Navigating Non-Natural Amino Acids in Molecular Dynamics Folding Simulations: A Guide for Therapeutic Peptide Design

Abstract

The incorporation of non-canonical amino acids (ncAAs) is a powerful strategy to enhance the stability, permeability, and binding affinity of therapeutic peptides. However, their use introduces significant challenges for molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, a key tool for understanding peptide folding and behavior. This article provides a comprehensive guide for researchers and drug development professionals, covering the foundational rationale for using ncAAs, practical workflows for parameterization in force fields like AMBER and Rosetta, strategies for troubleshooting common simulation pitfalls, and robust methods for validating and comparing computational models against experimental data. By integrating these aspects, this resource aims to accelerate the rational design of next-generation peptide therapeutics.

Why Go Beyond Canonical? The Role of Non-Natural Amino Acids in Modern Therapeutics

The toolkit for protein engineering and computational research has expanded far beyond the 20 canonical amino acids. Unnatural amino acids (UAAs) are non-proteinogenic amino acids that are not among the 20 attached to tRNAs in living cells used to polymerize proteins [1]. While some occur naturally, most are chemically synthesized, offering researchers powerful tools to study and manipulate protein function with unprecedented precision [1].

The integration of UAAs into molecular dynamics (MD) folding simulations represents a frontier in structural biology, enabling investigations into protein folding, function, and stability that were previously impossible. This technical support center addresses the specific challenges researchers face when incorporating these novel building blocks into their computational workflows.

FAQs: Navigating UAA Integration in Research

What are the primary categories of unnatural amino acids?

Unnatural amino acids can be systematically classified based on their specific chemical modifications relative to natural amino acids. The table below outlines the major categories:

Table: Classification of Unnatural Amino Acids

Type of UAA	Modification Description	Example
Non-proteinogenic	No natural codon; often made via post-translational modification	Citrulline [1]
Beta-amino acids	Addition of a second carbon between amino and carboxy groups [1]
Homo-amino acids	Addition of a methylene group between alpha carbon and side group [1]
Modified Side Group	Modification of a naturally occurring side group	p-benzoyl-phenylalanine [1]
D-amino acids	Chirality at alpha carbon is D rather than L configuration [1]

How are unnatural amino acids incorporated into proteins and peptides?

There are two primary methodological approaches for incorporating UAAs:

• Chemical Synthesis: UAAs can be built into synthetic peptides by blocking reactive groups and joining the carboxy group to the amino group of the adjoining amino acid, much like natural amino acids [1].
• Engineered Translation Systems: This includes methods for incorporating UAAs in vivo or in vitro using cell-free conditions.
  • Selective Pressure Incorporation (SPI): Uses an auxotrophic strain of bacteria grown on medium supplemented with a UAA structurally similar to the natural amino acid the organism cannot produce. The organism is coaxed into using the UAA in its proteins [1].
  • Stop Codon Suppression (SCS): Engineers the host cell's translational system to recognize a stop codon (usually the amber codon, UAG) as the codon for the UAA. This requires an orthogonal translation system that doesn't "crosstalk" with the endogenous system, such as the pyrolysine incorporation system from Methanosarcina barkeri [1].

What are the key challenges when simulating UAA-containing proteins in molecular dynamics folding studies?

Incorporating UAAs into MD folding simulations introduces several specific technical hurdles:

• Parameterization: Accurate force field parameters for the novel chemical moieties of UAAs are often unavailable or underdeveloped, potentially leading to inaccurate energy calculations and structural artifacts [2].
• Sampling Limitations: Protein folding is a rare, thermally activated event, and simulations must be long enough to observe these transitions [3] [2]. The introduction of UAAs can create new energy barriers or intermediates, further complicating and prolonging the required simulation timescales.
• Validation Difficulty: Experimental data for structures and folding pathways of UAA-containing proteins are often scarce, making it difficult to benchmark and validate simulation predictions [4].

Troubleshooting Guides

Issue 1: Poor Structural Stability in Simulations

Problem: Your simulation of a protein containing an unnatural amino acid shows unrealistic structural instability or rapid unfolding.

Solutions:

• Verify Force Field Parameters: Double-check the manually derived parameters for your UAA. Ensure bond lengths, angles, dihedrals, and partial charges are physically realistic and compatible with the chosen biomolecular force field (e.g., AMBER, CHARMM).
• Check for Steric Clashes: Inspect the initial configuration. The UAA's novel side chain might be causing steric clashes with adjacent residues. Consider energy minimization and slow heating from the initial structure before beginning production runs.
• Use Enhanced Sampling: If the UAA introduces a slow-folding event, consider using enhanced sampling methods like replica exchange molecular dynamics (REMD) to improve conformational sampling [3].

Issue 2: Inadequate Sampling of Folding Pathways

Problem: The simulation fails to observe complete folding events or gets trapped in non-native intermediate states.

Solutions:

• Employ Advanced Computing Resources: Utilize distributed computing platforms like Folding@home, which are specifically designed to simulate statistically relevant folding dynamics by harnessing massive parallelization [5].
• Apply Structure-Based Models (SBMs): For initial exploration, use coarse-grained Gō models or other SBMs. These models encode the native structure into the potential energy function, making folding events computationally more accessible and providing initial hypotheses about folding pathways and intermediates [3].
• Combine Multiple Approaches: Use a hierarchical strategy. First, run rapid, coarse-grained SBM simulations to identify potential folding intermediates and pathways. Then, use these insights to inform and initialize more computationally expensive all-atom simulations [3] [6].

Experimental Workflow & Protocols

The following diagram illustrates a generalized workflow for integrating unnatural amino acids into protein folding studies, combining experimental and computational approaches.

Diagram 1: Integrated Workflow for UAA Research.

Protocol: Initial Simulation Setup for a UAA-Containing Protein

This protocol outlines key steps for preparing a system for molecular dynamics folding simulations.

Materials:

• Structure File: A PDB file of the initial protein structure, with the UAA properly placed.
• Parameter Files: Topology and parameter files for the UAA, compatible with your chosen MD software (e.g., GROMACS, AMBER, NAMD).
• Simulation Software: A molecular dynamics package with necessary licenses.
• Computational Resources: Access to a high-performance computing (HPC) cluster or a distributed computing network.

Methodology:

• Parameterization: Obtain or develop force field parameters for the UAA. This is a critical step. Use quantum mechanical (QM) calculations to derive accurate partial charges and equilibrium bond/angle values.
• System Building: Use tools like pdb2gmx (GROMACS) or tleap (AMBER) to:
  • Solvate the protein in a water box (e.g., TIP3P model).
  • Add ions to neutralize the system's charge and achieve a physiological salt concentration.
• Energy Minimization: Run a steepest descent or conjugate gradient minimization to remove any steric clashes introduced during system building.
• Equilibration:
  • Perform a short MD simulation (e.g., 100 ps) in the NVT ensemble (constant Number of particles, Volume, and Temperature) to gently heat the system to the target temperature (e.g., 300 K).
  • Follow with a simulation in the NPT ensemble (constant Number of particles, Pressure, and Temperature) to equilibrate the solvent density around the protein (e.g., 100 ps).
• Production Run: Launch the final, unbiased MD simulation. For folding studies, this needs to be as long as computationally feasible, often ranging from microseconds to milliseconds. Use distributed computing or specialized hardware like ANTON if available [3] [5].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for UAA Studies

Item/Resource	Function/Description	Application in UAA Research
SwissSidechain	A curated database from the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics [1].	Models the insertion of hundreds of unnatural amino acid side chains into peptides in silico [1].
Orthogonal tRNA/Synthetase Pair (e.g., PylRS/tRNAPyl)	A translation system from organisms like Methanosarcina barkeri that does not crosstalk with the host's natural system [1].	Genetically encoding UAAs in vivo via stop codon suppression (SCS) [1].
p-benzoyl-phenylalanine	A UAA with a photoactivatable side group [1].	Studying protein-protein and protein-nucleic acid interactions via UV light-induced cross-linking [1].
Folding@home	A distributed computing project for simulating protein dynamics [5].	Achieving the long simulation timescales needed to observe folding and misfolding events statistically [5] [4].
Structure-Based Models (SBMs)	Coarse-grained models that use the native protein structure to define the energy landscape [3].	Making the folding of large proteins or those with complex intermediates computationally tractable for initial studies [3].

Simulation Challenges & Technical Specifications

The computational modeling of proteins, especially with UAAs, presents distinct challenges related to timescales and accuracy. The table below summarizes key hurdles and the strategies being developed to overcome them.

Table: Key Challenges in Protein Folding Simulations

Challenge	Impact on Simulation	Emerging Solutions
Timescale Limitation	Folding events for many proteins occur on millisecond+ timescales, far beyond the reach of standard all-atom MD on most hardware [2].	Specialized supercomputers (ANTON), distributed computing (Folding@home), and enhanced sampling algorithms [3] [5].
Force Field Inaccuracy	Inadequate parameters for novel UAA chemistries can incorrectly stabilize non-native states or destabilize the native fold, leading to inaccurate pathways [2].	Improved force fields, QM/MM methods, and the development of specific parameters for UAAs [2].
Insufficient Sampling	Due to high energy barriers, simulations can get trapped in local minima, providing an incomplete picture of the folding landscape [3].	Replica exchange MD, metadynamics, and running a large number of parallel simulations to gather better statistics [3].

The following diagram outlines the decision-making process for selecting a simulation strategy based on the research goal and protein characteristics.

Diagram 2: Simulation Strategy Selection.

The expansion of the chemical palette beyond the canonical 20 amino acids, coupled with advanced computational methods like molecular dynamics, is revolutionizing our ability to probe and manipulate protein structure and function. While challenges in parameterization, sampling, and validation remain, the continued development of experimental incorporation techniques, more accurate force fields, and powerful sampling algorithms is paving the way for groundbreaking discoveries in basic science and therapeutic development. By systematically addressing the troubleshooting points and leveraging the tools outlined in this guide, researchers can more effectively navigate the complexities of this promising field.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

FAQ 1: What are the primary therapeutic advantages of peptides over small molecules and biologics? Peptides occupy a unique middle ground, often referred to as a "Goldilocks" modality. Compared to small molecules, they offer higher target selectivity and specificity, enabling more precise intervention in disease pathways with reduced side effects. Compared to large molecule biologics, peptides have more advanced synthesis technology, lower immunogenicity, lower production costs, and are more amenable to chemical modification [7] [8].

FAQ 2: What are the most common chemical strategies to improve the metabolic stability of therapeutic peptides? Common and effective strategies include amino acid substitution (replacing natural amino acids with non-canonical analogs), lipidation (attaching fatty acid chains), PEGylation (attaching polyethylene glycol), cyclization (creating macrocyclic structures), and glycosylation (adding sugar moieties). For instance, replacing natural amino acids at enzymatic cleavage sites with non-canonical amino acids (ncAAs) can significantly enhance serum stability [7] [8].

FAQ 3: How can binding affinity to a target protein be improved during peptide design? Binding affinity can be enhanced by stabilizing the peptide's secondary structure (e.g., through cyclization or using α-Me-amino acids) to pre-organize it for binding, and by incorporating non-canonical amino acids to make more optimal interactions with the target's binding pocket. Computational tools, including free energy calculations and saturation mutagenesis in silico, can guide these modifications to optimize interactions [7] [9].

FAQ 4: What chemical modifications can enhance the membrane permeability of peptides, especially for intracellular targets? To enhance permeability, strategies include reducing the peptide's polarity by incorporating N-alkylated amino acids (non-canonical amino acids with alkyl groups on the nitrogen), which decreases hydrogen bonding capacity and polar surface area. Macrocyclization and the use of D-configured amino acids also contribute to improved cell membrane penetration by creating a more rigid and less polar structure [8].

FAQ 5: How do computational methods aid in the design of optimized therapeutic peptides? Computational methods are crucial for predicting peptide-protein complex structures through docking and AI, refining these structures with molecular dynamics simulations, and calculating binding free energies (ΔGbind) to quantify affinity. These methods allow for in silico screening and rational design, including ΔGbind decomposition to identify which residues contribute most to binding, guiding targeted modifications [9].

Troubleshooting Guides

Issue 1: Low Metabolic Stability in Plasma

Problem: Your therapeutic peptide is being rapidly degraded in serum or plasma, leading to a short half-life.

Solution:

• Action 1: Identify Proteolytic Cleavage Sites. First, incubate the peptide with serum and use mass spectrometry to identify the primary cleavage sites. Focus modifications on these sites.
• Action 2: Implement Strategic Amino Acid Substitution. Replace the cleaved natural amino acid with a non-canonical analog. Common substitutions include:
  • Substituting L-amino acids with D-amino acids.
  • Using N-methylated amino acids to block protease accessibility.
  • Replacing the residue with a structurally similar ncAA (e.g., homoarginine for arginine) [7] [8].
• Action 3: Consider N- and C-Terminal Modifications. Acetylation of the N-terminus or amidation of the C-terminus can protect against exopeptidases [7].

Validation Experiment:

• Protocol: Incubate the original peptide and the modified analog in human serum at 37°C. Withdraw aliquots at set time points (e.g., 0, 15, 30, 60, 120 minutes). Quench the reaction and analyze by HPLC to measure the remaining intact peptide. The half-life of the modified peptide should be significantly longer [7].

Issue 2: Poor Binding Affinity for Target Protein

Problem: The peptide shows weak binding to its intended protein target, resulting in low biological activity.

Solution:

• Action 1: Conduct Alanine Scanning. Perform an alanine scan on the peptide to identify "hot spot" residues. If a residue's substitution with alanine causes a significant drop in binding energy (ΔΔG ≥ 2 kcal/mol), it is a critical residue for affinity [10].
• Action 2: Optimize Hot Spots with ncAAs. Do not simply mutate hot spots; instead, optimize them. Use bulkier, more hydrophobic, or constrained ncAAs to enhance van der Waals interactions or fill hydrophobic pockets in the target. For example, replacing a phenylalanine with a benzyloxytyrosine can add favorable interactions [7] [8].
• Action 3: Stabilize the Bioactive Conformation. If the peptide is an α-helix in its bound state, use staples or cyclization to stabilize this geometry, reducing the entropic penalty upon binding [7].

Validation Experiment:

• Protocol: Use surface plasmon resonance (SPR) or isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) to measure the binding kinetics (KD, Kon, Koff) and thermodynamics (ΔG, ΔH, ΔS) of the original and optimized peptides. A lower KD and a slower Koff indicate improved affinity and complex stability [9].

Issue 3: Inadequate Cellular Permeability

Problem: The peptide is effective against an isolated target but cannot enter cells to reach intracellular targets.

Solution:

• Action 1: Reduce Hydrogen Bonding Potential. A key driver of permeability is the number of rotatable bonds and hydrogen bond donors/acceptors. Incorporate N-alkylated amino acids (e.g., N-methyl-valine) or D-amino acids to reduce this potential [8].
• Action 2: Optimize Hydrophobicity and Charge. While some positive charge can aid interaction with the membrane, excessive charge can trap peptides on the surface. Aim for a net charge between +2 and +9 and adjust hydrophobicity to find a balance where the peptide is neither too polar nor too hydrophobic [7].
• Action 3: Employ Macrocyclization. Cyclic peptides generally show better membrane permeability than their linear counterparts due to conformational rigidity and shielded polar groups [7] [8].

Validation Experiment:

• Protocol: Use a Caco-2 cell monolayer assay. Seed Caco-2 cells on a transwell filter until they form a confluent monolayer. Add the peptide to the apical compartment and measure the amount that appears in the basolateral compartment over time. Calculate the apparent permeability (Papp). A higher Papp indicates improved permeability [8].

Quantitative Data on Modification Strategies

Table 1: Impact of Chemical Modifications on Peptide Druggability Parameters

Modification Strategy	Effect on Stability	Effect on Permeability	Effect on Binding Affinity	Key Mechanism of Action
Amino Acid Substitution (ncAAs) [7] [8]	High Improvement	Moderate Improvement	Moderate to High Improvement	Resistance to proteases; enhanced interactions with target.
Lipidation [7]	Moderate Improvement	Low Improvement	Variable (can decrease)	Increased serum protein binding; membrane anchoring.
PEGylation [7]	High Improvement	Low Improvement	Variable (can decrease)	Increased hydrodynamic volume; reduced renal clearance.
Cyclization [7] [8]	Moderate Improvement	Moderate to High Improvement	Moderate to High Improvement	Reduced conformational flexibility; shielded cleavage sites.
Glycosylation [7]	Moderate Improvement	Low Improvement	Variable	Altered solubility and recognition; shield from proteases.

Table 2: Recommended Properties for Membrane-Disruptive and Cell-Penetrating Peptides

Physicochemical Factor	Target Range / Recommended Property	Rationale & Consequences
Net Charge [7]	+2 to +9 (at physiological pH)	Enables electrostatic interaction with negatively charged cell membranes; charges >+9 may cause non-specific binding and hemolysis.
Hydrophobicity [7]	Balanced / Moderate	Sufficient hydrophobicity is needed for membrane partitioning, but excessive hydrophobicity increases toxicity and non-specific binding.
Secondary Structure [7] [8]	Stabilized α-helix or β-sheet	A stable, amphipathic structure is crucial for both membrane interaction and target binding; flexibility reduces affinity.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Serum Stability Assay Purpose: To determine the half-life of a peptide in blood serum. Materials: Human serum, peptide solution, water bath or incubator set to 37°C, HPLC system with a C18 column. Steps:

• Dilute the peptide in human serum to a final concentration of 10-100 µM.
• Incubate the mixture at 37°C.
• At predetermined time points (e.g., 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8 hours), withdraw a 50 µL aliquot.
• Immediately mix the aliquot with 50 µL of a quenching solution (e.g., 10% trichloroacetic acid in acetonitrile) to precipitate serum proteins.
• Centrifuge the quenched sample to remove precipitates.
• Analyze the supernatant by HPLC to quantify the amount of intact peptide remaining.
• Plot the natural log of the percent remaining peptide versus time. The half-life is calculated as ln(2)/k, where k is the slope of the line [7].

Protocol 2: Computational Saturation Mutagenesis & Free Energy Calculation Purpose: To predict the change in binding affinity for every possible single-point mutation in a peptide. Materials: High-performance computing cluster, structure of the peptide-protein complex, molecular dynamics (MD) software (e.g., GROMACS, AMBER), molecular mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann surface area (MM/PBSA) script. Steps:

• Structure Preparation: Obtain or model a high-resolution structure of the peptide bound to its target protein. Add hydrogens and assign protonation states.
• In Silico Mutagenesis: Systematically mutate each residue in the peptide to all other 19 natural amino acids (and potentially ncAAs) using a tool like PyMol or Rosetta.
• Molecular Dynamics Simulation: For each mutant, run a short MD simulation (5-10 ns) to relax the structure and sample local conformational changes.
• Binding Free Energy Calculation: Use the MM/PBSA method on snapshots from the MD trajectory to calculate the binding free energy (ΔGbind) for both the original and each mutant complex.
• Analysis: Compute the difference in binding free energy (ΔΔGbind = ΔGbindmutant - ΔGbindoriginal). A negative ΔΔGbind indicates an improved affinity. This generates a map of which mutations are most beneficial [9].

