Feature Article

Crowding in Cellular Environments at an Atomistic Level from Computer Simulations

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States
Quantitative Biology Center, RIKEN, Kobe, Japan
§ Theoretical Molecular Science Laboratory, RIKEN, Wako, Japan
iTHES Research Group, RIKEN, Wako, Japan
Advanced Institute for Computational Science, RIKEN, Kobe, Japan
J. Phys. Chem. B, 2017, 121 (34), pp 8009–8025
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.7b03570
Publication Date (Web): June 30, 2017
Copyright © 2017 American Chemical Society
*Address: 603 Wilson Road, Room BCH 218, East Lansing, MI, 48824. E-mail: feig@msu.edu. Phone: +1 (517) 432-7439. Fax: +1 (517) 353-9334.
ACS Editors' Choice - This is an open access article published under an ACS AuthorChoice License, which permits copying and redistribution of the article or any adaptations for non-commercial purposes.
Biography

Michael Feig is a Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology at Michigan State University, USA. He obtained a Diplom degree in Physics from the Technical University of Berlin, Germany, continued the study of Computational Chemistry resulting in a Ph.D. degree at the University of Houston, Texas, USA, and completed postdoctoral training at The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, USA, before becoming faculty at MSU in 2003. His primary interests are in the development and application of molecular modeling and molecular dynamics techniques to biological questions, especially to connect biomolecular structure and dynamics of single molecules to biological function at the cellular level.

Biography

Isseki Yu is a Research Scientist at Interdisciplinary Theoretical Science Research Group (iTHES), RIKEN, in Japan. He also works as a member of Theoretical Molecular Science Laboratory, RIKEN. He obtained his Ph.D. in engineering at Yokohama National University in 2003. He was a postdoctoral fellow in Nagoya University (2003–2008) and an assistant professor in Aoyama Gakuin University (2008–2013). In 2013, he joined the Theoretical Molecular Science Laboratory, RIKEN, and started to investigate the cellular environment with large-scale molecular dynamics simulations.

Biography

Po-hung Wang is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Theoretical Molecular Science Laboratory, RIKEN, Japan. In 2013, he obtained his Ph.D. in Physics in the University College London, UK. During his Ph.D. study, his primary interest was small molecule transport in proteins. After joining RIKEN, he shifted his focus to the study of various interactions between macromolecules in crowded environments using molecular simulations.

Biography

Grzegorz Nawrocki completed his M.S. degree in Biophysics at Jagiellonian University, Poland. He earned his Ph.D. in Biophysics at Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland, where he worked with Professor Marek Cieplak on characterizing interactions of biomolecules with the surfaces of solid bodies. Currently, he is a Postdoctoral Research Associate at Michigan State University working on developing force fields and analysis methods for molecular dynamics simulations. He studies diffusion, stability, and interactions of proteins and lipid bilayers in the crowded cellular environment.

Biography

Yuji Sugita is a Chief Scientist at Theoretical Molecular Science Laboratory, RIKEN, in Japan. He also works as a team leader at Laboratory of Molecular Function Simulation, RIKEN, and at Computational Biophysics Research Team, RIKEN. He obtained his Ph.D. in chemistry at Kyoto University in 1998, working with Nobuhiro Go. He was a postdoctoral fellow in RIKEN (1998), a research associate in IMS (1998–2002), and a lecturer in the University of Tokyo (2002–2007). In 2007, he joined RIKEN as a PI (Associate Chief Scientist) and was promoted to Chief Scientist in 2012. His group is primarily working on the development of a high-performance molecular dynamics program for investigating the structure–dynamics–function relationship of biomolecules in cellular environments.

Abstract

Abstract Image

The effects of crowding in biological environments on biomolecular structure, dynamics, and function remain not well understood. Computer simulations of atomistic models of concentrated peptide and protein systems at different levels of complexity are beginning to provide new insights. Crowding, weak interactions with other macromolecules and metabolites, and altered solvent properties within cellular environments appear to remodel the energy landscape of peptides and proteins in significant ways including the possibility of native state destabilization. Crowding is also seen to affect dynamic properties, both conformational dynamics and diffusional properties of macromolecules. Recent simulations that address these questions are reviewed here and discussed in the context of relevant experiments.

Introduction


Realistic biological environments involve a high degree of complexity and crowding at the molecular level that is still only at the beginning of being fully understood.(1-5) Increasing evidence suggests that crowding can markedly affect biomolecular structure, dynamics, and thus possibly their function.(6) The most obvious aspect of cellular crowding, a greatly diminished free volume with mostly entropic consequences, has long been studied in various ways using experiments, theory, and simulation.(7-12) However, the degree to which artificial crowders approximate real cellular environments or even reproduce just excluded-volume effects without any other artifacts is unclear.(6, 13-15) At the same time, increasing attention is now focused on the effects of interactions between the cellular components(16-24) and altered solvent properties,(25-30) often contributing enthalpically,(15, 31, 32) as well as the consequences of a substantial compositional heterogeneity present in biological cells.(33, 34)
The concentration of biological macromolecules in cells is between 100 and 450 g/L, occupying 5–40% of the cytoplasmic volume.(35) In addition, structural elements such as the cytoskeleton, compartments, and membrane surfaces are present, whereas genomic DNA fills out eukaryotic nuclei and a good fraction of prokaryotic cells. A variety of metabolites, small molecules that are intermediates of metabolic reactions such as phosphates, carbohydrates, amino acids, alcohols, vitamins, and other cofactors, as well as ions at significant concentrations further contribute to the rich physicochemical environment inside living cells. Experiments that are carried out under in vivo conditions or in the presence of cell extracts face substantial technical challenges.(1, 2, 25, 36) Often, it is difficult to achieve sufficient resolution to provide detailed insights, although recent progress especially with in-cell nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)(24, 37-55) and in-cell fluorescence spectroscopy(56-58) techniques is encouraging. An alternative is computational modeling, which can describe the structure and dynamics of biomolecules with high resolution in both space and time within model and resource limitations.(59) In particular, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations using atomistic force fields are a popular avenue for studying biological systems. However, MD studies have so far largely focused on single molecules or complexes without considering crowded environments, even as multimillion atom systems are now becoming feasible,(60-62) whereas questions in regard to crowding have been addressed mostly with simplified models.(10) This may reflect in part the computational costs involved with fully atomistic detailed models of crowded environments, but the more important constraint is that sufficient experimental data for building high-resolution models of biological environments has not been readily available. There has also been a lack of suitable experimental data that predictions from simulating such models could be compared to. However, there is a recent influx of data from high-throughput experiments that probe the composition of a cell,(63-65) and new experiments can directly probe macromolecule structure and dynamics in cellular environments.(16-22, 25, 32, 37, 40, 41, 44-46, 49, 54, 56, 66-85) This now enables and, we would argue, requires detailed computational studies of realistic models of crowded biological environments to connect with the newly emerging experimental data and generate new hypotheses.(86)

