

Table 1: Force Field Performance on Folded Protein Stability

Protein Target	Force Field	Average Backbone RMSD (nm)	Folded State Maintained?	Key Observation
Ubiquitin	ff03ws	~0.4	No	Significant deviation; local α-helix unfolding [18].
Ubiquitin	ff03w-sc	< 0.2	Yes	Stable structure throughout simulation [18].
Villin HP35	ff03ws	High (> 0.4)	No	Pronounced structural deviation after ~1 µs [18].
Villin HP35	ff99SBws	< 0.2	Yes	Structural integrity maintained over microseconds [18].

This case study underscores a critical principle: energy landscapes derived from force fields must be carefully balanced. The refined ff03w-sc force field achieved this by improving protein-water interactions, demonstrating that accurate thermodynamic properties require models that have been validated against experimental data (like NMR and SAXS) through extensive MD sampling, not just single energy minimizations [18].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Reagents and Tools for Computational Protein Engineering

Item	Function/Benefit
Molecular Dynamics Software (e.g., GROMACS, AMBER, NAMD)	Simulates the physical movements of atoms and molecules over time, providing dynamic information beyond static structures [72].
Polarizable Force Fields (e.g., Drude-based models)	More accurately model electronic polarization, leading to a better description of interactions, such as ion selectivity in channels, compared to non-polarizable models [51].
Four-Site Water Models (e.g., TIP4P2005, OPC)	Provide a more accurate representation of water's electrostatic distribution compared to three-site models, improving the balance of protein-water interactions [18].
Free Energy Perturbation (FEP)	A robust computational method to calculate relative binding free energies or solvation free energies, providing thermodynamic quantities essential for characterizing selectivity and binding [51].
AlphaFold3	State-of-the-art AI tool for predicting protein structures and protein-protein complexes. Useful for generating initial models, though its predictions may contain structural inaccuracies that require refinement [73].

Visualizing Workflows and Relationships

Diagram 1: Force Field Refinement Workflow

The following diagram outlines the iterative process of developing and validating a balanced protein force field.

Diagram 2: Stability Analysis Protocol

This workflow details the specific steps for assessing the stability of a protein or protein complex using molecular dynamics.

The successful application of protein engineering in drug discovery hinges on the sophisticated use of computational protocols. While energy minimization is a necessary step for preparing initial models, these case studies demonstrate that it is insufficient on its own. Reliable outcomes require:

• Ensemble-based approaches like molecular dynamics simulations to account for thermal fluctuations and entropic effects [51].
• Continuous refinement of force fields to achieve a physical balance between protein-protein, protein-water, and protein-ion interactions [18].
• Rigorous validation of computational predictions against experimental data before investing in costly wet-lab experiments and clinical development.

By integrating carefully applied energy minimization with dynamic sampling and balanced physical models, researchers can de-risk the development of novel protein-based therapeutics, from stabilized immunotoxins to drugs targeting complex biomolecular interactions.

Conclusion

Energy minimization for protein-water systems represents a critical bridge between computational prediction and experimental reality in biomedical research. The integration of high-energy water concepts with advanced minimization protocols enables more accurate prediction of molecular interactions, directly impacting drug design efficacy. Future directions should focus on developing specialized water models for specific biological environments, such as membrane interfaces, and improving automated workflows for handling complex biological systems. As water model selection demonstrates significant effects on binding affinity calculations, continued refinement of these protocols promises to enhance virtual screening accuracy and accelerate therapeutic development across diverse protein targets, from viral entry mechanisms to metabolic enzymes.