Experimental Workflow Visualization

Diagram 1: Peptide Optimization Workflow

Diagram 2: Cyclization Strategies

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for Peptide Optimization

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Key Consideration
Non-canonical Amino Acids (ncAAs) [8]	Building blocks for solid-phase peptide synthesis to enhance stability, permeability, and affinity.	Commercial availability for screening; scalable synthesis for development. Examples: D-amino acids, N-methyl-amino acids, homoarginine.
Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis (SPPS) Resins [8]	The solid support on which peptides are assembled sequentially.	Choice of resin (e.g., Rink amide, Wang) depends on desired C-terminal functionality (amide vs. acid).
Lipidation Reagents (e.g., Palmitic acid NHS ester) [7]	Used to covalently attach lipid chains to peptides, improving half-life via serum albumin binding.	The length of the lipid chain and site of conjugation significantly impact efficacy and toxicity.
PEGylation Reagents (e.g., mPEG-NHS) [7]	Used to attach polyethylene glycol polymers to peptides, increasing hydrodynamic size and reducing clearance.	PEG chain length (molecular weight) must be optimized to balance half-life extension with potential loss of activity.
Human Serum [7]	A critical medium for in vitro stability assays to predict in vivo half-life.	Use pooled serum from multiple donors to account for population variability in enzyme levels.
Caco-2 Cell Line [8]	A model of the human intestinal epithelium used to assess peptide permeability in vitro.	Cells must be cultured to full confluence and differentiation (21+ days) for a valid barrier.

Troubleshooting Guides and FAQs for MD Folding Simulations with ncAAs

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: Why does my simulation become unstable or crash shortly after introducing an ncAA? This is typically caused by missing or incorrect force field parameters for the ncAA. The potential energy of the system becomes undefined when the molecular dynamics engine encounters atom types or torsional patterns it doesn't recognize [11]. Ensure you have properly generated a complete set of parameters, including bonded terms (bonds, angles, dihedrals) and non-bonded terms (partial charges, Lennard-Jones) that are compatible with your base force field (e.g., ff14SB, CHARMM) [11].

Q2: How can I improve the conformational sampling of my ncAA-containing cyclic peptide? Conformational sampling is a major challenge due to restricted backbone flexibility and long correlation times [2]. Consider using enhanced sampling techniques such as replica exchange molecular dynamics (REMD) or employing advanced analysis methods like transition path sampling to map the folding landscape [2]. For initial structure prediction, tools like Rosetta's simple_cycpep_predict (SCP) can be used, though they are computationally intensive [12].

Q3: My simulated structure with ncAAs does not match experimental data. What could be wrong? Inaccuracies can stem from several sources. First, verify the force field's ability to correctly describe the relative energies of folded, unfolded, and misfolded states involving ncAAs [2]. Some force fields have known artifacts, such as a bias toward helical structures [2] [13]. Secondly, ensure that the partial charges for your ncAA were derived using a method like restrained electrostatic potential (RESP) fitting across a Boltzmann-weighted conformational ensemble, rather than from a single static structure, to improve transferability [11].

Q3: Are there specialized software tools that can handle ncAAs for structure prediction and simulation? Yes, the field is rapidly developing. The Rosetta macromolecular modeling suite can be used for modeling and design with ncAAs, but requires the creation of custom parameter (.params) and rotamer library files [11]. For faster, deep learning-based structure prediction of cyclic peptides with backbone N-methylation and D-amino acids, the recently developed HighFold-MeD model, which is fine-tuned from AlphaFold, can provide a significant speed advantage [12]. For MD simulations, AMBER requires the generation of .prepi topology and .frcmod force field modification files for each new ncAA [11].

Troubleshooting Common Simulation Issues

Problem Area	Specific Symptom	Potential Cause	Recommended Solution
System Setup	Simulation crashes immediately upon energy calculation.	Missing bonded parameters or atom types for the ncAA.	Use tools like AnteChamber and LEaP (AMBER) to generate and validate all necessary parameters [11].
	The ncAA geometry distorts significantly in vacuum simulations.	Inaccurate equilibrium values for bonds or angles in the parameter set.	Validate and refine parameters against quantum mechanical (QM) reference data for the isolated ncAA [11].
Sampling & Folding	The protein fails to fold or remains trapped in non-native states.	1) Inadequate simulation time.2) Force field inaccuracies stabilizing non-native states.	1) Extend simulation time or use enhanced sampling [2].2) Check literature for known force field issues and consider alternatives [2].
	A cyclic peptide with D-AAs samples unrealistic conformations.	Incorrect chirality assignment or improper handling of cyclization in the topology.	Double-check the initial structure and topology files to ensure D-stereochemistry is correctly defined and the cyclization bond is properly formed [12].
Analysis & Validation	Calculated folding kinetics are much slower than experimental rates.	The force field may over-stabilize intermediate states or create artificially high energy barriers.	Compare multiple simulation trajectories with experimental kinetic data to identify where the simulation diverges from reality [2].
	High structural heterogeneity in the "folded" ensemble.	1) The native state may be marginally stable in the force field.2) Genuine conformational flexibility.	Compare with experimental measures of stability (e.g., melting temperature) and use order parameters that distinguish native from near-native contacts [2].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details key resources required for working with ncAAs in computational and experimental studies.

Item	Function & Application	Key Details
HELM Notation	A textual representation system for complex biomolecules, including ncAAs and macrocycles.	Superior to SMILES or FASTA for representing ncAA-containing peptides, cyclization, and cross-links in a human-legible format [8].
Rosetta Software Suite	A macromolecular modeling software for protein structure prediction, design, and folding simulations.	Requires generating custom .params files and rotamer libraries for each ncAA. The simple_cycpep_predict (SCP) module can predict structures of cyclic peptides with ncAAs [11] [12].
AMBER Molecular Dynamics Package	A suite of programs for simulating biomolecular dynamics using force fields like ff14SB.	Requires creating .prepi topology and .frcmod parameter files for each ncAA to ensure compatibility with the force field [11].
HighFold-MeD	A deep learning model for predicting structures of cyclic peptides with BNMeAAs and D-AAs.	Fine-tuned from AlphaFold; provides a 50-fold speedup over Rosetta SCP for structure prediction, though accuracy is dependent on the training data [12].
RaPID System	mRNA display technology for the de novo discovery of macrocyclic peptides containing ncAAs.	Allows for the generation of vast libraries (>10^12 unique members) containing ncAAs for affinity-based screening against therapeutic targets [14].

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Protocol 1: Parameterizing a New ncAA for MD Simulations (AMBER)

This protocol outlines the steps for creating force field parameters for a new ncAA, enabling its use in MD simulations with the AMBER package [11].

• Obtain Chemical Definition: Start with a molecular definition file (e.g., SMILES string or SDF file) of the ncAA.
• Generate Prototype Structure: Build a 3D structure of a capped dipeptide (Ace-ncAA-NMe) with specified chirality. This provides a minimal model system representing the ncAA within a peptide backbone.
• Assign Atom Types and Charges:
  • Assign atom types compatible with the protein force field (e.g., ff14SB) and a small molecule force field like GAFF2.
  • Derive partial atomic charges using the Restrained Electrostatic Potential (RESP) method. This involves: a. Performing a conformational search of the Ace-ncAA-NMe dipeptide. b. Selecting a Boltzmann-weighted ensemble of low-energy conformers. c. Calculating electrostatic potentials using quantum mechanics (QM). d. Fitting charges to reproduce the QM electrostatic potential.
• Generate Parameter Files: Create two key files:
  • A .prepi file containing the topology, atom names, charges, and connectivity for the ncAA.
  • A .frcmod file supplying any missing force field parameters (bonds, angles, dihedrals) not found in the standard force field files.
• Validation: Run short, unrestrained MD simulations of the Ace-ncAA-NMe dipeptide in explicit solvent to ensure structural stability and check for unrealistic geometry distortions.

Protocol 2: Workflow for Folding Simulations of an ncAA-Containing Protein

This general protocol describes the process of setting up and running an MD folding simulation for a protein or peptide that includes ncAAs [2] [13].

• System Preparation:
  • Initial Structure: Obtain or generate a starting structure (e.g., unfolded or partially folded). For peptides, ideal starting conformations (helix, sheet) can be built using molecular modeling software [13].
  • Force Field: Ensure all ncAAs have been properly parameterized and that the chosen force field (e.g., AMBER99SB-ILDN) is appropriate for folding studies [13].
  • Solvation: Solvate the protein in a box of water molecules (e.g., TIP3P model) and add ions to neutralize the system and achieve physiological concentration [13].
• Energy Minimization: Perform a series of energy minimizations to remove any bad contacts and relax the system.
• System Equilibration:
  • Gradually heat the system to the target temperature (e.g., 300 K) under positional restraints on the protein heavy atoms.
  • Slowly release the restraints and equilibrate the system in the NPT ensemble (constant Number of particles, Pressure, and Temperature) to achieve the correct solvent density.
• Production Simulation: Run a long, unbiased MD simulation without restraints. For folding, these simulations may need to reach microsecond to millisecond timescales to observe one or multiple folding events [2].
• Analysis:
  • Monitor root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) to the native state.
  • Calculate radius of gyration (Rg) to track compaction.
  • Use specific order parameters (e.g., native contacts, secondary structure content) to characterize the folding pathway and identify intermediates [2].

Workflow Visualization

Nature employs two primary biosynthetic strategies to produce complex peptide natural products: the non-ribosomal peptide synthetase (NRPS) pathway and the ribosomally synthesized and post-translationally modified peptide (RiPP) pathway. These systems generate peptides with diverse biological activities, many of which serve as important therapeutic agents. While both pathways can produce peptides with similar structural features, their fundamental biosynthetic mechanisms differ substantially, offering unique advantages and challenges for engineering approaches aimed at producing novel bioactive compounds [15] [16].

The key distinction lies in their biosynthesis templates. NRPS pathways utilize massive enzyme complexes as templates, where each module incorporates one amino acid building block. In contrast, RiPP pathways use mRNA as a template, with a ribosomally produced precursor peptide subsequently modified by specialized enzymes [15] [17]. This fundamental difference influences the size, diversity, and engineering potential of the resulting peptides, making each system uniquely suited for specific applications in drug discovery and development.

FAQs: Troubleshooting Common Experimental Challenges

FAQ 1: How do I choose between NRPS and RiPP engineering strategies for incorporating non-canonical amino acids?

Challenge: Selecting the optimal biosynthetic system for introducing non-canonical amino acids (ncAAs) into peptide natural products.

Solution: The choice depends on your specific requirements for precision, diversity, and peptide size:

• NRPS pathways are preferable when you need to incorporate specific, predetermined ncAAs at precise locations in small peptides (<25 amino acids). The adenylation (A) domains in NRPS modules can be engineered to activate and incorporate non-proteinogenic amino acids, though this requires extensive domain engineering [15] [17].

• RiPP pathways are more suitable for combinatorial diversification and engineering of larger peptides (up to 70+ amino acids). The ribosomal synthesis ensures sequence fidelity, while the separate, often promiscuous modification enzymes can process a variety of substrates [15]. RiPP systems are particularly advantageous when you need to rapidly generate libraries of modified peptides.

• Hybrid approaches are emerging where RiPP enzymology is used to emulate structural features typically associated with NRPS products, leveraging the genetic simplicity of RiPP pathways while achieving NRP-like structural complexity [15] [16].

FAQ 2: What are the common pitfalls when simulating the folding of peptides containing non-canonical amino acids?

Challenge: Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations often fail to accurately predict the folding of peptides containing non-canonical amino acids due to parameter limitations and sampling inefficiencies.

Solution: Implement a multi-pronged strategy to address these limitations:

• Force Field Parameterization: Develop specific parameters for non-canonical amino acids using quantum mechanical calculations and experimental data. Standard force fields lack accurate parameters for many ncAAs, leading to unreliable folding predictions [18] [3].

• Enhanced Sampling Methods: Employ advanced sampling techniques such as replica exchange molecular dynamics (REMD) or metadynamics to overcome the high energy barriers associated with ncAA folding. Large proteins and those with ncAAs often fold through long-lived intermediates with deep local energy minima that require enhanced sampling [3].

• Native-Centric Simulations: For initial folding studies, use structure-based models (SBM/Gō models) that bias the simulation toward native contacts. These methods are computationally efficient and can provide insights into folding mechanisms before proceeding to more expensive all-atom simulations [3].

• Validation with Experimental Data: Always correlate simulation results with experimental data from circular dichroism, NMR, or X-ray scattering to identify force field inaccuracies and refine your computational models [3].

FAQ 3: How can I accurately identify and characterize modified peptides in mass spectrometry data?

Challenge: Modified peptides, particularly those with non-canonical amino acids, often lead to false positives and false negatives in mass spectrometry-based proteomics.

Solution: Implement a systematic database search strategy with careful consideration of modifications:

• Cleaned Search Strategy: Recent studies show that 20-50% of false positive identifications in deep proteomic datasets come from modified peptides. Use a sequential search approach: first identify unmodified peptides, then search for specific modifications based on initial results [19].

• Comprehensive Modification Libraries: Include common non-canonical amino acids and post-translational modifications in your search parameters. Essential modifications to consider include deamidation (Asn, Gln), methylation (Lys, Glu, Asp), carbamylation (N-terminus), dehydration (Glu, Asp), and oxidation (Met, Trp, Tyr) [19].

• Mass Accuracy Considerations: For proteins around 100 kDa, a minimum mass difference of 50 Da is needed to distinguish two variants due to the wide isotope profile (~50 mass units wide at 100 kDa). Ensure your instrument has sufficient resolving power (>2,000 for 100 kDa proteins) [20].

• Specialized Software Tools: Utilize tools like Byonic that support non-standard amino acids by redefining one-letter codes (B, Z, U, O, J, X) with appropriate mass assignments [21].

FAQ 4: What experimental strategies can improve the proteolytic stability of peptides containing non-canonical elements?

Challenge: Peptides containing non-canonical amino acids may still suffer from proteolytic degradation, reducing their therapeutic potential.

Solution: Implement structural modifications informed by natural peptide systems:

• Incorporate D-Amino Acids: Both NRPS and RiPP pathways naturally incorporate D-amino acids to enhance stability against proteolytic degradation. In NRPS, epimerization (E) domains convert L- to D-amino acids; in RiPPs, various isomerases perform similar functions [15] [17].

• Backbone N-Methylation: N-methylation of peptide bonds, commonly installed by N-methyltransferase domains in NRPS systems, shields peptides from protease recognition and improves membrane permeability [15] [18].

• Macrocyclization: Implement cyclization strategies inspired by both NRPS (terminal thioesterase domain-mediated cyclization) and RiPP (various cyclization enzymes) systems to constrain peptide conformation and reduce flexibility accessible to proteases [15] [18].

• Side Chain Modifications: Utilize non-canonical amino acids with modified side chains (α,α-dialkyl glycines, Cα-Cα cyclized amino acids, β-substituted amino acids) that stabilize specific secondary structures while providing steric hindrance to proteases [18].

Quantitative Data Reference Tables

Table 1: Classification and Properties of Non-Canonical Amino Acids in Peptide Design

Amino Acid Type	Structural Features	Impact on Secondary Structure	Proteolytic Stability	Membrane Permeability
D-α-Amino Acids	Mirror image of L-forms	Disrupts typical α-helix; promotes alternate folds	High resistance to proteases	Variable; can improve depending on context
N-Alkylated Amino Acids	N-methyl, N-alkyl groups	Restricts φ dihedral angles; stabilizes β-turns and cis-amide bonds	Significantly improved	Greatly enhanced due to reduced H-bonding capacity
α,α-Dialkyl Glycines	Dual alkyl groups at Cα	Strongly induces helical structures (310/α-helix)	High (steric hindrance)	Improved (promotes structured conformations)
Cα-Cα Cyclized	Side chain to side chain cyclization	Constrains backbone conformation	Very high	Variable depending on cyclization
β-Substituted Amino Acids	Additional carbon in backbone	Promotes β-sheet and polyproline type II helices	Moderate to high	Can be improved with appropriate substitutions
Dehydroamino Acids	Cα=Cβ double bond	Restricts conformational space; influences turn formation	Moderate to high	Moderate

Data compiled from experimental and molecular modeling studies on non-canonical amino acids and their applications in peptidomimetics [18].

Table 2: Mass Spectrometry Parameters for Analyzing Modified Peptides

Parameter	Standard Setting	Extended Modification Search	Critical Considerations
Precursor Mass Tolerance	5-10 ppm	5-10 ppm	Wider tolerances increase false positives exponentially
Fragment Mass Tolerance	0.02-0.05 Da	0.02-0.05 Da	Critical for identification of non-standard fragments
Fixed Modifications	Carbamidomethyl (C)	Carbamidomethyl (C)	Cysteine alkylation standard in sample prep
Variable Modifications	Oxidation (M), Acetyl (N-term)	Deamidation (N,Q), Methylation (K,E,D), Carbamylation (N-term)	Search space increases combinatorially; requires more computational resources
Maximum Modifications per Peptide	2-3	3-5	Higher numbers dramatically increase search space and false discovery rates
Enzyme Specificity	Trypsin (strict)	Trypsin (semi-specific or non-specific)	Non-specific search increases identifications but also false positives
Database Size	Species-specific	Species-specific + common contaminants	Larger databases decrease sensitivity and increase computation time
Non-Standard Amino Acids	Not included	B, Z, U, O, J, X with defined masses	Requires specialized software support [21]

Methodology based on systematic analysis of modification impacts on peptide identification [19] and mass spectrometry FAQ resources [20].

Table 3: Computational Requirements for Folding Simulations of Modified Peptides

Simulation Method	System Size Limit	Time Scale Accessible	Suitability for Non-Canonical Amino Acids	Key Limitations
All-Atom MD (Standard)	~100 amino acids	Nanoseconds to microseconds	Limited (requires parameter development)	Computationally expensive; limited sampling
All-Atom MD (Enhanced Sampling)	~150 amino acids	Microseconds to milliseconds	Moderate (with careful validation)	Method-dependent artifacts; complex setup
Gō Models / Structure-Based Models	>500 amino acids	Beyond millisecond	Good for folding mechanism studies	Lacks chemical specificity; native structure bias
Coarse-Grained Models	>1000 amino acids	Beyond millisecond	Moderate (resolution-dependent)	Loss of atomic detail; parameterization challenges
Replica Exchange MD	~100 amino acids	Enhanced sampling of folding landscape	Good with adequate force field parameters	High computational cost; temperature gaps
Specialized Hardware (ANTON)	~100 amino acids	Up to millisecond	Limited (requires parameter development)	Limited access; system size restrictions

Data synthesized from review on simulating folding of large proteins and current computational methodologies [3].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Engineering D-Amino Acids into Ribosomal Peptides

Background: D-amino acids enhance proteolytic stability and often contribute to biological activity by influencing peptide conformation. This protocol describes two primary methods for incorporating D-amino acids into ribosomal peptides, inspired by natural systems [15].

Method A: Post-translational Epimerization

• Identify or engineer epimerase domains compatible with your peptide system. Natural examples include the lanthipeptide epimerases that convert specific L-amino acids to D-form through dehydroamino acid intermediates.

• Design precursor peptide with recognition motifs (leader/follower peptides) for the epimerase enzyme.

• Co-express precursor peptide and epimerase in suitable host (E. coli, B. subtilis, or other expression systems).