Key Questions


The questions to be addressed here revolve around the structure, interactions, and dynamics of biomolecules, proteins, nucleic acids, and metabolites in cellular environments. Essentially, the key point is to determine to what extent the vast amount of knowledge about the biomolecular structure–dynamics–function paradigm generated during decades of structural biology and mechanistic analyses of biological function under in vitro conditions translates to real biological environments and ultimately what makes up life.(87) The end point is a fully integrated view of biology that scales from single molecules to whole-cell models(88, 89) to explain life based on physical and chemical principles.(90)
Structure and Stability
Most of the knowledge about protein structure has been derived from crystallography where the environment, although relatively dense in terms of packing, lacks the heterogeneity of biological environments and where packing contacts are more likely related to artifacts than being representative of what would be seen in crowded biological environments. Structures based on nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), on the other hand, are traditionally obtained under dilute conditions that are far from crowded cellular environments. Thus, it remains largely unclear whether and how the structure and stability of proteins, and more broadly the conformational energy landscape, is affected by crowding in the cell.(91) Simple arguments based on a volume exclusion effect due to crowding focus on a shift in populations toward compact states on an otherwise largely unchanged landscape,(11) but this view conflicts with recent experiments.(17, 22, 23, 73, 92, 93) Largely unaltered conformations in vivo vs in vitro are seen with in-cell solution NMR(40, 44) and solid-state (SS) NMR,(54) but other evidence from experiments and simulations indicates that cellular environments may remodel the folded or unfolded ensemble or both(16, 17, 49, 71, 94-100) with potentially varying effects in different cellular compartments.(82) This suggests a more complicated picture where it is unclear whether remodeling of the ensemble is again driven mostly by entropic volume exclusion effects or by more enthalpic effects due to interactions with protein crowders and other components of the biological environment.(16, 17) Significant crowding effects are also expected for intrinsically disordered peptides (IDPs) where extended and dynamic ensembles have to be accommodated under crowded environments.(37, 69, 75, 76, 83, 100, 101)
Although proteins have received most of the attention, similar, less well-explored questions have been raised about how nucleic acid structures may act as crowders(43) or be affected by crowded cellular environments compared to what we know about DNA and RNA from crystallography and solution NMR studies.(102-109)
Dynamics
Biomolecular dynamics links structure with function, and it is equally unclear how it may be affected in the context of cellular environments. Conformational dynamics is a key mechanistic factor in most biological macromolecules, and any effect of cellular crowding on such dynamics would directly impact biological function. There is some insight into altered folding kinetics under crowded conditions,(48, 56, 80, 82) and a few studies suggest that the internal backbone and side chain dynamics on sub-microsecond time scales remain largely unaltered.(78, 110-112) On the other hand, only a few studies have examined how functionally relevant motions in the native state, e.g., dynamics related to allosteric mechanisms, ligand binding, or catalysis, and dynamics of intrinsically disordered peptides may change upon crowding.(113-115) This leaves many open questions yet to be addressed.
Diffusional motions of biomolecules in cellular environments, on the other hand, are somewhat better understood. Diffusion rates are a key determinant for the kinetics of many biological processes. Ligand diffusion is rate-limiting in many enzyme reactions, and protein diffusion is an important factor in most protein–protein and protein–nucleic acid interactions.(116-120) There is a general understanding that diffusion of proteins is slowed down by about 1 order of magnitude under crowded conditions due to increased viscosity and interactions with crowder molecules,(77, 121-124) although this may not be generally true for natively disordered proteins.(122) Anomalous diffusion results in diffusion rates varying on different time scales due to confinement within cellular compartments and caging effects due to temporary encapsulation by larger crowders.(34, 123, 125-128) However, details of how diffusion is modulated by different cellular microenvironments and by the presence of DNA or membrane surfaces have remained unclear.(77) There is also an incomplete understanding of how smaller molecules, metabolites and other ligands navigate the dense cellular environments where available space is not just limited and solvent viscosity may be altered but where the various macromolecular surfaces also provide ample opportunities for distractions that could, for example, slow down diffusion toward an enzyme active site.(129)
Interactions
Cellular crowding undoubtedly increases the opportunities for frequent encounters of biomolecules due to weak interactions.(79, 130, 131) It is not clear, however, whether such soft interactions simply hinder diffusion and alter the conformational energy landscape as discussed above or whether interactions between biomolecules are altered with possible functional implications.(16, 66, 70, 74, 84, 132) Crowding has been found to affect native complex formation(31, 68, 133-135) and aggregation,(136-138) while other evidence indicates enhanced formation of nonspecific complexes between proteins in the cellular milieu.(14) Weak interactions under highly crowded conditions may further lead to protein-enriched regions, forming distinct phases within the cell such as droplets with gel-like characteristics.(139, 140)
Metabolite–protein interactions are also subject to crowding effects. Studies of substrate binding and product release during enzyme reactions under crowded conditions have suggested crowding effects.(129) Moreover, effective metabolite concentrations in vivo may be reduced as a result of metabolites being sequestered from bulk solvent by nonspecific binding to biomolecular surfaces,(141) whereas competition by promiscuous interactions with the environment, on the other hand, may modulate specific binding of ligands to target binding sites.(132, 142)
Solvent and Membrane Environments
Finally, a fundamental question is how the solvent environment is altered in the presence of biomolecules at very high concentrations. Simple geometric considerations suggest that, although water still makes up about 70% of the cytoplasm, only a relatively small fraction is actually bulk-like, as defined by water molecules being several layers away from the closest macromolecule. This has been shown to impact water dynamics,(29, 143) viscosity,(66, 144, 145) and dielectric properties,(26, 146) which then in turn may further exacerbate crowding effects on the macromolecules compared to dilute environments.(29) While experiments have provided varying insights,(28, 147) a more detailed analysis of the properties of aqueous solvent inside biological cells is desirable. There are also many unanswered questions about how membrane bilayers respond to crowding,(148) both inside the membrane by membrane proteins and outside by a crowded cytoplasm and how membrane surfaces modulate crowding effects in the cytoplasms.
A full review of all experiments, simulations, and theoretical studies that have looked at these questions is not possible here. Instead, the specific focus of this article is to highlight recent advances based on computer simulations of dense macromolecular systems in atomistic detail, and relate those findings to experimental studies, both past and future.