References

• 1. Solvent dramatically affects protein structure refinement [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2600579/]
• 2. Energy Minimization - GROMACS 2025.3 documentation [https://manual.gromacs.org/documentation/2025.3/reference-manual/algorithms/energy-minimization.html]
• 3. Protein structure prediction with energy minimization and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10165305/]
• 4. Solvation_Free_Energy [http://pmx.mpibpc.mpg.de/Tutorial2024/Solvation_FE/Solvation_Free_Energy.html]
• 5. Using Open Data to Rapidly Benchmark Biomolecular ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7903423/]
• 6. Rigid Body Energy Minimization on Manifolds for Molecular ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3561712/]
• 7. 7.1. ParmEd topology parser — MDAnalysis.converters. ... [https://docs.mdanalysis.org/2.0.0/documentation_pages/converters/ParmEd.html]
• 8. Energy Minimization of Proteins [https://www.biosolveit.de/drug-discovery-insights/energy-minimization-of-proteins/]
• 9. Hidden high-energy water reveals a new molecular force [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/11/251122044336.htm]
• 10. Chemistry: First proof of binding force inherent in cavity water [https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1105308]
• 11. High-energy water sites determine peptide binding affinity and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2776949/]
• 12. Large-scale analysis of water stability in bromodomain ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-018-0019-x]
• 13. Simple energy minimization of a PDB file, is that right? [https://gromacs.bioexcel.eu/t/simple-energy-minimization-of-a-pdb-file-is-that-right/10731]
• 14. On the Thermodynamics of Water Displacement from ... [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/679a4658fa469535b9502fb8]
• 15. Thermodynamics of Water Displacement from Binding ... [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AngCh.137E5713S/abstract]
• 16. Energetics of Displacing Water Molecules from Protein ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2783447/]
• 17. Elucidating the microscopic origin of observed anti ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667022423002608]
• 18. Optimized protein-water interactions and torsional ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65603-4]
• 19. New tool reveals hidden water patterns in protein structures [https://www.news-medical.net/news/20250630/New-tool-reveals-hidden-water-patterns-in-protein-structures.aspx]
• 20. Protein Catalysis Through Structural Dynamics [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12299746/]
• 21. The role of water in mediating DNA structures with epigenetic ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/cb/d4cb00308j]
• 22. Computational design of highly signalling-active ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11882447/]
• 23. Accommodating Statistical and Physics-Based Computational ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12199299/]
• 24. St. Jude algorithm puts water to work in drug discovery [https://www.stjude.org/media-resources/news-releases/2025-medicine-science-news/stjude-algorithm-puts-water-to-work-in-drug-discovery.html]
• 25. Comparative Assessment of Water Models in Protein ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11684738/]
• 26. Benchmarking Water Models in Molecular Dynamics of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10934818/]
• 27. Comparison of water models for structure prediction [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167732225011523]
• 28. Scrutinizing the protein hydration shell from molecular ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-023-01067-1]
• 29. Study reveals how water influences cancer drug potency [https://www.ddw-online.com/study-reveals-how-water-influences-cancer-drug-potency-39184-202511/]
• 30. for Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Protocol Proteins [https://bio-protocol.org/en/bpdetail?id=2051&type=0]
• 31. Modified Protein - Water in CHARMM36m for... Interactions [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9457699/]
• 32. | IntechOpen Energy Minimization [https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/74105]
• 33. (PDF) Energy Minimization [https://www.academia.edu/98251879/Energy_Minimization]
• 34. AMMOS2: a web server for protein–ligand–water ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5570140/]
• 35. AMMOS2: a web server for protein-ligand-water complexes ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28486703/]
• 36. 2.3. Molecular mechanic optimization [https://bio-protocol.org/exchange/minidetail?id=6773797&type=30]
• 37. Incorporation of non-standard amino acids into proteins [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6449208/]
• 38. Development and application of GlycanDIA workflow for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61473-y]
• 39. Cell membrane glycan contents are biochemical factors ... [https://elifesciences.org/articles/101175]
• 40. Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.11: Non-text Contrast [https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/non-text-contrast.html]
• 41. Researchers confirm method used in water simulations can ... [https://www.ornl.gov/news/researchers-confirm-method-used-water-simulations-can-cause-errors]
• 42. Learning Smooth and Expressive Interatomic Potentials for ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2502.12147v1]
• 43. Rescaling protein-protein interactions improves Martini 3 ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-50647-9]
• 44. 2.1.2. Energy Minimization [https://bio-protocol.org/exchange/minidetail?id=18931732&type=30]
• 45. Navigating protein landscapes with a machine-learned ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-025-01874-0]
• 46. ERROR moleculetype- redefined - User discussions [https://gromacs.bioexcel.eu/t/error-moleculetype-redefined/3692]
• 47. Water‐mediated interactions destabilize proteins - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8442971/]
• 48. Progressive dry-core-wet-rim hydration trend in a nested-ring topology ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2105-13-51]
• 49. YASARA Energy Minimization Server [https://www.yasara.org/minimizationserver.htm]
• 50. On modelling disordered crystal structures through restraints ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7924241/]
• 51. On the Utilization of Energy Minimization to the Study of Ion ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2764064/]
• 52. Introducing NMR strategies to define water molecules that ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666441023000225]
• 53. Protocol for iterative optimization of modified peptides ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9640467/]
• 54. Exploring a Potential Optimization Route for Peptide ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/25/19/10616]
• 55. Binding free energy calculation with QM/MM hybrid ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3006460/]
• 56. BLaDE: A Basic Lambda Dynamics Engine for GPU ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8626863/]
• 57. Implementing Protein-Polarized Ligand Charges into ... [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/655f325029a13c4d47cf09de]
• 58. Solvents to Fragments to Drugs: MD Applications in Drug ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6321499/]
• 59. Incorporating Water Molecules into Highly Accurate ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/25/23/12676]
• 60. Comparative Assessment of Water Models in Protein ... [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Comparative-Assessment-of-Water-Models-in-Insights-Li-Minkara/5ce827b715e5539a6a66cef315427427d85b094d]
• 61. Modified Protein-Water Interactions in CHARMM36m for ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/27/17/5726]
• 62. Computational toolbox for the analysis of protein–glycan ... [https://www.beilstein-journals.org/bjoc/articles/20/180]
• 63. Protein structure prediction via deep learning: an in-depth ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2025.1498662/full]
• 64. Building Water Models: A Different Approach - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4226301/]
• 65. Protein structure validation by generalized linear model ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3324767/]
• 66. Structure Validation and Quality [https://www.rcsb.org/docs/additional-resources/structure-validation-and-quality]
• 67. Water in protein structure prediction - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC373465/]
• 68. Protein in Water — OpenMM Cookbook & Tutorials refs/tags ... [https://openmm.github.io/openmm-cookbook/latest/notebooks/tutorials/protein_in_water.html]
• 69. User guide to the wwPDB X-ray validation reports [https://www.wwpdb.org/validation/XrayValidationReportHelp]
• 70. MD Simulation: Protein in Water [https://ringo.ams.stonybrook.edu/index.php/MD_Simulation:_Protein_in_Water]
• 71. De novo prediction of explicit water molecule positions by a ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-43659-w]
• 72. Protein Engineering and Drug Discovery - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12650576/]
• 73. AlphaFold3 prediction of protein-protein complex: Is it ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037025004180]