• Verify epimerization using chiral chromatography or NMR spectroscopy to confirm D-amino acid incorporation.

• Cleave leader peptide using specific proteases to release mature peptide containing D-amino acids.

Method B: Direct Incorporation Using Engineered Translation Systems

• Identify orthogonal aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase/tRNA pairs specific for your target D-amino acid.

• Engineer the genetic code to incorporate the D-amino acid at specific positions using amber stop codon suppression or four-base codons.

• Express the modified peptide in suitable host with supplemented D-amino acid.

• Validate incorporation through mass spectrometry and functional assays.

Troubleshooting Tips:

• If epimerization efficiency is low, optimize leader peptide sequence or try different epimerase homologs.
• If direct incorporation yields poor peptide expression, optimize codon usage and tRNA expression levels.
• Always include control peptides with L-amino acids to confirm the structural and functional impact of D-amino acid incorporation.

Protocol 2: Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Peptides with Non-Canonical Amino Acids

Background: This protocol provides a structured approach for simulating the folding of peptides containing non-canonical amino acids, addressing common challenges in parameterization and sampling [3].

Step 1: System Preparation

• Initial Structure Generation:

  • Build initial coordinates using molecular modeling software (CHARMM-GUI, PyMol, or Schrodinger Maestro).
  • For non-canonical amino acids without predefined parameters, use quantum chemistry calculations (Gaussian ORCA) to derive initial geometries and charge distributions.

• Parameter Development:

  • Derive bond, angle, and dihedral parameters from quantum mechanical calculations at the HF/6-31G* level or higher.
  • Calculate partial charges using restrained electrostatic potential (RESP) fitting with HF/6-31G* calculations.
  • Validate parameters against experimental crystal structures or spectroscopic data when available.

Step 2: Simulation Setup

• Solvation and Ionization:

  • Solvate the system in TIP3P water box with at least 10 Å padding around the peptide.
  • Add ions to neutralize system and achieve physiological salt concentration (150 mM NaCl).

• Energy Minimization:

  • Perform steepest descent minimization (5,000 steps) followed by conjugate gradient minimization (5,000 steps) to remove steric clashes.

Step 3: Enhanced Sampling Production Run

• Equilibration:

  • Heat system gradually from 0 K to target temperature (typically 300 K) over 100 ps with position restraints on protein heavy atoms.
  • Conduct NPT equilibration (1 ns) with gradual release of position restraints.

• Production Simulation:

  • For conventional MD: Run production simulation (100 ns - 1 μs) with 2 fs timestep.
  • For enhanced sampling: Implement replica exchange MD (REMD) with 24-48 replicas spanning 300-500 K temperature range.
  • Use PLUMED or similar tools for well-tempered metadynamics if specific reaction coordinates are known.

Step 4: Analysis and Validation

• Folding Metrics:

  • Calculate root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) relative to expected folded structure.
  • Monitor native contacts formation using contact maps.
  • Analyze secondary structure evolution with DSSP or STRIDE.

• Experimental Validation:

  • Compare simulation results with circular dichroism spectra for secondary structure content.
  • Validate folding intermediates with small-angle X-ray scattering data when available.
  • Correlate predicted stability with experimental thermal denaturation curves.

Troubleshooting Tips:

• If simulations show unrealistic structures, recheck non-canonical amino acid parameters and consider additional quantum mechanical validation.
• If system fails to fold within simulation timeframe, increase simulation length or implement additional enhanced sampling methods.
• Always run multiple independent replicas to assess convergence and reproducibility.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Peptide Engineering Studies

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Key Specifications	Technical Notes
Orthogonal Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetase/tRNA Pairs	Incorporation of non-canonical amino acids via genetic code expansion	Species-specific (E. coli, yeast, mammalian); amber suppressor or four-base codon variants	Critical for direct ribosomal incorporation of ncAAs; requires optimization for each host system
Epimerase Enzymes	Post-translational conversion of L- to D-amino acids in RiPP pathways	Specificity for target amino acid; recognition of leader peptide sequence	LanD-like enzymes for lanthipeptides or other RiPP-specific epimerases; often require leader peptide recognition
Modification Enzyme Cocktails	Installation of specific post-translational modifications (methylation, cyclization, etc.)	RiPP or NRPS-derived; co-factor requirements (SAM, PLP, etc.)	Promiscuous enzymes preferred for engineering; substrate tolerance varies widely
Specialized Expression Vectors	Heterologous production of modified peptides	Compatible with host system (E. coli, B. subtilis, etc.); inducible promoters	Vectors with compatible replication origins and selection markers for co-expression systems
Mass Spectrometry Standards	Calibration and validation of modified peptide identification	Synthetic peptides with defined modifications; stable isotope-labeled variants	Essential for accurate mass determination and fragmentation pattern validation
Chromatography Materials	Separation and purification of modified peptides	Reverse-phase (C18, C8); ion-exchange; size-exclusion resins	Method development critical for resolving closely related modified peptide variants
Molecular Dynamics Software	Folding simulations and structural analysis	GROMACS, AMBER, CHARMM, NAMD; with enhanced sampling capabilities	Force field selection critical; special parameters needed for non-canonical amino acids
Circular Dichroism Spectrophotometer	Secondary structure analysis of modified peptides	Far-UV capability (190-250 nm); temperature control	Essential for experimental validation of computational folding predictions

Essential materials compiled from multiple sources on peptide engineering, analysis, and simulation [15] [18] [3].

From Chemical Graph to Simulation: Practical Parameterization Workflows

FAQs and Troubleshooting Guides

Q1: Why and when should I use capped terminals for my dipeptide in molecular dynamics simulations?

Capping the terminals (often with an acetyl group at the N-terminus and an N-methyl group at the C-terminus) is a standard practice in molecular dynamics simulations of peptides. It eliminates charged terminal groups that would otherwise be present at physiological pH, creating a more neutral and representative model of an internal peptide segment within a larger protein. This prevents artificial long-range electrostatic interactions that can dominate the simulation and distort the peptide's native folding behavior [22].

Q2: What is the most reliable method for generating an initial 3D structure of a capped dipeptide?

For a simple capped dipeptide, building the structure in silico is often the most straightforward approach. You can use molecular visualization software like PyMOL by constructing the peptide chain with an all-trans geometry for every backbone dihedral angle [22]. For more complex sequences or to ensure proper atom bonding, you can also use specialized molecular builders available within software suites like CHARMM-GUI.

Q3: How do I handle a dipeptide that contains an unnatural amino acid?

Incorporating unnatural amino acids requires adding the residue's parameters to your chosen molecular dynamics force field. This involves creating a new residue entry in the force field's .rtp (residue topology) file and adding any necessary new parameters to the ffbonded.itp and ffnonbonded.itp files [23]. The parameters for the unnatural side chain can often be derived by combining existing parameters for similar chemical groups (e.g., disulfide and standard alkyl parameters) [23]. For complex cases, external tools like the Automated Topology Builder (ATB) or CHARMM-GUI can assist in generating the initial parameters.

Q4: I have my .itp files for an unnatural amino acid. How do I incorporate them into the topology for my whole peptide?

The correct method is to integrate the parameters directly into the force field files as described above, not by including a separate .itp file for the residue. Using a separate .itp file is typically intended for ligands in protein-ligand simulations and is not the correct procedure for a residue within a contiguous polypeptide chain [23].

Q5: My simulation is unstable after adding an unnatural amino acid. What should I check?

First, verify that all parameters for the unnatural amino acid are correctly defined and internally consistent. Pay special attention to the atom types, charges, and bonded parameters (bonds, angles, dihedrals). The most common cause of instability is missing or incorrect parameters for specific angles or dihedrals [23]. Ensure that the charges of the new residue are balanced to achieve a net neutral charge, as this is critical for the stability of the force field.

Research Reagent Solutions

The table below lists essential tools and their functions for generating and simulating capped dipeptides.

Item Name	Function in Research
GROMACS	A versatile software package for performing molecular dynamics simulations; used for simulating the folding and dynamics of peptides [22].
PyMOL	A molecular visualization system used to build, view, and analyze molecular structures; can be used to construct initial extended peptide conformations [22].
CHARMM-GUI	A web-based platform that provides a suite of tools for the setup and simulation of molecular systems, including complex residues and membrane environments.
AMBER Force Fields	A family of force fields (e.g., AMBER99SB) with refined parameters for torsional potentials to balance conformational equilibrium [22].
CHARMM Force Fields	A family of force fields (e.g., CHARMM36) with consistent parameterization for proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids [23].
Automated Topology Builder (ATB)	A web server that can generate molecular topologies and parameters for a given molecule, useful for non-standard residues [23].

Experimental Protocols and Data

Protocol: Generating an Extended Capped Dipeptide Conformation

• Software Launch: Open your molecular visualization software (e.g., PyMOL).
• Sequence Building: Use the builder plugin or command line to create your dipeptide sequence.
• Capping: Add an acetyl group (ACE) to the N-terminus and an N-methyl amide group (NME) to the C-terminus.
• Geometry Adjustment: Manually set all backbone dihedral angles (φ, ψ) to 180 degrees to achieve an extended all-trans conformation [22].
• Structure Export: Save the final coordinates in a .pdb file format for use in subsequent simulation steps.

Quantitative Comparison of Force Field Performance on Peptide Systems

The following table summarizes data from a systematic study that compared the performance of different force fields in peptide folding simulations. The data highlights the importance of force field selection.

Force Field	Secondary Structure Propensity (vs. Experimental)	Key Characteristic (from cited study)
GROMOS96 53A6	Mixed / Variable	Balanced using a reaction-field electrostatic scheme [22].
OPLS-AA/L	Mixed / Variable	Balanced using particle mesh Ewald (PME) electrostatics [22].
AMBER99SB	Improved α-helical stability	Refined torsional parameters for backbone dihedrals [22].
AMBER03	Improved β-sheet stability	Refined torsional parameters for backbone dihedrals [22].

Protocol: Parametrizing an Unnatural Amino Acid for GROMACS

• Residue Identification: Add the three-letter code for your new residue to the residuetypes.dat file, classifying it as a "Protein" residue.
• Topology Entry: Create a new entry in the force field's .rtp file. Define the [ atoms ] section with atom names, types, and charges, and the [ bonds ] section.
• Hydrogen Building: If the residue has backbone atoms, define a .hdb entry to instruct pdb2gmx on how to add hydrogens. Use - to denote atoms from the preceding residue and + for atoms from the next residue [23].
• Parameter Assignment: Add any new bond, angle, or dihedral parameters required by the residue to ffbonded.itp. Add new atom types and non-bonded parameters to ffnonbonded.itp.
• Validation: Test the parameters on a small molecule analog of the side chain in a short simulation to ensure stability before running the full peptide simulation.

Workflow Visualization

Diagram 1: Capped dipeptide structure generation workflow.

Diagram 2: Force field parameterization for unnatural amino acids.

FAQs: Handling Non-Natural Amino Acids in MD Simulations

Q1: What are the primary challenges when integrating a non-natural amino acid (nnAA) into a simulation with standard protein force fields like ff14SB?

The primary challenge involves force field incompatibility, specifically missing parameters for the novel chemical moieties of the nnAA. Standard force fields (e.g., ff14SB, AMBER99sb-ILDN) are parameterized only for the 20 standard amino acids. When an nnAA is introduced, the simulation engine lacks the necessary bond, angle, dihedral, and improper dihedral parameters for the new atom types, leading to fatal errors during topology generation (grompp in GROMACS) or system setup (tleap in AMBER). This manifests as errors like "No default Bond types" or "No torsion terms for" specific atom type combinations [24] [25]. Achieving a consistent balance of molecular interactions that stabilize the modified protein without perturbing the behavior of the native structure is a key parameterization goal [26] [27].

Q2: Which force fields are commonly used together to model proteins with nnAAs?

A common and recommended strategy is to use a dual-force-field approach:

• ff14SB (or another AMBER protein force field): For the standard protein and water molecules.
• GAFF2 (Generalized Amber Force Field 2): For the non-natural amino acid residue and often for organic small-molecule ligands [25].

This hybrid approach leverages the highly refined parameters of ff14SB for the native protein structure while utilizing the broad coverage of GAFF2 for the novel chemical groups in the nnAA.

Q3: What is the standard protocol for generating parameters for a non-natural amino acid?

The established protocol involves a series of steps combining quantum mechanics (QM) calculations and force field tools. The workflow below outlines this standard approach for generating and integrating parameters for a non-natural amino acid.

Q4: I have generated an .frcmod file, but tleap still reports missing torsion parameters. How can I resolve this?

This is a frequent issue indicating that not all required dihedral parameters for the nnAA were defined. The solution involves:

• Identify Missing Terms: Note the specific atom type combinations for which parameters are missing (e.g., CT-NT-P-OS) from the tleap error message [25].
• Find Analogous Parameters: Manually search for these dihedral types in established force fields like GAFF or the main AMBER parameter files (frcmod.ff14SB, parm10.dat). Identify a similar chemical moiety and use its parameters.
• Add to frcmod.user: Create a separate file (e.g., frcmod.user) and add the missing torsion lines using the format from other dihedral entries. The Re_Fit mode in tools like REDServer can facilitate this process [25].
• Load in tleap: Ensure you load this user frcmod file after the standard force fields in your tleap script.

Troubleshooting Guide: Common Errors and Solutions

Error: "No default Bond/Angle/Dihedral types" duringgrompp(GROMACS)

• Problem: This error occurs when the force field database lacks parameters for the atom types defined in your residue's topology. The errors will point to specific lines in your .itp file for the nnAA [24].
• Solution:
  • Verify Atom Types: Ensure the atom types used in your nnAA's .rtp entry are valid and exist in the force field's .atomtypes.atp file.
  • Check ffbonded.itp: The parameters for these atom type combinations must be defined in the force field's ffbonded.itp file (or its AMBER equivalent). You will likely need to add the missing [ bondtypes ], [ angletypes ], and [ dihedraltypes ] sections for your nnAA's unique interactions.
  • Use Hybrid FF: Confirm you are correctly merging parameters from GAFF2 for the nnAA with your protein force field.

Error: "No torsion terms for X-X-X-X" duringtleap(AMBER)

• Problem: tleap cannot find the required four-body torsion (dihedral) parameters for the specified combination of atom types in your nnAA [25].
• Solution:
  • Inspect frcmod File: Your generated frcmod file might be incomplete. Run the parameterization tool again, ensuring all possible dihedrals around the rotatable bonds of the novel chemical group are considered.
  • Manual Assignment: As described in FAQ A4, manually add the missing dihedral parameters to an frcmod.user file using values from chemically analogous species in GAFF2.
  • Tool Re-run: Some parameterization servers like REDServer offer a "Re_Fit" mode, allowing you to adjust atom types and add missing terms in a subsequent job [25].

Issue: Unphysical protein dynamics or instability after incorporating nnAA

• Problem: The simulation runs, but the protein unfolds, the nnAA behaves erratically, or the system energy is unstable.
• Solution:
  • Parameter Quality: Re-check the quality of your QM calculations. The initial geometry optimization and charge derivation are critical.
  • Charge Neutrality: Ensure the total charge of your nnAA is an integer and that the overall system charge is neutralized, as non-zero total charge can lead to artifacts [24].
  • Van der Waals Conflicts: Check for overlapping atoms or incorrect van der Waals parameters, which can cause high-energy instabilities.
  • Water Model: Use a modern, four-site water model (e.g., OPC, TIP4P-D) where possible, as they often provide a better balance of protein-water interactions, which is crucial for simulating both folded and flexible regions [27].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details key resources and tools essential for parameterizing and simulating non-natural amino acids.

Table 1: Essential Tools and Resources for Non-Natural Amino Acid Parameterization

Tool/Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Key Considerations
GAFF2 (Generalized Amber Force Field 2) [25]	Force Field	Provides parameters for a wide range of organic molecules, including novel chemical groups in nnAAs.	The first choice for nnAA parameters; often used in conjunction with ff14SB. Requires RESP charges.
REDServer (RESP ESP charge Derive) [25]	Web Server	Automates the process of deriving electrostatic potential (ESP) charges and assigning GAFF2 atom types.	Handles the QM calculation and charge fitting workflow. Crucial for ensuringelectrostatic accuracy.
AnteChamber	Software Suite	A toolkit for automatically parameterizing molecules for AMBER.	Often used in the backend of servers but can be run locally to generate frcmod files and library entries.
frcmod File	Parameter File	An AMBER-format file containing non-bonded and torsional parameters.	The final output of parameterization; contains the new parameters tleap reads to build the system.
tleap / xleap	Module/Program	The AMBER system builder. Adds solvent, ions, and assembles the final simulation topology and coordinate files.	Load the protein FF, nnAA frcmod, and library files to create the complete system.
Four-Site Water Models (e.g., OPC, TIP4P-2005) [27]	Solvent Model	Improved water models that yield a better balance of protein-water interactions.	Helps prevent over-collapsed IDPs and excessive protein-protein association, leading to more balanced dynamics.

Advanced Protocol: Force Field Refinement for Challenging nnAAs

For nnAAs that are highly divergent from natural amino acids or part of critical folding motifs, a more rigorous parameter refinement may be necessary.

• Targeted QM Scans: Perform high-level QM scans (e.g., MP2/cc-pVTZ) on dihedral angles of the nnAA's central rotatable bonds.
• Torsional Fitting: Refit the dihedral parameters in the frcmod file to reproduce the QM energy profile. This ensures the nnAA samples the correct conformational space.
• Validation with Model Compounds: Simulate a capped analog of the nnAA (e.g., Ace-nnAA-Nme) in solution. Compare NMR-derived observables like scalar couplings or chemical shifts with simulation data if available. This is akin to the validation strategies used for modern protein force fields [27].
• Microsecond Stability Test: Run extended simulations (≥1 µs) of a small protein containing the nnAA to ensure the fold remains stable and does not drift significantly from its expected structure, a known issue with some balanced force fields [27].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

FAQ 1: Why is a conformational ensemble recommended for RESP charge fitting for flexible molecules like non-canonical amino acids (ncAAs), instead of using a single conformation?

Using a single, static conformation to derive partial charges is often sufficient for rigid molecules. However, for flexible molecules, atomic partial charges can be sensitive to molecular conformation [28]. Deriving charges from a single snapshot may result in a charge set that is only accurate for that specific geometry, leading to poor transferability and potential inaccuracies during Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations when the molecule samples other conformational states. Fitting RESP charges across a small, Boltzmann-weighted conformational ensemble ensures that the final charges represent an average over low-energy states, improving their robustness and transferability across the different conformations sampled in an MD simulation [11].

FAQ 2: What are the key differences between the original RESP and the newer RESP2 method, and why might I choose RESP2 for my ncAA parameters?

The original RESP (RESP1) method fits charges to a molecular electrostatic potential (ESP) computed typically at the HF/6-31G* level in the gas phase. This level of theory is known to fortuitously overpolarize molecules, which has been historically argued to approximate the polarization a molecule experiences in a condensed phase [29].

The RESP2 method is a next-generation approach that addresses the arbitrariness and inconsistency of this overpolarization. Instead of relying on a single gas-phase calculation, RESP2 computes the ESP as a linear combination of results from both gas-phase and aqueous-phase QM calculations, tuned by a parameter, δ (delta): RESP2_δ = (δ) * ESP_aqueous + (1-δ) * ESP_gas [29]. Studies optimizing against liquid properties have found that a value of δ ≈ 0.6 (60% aqueous, 40% gas-phase) is an accurate and robust method for generating partial charges, particularly when Lennard-Jones parameters are co-optimized [29].