Cellular Environments in Computer Simulations


Computer simulations have examined biological systems at a wide range of scales from full atomistic detail to very coarse representations. Most simulations of crowded cellular environments have involved simplified models where macromolecules, crowder molecules, and the solvent environment are represented with different degrees of coarse-graining.(95-98, 127, 149-152) For example, coarse-grained models of proteins in the presence of spherical crowders without any explicit representation of solvent are one avenue for studying the effect of crowding on protein folding or association equilibria,(30, 153) whereas Brownian, Stokesian, or other stochastic dynamics simulations of rigid protein models at different levels of detail have offered insights into how crowding modulates diffusive properties.(127, 151, 154-158) Another possibility is postprocessing of trajectories using particle-insertion methods.(159) All of these approaches involve simplifications that are attractive for saving computational costs and have allowed the exploration of relatively long time scales, in the range of micro- to milliseconds. However, there are significant trade-offs as intermolecular interactions and solvent effects often do not fully reflect cellular environments and intramolecular dynamics may be neglected or not fully accounted for.
As with any modeling, the degree of detail should match the questions that are being asked and an in silico model of a complete cell does not necessarily have to include every atom that is present. However, we argue that the central questions that are being asked here, conformational sampling, stability, and dynamics of biomolecules in the cellular environment, require, at the minimum, a model with the following features: (1) Proteins, nucleic acids, and metabolites should be fully flexible with an interaction potential that is able to maintain native states under dilute conditions but that can also sample non-native states in response to interactions with cellular components. (2) Weak interactions between the cellular components are physically accurate and predictive without requiring previous knowledge about specific complexes, since nonspecific interactions dominate in cellular environments. (3) The essential characteristics of the solvent environment are captured including an ability to reflect altered solvent behavior under crowded conditions such as reduced solvent dynamics and hydrodynamics interactions.
These requirements are a tall order for most coarse-grained approaches that typically focus only on certain aspects while failing to capture other features. For example, Go models can describe the thermodynamics of protein folding and complex association assuming that the structures of the end states are known and may offer some insight into how crowding shifts populations between known states.(160-162) However, perturbations of the energy landscape toward unknown conformational states that may be induced as a result of crowding are difficult to capture with structure-based models. On the other hand, simulations of rigid or spherical biomolecules via Brownian and Stokesian dynamics schemes can describe diffusive properties well,(155, 157, 163, 164) but these approaches neglect intramolecular dynamics and conformational sampling. More sophisticated physics-based coarse-grained models(165) such as PRIMO,(166) OPEP,(150) or COFFDROP(167) that are combined with implicit solvent and/or models for hydrodynamic interactions(156) are in a better position to satisfy these criteria, as the increased level of model detail requires fewer constraints and provides more transferability and ability to capture the various features outlined above. Such models can at least at a general qualitative level capture the main features of biomolecular structure and dynamics cellular environments.(149, 168, 169) Atomistic simulations, with explicit(26, 143, 170-176) or implicit solvent,(27, 97, 98) or multiscale models, where atomistic and coarse-grained resolutions are mixed,(169) provide even greater levels of detail and can, at least in principle, satisfy all of the requirements for modeling crowded cellular environments outlined above. However, because the balance between molecular stability, weak interactions, and solvent interactions in crowded environments depends on subtle shifts between enthalpic and entropic energy terms, the major challenge is an accurate interaction potential, both at the coarse-grained and atomistic level that can accurately reproduce both intra- and intermolecular interactions.(177-179) For example, just a slight unbalance between protein–protein and protein–water interactions is enough to lead to aggregation(177) and overcompaction artifacts(180, 181) with significantly mispredicted diffusive properties being one consequence. The choice of the water model is also a concern, since the most widely used models (SPC/E(182) and TIP3P(183)) significantly mispredict viscosity and dielectric properties(26, 184, 185) which in turn impacts macromolecular properties.(185) Therefore, future efforts should continue the improvement of force fields(186-192) to better balance the interactions between the various cellular components.
Another issue is the high computational cost of the most detailed models that limits the time scales that can be accessed. Current computer hardware, especially GPUs and other many-core coprocessors such as Intel Xeon Phi and high-performance simulation software,(193-198) are now allowing for atomistic simulations of biomolecules in crowded cellular environments on time scales well into the microsecond regime with millisecond dynamics being within reach now(199) and probably becoming routine within a decade. While such time scales are short compared to most functional dynamics of biological processes, they cover the majority of diffusive processes within the cell for all but the very largest particles such as ribosomes based on the extrapolation of sub-microsecond diffusion rates in crowded environments estimated from simulation.(173) Therefore, the development of more accurate coarse-grained models that can describe biomolecular dynamics on millisecond to second time scales remains an attractive goal in the foreseeable future. The length of the simulations also determines the degree of sampling and the statistical significance of properties determined via averaging. However, this is a minor issue, since parallel computing architectures facilitate replicate simulations and crowded systems with multiple copies of a given system of interest allow ensemble averaging in addition to time averaging.
One strategy for overcoming limitations in simulation times is the use of enhanced sampling techniques(200) such as umbrella sampling,(201) generalized-ensemble methods,(202, 203) metadynamics,(204) λ-dynamics,(205) or accelerated MD,(206) just to name a few. These methods generally focus on specific processes where significant kinetic barriers hinder sampling, and they are usually used to extract thermodynamic quantities such as ligand binding affinities. So far, enhanced sampling methods have not seen extensive use, in part because there is still very limited knowledge about what states may exist under crowded conditions and enhanced sampling methods are less advantageous for exploratory simulations where little is known about a system’s behavior. However, as more information is becoming available, the energetics of protein–protein or protein–ligand interactions or conformational dynamics between different states seen under crowded conditions are good problems for using enhanced sampling. Enhanced sampling methods are also less effective for accelerating processes that are limited by slow diffusion, a major factor in crowded cellular environments. Diffusion-limited processes can be accelerated, however, by using mean-field models of cellular environments,(27, 103, 152) although the implicit models have other drawbacks, as they may oversimplify cellular environments(169) and the extraction of kinetic properties is hindered. Developing enhanced sampling methods that target the sampling of diffusion-limited processes while fully capturing all components of cellular environments and allowing the extraction of thermodynamic and kinetic properties remains a significant challenge that we hope can be addressed in the future with new methods.
While it is clear that the simulation of crowded cellular environments is still in its infancy, the aim of this Feature Article is to review what has been reported so far from molecular simulations of proteins in dense cosolvents,(97, 98, 112, 143, 207, 208) of dense peptide and protein solutions,(26, 29, 143, 159, 170-172, 174, 175, 209-213) and of more complex models of cellular environments.(112, 163, 168, 214)

Atomistic Simulations of Cellular Crowding


Table 1 gives an overview of crowding simulations studied via atomistic models in recent years. We selected studies of peptides and proteins where at least the solute for which crowding effects are studied is represented in atomistic detail but allowed for crowders and/or solvent environments to be modeled in a coarse-grained or implicit fashion. We included simulations of dense amino acid and peptide systems, as they offer insight into protein amino acid interactions under crowded conditions. Despite some overlap, we did not consider simulations involving amyloidogenic peptides.(216) The concentrations of solutes in those studies are generally low compared to crowded environments, whereas their analysis primarily focuses on their aggregation propensities offering less insights into cellular crowding. In addition to studies of peptides and proteins, there are also a few studies involving nucleotides and nucleic acids under crowded and concentrated conditions,(103, 217-219) but since general insights have remained limited, these studies will also not be discussed here.
Table 1. Simulations of Crowded Peptide and Protein Systems with Atomistic Detail
solutesasolventsamplingyeargroupref
Gly/Val/Phe/Asn (50–300 g/L)expl. water1 μs MD2013Elcock(178)
Gly/Ala/Val/Phe (50–300 g/L)expl. water10 ns MD2015Price(175)
(GlySer)2 (9–560 g/L)TIP3P water8 μs MD2014Rao(29)
27 × (Xxxl)4 (40 mM; 10–30 g/L)expl. water100 ns MD2016Taiji(213)
Gly5 (0.03/0.3 M; 10/100 g/L)TIP3P water100 ns MD2014Pettitt(176)
1 × Ala/Ala15/melittinGBk (ε = 2–80)44–83 ns ReXe-MD2008Feig(27)
1 × Trp-cage/melittin + 8 × protein G (CG) (40% vol; 540 g/L)GBk (ε = 80)20 ns ReXe-MD2012Feig(169)
1 × chignolin, 0–8 × HSc (0–40% vol)TIP4P water1 μs MD2012Rajagopalan(215)
1 × Trp-cage + 8 × BPTI (7% vol; 95 g/L), 8 × HSc (7%/20% vol)implicit107 ReXe-MC moves2015Irbäck(98)
1 × Trp-cage/GB1m3 + 8 × BPTI (7% vol; 95 g/L), 8 × GB1d (7% vol; 95 g/L), 8 × HSc (20% vol)implicit107 ReXe-MC moves2016Irbäck(97)
4/8 × villinb (6/9.2 mM; 25/40 g/L)SPC wat./NaCl50–200 ns MD2014Zagrovic(177)
8 × GB1d (10–30% vol; 135–405 g/L), 4 × GB1d/8 × villinb (10–43% vol; 135–580 g/L)TIP3P water300 ns MD2012; 2013Sugita/Feig(26, 171)
1 × CI2,f 8 × lysozyme (100 g/L), 8 × BSAg (100 g/L)TIP3P water100–250 ns MD2012Sugita/Feig(170)
1/4 × ubiquitin (16% vol; 216 g/L), 19/157 metabolitesTIP3P water, KCl, MgCl2200 ns MD2011Guallar(207)
1 × ubiquitin, glucose (325 g/L)TIP3P water500 ns MD2013Dal Peraro(112)
1–3 × ubiquitin, glucose (108/325 g/L)TIP3P water600 ns MD, 30–70 ns ReXe-MD2014Dal Peraro(208)
3 × ubiquitin, Glu/Arg/glucose (300 g/L)TIP3P water600–800 ns MD2016Dal Peraro(143)
1 × ACTRh/6 × NCBDi/1 × IRF-3j (175–296 g/L), 4 × ACTRh/24 × NCBDi/4 × IRF-3j (183 g/L)TIP3P water100 ns–3 μs MD2016Orozco(174)
8 × BSAg (400 g/L), 88 × GB1d (400 g/L), 132 × villinb (400 g/L)TIP3P water100 ns MD2017Sugita/Feig(172)
100s–1000s of proteins/RNA (300 g/L), 5000–40,000s of metabolitesTIP3P water20–140 ns MD2016Sugita/Feig(173)
a

Reported concentrations are underlined.

b

Villin headpiece.

c

Hard sphere.

d

B1 subunit of protein G.

e

Replica exchange sampling; given times are per replica.

f

Chymotrypsin inhibitor 2.

g

Bovine serum albumin.

h

Activator for thyroid hormone and retinoid receptor.

i

Nuclear coactivator-binding domain of CREB.

j

Interferon regulatory transcription factor.

k

Generalized Born implicit solvent.

l

Any amino acid.

As a representative overview of the kind of systems that are now being studied in atomistic detail via computer simulations, Figure 1 shows models that have been studied recently in our group. The systems range from mixtures of a few proteins at different concentrations to models of cytoplasmic environments with thousands of macromolecules. The number of atoms in these systems ranges from 50K to 100M atoms, and the time scales that were reached varied between tens of nanoseconds and microseconds. In all of these cases, all-atom force fields were used to describe the solutes, aqueous solvent, and any other molecules such as metabolites that were present, allowing for unrestrained dynamics of all components. On the basis of simulations of such systems, exciting new ideas have been found for how the stability and dynamics of proteins may be modulated by interactions with other molecules in the cell.
figure

Figure 1. Crowded and cellular systems studied via molecular dynamics simulations: Concentrated solution of villin in explicit water and ions (top left); chymotrypsin inhibitor 2 (CI2; blue) in the presence of bovine serum albumin (BSA) crowders with explicit water (top right); model of a bacterial cytoplasm consisting of proteins, RNA, metabolites, ions, and water shown only for part of the system in cyan (bottom).

Solute Interactions
A key feature of crowded environments is the opportunity for frequent encounters between biomolecules. The well-understood volume-exclusion effect of crowding typically assumes crowder molecules that are repulsive or at least not attractive so that such interactions would be minimized to just unavoidable random collisions. However, atomistic simulations of crowded environments have shown many examples of attractive interactions between proteins(97, 98, 170, 171, 173, 174, 177) and between proteins and other molecules such as metabolites.(143, 173, 207) Such interactions are generally nonspecific; i.e., the formed complexes cover a broad range of arrangements and do not correspond to specific functional complexes, but they have the potential to significantly perturb protein structure and dynamics over solutes in dilute environments that are free from such contacts. Weak transient interactions, commonly termed quinary interactions,(2) nevertheless, do have the potential to be functionally relevant, for example, to bring enzymes involved in a common metabolic pathway into proximity to facilitate substrate channeling.(173) Whether such close interactions are formed depends greatly on the involved partners. For example, chymotrypsin inhibitor 2 (CI2) interacts extensively with lysozyme but hardly at all with bovine serum albumin (BSA), whereas BSA prefers to interact with other BSA molecules.(170) A similar finding was reported for Trp-cage in the presence of protein G vs bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor (BPTI) crowders, with BPTI more strongly self-interacting with other BPTI molecules.(97) Differential protein interaction propensities can be traced to the nature of the amino acids decorating the surface of different proteins that lead to charge differences(98) and hydrophobic patches(97, 171) along with sufficiently good shape complementarity to allow close interactions. Simulations of dense solutions of amino acids and small peptides(29, 143, 175, 176, 178, 213) have offered additional insights into which amino acids are more favorable to interact(178) and how such interactions are formed via hydrogen bonding,(176, 213) aromatic ring interactions,(213) dipole–dipole interactions,(176) or mediation via water molecules.(29) Generally, the degree to which amino acid interactions were found to be favorable reflects established hydrophobicity profiles;(213) e.g., isoleucine, leucine, and valine readily interact due to their hydrophobicity, whereas basic and acidic residues strongly prefer to remain solvated.(143, 213) There are differences that can be at least in part be explained by strong intermolecular self-interactions, e.g., between asparagine and glutamine side chains,(213) but variations were also seen as a function of the force field that was used.(178, 213)
A concern that has been raised is whether the overall strength of peptide–peptide and protein–protein interactions in dense solutions is correctly calibrated in the current generation of force fields. On the basis of simulations of villin, it has been suggested that protein–protein interactions may be overall too strong relative to protein–water interactions.(177) This would also be generally consistent with the observation that intrinsically disordered peptides are too compact with most force fields(220-222) unless amino acid–water interactions are enhanced.(180, 191) However, simulations of concentrated amino acids and peptides seem to come to the opposite conclusion that solubilities are significantly overestimated compared to experimental values.(176, 178) This is clearly an area that will require further attention, but significant challenges exist in how to effectively compare with experimental measurements. For example, the extraction of solubilities that are comparable with macroscopic measurements, while possible in principle,(176) requires a system with a large number of solutes that are simulated over long enough times to overcome kinetic bottlenecks of aggregate formation. Another possibility is to match rotational and/or translational diffusion rates for concentrated solutions as the slow-down in diffusion upon crowding is expected to depend upon the extent of protein interactions(170) while deviations from nonideal behavior vary with the crowder type.(123) A meaningful comparison between experiments and simulations also requires long simulations as well as reliable force field parameters for solutes and solvent and faces potential experimental difficulties in analyzing highly retarded and likely complex dynamics in concentrated solutions, e.g., via nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy.(81, 175)
Apart from interactions between peptides and proteins, some studies have examined interactions with high concentrations of smaller cosolvents such as metabolites(173, 207) or glucose(112, 143, 208) or osmolytes such as trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO).(223) The general finding is that such molecules may interact extensively with protein solutes(172, 207) or among themselves,(207) displace water molecules,(143) and further affect the structure and/or dynamics of proteins as a consequence of such interactions.(173) The simulations can be compared with experiments(224-227) by quantifying preferential solvation via the integration of MD-derived density fluctuation of water and cosolvents to obtain Kirkwood–Buff integrals.(228-232) While this approach can be readily applied for proteins in two-component, or at the most, three-component solvents with small cosolvent molecules, the extension to cellular environments where a large number of components are present and density distributions of larger molecules such as proteins do not converge well is not as straightforward.
Protein Structure Stability
A central question is whether crowded cellular environments affect the stability of protein native states and, more broadly, whether the conformational landscape is modulated over dilute conditions. As mentioned already above, one aspect of crowding, the reduction of accessible volume, is well understood and generally believed to stabilize the native state as the most compact state a given protein will assume.(233) Unfortunately, such a simple view is not borne out in the atomistic simulations of peptides and proteins under crowded conditions. Instead, the simulations suggest that crowded cellular environments may perturb the native state, either directly due to interactions with other solutes(170, 173) or indirectly due to altered solvent properties (see example in Figure 2).(26, 27, 29, 172) There is also evidence from simulation that crowding may not just affect the native state but also folding intermediates(215) or the unfolded ensemble based on the analysis of an intrinsically disordered peptide.(174)
figure

Figure 2. Villin native state destabilization under crowded conditions.