FAQ 3: During RESP fitting, I encounter atoms with unusually high (over-fitted) partial charges. How can this be prevented?

Over-fitted charges, often manifested as excessively high magnitudes on atoms buried in the molecular interior, are a known issue with unrestrained ESP fitting. The "R" in RESP stands for "Restrained" and is the primary mechanism for preventing this.

The method employs a hyperbolic restraint penalty function that discouragate charges from becoming too large [30] [28] [31]. The strength of this restraint is controlled by a parameter often called a or k_rstr (restraint weight). Using a non-zero restraint weight, typically 0.001–0.01, effectively attenuates charge magnitudes without significantly compromising the quality of the electrostatic potential fit [28] [29]. Many implementations, like that in CP2K, apply weak restraints to all heavy atoms by default to avoid unphysical values [30].

FAQ 4: How can I enforce symmetry in the charges of chemically equivalent atoms (e.g., the hydrogen atoms in a methyl group) during the fit?

RESP fitting procedures allow for the application of constraints to force chemically equivalent atoms to have identical partial charges. This is typically done by assigning the same "charge ID" or by using an atom list in the input file for the RESP fitting program [30] [31].

For example, in the OpenFF Recharge framework, this is handled by assigning the same map index in a SMILES pattern to atoms that must share charges [31]. Similarly, in CP2K, you can use the &CONSTRAINT subsection with EQUAL_CHARGES and an ATOM_LIST specifying the indexes of the symmetric atoms [30].

FAQ 5: My system is a periodic slab (e.g., a 2D material or surface). How should I adapt the potential sampling for RESP fitting?

For non-periodic (molecular) systems, fitting points are typically sampled in spherical shells around atoms. For periodic slab systems, you should use a dedicated slab sampling technique to ensure the electrostatic potential is well-reproduced in the region above the surface where interactions (like adsorption) are relevant [30].

The input for CP2K, for instance, uses a &SLAB_SAMPLING subsection where you define the ATOM_LIST of surface atoms, the SURF_DIRECTION (e.g., +Z), and a RANGE (e.g., 1.0 3.0 Å) specifying the distance above the surface atoms where fitting points will be generated [30].

Troubleshooting Common RESP Fitting Experiments

Table 1: Common RESP Fitting Errors and Solutions

Error / Symptom	Possible Cause	Diagnostic Steps	Solution
Unphysical partial charges (e.g., >	0.5	e⁻) on buried atoms.	1. Insufficient or no hyperbolic restraint.2. Poor quality/convergence of the QM ESP.	1. Check the restraint weight (a, k_rstr) in input.2. Verify the QM method (e.g., HF/6-31G*) and wavefunction stability.	1. Increase the restraint weight (e.g., to 0.001-0.01) [28].2. Ensure a well-converged SCF in the QM calculation.
Poor reproduction of crystal lattice parameters in MD validation.	1. Charge set is too polar or not polar enough.2. Lack of conformational averaging for a flexible molecule.	1. Compare molecular dipole moment from RESP charges vs QM.2. Check if the molecule is flexible.	1. Consider using the RESP2 method with δ~0.6 [29].2. Derive charges from a Boltzmann-weighted ensemble, not a single conformer [11] [28].
Fitting instability or convergence failure.	1. Atoms with no unique ESP (e.g., buried atoms).2. Ill-defined constraints.	1. Visualize the ESP grid points (e.g., with VMD).2. Review constraint lists for errors.	1. Use restraints or constrain charges of insensitive atoms to reasonable values.2. Double-check atom indices in constraint lists.
Poor performance in solvation free energy calculations.	Imbalanced solute-solvent vs solute-solute interactions due to over-polarized charges.	Calculate hydration free energy (HFE) for a small test set.	Switch from RESP1 (HF/6-31G*) to a more balanced method like RESP2, which better accounts for the condensed phase environment [29].

Table 2: Recommended RESP Protocol Parameters for ncAAs

Parameter	Standard RESP (Gas-Phase)	RESP2 (Condensed-Phase Optimized)	Notes / Rationale
QM Theory	HF/6-31G*	PW6B95/aug-cc-pV(D+d)Z (Recommended)	HF/6-31G* provides fortuitous overpolarization. PW6B95 offers a better balance of accuracy and cost [29].
ESP Grid	CHELPG or Merz-Singh-Kollman	CHELPG or Merz-Singh-Kollman	Standard methods for generating points around the van der Waals surface.
Conformers	Single low-energy structure (for rigid moieties).	Boltzmann-weighted ensemble (for flexible molecules).	Ensemble averaging ensures transferability across states sampled in MD [11].
Restraint Weight (a)	0.001 - 0.01	0.001 - 0.01	Attenuates charge magnitudes without significantly degrading ESP fit [28].
δ Mixing Parameter	Not Applicable (N/A)	0.6	60% aqueous, 40% gas-phase ESP provides optimal accuracy for liquids [29].
Symmetry	Constraints on equivalent atoms.	Constraints on equivalent atoms.	Essential for physical meaning and numerical stability [30] [31].

Experimental Protocols: A Step-by-Step Guide

Protocol 1: Deriving Ensemble-Averaged RESP2 Charges for an ncAA

This protocol outlines the process for generating robust RESP2 charges for a non-canonical amino acid, as required for high-quality cyclic peptide folding simulations.

Step 1: Generate a Conformational Ensemble

• Start with the Ace-ncAA-NMe capped dipeptide to mimic the peptide backbone environment [11].
• Use conformer generation software (e.g., with the BioChemical Library (BCL) or RDKit) to systematically sample the side-chain and backbone dihedral angles of the ncAA.
• Optimize all generated conformers at an appropriate level of theory (e.g., DFT) and calculate their relative energies.
• Select a Boltzmann-weighted set of low-energy conformers (e.g., within ~5 kcal/mol of the global minimum) for the subsequent charge fitting [11].

Step 2: Calculate Quantum Mechanical Electrostatic Potentials For each conformer in the ensemble:

• Perform a QM single-point energy calculation to compute the electrostatic potential. For RESP2, this requires two separate calculations for each conformer:
  • A gas-phase calculation.
  • An aqueous-phase calculation using an implicit solvent model (e.g., IEF-PCM or SMD).
• Recommended Level of Theory: Use PW6B95/aug-cc-pV(D+d)Z for a good balance of accuracy and computational cost, as it provides more accurate dipole moments and ESPs than the traditional HF/6-31G* [29].

Step 3: Perform the Two-Stage RESP2 Fit The RESP2 fit combines the gas and aqueous ESPs according to the δ parameter [29].

• Stage 1 Fit:
  • Target: The combined ESP2 potential for each conformer.
  • Restraint: Apply a hyperbolic restraint (e.g., weight=0.0005) only to non-methyl heavy atoms and methyl hydrogens.
  • Symmetry: Constrain the charges of chemically equivalent atoms (e.g., hydrogens in a methyl group) to be equal within each conformer.
• Stage 2 Fit:
  • Target: The same combined ESP2 potential.
  • Restraint: Apply a stronger hyperbolic restraint (e.g., weight=0.001) to all heavy atoms.
  • Symmetry: Constrain the charges of equivalent atoms to be equal across all conformers in the ensemble, ensuring a single, consistent charge set.

Step 4: Validation

• In-Crystal Validation (if possible): Run a short MD simulation of the ncAA in a crystal lattice. A good charge set should reasonably maintain the experimental crystal geometry and intermolecular hydrogen bonds [28].
• Liquid Property Validation: For ultimate accuracy, co-optimize the Lennard-Jones parameters with the RESP2 charges against experimental liquid properties like density and heat of vaporization [29].

Workflow Diagram: RESP2 Charge Derivation for ncAAs

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Solutions

Table 3: Key Software Tools for RESP Parameterization

Software / Tool	Primary Function	Role in RESP Workflow
Gaussian / ORCA / Psi4	Quantum Chemistry Software	Performs the essential quantum mechanical calculations to compute the molecular electrostatic potential (ESP) on a grid around the molecule(s).
Antechamber / R.E.D.	RESP Fitting Tools	Automates the multi-stage RESP fitting procedure, handling constraints, restraints, and conformational averaging.
AmberTools / tleap	Molecular Dynamics Preparation	Used to incorporate the newly generated RESP charges and associated parameters (from .prepi/.frcmod files) into the final topology file for simulation [11].
CP2K	Ab Initio Molecular Dynamics	Includes built-in functionality for performing RESP fits for both periodic and non-periodic systems directly from its DFT calculations [30].
OpenFF Recharge	RESP & Charge Fitting	An open-source framework specifically designed for generating RESP charges, including support for multi-conformer fitting and advanced charge models [31].
BioChemical Library (BCL)	Conformer Generation	Assists in the initial step of generating a diverse, low-energy conformational ensemble for the ncAA [11].

The process of creating residue templates for non-canonical amino acids (ncAAs) involves parallel pathways for Rosetta and AMBER parameter generation, converging toward simulation-ready systems. The workflow integrates quantum chemistry calculations, force field parameterization, and structural sampling to ensure compatibility across modeling platforms [11].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table: Essential Tools and Resources for ncAA Parameterization

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Context
Antechamber	Automates parameter generation for small molecules	AMBER parameter generation; assigns atom types, bond orders, and initial charges [32]
Parmchk2	Identifies missing force field parameters	AMBER workflow; generates .frcmod files with supplementary bonded terms [33]
molfiletoparams.py	Converts MOL/SDF files to Rosetta params	Rosetta parameter generation; creates initial .params file from chemical structure [34]
RESP Fit	Derives electrostatic potential-derived charges	Charge parameterization for both AMBER and Rosetta; uses quantum chemical data [11]
FakeRotLib	Generates statistical rotamer libraries	Rosetta side-chain conformation sampling; alternative to extensive conformational searching [35]
pdb4amber	Prepares and cleans PDB structures	Pre-processing for AMBER simulation; handles disulfide bridges, protonation states [36]
LEaP	Builds molecular systems and topologies	AMBER system construction; incorporates .prepi files into complete simulation systems [36]

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the critical differences between .params and .prepi file formats?

Table: Comparison of Rosetta .params and AMBER .prepi File Formats

Characteristic	Rosetta .params File	AMBER .prepi File
Primary Purpose	Defines residue geometry & chemical connectivity [34]	Contains topology & parameter information [32]
Required Fields	NAME, TYPE, ATOM, BOND, CHI, ICOOR_INTERNAL [34]	Atom names, types, coordinates, bonds, charges [37]
Charge Specification	Included in ATOM lines [34]	RESP-derived charges fitted to electrostatic potential [37]
Backbone Connections	LOWERCONNECT/UPPERCONNECT [34]	Defined via main chain file for polymer linkage [37]
Rotamer Handling	CHI definitions & rotamer libraries [34]	Dihedral parameters in .frcmod files [11]

How do I resolve "atom does not have a type" errors in tleap?

This common error occurs when atom types in your .prepi file are not recognized by the force field. The solution involves:

• Run parmchk2: Use parmchk2 -i residue.ac -f ac -o residue.frcmod to identify missing parameters and generate force field modifications [37].
• Ensure proper force field loading: In tleap, always load parameters in the correct order:
  [37]
• Verify atom type compatibility: For protein residues, ensure atom types align with ff14SB. Non-standard chemistry may require GAFF atom types [11].
• Check for naming inconsistencies: Atom names must exactly match between different files. Even slight variations (e.g., O3* vs. O3') will cause failures [33].

My Rosetta models show unrealistic side-chain conformations for ncAAs. How can I improve this?

Poor side-chain sampling typically indicates issues with rotamer library generation:

• Generate specialized rotamer libraries: Use tools like FakeRotLib that employ statistical fitting of small-molecule conformers to create accurate rotamer distributions [35].
• Verify CHI angle definitions: In your .params file, ensure CHI lines correctly define rotatable bonds using four properly ordered atoms [34].
• Consider conformational ensemble: For AMBER parameters, derive RESP charges from multiple low-energy conformers rather than a single structure to improve transferability [11].
• Validate against quantum mechanics: Compare rotamer energy profiles with quantum chemical calculations to identify systematic deviations [11].

When working with modified residues from PDB files that use non-standard atom naming (e.g., O3* instead of O3'):

• Preserve PDB naming schemes: Use the PDB file as direct input to antechamber with -fi pdb to maintain naming consistency [37].
• Manual renaming requires updates: If you must rename atoms, ensure consistency across ALL files (.prepi, .frcmod, and any input structures) [33].
• Use pdb4amber for preprocessing: This tool can standardize common issues in PDB files before parameterization [36].
• Document naming decisions: Keep a record of atom name mappings for future reference and to ensure reproducibility.

What specific quantum chemistry level should I use for RESP charge fitting?

For compatibility with AMBER force fields:

• Geometry optimization: Use B3LYP/6-31G* in vacuum to obtain the initial structure [37].
• Electrostatic potential calculation: Perform HF/6-31G* calculation on the optimized geometry to generate the ESP [37].
• RESP fitting: Use the resp program with restraints on the ACE and NME capping groups to maintain charge consistency with the force field [37].
• Conformational averaging: For better transferability, consider deriving charges from a Boltzmann-weighted ensemble of conformations rather than a single structure [11].

Why does my custom residue fail to connect properly in polymer chains?

Polymer connectivity issues arise from improper definition of backbone connection points:

• In Rosetta: Ensure LOWER_CONNECT and UPPER_CONNECT atoms are defined, along with corresponding virtual atoms and ICOOR_INTERNAL records that establish the connection geometry [34].
• In AMBER: The main chain file (.mc) used with prepgen must correctly identify the backbone atoms for polymer linkage. Use standard capping groups (ACE and NME) during parameter development to ensure proper backbone parameterization [37].
• Cross-software consistency: For residues parameterized for both platforms, ensure the backbone atom names and chemical environments are compatible between the .params and .prepi definitions [11].

How can I validate that my parameter set is physically reasonable?

Comprehensive validation should include:

• Geometry optimization: Minimize an isolated residue and check for reasonable bond lengths and angles compared to similar chemical moieties.
• Torsional scanning: Compare dihedral energy profiles with quantum mechanical reference data [11].
• Molecular dynamics stability: Run short simulations in water to check for structural integrity and absence of unrealistic deformations [6].
• Reproduction of quantum mechanical data: Verify that the parameters reproduce the conformational preferences observed in quantum chemical calculations [11].
• Comparative analysis: For ncAAs with structural similarity to canonical amino acids, compare parameters to ensure they follow similar physical trends [11].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: My stapled peptide, which incorporates non-natural amino acids, aggregates during synthesis. What could be the cause? The incorporation of non-natural amino acids and the physical constraints of the staple can promote the formation of β-sheet structures that lead to aggregation [38]. This is often observed in real-time as an unexpected increase in resin volume during synthesis [38].

• Troubleshooting Steps:
  • Monitor Resin Volume: Use a system with in-line analytics, like a variable bed flow reactor (VBFR), to detect volume changes that signal aggregation [38].
  • Apply Heated Synthesis: Perform couplings at elevated temperatures (e.g., 40-60°C) to disrupt secondary structures that cause aggregation. A VBFR reactor provides precise temperature control for this [38].
  • Use Pseudoprolines: Introduce pseudoproline dipeptides at problematic sequence positions to break the pattern of aggregation [38].

Q2: When running molecular dynamics (MD) folding simulations, my stapled peptide gets trapped in a non-native conformation. How can I improve sampling? Large, slow-folding proteins (and peptides with constraints like staples) often fold via long-lived intermediates, making it difficult for standard MD simulations to escape these local energy minima [3].

• Troubleshooting Steps:
  • Employ Structure-Based Models (SBMs): Use Gō-like models that bias the simulation toward the native contacts. This simplifies the energy landscape and makes folding simulations of large constructs practical [3].
  • Utilize Enhanced Sampling: Combine MD with replica exchange or other enhanced sampling methods to efficiently overcome free energy barriers [3].
  • Validate with Experiments: Use simulation results to identify potential long-lived intermediates. Design experiments, such as spectroscopic assays, to test for these states [3].

Q3: How can I rationally design a stapled peptide with improved binding affinity and cellular permeability? Navigating the vast sequence space, including non-natural amino acids, is key to optimizing peptide properties [39].

• Troubleshooting Steps:
  • Use Generative AI Tools: Leverage platforms like PepINVENT, which are designed to explore peptide sequences incorporating both natural and non-natural amino acids for property optimization [39].
  • Optimize Multiple Parameters: Frame your design goal as a multi-parameter optimization, using reinforcement learning to guide the generative model toward designs with high permeability and strong target binding [39].
  • Focus on Sidechain Chemistry: Remember that all-atom MD methods, which include side-chain chemistry, can predict how mutations and staple linkages impact folding and stability [3].

Q4: The synthesis yield of my stapled peptide is low, especially for residues following the staple. What can I do? Steric hindrance from the macrocyclic staple can make subsequent amino acid couplings inefficient.

• Troubleshooting Steps:
  • Increase Coupling Temperature: Use heated synthesis to accelerate reaction kinetics for sterically difficult couplings [38].
  • Optimize Coupling Reagents: Use potent activating reagents like DIC and Oxyma in a single-pass flow system to ensure efficient coupling even with hindered residues [38].
  • Double-Couple: Implement a double-coupling protocol for amino acids immediately following the staple formation to ensure complete reaction.

---

Experimental Protocols for Key Procedures

Protocol 1: High-Throughput Synthesis of Stapled Peptides with Non-Natural Amino Acids

This protocol utilizes automated flow-based peptide synthesizers, such as the Peptide-Builder, for efficient and high-purity production [38].

• Resin Preparation: Load a pre-determined mass of resin (e.g., 0.05 to 1.0 mmol scale) into a barcoded cartridge. The choice of resin (e.g., PS, PEG) and linker should be compatible with the desired peptide sequence and cleavage conditions [38].
• Sequence Programming: Input the peptide sequence into the synthesizer's software. Specify the positions of non-natural amino acids and the residues (e.g., serine, cysteine) to be used for stapling. The software will automatically generate the synthesis protocol [38].
• Automated Synthesis Cycle:
  • Deprotection: Flush the resin with a solution of piperidine in DMF to remove the Fmoc protecting group. The system monitors the Fmoc deprotection in real-time via UV/vis spectroscopy [38].
  • Coupling: Recirculate a solution of the next Fmoc-amino acid (1.5-3.0 equivalents), DIC, and Oxyma in DMF through the resin cartridge. For non-natural amino acids used as limiting reagents, a single-pass continuous flow can be used. The reactor temperature is automatically set to the optimum for each amino acid (e.g., higher temperatures for sterically hindered residues) [38].
  • Washing: Wash the resin with DMF between steps. A typical cycle time (deprotection, coupling, washing) is approximately 6 minutes per residue [38].
• On-Resin Stapling: After incorporation of the final staple precursor, perform the ring-closing metathesis (RCM) reaction on-resin using a suitable catalyst (e.g., Grubbs catalyst) in DCE.
• Cleavage and Purification: Cleave the peptide from the resin, remove protecting groups, and purify via reverse-phase HPLC.