One theme for such native state perturbations is the competition between inter- and intramolecular interactions that can lead to a shift toward more extended states. Examples range from concentrated (GlySer)2 solutions,(29) Trp-cage in the presence of protein G(169) or BPTI,(97, 98) villin in villin/protein G mixtures,(171) pyruvate dehydrogenase α subunit in a cytoplasmic environment,(173) and ordered and natively disordered proteins in a heterogeneous environment.(174) The presumed general mechanism in all of these cases is that favorable intermolecular interactions with peptide or protein crowders combined with an overall reduction of solvent exposure due to complex formation can drive partial unfolding. However, specific interactions with crowders such as edge-to-edge β-sheet interactions may also have the opposite effect of stabilizing the native state, as demonstrated for the GB1m3 hairpin.(97)
A second theme is the modulation of secondary structure propensities as a result of crowder interactions. While this has been systematically analyzed using coarse-grained models,(95, 96) atomistic simulations have provided evidence for an apparent stabilization of secondary structure elements, especially helices, as a result of crowding.(27, 97, 98, 174) One way to understand that is via crowder amino acid side chain interactions that stabilize helices(95) or β-hairpin turns.(97, 98) Another interpretation is based on a reduced dielectric response of solvent in crowded environments(26, 27) where intramolecular hydrogen bonding would be strengthened as a result of reduced electrostatic screening.(27)
A third theme is a disruption of the hydrophobic core that would lead to a general destabilization of natively folded peptides.(27, 29, 169, 174) This could simply be a corollary of a shift toward extended states driven by protein–protein interactions, but it may also be understood in the context of a reduced dielectric response of the solvent that would imply a weakened hydrophobic effect.(27)
Finally, a newly emerging theme is the role of metabolites in modulating protein structure. Functionally relevant ligand-induced conformational changes are well documented,(234) and it is easy to imagine that nonspecific metabolite interactions could have similar effects. Indeed, in a recent study of a model for a bacterial cytoplasm, nonspecific binding of negatively charged metabolites was found to modulate the structure of phosphoglucokinase and induce structural compaction via electrostatic screening.(173)
Experimental validation of the specific effects seen in the different simulations is largely missing so far and is therefore difficult to tell how real the specific effects seen in the simulations are. We imagine that it would be relatively straightforward to test the predicted effects of metabolites on protein structures, whereas in-cell NMR(24, 38, 41, 42, 44-46, 115) and fluorescence techniques(56, 58, 235) should be able to test how real the crowding-induced perturbations of the conformational ensembles are. Specifically, the hope would be that the experiments could identify the presence of the predicted non-native subpopulations in the presence of certain protein crowders, but it may be challenging to discern minor populations of heterogeneous non-native conformations induced by crowding in vivo.(38) Other avenues for comparing the simulations with experiments would be to identify key residues based on the simulations that appear to play a role in facilitating crowding-induced structural changes and propose experimentally testable mutations that should be resistant to crowding effects on structural stability.
While the results from specific simulations are questionable without experimental validation, the overall picture from the simulations taken together is that the conformational landscape of proteins may become perturbed as a result of nonspecific weak interactions in cellular environments and a resulting competition between intra- and intermolecular interactions that can stabilize non-native states. The possibility of native-state destabilization in vivo is generally consistent with experiments,(22, 23) but the simulations, furthermore, suggest specific mechanisms by which the energy landscape may be altered such as direct contacts with nearby crowder protein surfaces that shift the balance toward unfolded states and a role of altered solvent properties and metabolites. Nevertheless, much remains to be learned about more general principles that would, for example, allow predictions of how the structure and stability of a specific protein may be affected by cellular environments. Such insight is desirable to advance the fundamental understanding of biology, but it is also practically relevant in the context of protein design and therapeutic developments involving protein targets.
Protein Dynamics
Dynamics is what connects structure to function for all but a few proteins. The dynamics of proteins spans a wide range of time scales and covers internal, conformational rearrangements as well as diffusive motions. Internal dynamics may be further distinguished into fluctuations around the native state and conformational transitions between different states including the folding–unfolding transition. The available simulations suggest that fluctuations around the native state, as measured by S2 order parameters or Debye–Waller B-factors, are only moderately affected by crowding.(97, 98, 143, 174, 208) Other results point at increased fluctuations as a result of protein–protein contacts in CI2 when interacting with lysozyme,(170) whereas somewhat reduced backbone dynamics were observed in other studies as a result of crowding.(112, 174) Experiments also indicate moderate effects of crowding on fast internal motions but a stronger influence on slower conformational dynamics.(41, 110, 236) A more detailed understanding of how crowding may affect internal dynamics beyond these general observations can be gained from direct comparisons between MD and NMR,(143) but further studies are needed to address this question. A somewhat clearer picture exists for the kinetics of conformational transitions between different states. Crowding with either proteins(174) or glucose(143, 208) led to a significant slowdown in conformational sampling. A similar conclusion was also reached for (GlySer)2.(29) The slowdown in conformational transitions has been correlated with crowders, such as glucose, or water molecules becoming trapped between solutes and exhibiting slow diffusion and long residence times.(29, 208) It remains difficult, however, to clearly separate cause and effect with respect to retarded solvation causing slow conformational dynamics or vice versa. In any case, as conformational transitions are essential in many biological mechanisms, understanding how much such kinetic processes are slowed down in cellular environments is critical for fully understanding biological processes.
Translational and rotational diffusion is well-known to be significantly slower under crowded conditions (by about a factor of 10).(237-240) Furthermore, experiments show varying degrees of deviations from nonideality with respect to how the observed diffusion slows down with increased viscosity as a function of crowder type (proteins vs nonproteins and also between different proteins) that are taken to indicate different degrees of protein–crowder interactions.(121-123) Diffusion rates from atomistic simulations under crowded conditions are generally consistent with these observations,(170, 173, 175, 208) and simulations clearly show a slowdown in diffusion that strongly depends on protein–protein interactions.(170, 173) This means in the context of a diverse cytoplasmic environment that different copies of the same protein may experience very different diffusion rates depending on the local environment. Or for a given molecule, diffusion may vary significantly on μs–ms time scales as different local environments are sampled as the molecule diffuses across a cell.(173) In addition, there is evidence for anomalous diffusion as a result of caging by crowders, especially when interactions with those crowders are weak.(170) One may take that argument a step further to postulate that a diffusing protein molecule in a heterogeneous cellular environment should experience a spectrum of diffusion time scales as crowders of different sizes and with different levels of attraction are encountered. This analysis informs dynamic models of processes at cellular levels that require diffusion rates as input.(241)
Taken together, new insight into the dynamics of biomolecules under crowded conditions from the simulations is a significant degree of heterogeneity in the diffusion on microsecond time scales, while other findings so far are largely confirming more general observations that are known already from experiments. We believe that simulations are especially valuable for describing how dynamics varies over different time scales in the presence of crowding. This will require that more efforts are made to extend future simulations of crowded systems well into the tens of microseconds regime which is technically becoming possible with specialized hardware such as the Anton 2 supercomputer.(242)
Solvent Properties
Most of the simulations discussed here involve explicit solvent. Therefore, the analysis of how crowding and cellular environments affects solvent properties is straightforward. The first realization from such analysis is that bulk-like water, defined here as water molecules beyond the second solvation layer from the closest macromolecular solute, only represents a small fraction under cellular conditions with macromolecular concentrations of 30–40% vol.(26) For concentrations beyond 40% vol, even water molecules in the second solvation layer become rare. This means that under crowded conditions most of the water is either in the first solvation shell in direct contact with a macromolecular solute or sufficiently close to still experience the electric field of a solute (see Figure 3). While this has only a minor impact on water structure, analyzed in terms of pairwise radial distribution and hydrogen bonding,(26, 29) water dynamics has been found to be more strongly altered. According to the simulations, self-diffusion of water is reduced and residence times are increased significantly upon crowding.(26, 29) Further analysis suggest that the crowding effects vary with the size of the protein crowders.(172) Smaller proteins led to a more pronounced slowdown in dynamics than large proteins at the same volume fraction, essentially as a result of larger protein surface areas for the smaller crowders.
figure

Figure 3. Interfacial water under crowded conditions with one (1) or two (2) layers of water between noninteracting proteins.

As a further indication of reduced dynamics, the dielectric response of water is also lowered to values between 20 and 60,(26) in agreement with experimental measurements.(146) The dielectric response of the entire cellular environment is more difficult to assess. Polar and charged metabolites and ions may increase the polarizability,(207) while proteins with interior dielectric constants lower than pure water(243, 244) would be expected to reduce the overall dielectric response. A net decrease in the dielectric response in cellular environment would also be consistent with a tendency toward native-state destabilization with a partial loss of the hydrophobic core and an increase in secondary structure formation as discussed above.
Taken together, the simulations suggest that solvent exhibits significantly altered properties in crowded environments which in turn is expected to affect biomolecular structure, dynamics, and function. The general idea is that crowding reduces water dynamics and lowers the dielectric response which in turn suggests a reduced hydrophobic effect in crowded cellular environments. There is limited experimental data consistent with this picture,(146) but further experimental probes that quantify solvent dynamics and describe electrostatic properties under crowded conditions are needed to validate the theoretical predictions.(32)
Limitations and Failures with Current Simulations
Since most simulations on crowded cellular systems lack direct experimental validation so far, it is difficult to assess how realistic the predictions made by the simulations really are. We expect that the overall picture of altered conformational landscapes and reduced diffusional dynamics as a result of intermolecular interactions with crowders is largely correct but there are indications that protein–protein interactions could be too strong(177) and that there is a bias toward the sampling of compact states vs more disordered states due to force field artifacts(180, 191, 220-222) limiting the ability to accurately describe conformational ensembles of peptides and proteins under crowded conditions. Ongoing force field improvements are aimed at addressing such problems.(186) The other major issue are the relatively short time scales in the atomistic simulations published to date that have largely limited the study of dynamics to sub-microsecond time scales. Although longer time scales can be reached with coarse-grained models,(154, 155) such models do not provide as much detailed insight and a major challenge going forward is how to extend atomistic simulations of crowded systems further into the μs–ms regime. Quantitative studies of dynamics are also affected by the venerable three-site TIP3P and SPC/E water models in common use today that do not describe viscosity and dielectric properties of water as well as newer, more expensive four- and five-site models.(245, 246) The use of the newer water models may appear straightforward, but the main challenge is that the current force fields will need to be reparametrized to be compatible with these water models while the higher computational costs due to the additional sites further limit the time scales that can be reached in simulations.

Connections with Experiment


The recent detailed atomistic simulations of crowded cellular environments have been motivated and enabled by experiments in the growing field of cellular structural biology.(24, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44-46, 54, 56, 85, 247) There are increasing opportunities now to advance the field by complementing the experiments with simulations,(143, 170, 171) where the role of simulations is ideally to provide more detailed insights and make predictions that can then be validated via additional experiments. Especially new NMR and fluorescence experiments(5, 6, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 44, 48-50, 52, 54, 56, 71, 73, 75, 82, 84, 92, 105, 108, 132, 248) are well suited to connect simulations with experiments as the experimental observables can be extracted easily from simulations and the high resolution in both spatial and temporal scales, especially with NMR, matches the level of detail in MD results well. As the experiments offer insights into biomolecular structures under concentrated conditions in vitro and in vivo, simulations can provide additional details about the exact mechanisms by which the structure and dynamics of a given system may be altered as a result of quinary interactions with cellular environments. Simulations are in principle able to combine dynamic and structural analyses for a given protein in the presence of crowders and make a direct connection with how crowding interactions lead to a modified structural ensemble. One advantage of simulations is that even minor populations can be observed that could be more difficult to detect experimentally and simulations can, at least in principle, pinpoint and quantify which interactions with other molecules in a more complex cell-like environment are most relevant for explaining crowding effects observed, for example, via in-cell NMR experiments. It is also possible to consider a variety of mutants for both the protein that is studied and the crowder proteins to obtain a more detailed view of how individual residues contribute to crowding effects. The results of such simulations would then lead directly back to experimentally testable hypotheses with respect to mutant proteins predicted to exhibit altered susceptibility to crowding effects.
As new simulations and experiments of cell-like environments have just recently begun to emerge in parallel, there are not many examples of direct comparisons yet as different systems have been studied via experiment and simulation. Focusing both sides, experiments and simulations, on the same systems in the same environments will be necessary to lead to more productive and meaningful interactions. However, coordinating experiments and simulations is not without challenges. Experimental systems may involve large crowders such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) that are computationally costly to study via simulation or involve complex in vivo environments that are basically impossible to reproduce exactly in silico. On the other hand, some computational studies involve systems that are difficult to prepare or analyze experimentally such as highly concentrated protein solutions(171) or involve probe molecules at low concentrations in highly complex environments.(173) Nevertheless, there are questions raised by recent simulations that could be tested experimentally, such as, for example, the idea that the two domains of phosphoglucokinase are closer in cellular environments because of electrostatic effects,(173) and variations in secondary structure propensities as a function of crowder interactions.(95, 96) On the other hand, recent experiments of altered protein stabilities of small proteins like CI2,(22) protein L,(73) protein G,(71) and SH3(48) in the presence of protein crowders as well as cosolute and crowding effects on the binding energetics of a dimer-forming protein G variant,(68) just to give some examples, are a strong motivation for simulations to determine the exact mechanisms by which destabilization occurs.
Finally, direct imaging methods are rapidly advancing in recent years and super-resolution microscopy(249) and high-resolution cryo-electron microscopy(250) are primed to study the structure and dynamics of cellular environments, especially if the resolution both in space and time can be further increased.

Next Steps


Detailed simulations of crowded cellular environments have so far largely focused on proteins and protein crowders. There is also some insight into the role of metabolites as cosolvents under crowded conditions, but there is clearly room for additional studies to explore how metabolites may modulate biomolecular structure and dynamics in crowded environments. A related and possibly more important question is how metabolites behave in the presence of high concentrations of biomolecules where there are ample opportunities for nonspecific interactions that could reduce effective concentrations and distract from finding enzyme active sites. Insight into such questions would be especially relevant for understanding the dynamics of drug molecules where the kinetics of reaching a given target site is a key determinant of efficacy and important for understanding the mechanisms of unfavorable potential side effects.
Other largely unexplored questions revolve around interactions with nucleic acids, membranes, and cytoskeletal components. Some studies are hinting at crowding effects altering the structure and dynamics of DNA and RNA,(103, 104) but how the presence of nucleic acids in the cellular interior affects proteins that do not specifically bind DNA or RNA is unclear. Chromosomal DNA fills a large part of bacterial cells(251-253) and most cytoplasmic proteins will not be able to avoid nonspecific interactions with the DNA, yet there is almost no insight, especially from simulation, how that may affect protein diffusion and/or stability. The major challenge in addressing such questions is the lack of realistic high-resolution molecular models of chromosomal DNA.
Membrane protein crowding has received some attention with limited insights from simulations.(148, 254, 255) However, interactions between membranes and crowded cellular interiors are unclear. For example, one may wonder how nonmembrane binding proteins that are pushed to interact with membranes simply by virtue of cellular crowding maintain their stability and whether they become kinetically trapped or gain fluidity by facing a membrane bilayer instead of a crowded cytoplasm. It is also possible that the structure and dynamics of membranes themselves are affected by the presence of a crowded cytoplasm, little of which has been explored so far. Clearly, this is a wide open area that is ripe for detailed atomistic simulations to generate insights and guide experiments.
The ultimate goal is a molecular-level understanding of entire cells. Fully atomistic whole-cell simulations, at least for bacterial cells, are not too far from reality. However, a larger impact will probably be realized by using the detailed insights from atomistic simulations of cellular environments to build more simplified models that capture the essential physics but scale to longer time scales and allow the exploration of biological questions by the broader community without requiring access to extreme high-performance computing environments. Computationally tractable, yet physically realistic in silico whole-cell models also offer much potential for transforming rational drug design protocols that up to now largely rely on single molecules and highly empirical approaches.(256, 257)

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgment


Funding was provided by the National Institute of Health Grants R01 GM084953 and GM103695 (to M.F.), the National Science Foundation Grant MCB 1330560 (to M.F.), the Fund from the High Performance Computing Infrastructure (HPCI) Strategic Program (hp120309, hp130003, hp140229, hp150233) and HPCI general trial use project (hp150145, hp160120) and FLAGSHIP 2020 project focused area 1 “Innovative drug discovery infrastructure through functional control of biomolecular systems” (hp160207, hp170254) of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (to Y.S.), a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas “Novel measurement techniques for visualizing “live” protein molecules at work” (No. 26119006) (to Y.S.), a grant from JST CREST on “Structural Life Science and Advanced Core Technologies for Innovative Life Science Research” (to Y.S.), RIKEN QBiC, iTHES, and Dynamic Structural Biology (to Y.S.), a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) from MEXT (No. 25410025) (to I.Y.). Computer time was used at NSF XSEDE facilities (TG-MCB090003).

References


This article references 257 other publications.