Protocol 2: Setting Up a Molecular Dynamics Folding Simulation for a Stapled Peptide

This protocol outlines a native-centric approach to simulate the folding of a stapled peptide, which is computationally efficient and provides insight into folding intermediates [3].

• System Preparation:
  • Obtain or generate an initial 3D structure of your stapled peptide, ideally from NMR or homology modeling.
  • Parameterize the non-natural amino acids and the staple linkage for your MD force field.
• Choose a Simulation Model:
  • For folding pathway prediction: Use a coarse-grained or all-atom Structure-Based Model (SBM or Gō model). This model defines attractive interactions only for contacts present in the native state, funneling the landscape toward the folded structure [3].
  • For assessing mutational impacts: Use an all-atom-based method with a realistic force field. This includes side-chain chemistry and can predict how the staple or point mutations affect folding [3].
• Simulation Execution:
  • Use high-performance computing resources. For proteins larger than 100 amino acids, enhanced sampling techniques are almost necessary [3].
  • Run multiple, independent simulations (with different initial random velocities) to ensure statistical significance.
  • For systems with high free-energy barriers, employ replica exchange molecular dynamics (REMD) to improve conformational sampling [3].
• Trajectory Analysis:
  • Reaction Coordinate: Use the fraction of native contacts formed as a primary reaction coordinate to monitor folding progression [3].
  • Identify Intermediates: Analyze simulation snapshots to identify and characterize partially folded intermediates that may be long-lived due to the staple [3].
  • Free Energy Landscape: Construct a free energy landscape as a function of the fraction of native contacts and the radius of gyration to visualize folding funnels and barriers [3].

---

Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details essential materials and their functions in the synthesis and computational analysis of stapled peptides.

Reagent / Material	Function in Research
PEG-based Resins	Supports peptide chain growth during solid-phase synthesis; preferred for longer peptides due to improved solvation [38].
Non-Natural Amino Acids	Building blocks for introducing staples and enhancing peptide properties like stability and permeability [39].
Variable Bed Flow Reactor (VBFR)	A specialized flow reactor that maintains constant resin packing density, eliminates channeling, and allows for precise temperature control during synthesis [38].
DIC/Oxyma Activation	A reagent pair for efficient amide bond formation (coupling) during synthesis, minimizing racemization [38].
Structure-Based Model (SBM)	A computational force field that uses the native protein structure to guide folding simulations, making the study of large proteins practical [3].
Generative AI (PepINVENT)	A tool for de novo peptide design that explores sequences beyond the 20 natural amino acids, enabling multi-parameter optimization [39].

---

Workflow and Pathway Visualizations

The following diagrams illustrate the logical workflow for integrating computational and experimental methods in stapled peptide research.

Overcoming Simulation Challenges: Stability, Sampling, and Force Field Pitfalls

Technical FAQs: Navigating Sampling Challenges

Why is simulating the folding of large proteins so computationally difficult, and what defines a "long-timescale" event?

Simulating protein folding is challenging due to the astronomical number of possible conformations a protein can adopt. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations integrate Newton's equations of motion with femtosecond (10⁻¹⁵ second) timesteps, yet protein folding occurs on timescales ranging from microseconds to tens of minutes [3]. To reach just one millisecond (10⁻³ seconds), a simulation requires approximately 10¹² timesteps [40]. This computational burden is compounded by the large system sizes (~10⁵ atoms for explicit solvent simulations) [40] and the fact that large, multidomain proteins often fold via long-lived, partially folded intermediates that represent deep local energy minima, making transitions between states rare events [3].

What specific challenges do non-natural amino acids introduce into folding simulations?

Incorporating non-natural amino acids (unatural amino acids) presents unique challenges for MD simulations. The presence of unnatural amino acids can alter a protein's folding pathway, stability, and interaction networks in ways that are not fully captured by standard force fields [41] [1]. These force fields are typically parameterized for the 20 naturally occurring amino acids, so the novel chemical, physical, and biological properties of unnatural amino acids—such as photoactivatable groups, heavy atoms, or reactive side chains—may not be accurately represented [41] [42]. This can lead to inaccuracies in simulating the relative energies of unfolded or misfolded conformations that occur during the folding process [2].

How can I validate that my simulation has adequately sampled the folding landscape?

A well-sampled simulation should produce results that are consistent with experimental data. Key validation methods include:

• Comparison with NMR observables: Order parameters, residual dipolar couplings, and particularly NMR chemical shifts can be used for error assessment [43]. The ensemble average of chemical shifts calculated from simulation frames should match those obtained from NMR spectroscopy.
• Markov State Model (MSM) validation: A robust MSM should have a lag time where the implied timescales plateau, indicating Markovian behavior [40].
• Experimental kinetics: Computed folding rates and the presence of intermediates should be consistent with experimental data from techniques like stopped-flow spectroscopy or single-molecule FRET [3] [2].

Troubleshooting Guides

Problem: Inability to Observe Complete Folding Events

Symptoms: Simulations consistently fail to reach the native state, becoming trapped in misfolded or partially folded conformations.

Solutions:

Solution	Description	Best for
Structure-Based Models (SBMs)	Gō-like models simplify the energy landscape by encoding the native structure into the potential energy, largely ignoring nonnative interactions. This makes folding computationally accessible by biasing the simulation toward native contacts [3].	Initial exploration of folding pathways and intermediates for large proteins (>100 residues) [3].
Markov State Models (MSMs)	Build a kinetic model of the folding process by aggregating many short, independent simulations. This approach allows prediction of long-timescale dynamics from shorter trajectories [40].	Studying complex folding mechanisms with multiple pathways and intermediates; efficient use of distributed computing [40].
Advanced Sampling & Hardware	Utilize enhanced sampling methods (e.g., replica exchange) or specialized hardware (e.g., ANTON supercomputer, GPUs) to accelerate sampling [3] [40].	All-atom simulations with explicit solvent when high computational resources are available [2] [40].

The following workflow can help researchers select and implement the appropriate strategy:

Problem: Force Field Inaccuracies with Non-Natural Amino Acids

Symptoms: Unnatural amino acids adopt non-native conformations; simulated structures deviate from experimental validation data (e.g., NMR chemical shifts).

Solutions:

• Parameter Optimization: Derive new parameters for the unnatural amino acid using quantum mechanical (QM) calculations. Target properties include bond lengths, angles, dihedrals, and partial charges. For novel side chains, QM calculations at levels like B3LYP/6-311+G(2d,p) can provide reference data [43].
• Force Field Selection and Validation:
  • Test different force fields (e.g., AMBER, CHARMM, OPLS-AA) for their ability to reproduce known experimental properties.
  • Use NMR chemical shift validation [43]. Calculate chemical shifts from simulation trajectories using QM-based methods and compare the ensemble average to experimental NMR data. Significant deviations indicate potential force field errors.
  • Consult databases like SwissSidechain, a curated resource for modeling unnatural amino acid side chains [1].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Implementing a Structure-Based Model (SBM) for Folding Simulation

This protocol outlines the setup for a Cα coarse-grained SBM (also known as a Gō model), which is highly efficient for initial folding studies [3].

Key Research Reagents & Solutions:

Item	Function in Protocol
Native Structure (PDB ID)	Serves as the topological blueprint. All stabilizing interactions in the model are derived from this structure [3].
Coarse-Graining Software (e.g., SMOG, CafeMol)	Converts the all-atom PDB structure into a simplified coarse-grained representation (e.g., one bead per Cα atom) [3].
MD Simulation Package (e.g., GROMACS, NAMD, OpenMM)	Performs the numerical integration of the equations of motion to generate the folding trajectory.
Replica Exchange MD (Optional)	An enhanced sampling technique that runs multiple copies (replicas) of the system at different temperatures to accelerate barrier crossing [3].

Methodology:

• System Setup:
  • Obtain the high-resolution native structure of your protein of interest from the Protein Data Bank (PDB).
  • Use specialized software (e.g., SMOG) to generate the coarse-grained model and the corresponding topology file. The potential energy function of a typical SBM includes terms for:
    • Native contacts: An attractive potential between pairs of atoms that are in contact in the native structure.
    • Chain connectivity: Bonds, angles, and dihedrals that are defined based on the native geometry [3].
• Simulation Execution:
  • Run the simulation in a suitable MD package. SBMs are often run with implicit solvent to maximize computational efficiency.
  • For proteins with high folding barriers, implement a Replica Exchange MD protocol. A typical setup uses 16-64 replicas spanning a temperature range from 300K to 500K, with exchange attempts every 1-2 ps [3].
• Analysis:
  • Use the Fraction of Native Contacts (Q) as a reaction coordinate to monitor folding. Q=1 represents the fully folded state, and Q=0 the unfolded state.
  • Identify folding intermediates and transition states by constructing free energy surfaces as a function of Q and other order parameters (e.g., radius of gyration).

Protocol 2: Incorporating an Unnatural Amino Acid and Validating with Simulation

This protocol describes a combined experimental/computational workflow for studying proteins containing unnatural amino acids.

Methodology:

• Incorporation of Unnatural Amino Acid:
  • Use the Stop Codon Suppression (SCS) technique. This involves engineering a host cell (e.g., E. coli) to include an orthogonal tRNA/synthetase pair (e.g., the pyrolysine system from Methanosarcina barkeri). The synthetase is engineered to charge the orthogonal tRNA with the desired unnatural amino acid. An amber stop codon (TAG) is introduced at the target site in the gene of interest [1].
  • The engineered system incorporates the unnatural amino acid in response to the amber codon during protein expression [41] [1].
• Experimental Validation:
  • Purify the protein and validate correct incorporation using mass spectrometry.
  • Obtain experimental data for validation, such as NMR chemical shifts from the BioMagResBank (BMRB) or measure folding kinetics using spectroscopic methods [43].
• Simulation and Force Field Validation:
  • Parameterize the Unnatural Amino Acid: If parameters are not available in standard force fields, perform QM calculations to derive bonded and non-bonded parameters.
  • Run MD Simulations: Perform all-atom simulations of the folded state and, if possible, folding simulations using advanced sampling methods.
  • Compute and Compare Chemical Shifts: For folded state simulations, calculate the ensemble-averaged chemical shifts from the trajectory using a QM-based method (e.g., as in [43]) or an empirical program (e.g., SHIFTX2). Compare these to experimental NMR data. Significant deviations suggest inaccuracies in the force field or protein structure.

The following diagram illustrates the complete iterative workflow for this protocol:

Troubleshooting Guide: Force Field Inaccuracies

This guide helps diagnose and resolve common force field inaccuracies encountered when simulating biomolecules, particularly those containing non-canonical amino acids (ncAAs).

Symptom	Potential Cause	Next Diagnostic Step
Non-native states are overly stabilized, preventing correct folding. [2]	Improper balance of nonbonded interactions (e.g., van der Waals, solvation).	Perform free energy calculations on model systems (e.g., dihedral angles) against quantum mechanical (QM) reference data. [44]
Protein remains trapped in a specific intermediate state for an unrealistic duration. [3]	Rugged energy landscape with artificially high barriers or deep local minima.	Use enhanced sampling methods (e.g., replica exchange) to map the free energy landscape and identify problematic barriers. [3]
ncAA side chains adopt incorrect rotameric states or disrupt local structure. [11]	Missing or poorly optimized bonded parameters (dihedrals, angles) for the ncAA.	Calculate QM torsion scans for the ncAA dihedral angles and compare them to the force field's potential. [11]
Systematic error in predicting mutational effects on stability or binding. [45]	Inherent force field bias, such as an imbalance between protein-protein and protein-solvent interactions.	Benchmark against a high-quality experimental dataset of stability changes (e.g., for a small protein like Gβ1). [45]

---

Detailed Diagnostic Protocols

Protocol 1: Validating Torsional Potentials Against QM Data

• Objective: To ensure the force field accurately reproduces the rotational energy profile of ncAA side chains.
• Methodology:
  • Select the central rotatable bond (dihedral angle) in the ncAA side chain to be studied.
  • Use a QM software package (e.g., Gaussian, ORCA) to perform a torsion scan. This involves constraining the dihedral angle at regular intervals (e.g., every 15°) and computing the single-point energy for each conformation. [11]
  • In your molecular dynamics (MD) engine, perform the same torsion scan calculation using the force field in question.
  • Plot the QM and MD energies against the dihedral angle and calculate the root-mean-square error (RMSE). A large discrepancy indicates poorly parametrized torsional terms. [11]
• Interpretation: An RMSE on the order of 1-2 kcal/mol is often considered a good target for agreement, though stricter thresholds may be required for sensitive applications.

Protocol 2: Benchmarking with Free Energy Perturbation (FEP)

• Objective: To quantitatively assess a force field's ability to predict the thermodynamic impact of point mutations, a stringent test of its energy balance.
• Methodology:
  • Select a benchmark dataset of experimental protein stability changes (ΔΔG) upon mutation. Publicly available datasets for proteins like T4 Lysozyme or the Gβ1 domain are excellent for this purpose. [45]
  • Employ a robust FEP protocol, such as the hybrid-topology QresFEP-2 method. [45]
  • Run FEP simulations to compute the predicted ΔΔG for a series of mutations.
  • Compare the computationally predicted ΔΔG values to the experimental data by calculating correlation coefficients (R²) and error metrics (mean absolute error). [45]
• Interpretation: A high-accuracy force field should yield a high R² (e.g., >0.6) and a low mean absolute error (e.g., <1 kcal/mol) against a broad benchmark set. Significant systematic errors suggest fundamental force field imbalances.

Protocol 3: Assessing Folding with Structure-Based Models (SBMs)

• Objective: To isolate topology-induced folding effects from chemical-specific energy inaccuracies.
• Methodology:
  • Convert your protein's native structure into a Gō-like or structure-based model (SBM). These models feature a "funneled" energy landscape biased toward the native contacts. [3]
  • Run folding simulations using the SBM.
  • Compare the folding pathways and intermediates observed in the SBM simulations with those from all-atom simulations with a physics-based force field. [3]
• Interpretation: If the all-atom simulations consistently get stuck in states that are not on the folding pathway identified by the SBM, it suggests energetic inaccuracies (e.g., over-stabilization of non-native interactions) in the all-atom force field, rather than a topological folding barrier. [3]

Diagnostic Protocol Selection Guide

---

Force Field Correction Pathways

Pathway 1: Parametrizing a New ncAA from Scratch

When no suitable parameters exist, a full parametrization is required. The following workflow ensures compatibility with common MD engines like AMBER. [11]

ncAA Parametrization Workflow

• Key Steps:
  • Initial Structure: Generate a high-quality 3D structure of a capped dipeptide (Ace-ncAA-NMe) to model the ncAA in a peptide context. [11]
  • Partial Charges: Derive electrostatic potential (ESP) charges using a quantum mechanics (QM) method. To ensure transferability, perform RESP fitting on a Boltzmann-weighted ensemble of low-energy conformers, not just a single snapshot. [11]
  • Atom Typing: Assign atom types that are compatible with the parent protein force field (e.g., ff14SB). [11] For chemical moieties not covered, use a general force field like GAFF2.
  • Missing Parameters: Identify and supply any missing bonded parameters (bonds, angles, dihedrals). These can be sourced from similar chemical fragments in the force field or derived by fitting to QM energy profiles. [11]

Pathway 2: Leveraging Machine-Learned Force Fields

For a more automated and potentially accurate approach, consider next-generation machine-learned force fields.

• Solution: Use a framework like Grappa, which predicts molecular mechanics (MM) parameters directly from the molecular graph using a graph neural network. [44]
• How it Works: Grappa trains on QM data to predict all bonded MM parameters (bonds, angles, dihedrals), while typically using established Lennard-Jones and Coulomb parameters for nonbonded interactions. This combines the accuracy of a machine-learned model with the computational efficiency of a standard MM force field. [44]
• Application: Grappa has been shown to accurately reproduce QM energies and forces for small molecules and peptides, and can be applied to proteins and even large complexes like viruses. It is particularly useful for regions of chemical space poorly covered by traditional force fields, such as peptide radicals. [44]

Pathway 3: Refining Parameters with Advanced Sampling

If a baseline parameter set exists but yields inaccuracies, targeted refinement can be performed.

• Method: Employ advanced sampling methods like replica exchange MD to extensively sample the conformational space of a peptide containing the ncAA.
• Refinement: Compare the population of conformational states (e.g., from a Ramachandran-like plot for the ncAA) to experimental data (e.g., NMR J-couplings) or a QM-level potential of mean force. Iteratively adjust torsional parameters to achieve better agreement. [44]

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: My simulation of a cyclic peptide with an ncAA is unstable. The energy blows up. What is the most likely cause? This is almost always caused by missing parameters. The force field lacks necessary bonded terms (bond, angle, or dihedral parameters) for the unique chemical geometry of your ncAA. The first step is to carefully generate complete parameter files (e.g., a .frcmod file for AMBER) that supply all missing terms, often derived from QM calculations. [11]

Q2: How can I quickly check if my existing parameters for an ncAA are reasonable before running a long simulation? Run a short gas-phase minimization and MD simulation of the isolated ncAA in its capped dipeptide form. Check for unrealistic bond stretching or abnormal geometry. Then, perform a torsion scan (as in Protocol 1) for its central side-chain dihedrals and compare the energy profile to a QM reference. A large deviation (>2-3 kcal/mol) indicates a problem. [11]

Q3: Are machine-learned force fields like Grappa a suitable replacement for traditional force fields for simulating ncAAs? Yes, they are a very promising alternative. Unlike traditional force fields that rely on a fixed set of atom types, Grappa generates parameters for any molecular graph, making it inherently suited for ncAAs without manual parametrization. It matches or exceeds the accuracy of established force fields at the same computational cost, making it an excellent choice for novel chemistries. [44]

Q4: My all-atom simulations fail to fold a small protein, instead populating a stable non-native helical intermediate. Is the force field wrong? This is a known challenge. While the protein's topology might favor a specific native fold, the force field's energy function might over-stabilize non-native interactions, such as helical hydrogen bonds. This was observed in simulations of the Pin WW domain. [2] Using an SBM (Protocol 3) can help determine if the issue is topological or energetic. Correction may require using a refined force field or applying machine-learned alternatives.

---

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Software

Item	Function	Application in Force Field Validation
QM Software (Gaussian, ORCA)	Provides high-accuracy quantum mechanical energy calculations.	Generating reference data for torsional potentials and partial charge derivation. [11]
MD Engines (GROMACS, OpenMM, AMBER)	Software to perform molecular dynamics simulations.	Running production simulations and free energy calculations (FEP/TI). [44] [45]
Force Field Parametrization Tools (ACPYPE, MATCH)	Automates the assignment of atom types and parameters for new molecules.	Creating initial parameter sets for ncAAs compatible with force fields like GAFF2. [11]
Free Energy Software (QresFEP-2, PMX, FEP+)	Specialized tools for running free energy perturbation calculations.	Benchmarking force field accuracy by predicting protein stability changes upon mutation. [45]
Machine-Learned FF (Grappa, Espaloma)	Predicts molecular mechanics parameters directly from chemical structure.	Generating accurate, transferable parameters for ncAAs without manual atom typing. [44]
RESP Fit Code	Derives electrostatic potential (ESP) fitted atomic partial charges.	Calculating quantum-mechanically derived partial charges for new residues. [11]

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

General Concepts

What are protein dynamic conformations and why are they important for simulating ncAAs? Proteins are not static entities but exist as conformational ensembles that mediate various functional states. These dynamic conformations involve transitions between multiple states, including stable states, metastable states, and the transition states between them [46]. For non-canonical amino acids (ncAAs), which are often incorporated to fine-tune properties like polarity and conformational preorganization, understanding these dynamics is crucial. The flexibility of ncAAs can directly impact the functional landscape of the designed protein or peptide, influencing stability and binding interactions [11].