  1. 1.
    Gershenson, A.; Gierasch, L. M. Protein Folding in the Cell: Challenges and Progress Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2011, 21, 3241 DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2010.11.001
  2. 2.
    Wirth, A. J.; Gruebele, M. Quinary Protein Structure and the Consequences of Crowding in Living Cells: Leaving the Test-Tube Behind BioEssays 2013, 35, 984993 DOI: 10.1002/bies.201300080
  3. 3.
    Mittal, S.; Chowhan, R. K.; Singh, L. R. Macromolecular Crowding: Macromolecules Friend or Foe Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Gen. Subj. 2015, 1850, 18221831 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbagen.2015.05.002
  4. 4.
    Spitzer, J.; Pielak, G. J.; Poolman, B. Emergence of Life: Physical Chemistry Changes the Paradigm Biol. Direct 2015, 10, 33 DOI: 10.1186/s13062-015-0060-y
  5. 5.
    Heyden, M.; Ebbinghaus, S.; Winter, R. Das Innere der Zelle: Ein komplexes Lösungsmittel Chem. Unserer Zeit 2017, 51, 2633 DOI: 10.1002/ciuz.201700777
  6. 6.
    Gnutt, D.; Ebbinghaus, S. The Macromolecular Crowding Effect – From in vitro into the Cell Biol. Chem. 2016, 397, 3744 DOI: 10.1515/hsz-2015-0161
  7. 7.
    Shahid, S.; Hassan, M. I.; Islam, A.; Ahmad, F. Size-Dependent Studies of Macromolecular Crowding on the Thermodynamic Stability, Structure and Functional Activity of Proteins: In vitro and in silico Approaches Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Gen. Subj. 2017, 1861, 178197 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbagen.2016.11.014
  8. 8.
    Minton, A. P. The Influence of Macromolecular Crowding and Macromolecular Confinement on Biochemical Reactions in Physiological Media J. Biol. Chem. 2001, 276, 1057710580 DOI: 10.1074/jbc.R100005200
  9. 9.
    Minton, A. P. Models for Excluded Volume Interaction Between an Unfolded Protein and Rigid Macromolecular Cosolutes: Macromolecular Crowding and Protein Stability Revisited Biophys. J. 2005, 88, 971985 DOI: 10.1529/biophysj.104.050351
  10. 10.
    Zhou, H.-X.; Rivas, G.; Minton, A. P. Macromolecular Crowding and Confinement: Biochemical, Biophysical, and Potential Physiological Consequences Annu. Rev. Biophys. 2008, 37, 375397 DOI: 10.1146/annurev.biophys.37.032807.125817
  11. 11.
    Cheung, M. S.; Klimov, D.; Thirumalai, D. Molecular Crowding Enhances Native State Stability and Refolding Rates of Globular Proteins Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2005, 102, 47534758 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0409630102
  12. 12.
    Stagg, L.; Zhang, S. Q.; Cheung, M. S.; Wittung-Stafshede, P. Molecular Crowding Enhances Native Structure and Stability of α/β Protein Flavodoxin Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2007, 104, 1897618981 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0705127104
  13. 13.
    Mukherjee, S. K.; Gautam, S.; Biswas, S.; Kundu, J.; Chowdhury, P. K. Do Macromolecular Crowding Agents Exert only an Excluded Volume Effect? A Protein Solvation Study J. Phys. Chem. B 2015, 119, 1414514156 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.5b09446
  14. 14.
    Luh, L. M.; Hänsel, R.; Löhr, F.; Kirchner, D. K.; Krauskopf, K.; Pitzius, S.; Schäfer, B.; Tufar, P.; Corbeski, I.; Güntert, P. Molecular Crowding Drives Active Pin1 into Nonspecific Complexes with Endogenous Proteins Prior to Substrate Recognition J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 1379613803 DOI: 10.1021/ja405244v
  15. 15.
    Senske, M.; Tork, L.; Born, B.; Havenith, M.; Herrmann, C.; Ebbinghaus, S. Protein Stabilization by Macromolecular Crowding through Enthalpy rather than Entropy J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 90369041 DOI: 10.1021/ja503205y
  16. 16.
    Cohen, R. D.; Pielak, G. J. Electrostatic Contributions to Protein Quinary Structure J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 1313913142 DOI: 10.1021/jacs.6b07323
  17. 17.
    Monteith, W. B.; Cohen, R. D.; Smith, A. E.; Guzman-Cisneros, E.; Pielak, G. J. Quinary Structure Modulates Protein Stability in Cells Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2015, 112, 17391742 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1417415112
  18. 18.
    Sarkar, M.; Pielak, G. J. An Osmolyte Mitigates the Destabilizing Effect of Protein Crowding Protein Sci. 2014, 23, 11611164 DOI: 10.1002/pro.2510
  19. 19.
    Sarkar, M.; Lu, J.; Pielak, G. J. Protein Crowder Charge and Protein Stability Biochemistry 2014, 53, 16011606 DOI: 10.1021/bi4016346
  20. 20.
    Wang, Y.; Sarkar, M.; Smith, A. E.; Krois, A. S.; Pielak, G. J. Macromolecular Crowding and Protein Stability J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 1661416618 DOI: 10.1021/ja305300m
  21. 21.
    Benton, L. A.; Smith, A. E.; Young, G. B.; Pielak, G. J. Unexpected Effects of Macromolecular Crowding on Protein Stability Biochemistry 2012, 51, 97739775 DOI: 10.1021/bi300909q
  22. 22.
    Miklos, A. C.; Sarkar, M.; Wang, Y.; Pielak, G. J. Protein Crowding Tunes Protein Stability J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 71167120 DOI: 10.1021/ja200067p
  23. 23.
    Inomata, K.; Ohno, A.; Tochio, H.; Isogai, S.; Tenno, T.; Nakase, I.; Takeuchi, T.; Futaki, S.; Ito, Y.; Hiroaki, H. High-Resolution Multi-Dimensional NMR Spectroscopy of Proteins in Human Cells Nature 2009, 458, 106111 DOI: 10.1038/nature07839
  24. 24.
    Sakakibara, D.; Sasaki, A.; Ikeya, T.; Hamatsu, J.; Hanashima, T.; Mishima, M.; Yoshimasu, M.; Hayashi, N.; Mikawa, T.; Walchli, M. Protein Structure Determination in Living Cells by In-Cell NMR Spectroscopy Nature 2009, 458, 102105 DOI: 10.1038/nature07814
  25. 25.
    Gnutt, D.; Gao, M.; Brylski, O.; Heyden, M.; Ebbinghaus, S. Excluded-Volume Effects in Living Cells Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 25482551 DOI: 10.1002/anie.201409847
  26. 26.
    Harada, R.; Sugita, Y.; Feig, M. Protein Crowding Affects Hydration Structure and Dynamics J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 48424849 DOI: 10.1021/ja211115q
  27. 27.
    Tanizaki, S.; Clifford, J.; Connelly, B. D.; Feig, M. Conformational Sampling of Peptides in Cellular Environments Biophys. J. 2008, 94, 747759 DOI: 10.1529/biophysj.107.116236
  28. 28.
    King, J. T.; Arthur, E. J.; Brooks, C. L.; Kubarych, K. J. Crowding Induced Collective Hydration of Biological Macromolecules over Extended Distances J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 188194 DOI: 10.1021/ja407858c
  29. 29.
    Lu, C.; Prada-Gracia, D.; Rao, F. Structure and Dynamics of Water in Crowded Environments Slows Down Peptide Conformational Changes J. Chem. Phys. 2014, 141, 045101 DOI: 10.1063/1.4891465
  30. 30.
    Qi, H. W.; Nakka, P.; Chen, C.; Radhakrishnan, M. L. The Effect of Macromolecular Crowding on the Electrostatic Component of Barnase–Barstar Binding: A Computational, Implicit Solvent-Based Study PLoS One 2014, 9, e98618 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098618
  31. 31.
    Kim, Y. C.; Mittal, J. Crowding Induced Entropy-Enthalpy Compensation in Protein Association Equilibria Phys. Rev. Lett. 2013, 110, 208102 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.208102
  32. 32.
    Zhang, N.; An, L.; Li, J.; Liu, Z.; Yao, L. Quinary Interactions Weaken the Electric Field Generated by Protein Side-Chain Charges in the Cell-like Environment J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139, 647654 DOI: 10.1021/jacs.6b11058
  33. 33.
    Ando, T.; Yu, I.; Feig, M.; Sugita, Y. Thermodynamics of Macromolecular Association in Heterogeneous Crowding Environments: Theoretical and Simulation Studies with a Simplified Model J. Phys. Chem. B 2016, 120, 1185611865 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.6b06243
  34. 34.
    Kondrat, S.; Zimmermann, O.; Wiechert, W.; von Lieres, E. The Effect of Composition on Diffusion of Macromolecules in a Crowded Environment Phys. Biol. 2015, 12, 046003 DOI: 10.1088/1478-3975/12/4/046003
  35. 35.