How does the energy landscape relate to conformational sampling? The conformational free energy surface of a protein dictates its dynamic behavior. Stable and metastable states correspond to energy minima, while transition states represent the higher-energy pathways between them [46]. Enhanced sampling techniques are designed to help molecular dynamics (MD) simulations overcome these energy barriers, allowing for adequate exploration of the conformational space available to ncAAs, which may sample non-native energy minima.

Technical Setup and Parameterization

How do I generate parameters for a new non-canonical amino acid? Parameterizing a new ncAA is a critical step. A typical workflow involves [11]:

• Obtain Chemical Definition: Start with a chemical definition file (e.g., a SMILES string) for the ncAA.
• Prototype Generation: Create a high-quality 3D structure of a capped dipeptide (Ace-ncAA-NMe) with defined chirality.
• Parameter Files: Generate the necessary force field files.
  • For Rosetta, this involves building a .params file and a side chain rotamer library.
  • For AMBER, this requires building a .prepi topology template and a .frcmod file to supply missing force field terms, with partial charges derived via RESP fitting against a quantum mechanical reference.
• Validation: Use the parameters in test simulations (e.g., folding a cyclic peptide) to ensure stability and expected behavior.

Which force fields and MD packages are compatible with ncAAs? While standard force fields like ff14SB (for AMBER) cover canonical amino acids, ncAAs require custom parameterization. The Generalized Amber Force Field (GAFF/GAFF2) is often used to cover the new chemistry introduced by ncAAs [11]. CHARMM-GUI supports generating simulation inputs for various MD packages, including AMBER, GROMACS, OpenMM, CHARMM/OpenMM, NAMD, GENESIS, and Desmond, provided the ncAA parameters are correctly supplied [47].

My system has overlapping atoms after building. Is this normal? Yes, it is normal for initially assembled systems to have some bad contacts (overlapping atoms) as long as there is no ring penetration or unnatural knots [47]. These steric clashes are typically resolved during the initial steps of the equilibration protocol in MD simulations.

Simulation Execution and Analysis

Why does my job with ncAAs take so long to run? Simulations of complex systems, especially those involving flexible ncAAs or large solvated boxes, are computationally intensive. For large systems (> 150 Å along any dimension), certain setup and simulation steps can take hours or even days to complete [47]. The enhanced sampling techniques required to adequately sample ncAA flexibility also significantly increase computational cost.

How can I improve the conformational sampling of my ncAA-containing peptide? Beyond standard MD, enhanced sampling methods are often necessary. Furthermore, a workflow called ResidueX has been introduced to incorporate ncAAs into peptide scaffolds generated by AlphaFold, prioritizing scaffolds based on predicted DockQ scores (p-DockQ) to guide the design and simulation toward high-quality conformations [48].

Troubleshooting

I am getting instability in my ncAA during simulation. What should I check? First, verify the quality of your parameterization. Ensure that the partial charges, bond, angle, and dihedral parameters for the ncAA are physically reasonable and have been properly validated. Check for any missing parameters in the generated .frcmod file. Instability can often be traced to inaccuracies in these fundamental terms [11].

AlphaFold2/3's built-in confidence score gives me false positives for my peptide-protein complex. How can I better select models? The built-in confidence score (pLDDT or ipTM) can indeed produce a high false positive rate. The TopoDockQ tool has been developed to address this. It is a topological deep learning model that uses persistent combinatorial Laplacian (PCL) features to predict DockQ scores (p-DockQ), which more accurately reflect peptide-protein interface quality. This has been shown to reduce false positives by at least 42% and increase precision by 6.7% compared to using AlphaFold's confidence score alone [48].

Which lipids are compatible with the Amber force fields when simulating membrane proteins with ncAAs? Not all lipids are automatically convertible to AMBER force fields like Lipid21. CHARMM-GUI provides a compatibility table. For example, common lipids like POPC, POPE, and POPG are convertible ('Y'), while others like PLPC are not ('N') [47]. You must verify compatibility for your specific lipid.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 1: Essential software tools for parameterization and simulation of ncAAs.

Tool Name	Function	Key Features / Compatibility
AMBER/AMBERTools	MD Simulation & Parameterization	Provides antechamber and parmchk2 for generating GAFF2 parameters and RESP charges for ncAAs [11].
Rosetta	Biomolecular Modeling & Design	Uses a hybrid physics- and knowledge-based energy function; requires .params file and rotamer library for each ncAA [11].
CHARMM-GUI	Simulation System Builder	Generates input files for AMBER, GROMACS, OpenMM, etc.; can incorporate user-provided ncAA parameters [47].
BioChemical Library (BCL)	Cheminformatics	Assists in 3D conformer generation and molecular mechanics optimization during the ncAA parameterization process [11].
OpenMM	High-Performance MD Simulation	A tool for which CHARMM-GUI can generate input files, useful for running simulations on GPUs [47].
GROMACS	High-Performance MD Simulation	Another supported MD engine on CHARMM-GUI for running production simulations [47].
TopoDockQ	Model Quality Assessment	Predicts DockQ scores for peptide-protein complexes to improve model selection and reduce false positives [48].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: End-to-End Parameterization of a Non-Canonical Amino Acid

This protocol provides a step-by-step guide for generating force field parameters for a novel ncAA suitable for use in both Rosetta modeling and AMBER MD simulations [11].

Software Requirements:

• AMBER24 and AMBERTools24
• Rosetta macromolecular modeling suite
• BioChemical Library (BCL) with integrated RDKit

Step-by-Step Methodology:

• Initial Setup and Dipeptide Generation

  • Input: Obtain the ncAA's chemical definition as a SMILES string or SDF file.
  • Action: Generate a high-quality 3D structure of a capped dipeptide, Ace-ncAA-NMe, with user-specified chirality. This provides a minimal molecular context that includes the backbone atoms.
  • Output: 3D structure file of the capped dipeptide.

• Generate Parameters for Rosetta

  • Action: Build the Rosetta-specific parameter file (.params). This file defines atom names, types, charges, bond connectivity, and rotamer information for the ncAA.
  • Action: Generate or assign a side chain rotamer library, often by transferring from a structurally similar canonical amino acid.
  • Output: ncAA.params file and associated rotamer library.

• Generate Parameters for AMBER

  • Action: Build the AMBER topology template file (.prepi).
  • Action: Perform RESP charge fitting using a Boltzmann-weighted conformational ensemble of the dipeptide to derive accurate, transferable partial charges.
  • Action: Use parmchk2 to generate a force field modification file (.frcmod) that supplies any missing bond, angle, and dihedral parameters.
  • Output: ncAA.prepi and ncAA.frcmod files.

• Validation via Cyclic Peptide Folding

  • Action: Use Rosetta with the new .params file to fold or model an N-to-C cyclized peptide that incorporates the ncAA.
  • Output: Low-energy structural models of the cyclic peptide.

• Validation via MD Simulation

  • Action: Run an AMBER MD simulation using the generated .prepi and .frcmod files on one of the low-energy Rosetta models.
  • Analysis: Analyze the trajectory to check for structural stability, expected dynamics, and absence of instabilities around the ncAA.
  • Output: A stable MD trajectory validating the parameters.

Protocol 2: ResidueX Workflow for Incorporating ncAAs into AlphaFold-Generated Scaffolds

This protocol leverages AI-generated structures and enhances them for ncAA incorporation [48].

Workflow Overview:

Step-by-Step Methodology:

• Generate Complex Structures: Use AlphaFold2-Multimer (AF2-M) or AlphaFold3 (AF3) to generate a pool of candidate structures for the peptide-protein complex of interest.
• Score with TopoDockQ: Run all generated models through the TopoDockQ tool to obtain a p-DockQ score for each. This score more reliably predicts the quality of the peptide-protein interface than AlphaFold's built-in confidence score.
• Select Scaffold: Rank the models based on their p-DockQ score and select the top-ranked model(s) as the high-quality scaffold(s) for further design.
• Incorporate ncAAs: Using the ResidueX workflow, systematically introduce the desired non-canonical amino acids into the selected peptide scaffold. This step extends the capabilities of AF2-M/AF3 to include non-canonical peptides.

Enhanced Sampling and Analysis Techniques

Enhanced Sampling Methodologies

Table 2: Overview of enhanced sampling techniques for managing conformational flexibility.

Technique	Primary Function	Applicability to ncAAs
Molecular Dynamics (MD)	Base method for simulating physical movements over time.	Foundation, but often insufficient alone due to limited timescales [46].
Enhanced Sampling Methods	Accelerate exploration of conformational space and barrier crossing.	Crucial for probing ncAA flexibility and transition paths between states [46].
AlphaFold-based Sampling	Uses modified inputs (MSA masking, clustering) to predict alternate states.	Can suggest multiple conformations from sequence, but limited to natural amino acids in standard versions [46].
Generative Models (Diffusion)	Iterative denoising to generate diverse, functionally relevant structures.	Emerging tool for predicting equilibrium distributions and multiple conformations [46].
ResidueX Workflow	Incorporates ncAAs into AI-predicted scaffolds prioritized by p-DockQ.	Directly enables modeling and design of peptides containing ncAAs [48].

Data Analysis and Validation Tools

Table 3: Key databases and resources for protein dynamics and simulation.

Resource Name	Type of Data	Application
ATLAS	MD Simulation Trajectories	Protein dynamics analysis for ~2000 representative proteins [46].
GPCRmd	MD Simulation Trajectories	Specialized resource for G protein-coupled receptor dynamics and drug discovery [46].
TopoDockQ	Quality Assessment Score	Predicts DockQ score to improve model selection for peptide-protein complexes, reducing false positives [48].
PDB	Experimental Structures	Primary repository for static protein structures; source for initial modeling [46].

Troubleshooting Guides and FAQs

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: My derived RESP charges show significant variability between different computing platforms or quantum mechanical software. How can I ensure reproducibility? The R.E.D. Tools (RESP and ESP charge Derive) are specifically designed to overcome this challenge. The variability often stems from different molecular orientations used during the electrostatic potential calculation. R.E.D. Tools implements a multiple molecular orientation procedure that controls the molecular orientation of each optimized geometry, ensuring charge values can be reproduced at any computer platform with an accuracy of 0.0001 e. Always verify that your charge derivation workflow includes this orientation control feature [49].

Q2: How should I select an appropriate basis set for RESP charge derivation for non-natural amino acids? ESP charges converge with larger basis sets. While low-level theory leads to fluctuations, the HF/6-31G* theory level is widely considered a standard for condensed phase simulations as it yields dipole moments approximately ten percent larger than experimental gas-phase values, effectively accounting for implicit polarization in aqueous solution. For gas-phase properties or polarizable force fields, higher theory levels like B3LYP/cc-pVTZ are recommended [49].

Q3: Why do my RESP charges perform poorly in molecular dynamics simulations of folding peptides? This could result from deriving charges on a single conformation. RESP charges are known to be conformation-dependent. For reliable MD performance, especially in folding studies where multiple conformations are sampled, employ a multiple conformation fitting approach. Derive charges using a representative set of conformations that the molecule might adopt during simulations. This ensures the charge model remains valid across different structural states [49].

Q4: How can I handle buried atoms that show unrealistic charge values? Buried atoms (particularly carbon atoms in hydrocarbon groups) are poorly defined by molecular electrostatic potential points, which must lie outside the van der Waals surface. The RESP approach addresses this by applying weak hyperbolic restraints during fitting, which holds down large charge values with minimal impact on the quality of the electrostatic potential fit. This technique, introduced by Kollman's group, effectively mitigates artifacts from poorly defined centers [49].

Q5: What is the best approach for deriving charges for molecular fragments that will be incorporated into larger systems? Use the multiple molecule charge fitting capability in R.E.D. Tools with carefully defined charge constraints. This allows you to derive charges for molecular fragments while maintaining consistency with existing force field parameters. The constraints ensure that common functional groups maintain equivalent charge distributions across different molecular contexts, which is essential for transferability [49].

Troubleshooting Common RESP Derivation Issues

Problem	Possible Causes	Recommended Solutions
Poor convergence in MD simulations	Charges derived from a single conformation; Inadequate representation of backbone flexibility	Use multiple conformations spanning relevant dihedral angles; Implement multiple orientation procedure [49]
Unphysical charge values	Poorly defined buried atoms; Inadequate restraints during fitting	Apply RESP hyperbolic restraints; Verify MEP point placement covers molecular surface adequately [49]
Non-transferable charges	Overfitting to specific molecular context; Lack of constraints for common groups	Use charge constraints for functional groups; Employ multiple molecule fitting for homologous series [49]
Low reproducibility across platforms	Molecular orientation dependence in ESP calculation; Software-specific implementations	Utilize R.E.D. Tools with controlled orientation; Document computational conditions precisely [49]
Inaccurate electrostatic properties	Insufficient basis set; Incorrect theory level for target application	Use HF/6-31G* for condensed phase; Consider polarizable force fields for specific applications [49]

Quantitative Data for RESP Charge Derivation

Basis Set Performance Comparison

Table: Basis Set Selection Guidelines for RESP Charge Derivation

Basis Set	Theory Level	Recommended Application	Performance Characteristics
STO-3G	HF	Legacy force fields (Weiner et al.)	Low accuracy, significant fluctuations [49]
6-31G*	HF	Standard for condensed phase (Cornell et al., GAFF)	~10% larger dipole moments, accounts for implicit aqueous polarization [49]
cc-pVTZ/cc-pVDZ	HF	Gas-phase calculations (GLYCAM)	Accurate gas-phase properties [49]
aug-cc-pVDZ	B3LYP	Polarizable force fields	Enhanced electronic distribution for polarizable models [49]

Conductance Properties of Peptide Backbones

Table: Experimental Conductance Measurements for Backbone Assessment

Molecular System	Single-Molecule Conductance (G₀)	Decay Constant (β, Å⁻¹)	Experimental Conditions
Alkanes (C1-C7)	2.3×10⁻⁵ to 4.6×10⁻⁵	0.75 ± 0.02	Water, pH 7, Au electrodes [50]
Oligoglycine	Decreasing with length	0.97 ± 0.01	Water, pH 7, NH₂/COOH linkers [50]
Oligoalanine	Decreasing with length	0.93 ± 0.04	Water, pH 7, NH₂/COOH linkers [50]
Tri-alanine (AAA)	<10⁻⁵ G₀	N/A	Water, pH 7, 5Å junction elongation [50]

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Multiple Conformation RESP Charge Derivation for Unnatural Amino Acids

Purpose: To derive conformationally averaged RESP charges for unnatural amino acids that remain transferable across different structural states encountered during MD folding simulations.

Materials:

• R.E.D. Tools software package
• Quantum chemistry program (Gaussian, GAMESS-US, NWChem, or PC-GAMESS/Firefly)
• Molecular structure of unnatural amino acid
• RESP ESP charge DDataBase (R.E.DD.B.) for reference values

Procedure:

• Conformational Sampling: Generate multiple conformations of the target unnatural amino acid by systematically varying backbone dihedral angles. For peptide backbone fragments, include conformations sampling α-helical, β-sheet, and random coil regions [49].

• Geometry Optimization: Optimize each conformation at the HF/6-31G* theory level. Maintain consistent optimization criteria across all structures [49].

• Molecular Electrostatic Potential Calculation: Compute MEP for each optimized conformation using a consistent quantum mechanical method and basis set. Use the Connolly surface for MEP point placement [49].

• Multiple Orientation Procedure: For each conformation, generate multiple orientations (typically 2-4) for MEP calculation to eliminate orientation dependence in the final charges [49].

• Restrained Charge Fitting: Perform RESP fitting on the combined MEP data from all conformations and orientations using weak hyperbolic restraints (weight = 0.0005) to suppress large charges on buried atoms [49].

• Validation: Compare derived charges with existing natural amino acids in the force field. Verify electrostatic properties (dipole moment, molecular electrostatic potential) match ab initio reference [49].

Protocol 2: Charge Derivation for Peptide Backbone Analogues

Purpose: To develop RESP parameters for unnatural peptide backbone segments that accurately reproduce charge transport properties.

Materials:

• Scanning tunneling microscope break-junction (STM-BJ) setup (for experimental validation)
• Purified peptide analogues (≥98% purity)
• Apiezon wax-coated Au electrodes
• CHES buffer (pH 9) or water (pH 7)

Procedure:

• Molecular Design: Design peptide backbone analogues with targeted modifications. Consider conductance measurements showing that peptide bonds decrease conductance compared to alkane chains due to charge localization [50].

• Charge Derivation: Follow multiple conformation RESP protocol with emphasis on reproducing the charge localization effects observed at peptide bonds [50].

• Experimental Validation: Measure single-molecule conductance of backbone analogues using STM-BJ method with amine-carboxyl binding to Au electrodes. Conductance should follow expected length-dependent decay (β ≈ 0.93-0.97 Å⁻¹ for alanine/glycine) [50].

• Force Field Integration: Incorporate validated charges into force field library using Tripos mol2 file format compatible with major MD packages [49].

Workflow Visualization

Research Reagent Solutions

Essential Computational Tools

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Notes
R.E.D. Tools	Automated RESP/ESP charge derivation	Handles elements up to bromine; interfaces with major QM programs [49]
Gaussian	Quantum mechanical calculations	Proprietary software; widely used for MEP computation [49]
GAMESS-US	Quantum mechanical calculations	Academic alternative to Gaussian; requires orientation control [49]
RESP ESP charge DDataBase	Reference charge database	Contains >50 model systems with validated charges [49]
Antechamber	Charge derivation for organic molecules	Limited to organic molecules; less suitable for fragments [49]

Experimental Validation Materials

Material	Specifications	Purpose
HPLC-purified peptides	≥98% purity, Sigma-Aldrich	Ensure measurement reliability [50]
Au electrodes	Wax-coated (Apiezon)	Prevent Faradaic currents in conductance measurements [50]
CHES buffer	pH 9	Maintain amine group neutral (NH₂) and carboxyl deprotonated (COO⁻) [50]
Water	pH 7	Alternative solvent for junction formation [50]

Benchmarking Performance: Computational Validation and AI-Driven Design

Troubleshooting Guide: Algorithm Selection and Performance

This guide addresses common challenges researchers face when using structure prediction algorithms for peptides, especially those containing non-canonical amino acids (ncAAs).

Table 1: Common Issues and Recommended Solutions

Problem	Possible Causes	Solutions	Applicable Algorithms
Unstable or low-quality structures	High intrinsic disorder in peptide sequence [6]	Perform Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations for structural relaxation and validation [6].	All algorithms
Poor model for hydrophobic peptides	Algorithmic bias in handling hydrophobic cores [6]	Use AlphaFold and Threading as complementary approaches [6].	AlphaFold, Threading
Poor model for hydrophilic peptides	Algorithmic bias in handling charged/polar residues [6]	Use PEP-FOLD and Homology Modeling as complementary approaches [6].	PEP-FOLD, Homology Modeling
Structure lacks compactness	Inaccurate side-chain packing or force field limitations [6]	Try PEP-FOLD, which tends to produce compact structures [6].	PEP-FOLD, AlphaFold
Algorithm fails with ncAAs	Missing parameters for non-canonical residues [11]	Manually parameterize the ncAA for Rosetta and AMBER using a dedicated workflow [11].	All algorithms (requires pre-processing)

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Algorithm Selection and Performance

Q1: Which algorithm is best for predicting the structure of short, unstable peptides? A1: No single algorithm is universally best. A comparative study found that:

• PEP-FOLD often provides both compact structures and stable dynamics for most peptides [6].
• AlphaFold also generates compact structures for most short peptides [6].
• Algorithm performance is linked to peptide properties: AlphaFold and Threading complement each other for more hydrophobic peptides, while PEP-FOLD and Homology Modeling are more effective for hydrophilic peptides [6].

Q2: How can I validate a predicted peptide structure? A2: Use a multi-step validation approach:

• Ramachandran Plot Analysis: Check the stereochemical quality of the model [6].
• Validation Tools: Use tools like VADAR for structural analysis [6].
• Molecular Dynamics (MD) Simulations: Run simulations (e.g., 100 ns) to assess the stability of the predicted structure over time [6].

Handling Non-Canonical Amino Acids (ncAAs)

Q3: What is the main challenge in simulating peptides with non-canonical amino acids? A3: The primary challenge is the lack of high-quality, transferable parameters (or "residue templates") for most ncAAs in standard force fields and modeling engines. These templates, which define the chemical graph, reference geometry, atom types, and partial charges, are required before meaningful scoring, sampling, or dynamics can be performed [11].

Q4: Where can I find pre-parameterized data for non-natural side chains? A4: The SwissSidechain database is a curated resource containing structural and molecular data for 210 non-natural sidechains, including 3D coordinates, partial charges, and rotamer libraries, which are compatible with MD software like CHARMM and GROMACS [51]. For other ncAAs, you will need to generate parameters manually.

Q5: What is the general workflow for parameterizing a new ncAA? A5: Creating parameters for Rosetta and AMBER involves an integrated, multi-step process [11]:

• Obtain the ncAA's chemical definition (e.g., a SMILES string).
• Generate a high-quality 3D structure of a capped dipeptide (Ace-ncAA-NMe).
• For Rosetta: Build the ".params" file and a side chain rotamer library.
• For AMBER: Build the ".prepi" topology template and a ".frcmod" force field supplement file supplying missing bonded terms.
• Derive ensemble-averaged RESP charges from quantum mechanically optimized conformers to ensure transferability.

Experimental Protocol: A Typical Comparative Workflow

The following workflow is adapted from a study comparing modeling algorithms for short-length peptides [6].

1. Peptide Selection and Initial Analysis

• Selection: Choose a set of peptides (e.g., 10 peptides randomly selected from a pool of putative Antimicrobial Peptides (AMPs) with lengths between 12-50 amino acids) [6].
• Physicochemical Properties: Calculate key properties like charge, isoelectric point (pI), and grand average of hydropathicity (GRAVY) using tools like ExPASy-ProtParam [6].
• Disorder Prediction: Predict disordered regions using a server like RaptorX [6].

2. Structure Prediction with Multiple Algorithms

• Model the peptide structures using the four different algorithms:
  • AlphaFold
  • PEP-FOLD3
  • Threading
  • Homology Modeling (using a tool like Modeller) [6]

3. Initial Structural Validation

• Ramachandran Plot: Analyze the backbone dihedral angles for stereochemical quality [6].
• VADAR Analysis: Assess multiple structural parameters, including volume, packing, and solvent accessibility [6].

4. Molecular Dynamics (MD) Simulation for Stability Assessment

• Setup: Prepare each of the four predicted structures for each peptide for MD simulation.
• Run: Perform MD simulations (e.g., 40 simulations in total for 10 peptides). A common duration is 100 ns per simulation [6].
• Analyze: Evaluate the stability of the peptides over time by analyzing metrics like root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) and intramolecular interactions [6].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Software and Databases for Peptide Modeling

Tool Name	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to ncAAs
AMBER	MD Simulation Suite	Performs molecular dynamics simulations [11].	Requires prepi and frcmod files for ncAAs [11].
Rosetta	Modeling Suite	Predicts and designs protein/peptide structures [11].	Requires .params and rotamer library for ncAAs [11].
SwissSidechain	Database	Curated repository of parameters for 210 non-natural sidechains [51].	Provides pre-parameterized data for many common ncAAs [51].
SwissParam	Web Service	Generates parameters for small molecules for use with CHARMM [51].	Alternative for generating parameters for ncAAs not in SwissSidechain [51].
RaptorX	Prediction Server	Predicts secondary structure, solvent accessibility, and disorder [6].	Handles standard amino acids; useful for initial sequence analysis [6].
ExPASy-ProtParam	Analysis Tool	Computes physicochemical properties from a sequence [6].	Analyses standard peptides; properties may not be accurate for extensive ncAA incorporation [6].

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ: What are the most common pitfalls when setting up MD simulations for novel peptides, and how can I avoid them?

Several common pitfalls can compromise simulation integrity. Key issues and solutions are summarized in the table below.

Table 1: Common MD Setup Pitfalls and Solutions

Pitfall	Description	Solution & Best Practices
Poor Starting Structures [52]	Using structures with missing atoms, steric clashes, or incorrect protonation states.	Use tools like PDBFixer or H++ to check for missing residues and assign correct protonation states at the desired pH. [52]
Incorrect Force Field [52]	Using a force field not designed for your specific molecule class (e.g., using a protein force field for ncAAs).	Select a force field designed for your system. Generate parameters for ncAAs that are compatible with the main force field (e.g., CGenFF with CHARMM36 or GAFF2 with AMBER ff14SB). [52] [8]
Inadequate Equilibration [52]	Rushing to production runs before the system's energy, temperature, and density have stabilized.	Ensure minimisation has converged and verify that key properties (temperature, pressure, total energy) have reached a stable plateau before beginning production simulation. [52]
Neglecting Periodic Boundary Conditions (PBC) [52]	PBC artefacts can cause misleading results in analyses like RMSD or hydrogen bonding.	Use trajectory correction tools in your MD software (gmx trjconv in GROMACS, cpptraj in AMBER) to make molecules whole and remove jumps before analysis. [52]
Insufficient Sampling [52]	Relying on a single, short simulation trajectory, which may not capture relevant conformations.	Perform multiple independent simulations with different initial velocities to ensure results are statistically meaningful and not trapped in a local energy minimum. [52]

FAQ: How can I handle Non-Canonical Amino Acids (ncAAs) in MD force fields?

Incorporating ncAAs is a significant challenge because standard force fields are parameterized only for the 20 canonical amino acids. [8]

• Parameter Generation: You must generate new parameters for the ncAA that are fully compatible with your chosen force field. This involves deriving charges, bond, angle, and torsion parameters, typically using quantum mechanics (QM) calculations. [8]
• Compatibility is Key: A common mistake is mixing incompatible force fields. Ensure the derived parameters for the ncAA use the same functional forms and combination rules as the rest of your system. [52]
• Representation and Informatics: For data handling, the HELM (Hierarchical Editing Language for Macromolecules) notation is recommended over FASTA or SMILES strings, as it can represent ncAAs and complex cyclization architectures in a human-legible format. [8]

FAQ: My AI model generated a peptide with high predicted affinity, but the MD simulation shows it unfolding or behaving erratically. What does this mean?

This discrepancy is precisely why MD is a critical validation tool. AI models are often trained on statistical patterns in data and may not fully capture physical laws and thermodynamic stability. [53] Erratic behavior in MD could indicate:

• Poor Solubility: The peptide may be too hydrophobic, causing it to collapse unnaturally.
• Intrinsic Disorder: The peptide might be naturally unstructured, and its functional conformation is only stabilized upon binding to its target.
• Unrealistic AI Suggestion: The AI may have proposed a sequence that is statistically likely but physically unstable. The "mechanistic score" from MD, which penalizes high variance in behavior across simulations, is designed to flag such peptides. [54]

FAQ: What constitutes a good "mechanistic score" for prioritizing peptides?

A strong mechanistic score is based on consistent and physically realistic behavior across multiple independent MD simulations. The methodology from a leading study defines this score based on two main criteria: [54]

• Low Variance: The peptide's calculated permeability (or other property of interest) should be consistent across several simulations started from different initial structures.
• Physical Plausibility: The simulation should show a conformational change pattern that is interpretable and aligns with the desired mechanism (e.g., a consistent folding pathway or stable binding pose). A peptide with consistent behavior is highly evaluated. [54]

Troubleshooting Guides

Issue: Simulation Instability (Crashes or Explodes)

Symptoms: The simulation terminates with an error about bond lengths becoming too long, or the energy of the system becomes impossibly high ("blows up").

Diagnosis and Resolution:

• Check the Timestep:

  • Problem: An excessively large timestep is a common cause of instability. [52]
  • Solution: For all-atom simulations with constrained bonds to hydrogens, a 2-femtosecond timestep is standard. If instability persists, temporarily reduce the timestep to 1 fs during equilibration. Avoid using an unnecessarily small timestep as it wastes resources. [52]

• Verify Minimization and Equilibration:

  • Problem: Rushing these steps leaves high-energy contacts (steric clashes) in the system. [52]
  • Solution:
    • Minimization: Ensure the energy minimization converges. The potential energy should stop decreasing significantly.
    • Equilibration: Before production runs, equilibrate first with a constant volume (NVT) ensemble until temperature stabilizes, then with a constant pressure (NPT) ensemble until pressure and density plateau. [52]

• Inspect the Starting Structure:

  • Problem: Steric clashes, missing atoms, or incorrect protonation states introduced during structure preparation. [52]
  • Solution: Visually inspect your initial structure in a molecular viewer. Use tools to check for and resolve clashes and assign correct protonation states.

Issue: The Peptide Does Not Fold or Bind as Expected

Symptoms: The peptide remains in an unfolded state, samples many unstable conformations, or does not form the expected contacts with its target protein over the simulation timeframe.

Diagnosis and Resolution:

• Assess Sampling Adequacy:

  • Problem: Folding and binding are slow processes. A single simulation may be too short to observe the event. [55]
  • Solution: Run multiple independent replicates with different initial random seeds. Use enhanced sampling techniques (e.g., metadynamics, replica exchange) if the timescale is prohibitively long. Aggregate data from all replicates for analysis. [52]

• Validate the Force Field:

  • Problem: The force field may be inaccurate for your specific peptide, particularly if it contains ncAAs. [8]
  • Solution: If possible, compare the simulation of a known peptide structure (e.g., from PDB) to its experimental data (NMR couplings, B-factors) to validate your setup. For ncAAs, carefully check the derived parameters against QM data. [52]

• Check for Force Field Incompatibility:

  • Problem: Parameters for the ncAA are not compatible with the main force field, leading to unphysical interactions. [52]
  • Solution: Use parameter sets explicitly designed to work together. When adding a custom ligand, generate parameters that match the main force field's philosophy and combination rules. [52]

Issue: Analysis Shows High Variance in Mechanistic Scores

Symptoms: The property you are measuring (e.g., RMSD, binding energy, permeability score) differs greatly between replicate simulations.

Diagnosis and Resolution:

• Confirm Equilibration:

  • Problem: The replicates were started from a non-equilibrated state, leading to different relaxation pathways. [52]
  • Solution: Ensure every independent simulation undergoes full minimization and equilibration before production data is collected.

• Increase Sample Size:

  • Problem: The observed variance is a true property of the peptide—it has multiple meta-stable states or unstable binding modes. [54]
  • Solution: This is a key insight. The mechanistic score should penalize this high variance. To get a reliable measure of the variance, you may need to run more replicates (e.g., 5-10). A top-scoring peptide will show a consistent pattern of behavior in all simulations. [54]

Issue: Integrating ncAAs Causes Unphysical System Behavior

Symptoms: The ncAA-containing region of the peptide distorts, the simulation becomes unstable, or the ncAA interacts poorly with solvent or other molecules.

Diagnosis and Resolution:

• Check Parameter Charges and Solvation:

  • Problem: The partial atomic charges assigned to the ncAA are incorrect, leading to unrealistic electrostatic interactions. [8]
  • Solution: Re-derive charges using high-level QM calculations and ensure they are compatible with the water model and force field you are using.

• Review Torsion Parameters:

  • Problem: The dihedral angle parameters for the ncAA do not accurately reproduce the energy landscape from QM scans. [8]
  • Solution: This is a common source of error. Perform a torsion scan for all rotatable bonds in the ncAA using QM and adjust the force field torsion parameters to match the QM profile as closely as possible.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Calculating a Mechanistic Permeability Score for AI-Generated Peptides

This protocol is adapted from a study that successfully used MD to prioritize and understand AI-generated cell-penetrating peptides. [54]

1. Prerequisite: AI Generation and Filtering

• Use a deep generative model to produce a large library of novel peptide sequences.
• Perform an initial in silico filter based on synthesizability and simple physicochemical properties. [54]

2. Homology Modeling for 3D Structure Prediction

• Objective: Generate initial 3D structures for the AI-generated peptide sequences, which lack experimental structures.
• Method: Use standard homology modeling tools to build 3D models for each peptide sequence. The study generated 24 novel sequences this way. [54]

3. Molecular Dynamics Simulations

• Objective: Sample the conformational dynamics and calculate a stability/permeability metric for each peptide.
• Method:
  • For each peptide, set up five independent steered MD simulations, each starting from a different initial structure (from homology modeling). [54]
  • Use a suitable force field (e.g., CHARMM36, AMBER) and implicit or explicit solvent model.
  • Run simulations long enough to observe relevant conformational changes.

4. Analysis and Mechanistic Scoring

• Objective: Compute a quantitative score that reflects peptide quality and consistency.
• Method:
  • From each trajectory, calculate a primary metric related to your goal (e.g., a permeability metric, RMSD to a folded state, binding energy).
  • The final mechanistic score is computed from these five values with sample variance penalization. This means a peptide with a good average metric but high variance across simulations will be ranked lower than a peptide with a similarly good but more consistent metric. [54]
  • Visually inspect the top-scoring peptides to confirm they show a consistent, interpretable pattern of conformational change. [54]

Workflow Visualization

Diagram 1: AI-Peptide Prioritization Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Resources for MD Simulations of Peptides with ncAAs

Category	Tool / Reagent	Function / Description
Structure Preparation	PDBFixer [52]	Automatically corrects common issues in PDB files (missing atoms, residues).
	H++ [52]	Web server for predicting pKa values and protonation states at user-defined pH.
Force Fields	CHARMM36m [52]	High-quality force field for proteins and nucleic acids. Use with CGenFF for ncAAs. [52]
	AMBER ff14SB/ff19SB [52]	Another high-quality force field for proteins. Use with GAFF2 for ncAAs. [52]
MD Software	GROMACS [52]	High-performance, open-source MD package. Includes tools for simulation and analysis.
	AMBER [52]	Suite of MD programs including cpptraj for advanced trajectory analysis.
ncAA Handling	HELM Notation [8]	A textual notation system for representing complex peptides with ncAAs and macrocycles.
	Quantum Chemistry Software (e.g., Gaussian, ORCA)	For deriving electrostatic potentials and torsion scans for ncAA parameterization. [8]
Analysis & Validation	MDAnalysis [52]	Python library for analyzing MD trajectories.
	VMD / PyMOL [52]	Molecular visualization software for inspecting structures and trajectories.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Why is my MD simulation of an IDP producing an overly compact conformational ensemble? Your force field or water model may be biased. Simulations of a disordered histone H4 tail (N-H4) using the TIP4P-Ew water model resulted in an overly compact ensemble, inconsistent with NMR diffusion data. Switching to TIP4P-D or OPC water models produced ensembles that agreed with experiments [56].

Q2: Can I use the HYDROPRO program to predict the translational diffusion coefficient (Dtr) for my intrinsically disordered protein (IDP)? No. HYDROPRO is not intended for highly flexible biopolymers like IDPs and can produce misleading results when predicting diffusion properties from MD snapshots [56].

Q3: My calculated translational diffusion coefficient (Dtr) from an MD simulation seems too slow. What is a common cause? A common cause is the finite size of the simulation box. The requirement for zero net momentum in MD simulations artificially slows apparent diffusion, an effect that is significant in smaller boxes. Running multiple simulations with increasing box sizes and extrapolating to an infinitely large box can correct this [56].

Q4: What is a reliable method for computing Bayesian model evidence for complex models when variational Bayes may be insufficient? Thermodynamic Integration (TI) is a powerful Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method. It is asymptotically exact and is considered a gold standard for estimating log model evidence, especially useful for complex, non-linear models where other approximations can fail [57].

Q5: What optical probe can I use for residue-specific monitoring of protein folding or aggregation? The non-natural amino acid p-cyanophenylalanine (PheCN) is a sensitive optical probe. Its fluorescence emission is sensitive to the local solvent environment, making it ideal for monitoring structural changes like folding or aggregation at a residue-specific level [58].

Troubleshooting Guides

Problem: Discrepancy Between Simulated and Experimental NMR Diffusion Data

Issue: The translational diffusion coefficient (Dtr) calculated from your MD simulation does not match the value measured by pulsed field gradient NMR (PFG-NMR).

Potential Cause	Diagnostic Steps	Solution
Inappropriate Water Model	Compare Dtr values from simulations using TIP4P-Ew, TIP4P-D, and OPC water models.	Use a water model like TIP4P-D or OPC, which have been shown to produce realistic IDP ensembles for N-H4 [56].
Incorrect Solvent Viscosity	Check the viscosity value of your water model in the literature; it can differ from real water.	Account for the specific viscosity of the MD water model (e.g., TIP4P-Ew) when comparing simulated Dtr to experiment [56].
Finite-Size Simulation Box	Calculate Dtr from simulations with boxes of different sizes (e.g., 4 nm, 6 nm, 8 nm).	Use the Yeh-Hummer method: extrapolate Dtr values from multiple box sizes to the limit of an infinitely large box [56].
Faulty Thermostat	Identify if a Langevin thermostat with a high friction constant is in use.	For more accurate hydrodynamics, use a thermostat like the Bussi-Parrinello velocity rescaling thermostat [56].

Problem: Inaccurate Estimation of Model Evidence for Bayesian Model Selection

Issue: The variational Bayes (VB) estimate of the log model evidence for your Dynamic Causal Model (DCM) is unreliable, potentially due to model complexity or multi-modal posteriors.

Potential Cause	Diagnostic Steps	Solution
Non-Gaussian or Multi-modal Posteriors	Check the posterior distribution of model parameters for multiple peaks.	Use Thermodynamic Integration (TI), which is better suited for complex posteriors [57].
Inadequate Approximation in VB	Compare model evidence estimates from VB and TI on a simple model with a known ground truth.	Replace VB with TI for model comparison and averaging, as it provides an asymptotically exact estimate [57].
High Computational Demand	Monitor computation time; TI is significantly slower than VB.	Leverage efficient, parallelized software implementations (e.g., in TAPAS) and modern hardware to manage the computational load [57].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Validating an MD Simulation of an IDP with PFG-NMR Diffusion Data

This protocol details how to use the experimental translational diffusion coefficient (Dtr) to validate molecular dynamics (MD) models of an intrinsically disordered protein (IDP), using the N-terminal tail of histone H4 (N-H4) as a test case [56].

• Experimental Measurement of Dtr

  • Technique: Use pulsed field gradient NMR (PFG-NMR) on your IDP sample (e.g., 25-residue N-H4 fragment) to measure the coefficient of translational diffusion, Dtr.
  • Significance: This experimental value reports on the overall compactness of the IDP's conformational ensemble in solution.

• MD Simulation Setup

  • System Preparation: Set up all-atom MD simulations of the IDP solvated in water boxes.
  • Critical Parameters: Test different water models (e.g., TIP4P-D, OPC, TIP4P-Ew) and force fields. Use a velocity rescaling thermostat (e.g., Bussi-Parrinello) instead of a Langevin thermostat to better reproduce hydrodynamics.
  • Box Size Variation: To correct for finite-size effects, run multiple simulations with boxes of increasing size (e.g., 4 nm, 6 nm, 8 nm).

• Calculate Dtr from Simulation

  • First-Principle Method: For each production trajectory, calculate Dtr directly from the mean-square displacement (MSD) of the peptide using the Einstein relation: Dtr = lim(t→∞) MSD(t) / (6t).
  • Finite-Size Correction: For each water model, plot the Dtr values from the different box sizes against the inverse box size (1/L). Extrapolate the data linearly to the limit 1/L → 0 to obtain the corrected Dtr.

• Validation and Comparison

  • Compare the corrected Dtr values from the various MD simulations (with different water models) against the experimental Dtr value.
  • MD models that produce a Dtr value consistent with experiment (e.g., N-H4 in TIP4P-D and OPC water) are considered experimentally validated.

The workflow for this protocol is summarized in the following diagram:

Protocol 2: Estimating Log Model Evidence using Thermodynamic Integration

This protocol describes using Thermodynamic Integration (TI) to compute the log model evidence (LME) for Bayesian model selection, which is particularly useful for complex models like Dynamic Causal Models (DCM) [57].

• Define the Power Posterior: For a model with parameters θ and data y, the power posterior is defined as p(θ|y, τ) ∝ p(y|θ)p(θ), where τ is a temperature parameter that varies from 0 to 1. When τ=1, the power posterior equals the true posterior.

• Set Up the Temperature Ladder: Create a series of N temperatures, τ₀=0, τ₁, ..., τ_N=1. This ladder defines a path from the prior (τ=0) to the posterior (τ=1).

• Sample from Power Posteriors: At each temperature τₖ in the ladder, use an MCMC sampler (e.g., Population MCMC) to draw samples from the corresponding power posterior p(θ|y, τₖ).

• Compute the Log Evidence: The log model evidence is computed by integrating over the temperature path: log p(y) = ∫₀¹ E_θ|y,τ [log p(y|θ)] dτ, where the expectation is taken over the power posterior at temperature τ. In practice, this integral is approximated numerically from the MCMC samples.

The following diagram illustrates this process:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents & Materials

The following table lists essential materials and their functions for experiments involving non-natural amino acids and the validation of protein folding simulations.

Reagent / Material	Function / Explanation
p-cyanophenylalanine (PheCN)	A non-natural amino acid used as a sensitive fluorescent probe. Its emission is highly sensitive to solvent environment, allowing residue-specific monitoring of protein folding and aggregation [58].
TIP4P-D Water Model	A specially parameterized water model for molecular dynamics simulations. It has been shown to produce realistic conformational ensembles for intrinsically disordered proteins (e.g., N-H4) that agree with NMR diffusion data [56].
OPC Water Model	Another water model (Optimized Point Charge) that performs well in simulating IDPs without producing overly compact structures, making it suitable for folding studies [56].
Thermodynamic Integration (TI) Software	Software implementations (e.g., within the TAPAS toolbox) that use MCMC sampling to compute the log model evidence, enabling rigorous Bayesian model selection for complex generative models [57].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What is PepINVENT and what specific problem does it solve for researchers working with non-natural amino acids (NNAAs)?

PepINVENT is a generative AI framework designed for de novo peptide design that extends beyond the 20 natural amino acids [39]. It addresses the critical challenge of navigating the vast, unexplored chemical space of peptides incorporating NNAAs. Traditional generative models were restricted to predefined sets of natural or a few known non-natural amino acids, limiting design to an "enumerated space" [39] [59]. PepINVENT overcomes this by using an atomic-level representation (CHUCKLES), allowing it to propose novel, chemically feasible NNAAs de novo, thereby unlocking a small-molecule-like chemical space for peptide therapeutic optimization [39] [60].

Q2: My research involves Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations. How can I ensure the novel peptides generated by PepINVENT are suitable for my MD folding studies?

Ensuring suitability for MD requires attention to the peptide's chemical representation and the MD force field's capabilities. PepINVENT generates peptides using the CHUCKLES representation, which is a SMILES-like pattern that standardizes the structure of each amino acid monomer [39]. Before initiating MD simulations, you must verify that your chosen force field has parameters for all NNAAs in the generated peptide. Tools like PEPstrMOD can be invaluable, as it integrates force field libraries like Forcefield_NCAA (for 147 NNAAs) and SwissSideChain (for 210 non-natural residues) specifically for handling modified peptides [61]. If parameters are missing for a novel NCAA, you will need to generate them using quantum mechanics calculations or tools like SwissParam [61].

Q3: During a reinforcement learning (RL) run for multi-parameter optimization, my model fails to converge on high-scoring peptides. What could be wrong?

Failure to converge in RL-based optimization can stem from several issues:

• Conflicting Objectives: The learning objectives (e.g., maximizing permeability while minimizing lipophilicity) may be opposing, creating a complex optimization landscape. Review your reward function to ensure it properly balances the priorities of each property [39] [62].
• Insufficient Exploration: The model might be trapped in a local optimum. Adjusting the "sigma" parameter in the RL configuration can control the trade-off between exploration (trying new sequences) and exploitation (refining known good sequences) [39].
• Predictor Model Accuracy: The RL agent is guided by predictive models for your target properties (e.g., permeability). If these predictors are inaccurate or trained on irrelevant data, they will misguide the optimization. Validate your predictor models against a held-out test set before the RL run [63].

Q4: What are the best practices for preparing an input peptide for a goal-directed design task in PepINVENT?

Proper input preparation is crucial. The input is a peptide where specific positions are "masked" for the model to redesign [39] [63].

• Sequence Definition: Define your starting peptide sequence using the CHUCKLES representation for each amino acid [63].
• Position Masking: Carefully select which residue positions to mask for optimization. This should be based on prior structural knowledge, such as SAR data, avoiding positions critical for binding affinity [39] [62].
• Topology Specification: Clearly define the peptide's topology (e.g., linear, head-to-tail cyclic, sidechain-to-tail cyclic) in the input configuration, as this constrains the generation process [39]. The provided Jupyter notebook in the data/query_peptide_preparation/ directory of the GitHub repository offers examples for building peptides with different topologies [63].

Troubleshooting Guides

Issue 1: Handling Novel NNAAs in Downstream MD Simulations

Problem: After generating a novel peptide with NNAAs, the researcher cannot proceed with MD simulations due to a lack of force field parameters.

Solution: A step-by-step protocol to derive and integrate missing parameters.

Workflow for MD Parameterization of Novel NNAAs

Detailed Protocol:

• Check Existing Libraries: First, query the novel NCAA's structure against published force field libraries. The Forcefield_NCAA library (compatible with AMBER) contains parameters for 147 NNAAs [61], and the SwissSideChain library (compatible with GROMACS/CHARMM) covers 210 non-natural side-chains [61].
• Parameter Derivation (If Missing): If the NCAA is not found, you must derive its parameters.
  • Geometry Optimization: Perform a quantum mechanics (QM) restrained geometry optimization on the NCAA. This can be done using tools like Gaussian or ORCA. The goal is to find a stable, low-energy conformation [61].
  • Electrostatic Potential (ESP) Fitting: Calculate the molecular electrostatic potential of the optimized structure. Use this to perform a RESP (Restrained ElectroStatic Potential) fit to derive partial atomic charges compatible with force fields like AMBER [61].
• Force Field Integration: Add the derived parameters (bond, angle, dihedral, and improper terms along with partial charges) to your MD simulation's force field file (e.g., .frcmod for AMBER or .itp for GROMACS).
• Simulation Validation: Run a short, constrained MD simulation of the isolated NCAA in a water box. Monitor the stability of the NCAA's geometry and energy to validate the new parameters before running a full peptide folding simulation.

Issue 2: Poor Synthesizability of Generated Peptide Sequences

Problem: The AI-generated peptide sequences, while theoretically optimal, are predicted to be difficult or impossible to synthesize in the lab.

Solution: Leverage integrated chem-informatic tools and adjust generation constraints.

Step-by-Step Guide:

• Utilize Integrated Scoring: The PepINVENT framework includes tools to score the synthesizability of novel peptides designed for solid-phase peptide synthesis. Ensure you are using the latest version of the code that includes the "retrosynthesis score" for synthesizability assessment [60].
• Constrain NNAA Fraction: The generative model can be guided to limit the fraction of NNAAs in a peptide. The training data for PepINVENT was generated with a left-skewed normal distribution covering a range of [0, 0.3], meaning it primarily generates peptides with up to ~30% NNAA content to maintain synthetic feasibility [39]. You can enforce similar constraints in your run configuration.
• Iterative Redesign: If a high-scoring peptide is deemed poorly synthesizable, use its structure as a new input for a subsequent optimization run. Mask only the problematic NNAAs and apply a "synthesizability penalty" within the RL reward function to steer the model toward more accessible chemistries.

Issue 3: Performance and Scalability with Large Peptide Libraries

Problem: Sampling or optimizing very large libraries of long peptides is computationally slow.

Solution: Optimize computational resources and consider alternative sampling strategies.

Step-by-Step Guide:

• Hardware Check: Confirm you are using a Cuda-enabled GPU, as this is a prerequisite for efficient model operation [63].
• Configuration Tuning: In the experiment configuration JSON files, adjust batch sizes and the number of epochs to best utilize your available GPU memory. Start with the provided examples in data/experiment_configurations/ [63].
• Strategic Sampling: For initial exploratory sampling, use the pre-trained generative model without the RL loop to quickly assess the diversity of designs. Apply RL for fine-tuning only after identifying promising candidate regions in the chemical space [39] [63].
• Explore Advanced Frameworks: For scenarios where the optimal modification sites are unknown, consider frameworks like PepEVOLVE, which introduces a dynamic router to automatically identify high-impact residues for editing, potentially leading to faster convergence [62].

Key Experimental Data and Reagents

Table 1: Performance Benchmarks of AI-Driven Peptide Design Tools

Tool / Platform	Core Functionality	Key Performance Metric	Result / Benchmark
PepINVENT [39] [62]	De novo peptide design with NNAAs	Property optimization (e.g., permeability & lipophilicity)	Achieved candidate scores up to 0.87 on a therapeutically relevant benchmark.
PepEVOLVE [62]	Dynamic peptide optimization	Convergence and best candidate score on same benchmark	Outperformed PepINVENT, reaching a best candidate score of 0.95 and converging in fewer steps.
PEPstrMOD [61]	Structure prediction for modified peptides	Backbone Root Mean Square Deviation (B-RMSD)	Achieved B-RMSD in the range of 3.81–4.05 Å against experimental structures for peptides with NNAAs.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Computational Peptide Design

Item	Function in Research	Application Note
CHUCKLES Representation [39]	A SMILES-like string that standardizes the atomic-level representation of amino acids, including NNAAs.	Enables sequential concatenation to form a valid SMILES for the entire peptide, crucial for AI-based generation.
Forcefield_NCAA Library [61]	A force field library for 147 non-natural amino acids, compatible with the AMBER MD software suite.	Essential for running MD folding simulations on peptides containing NNAAs. Parameters derived via QM.
SwissSideChain Library [61]	A force field library for 210 non-natural residues, compatible with GROMACS and CHARMM MD software.	Provides an alternative parameter source for MD simulations in GROMACS/CHARMM environments.
PEPstrMOD Web Server [61]	Predicts the 3D structure of peptides containing natural, non-natural, and modified residues from sequence.	Provides a crucial starting structure for MD simulations or functional analysis of AI-designed peptides.
REINVENT/ PepINVENT Framework [39] [63]	An open-source generative AI framework for molecular and peptide design.	The core platform for running de novo design and optimization campaigns. Requires Python and Cuda-enabled GPU.

Conclusion

The effective handling of non-natural amino acids in MD simulations is no longer a niche challenge but a central requirement for advancing peptide-based therapeutics. A successful strategy integrates a rigorous parameterization workflow, acknowledges and plans for force field limitations, and employs robust validation against experimental data. The future of the field lies in the tighter integration of AI-driven generative design, which can propose novel ncAAs, with physics-based simulations that can reliably predict their behavior. This powerful combination promises to unlock new therapeutic opportunities by enabling the rational design of peptides with bespoke properties, ultimately leading to more effective drugs for intracellular targets and protein-protein interactions.

References

• 1. Unnatural Amino Acids: Essential Tools For Your Research [https://bitesizebio.com/52469/unnatural-amino-acids/]
• 2. Challenges in protein folding simulations: Timescale, ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3032381/]
• 3. Successes and challenges in simulating the folding of large ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6952611/]
• 4. What benefits can these simulations of protein folding bring? [https://foldingathome.org/faqs/press/what-does-fah-do/benefits-can-simulations-protein-folding-bring/]
• 5. General [https://foldingathome.org/faq/project-details/]
• 6. A comparative study of computational modeling ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-16866-w]
• 7. Therapeutic peptides: chemical strategies fortify ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12062087/]
• 8. Prospects and Challenges of Non-canonical Amino Acids ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10184154/]
• 9. Innovative strategies for modeling peptide–protein ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959440X25001010]
• 10. New insights into protein–protein interaction modulators in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-024-02036-3]
• 11. Parameterizing non-canonical amino acids for cyclic ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0076687925003921]
• 12. HighFold-MeD: a Rosetta distillation model to accelerate ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01111-3]
• 13. Molecular Dynamics Simulation of the p53 N-terminal peptide [https://www.bonvinlab.org/education/molmod/simulation/]
• 14. Serum-stable and selective backbone-N-methylated cyclic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9900472/]
• 15. Emulating nonribosomal peptides with ribosomal biosynthetic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9811515/]
• 16. Complex peptide natural products: Biosynthetic principles ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405805X22000072]
• 17. Emulating nonribosomal peptides with ribosomal biosynthetic ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2023/cb/d2cb00169a]
• 18. Non-Canonical Amino Acids as Building Blocks for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10296201/]
• 19. Systematic Errors in Peptide and Protein Identification and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4974352/]
• 20. General FAQ about Mass Spectrometry | Proteomics [https://medicine.yale.edu/keck/proteomics/technologies/mass-spectrometry/faq/]
• 21. Top-Down Analysis with Modified or Unnatural Amino Acids [https://support.proteinmetrics.com/hc/en-us/articles/26588636682004-Top-Down-Analysis-with-Modified-or-Unnatural-Amino-Acids]
• 22. Secondary Structure Propensities in Peptide Folding ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2711344/]
• 23. How can I generate a topology for a peptide contain unnatural ... [https://gromacs.bioexcel.eu/t/how-can-i-generate-a-topology-for-a-peptide-contain-unnatural-amino-acids-and-a-linker/3445]
• 24. Adding non-natural amino acid - GROMACS forums [https://gromacs.bioexcel.eu/t/adding-non-natural-amino-acid/1650]
• 25. Re: [AMBER] MD simulation with non natural amino acid ... [http://archive.ambermd.org/201608/0431.html]
• 26. Review The continuous evolution of biomolecular force fields [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0969212625001911]
• 27. Optimized protein-water interactions and torsional ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65603-4]
• 28. Restrained electrostatic potential atomic partial charges for condensed-phase simulations of carbohydrates - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4191892/]
• 29. Non-bonded force field model with advanced restrained electrostatic potential charges (RESP2) | Communications Chemistry [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-020-0291-4]
• 30. RESP Charges — CP2K documentation [https://manual.cp2k.org/trunk/methods/properties/resp_charges.html]
• 31. RESP charges — OpenFF Recharge documentation [https://docs.openforcefield.org/projects/recharge/en/stable/users/resp.html]
• 32. How to Assign AMBER Parameters to Desmond-generated ... [https://www.protocols.io/view/how-to-assign-amber-parameters-to-desmond-generate-g7fqbzjmx.html]
• 33. [AMBER] Assistance Required with Custom Residue Bonding ... [http://archive.ambermd.org/202504/0030.html]
• 34. rosetta_basics/file_types/Residue Params file [https://docs.rosettacommons.org/docs/latest/rosetta_basics/file_types/Residue-Params-file]
• 35. Expedient Noncanonical Amino Acid Parametrization in ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40789114/]
• 36. AMBER Protein MD Setup tutorial - BioExcel Building Blocks [http://mmb.irbbarcelona.org/biobb/workflows/tutorials/biobb_wf_amber_md_setup]
• 37. Amber Custom Residue Parameterization [https://carlosramosg.com/amber-custom-residue-parameterization]
• 38. Peptide-Builder | High Throughput Peptide Synthesizer | [https://www.vapourtec.com/products/peptide-builder/]
• 39. generative peptide design beyond natural amino acids - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12002334/]
• 40. To Milliseconds and Beyond: Challenges in the Simulation of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3673555/]
• 41. Proteins Carrying One or More Unnatural Amino Acids - NCBI [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6136/]
• 42. Strategies for designing non-natural enzymes and binders [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1367593118300383]
• 43. Error assessment in molecular dynamics trajectories using ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5669388/]
• 44. Grappa – a machine learned molecular mechanics force field [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/sc/d4sc05465b]
• 45. Accurate predictions of protein mutational effects ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-025-01771-0]
• 46. Beyond static structures: protein dynamic conformations ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12262120/]
• 47. FAQ [https://charmm-gui.org/faq]
• 48. Topological deep learning for enhancing peptide-protein ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-025-01727-4]
• 49. The R.E.D. Tools: Advances in RESP and ESP charge ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2918240/]
• 50. Probing Charge Transport through Peptide Bonds - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6420303/]
• 51. SwissSidechain - A database of non-natural sidechains [https://www.swisssidechain.ch/FAQ.php]
• 52. 10 Common Molecular Dynamics Mistakes New ... [https://insilicosci.com/common-molecular-dynamics-mistakes/]
• 53. Future Perspective: Harnessing the Power of Artificial ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11505729/]
• 54. Using molecular dynamics simulations to prioritize and ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34017051/]
• 55. Molecular Dynamics Simulations In The Study Of Protein ... [https://zienjournals.com/index.php/tjms/article/view/6197]
• 56. Using NMR diffusion data to validate MD models of disordered ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10808029/]
• 57. An introduction to thermodynamic integration and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8807794/]
• 58. Study protein folding and aggregation using nonnatural ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24014435/]
• 59. generative peptide design beyond natural amino acids [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/sc/d4sc07642g]
• 60. New Molecular Modalities MEGA Webinar [https://www.20visioneers15.com/new-molecular-modalities-mega]
• 61. PEPstrMOD: structure prediction of peptides containing ... [https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-015-0103-4]
• 62. PepEVOLVE: Position-Aware Dynamic Peptide ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2511.16912v1]
• 63. MolecularAI/PepINVENT [https://github.com/MolecularAI/PepINVENT]