    Ellis, R. J.; Minton, A. P. Cell Biology - Join the Crowd Nature 2003, 425, 2728 DOI: 10.1038/425027a
  36. 36.
    Gershenson, A. Deciphering Protein Stability in Cells J. Mol. Biol. 2014, 426, 46 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2013.10.004
  37. 37.
    Cedeño, C.; Pauwels, K.; Tompa, P. Protein Delivery into Plant Cells: Toward in vivo Structural Biology Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 519 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00519
  38. 38.
    Pastore, A.; Temussi, P. A. The Emperor’s New Clothes: Myths and Truths of In-Cell NMR. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2017, in press. DOI: DOI: 10.1016/j.abb.2017.02.008 .
  39. 39.
    Hänsel, R.; Luh, L. M.; Corbeski, I.; Trantirek, L.; Dötsch, V. In-Cell NMR and EPR Spectroscopy of Biomacromolecules Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2014, 53, 1030010314 DOI: 10.1002/anie.201311320
  40. 40.
    Ikeya, T.; Hanashima, T.; Hosoya, S.; Shimazaki, M.; Ikeda, S.; Mishima, M.; Güntert, P.; Ito, Y. Improved In-Cell Structure Determination of Proteins at Near-Physiological Concentration Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 38312 DOI: 10.1038/srep38312
  41. 41.
    Li, C.; Liu, M. Protein Dynamics in Living Cells Studied by In-Cell NMR Spectroscopy FEBS Lett. 2013, 587, 10081011 DOI: 10.1016/j.febslet.2012.12.023
  42. 42.
    Luchinat, E.; Banci, L. In-Cell NMR: A Topical Review IUCrJ 2017, 4, 108118 DOI: 10.1107/S2052252516020625
  43. 43.
    Majumder, S.; Xue, J.; DeMott, C. M.; Reverdatto, S.; Burz, D. S.; Shekhtman, A. Probing Protein Quinary Interactions by In-Cell Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Biochemistry 2015, 54, 27272738 DOI: 10.1021/acs.biochem.5b00036
  44. 44.
    Müntener, T.; Häussinger, D.; Selenko, P.; Theillet, F.-X. In-Cell Protein Structures from 2D NMR Experiments J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2016, 7, 28212825 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b01074
  45. 45.
    Ohno, A.; Inomata, K.; Tochio, H.; Shirakawa, M. In-Cell NMR Spectroscopy in Protein Chemistry and Drug Discovery Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2011, 11, 6873 DOI: 10.2174/156802611793611878
  46. 46.
    Rahman, S.; Byun, Y.; Hassan, M. I.; Kim, J.; Kumar, V. Towards Understanding Cellular Structure Biology: In-cell NMR Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Proteins Proteomics 2017, 1865, 547557 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbapap.2017.02.018
  47. 47.
    Sharaf, N. G.; Barnes, C. O.; Charlton, L. M.; Young, G. B.; Pielak, G. J. A Bioreactor for In-Cell Protein NMR J. Magn. Reson. 2010, 202, 140146 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmr.2009.10.008
  48. 48.
    Smith, A. E.; Zhou, L. Z.; Gorensek, A. H.; Senske, M.; Pielak, G. J. In-Cell Thermodynamics and a New Role for Protein Surfaces Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2016, 113, 17251730 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1518620113
  49. 49.
    Danielsson, J.; Mu, X.; Lang, L.; Wang, H.; Binolfi, A.; Theillet, F.-X.; Bekei, B.; Logan, D. T.; Selenko, P.; Wennerström, H. Thermodynamics of Protein Destabilization in Live Cells Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2015, 112, 1240212407 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1511308112
  50. 50.
    Smith, M. J.; Marshall, C. B.; Theillet, F.-X.; Binolfi, A.; Selenko, P.; Ikura, M. Real-Time NMR Monitoring of Biological Activities in Complex Physiological Environments Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2015, 32, 3947 DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2015.02.003
  51. 51.
    Li, C.; Zhao, J.; Cheng, K.; Ge, Y.; Wu, Q.; Ye, Y.; Xu, G.; Zhang, Z.; Zheng, W.; Zhang, X. Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy As a Tool for Assessing Macromolecular Structure and Function in Living Cells Annu. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2017, 10, 157182 DOI: 10.1146/annurev-anchem-061516-045237
  52. 52.
    Smith, A. E.; Zhang, Z.; Pielak, G. J.; Li, C. NMR Studies of Protein Folding and Binding in Cells and Cell-Like Environments Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2015, 30, 716 DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2014.10.004
  53. 53.
    Xu, G.; Ye, Y.; Liu, X.; Cao, S.; Wu, Q.; Cheng, K.; Liu, M.; Pielak, G. J.; Li, C. Strategies for Protein NMR in Escherichia coli Biochemistry 2014, 53, 19711981 DOI: 10.1021/bi500079u
  54. 54.
    Kaplan, M.; Cukkemane, A.; van Zundert, G. C. P.; Narasimhan, S.; Daniels, M.; Mance, D.; Waksman, G.; Bonvin, A. M. J. J.; Fronzes, R.; Folkers, G. E. Probing a Cell-Embedded Megadalton Protein Complex by DNP-Supported Solid-State NMR Nat. Methods 2015, 12, 649652 DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.3406
  55. 55.
    Kay, L. E. New Views of Functionally Dynamic Proteins by Solution NMR Spectroscopy J. Mol. Biol. 2016, 428, 323331 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2015.11.028
  56. 56.
    König, I.; Zarrine-Afsar, A.; Aznauryan, M.; Soranno, A.; Wunderlich, B.; Dingfelder, F.; Stuber, J. C.; Plückthun, A.; Nettels, D.; Schuler, B. Single-Molecule Spectroscopy of Protein Conformational Dynamics in Live Eukaryotic Cells Nat. Methods 2015, 12, 773779 DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.3475
  57. 57.
    Sustarsic, M.; Kapanidis, A. N. Taking the Ruler to the Jungle: Single-Molecule FRET for Understanding Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics in Live Cells Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2015, 34, 5259 DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2015.07.001
  58. 58.
    Gelman, H.; Wirth, A. J.; Gruebele, M. ReAsH as a Quantitative Probe of In-Cell Protein Dynamics Biochemistry 2016, 55, 19681976 DOI: 10.1021/acs.biochem.5b01336
  59. 59.
    Feig, M.; Sugita, Y. Reaching New Levels of Realism in Modeling Biological Macromolecules in Cellular Environments J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2013, 45, 144156 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmgm.2013.08.017
  60. 60.
    Perilla, J. R.; Goh, B. C.; Cassidy, C. K.; Liu, B.; Bernardi, R. C.; Rudack, T.; Yu, H.; Wu, Z.; Schulten, K. Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Large Macromolecular Complexes Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2015, 31, 6474 DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2015.03.007
  61. 61.
    Feig, M.; Chocholousova, J.; Tanizaki, S. Extending the Horizon: Towards the Efficient Modeling of Large Biomolecular Complexes in Atomic Detail Theor. Chem. Acc. 2006, 116, 194205 DOI: 10.1007/s00214-005-0062-4
  62. 62.
    Hospital, A.; Goñi, J. R.; Orozco, M.; Gelpi, J. L. Molecular Dynamics Simulations: Advances and Applications Adv. Appl. Bioinform. Chem. 2015, 8, 3747 DOI: 10.2147/AABC.S70333
  63. 63.
    Gavin, A. C.; Aloy, P.; Grandi, P.; Krause, R.; Boesche, M.; Marzioch, M.; Rau, C.; Jensen, L. J.; Bastuck, S.; Dumpelfeld, B. Proteome Survey Reveals Modularity of the Yeast Cell Machinery Nature 2006, 440, 631636 DOI: 10.1038/nature04532
  64. 64.
    Guell, M.; van Noort, V.; Yus, E.; Chen, W. H.; Leigh-Bell, J.; Michalodimitrakis, K.; Yamada, T.; Arumugam, M.; Doerks, T.; Kuhner, S. Transcriptome Complexity in a Genome-Reduced Bacterium Science 2009, 326, 12681271 DOI: 10.1126/science.1176951
  65. 65.
    Yus, E.; Maier, T.; Michalodimitrakis, K.; van Noort, V.; Yamada, T.; Chen, W. H.; Wodke, J. A. H.; Guell, M.; Martinez, S.; Bourgeois, R. Impact of Genome Reduction on Bacterial Metabolism and Its Regulation Science 2009, 326, 12631268 DOI: 10.1126/science.1177263
  66. 66.
    Ye, Y.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Z.; Wu, Q.; Jiang, B.; Jiang, L.; Zhang, X.; Liu, M.; Pielak, G. J.; Li, C. 19F NMR Spectroscopy as a Probe of Cytoplasmic Viscosity and Weak Protein Interactions in Living Cells Chem. - Eur. J. 2013, 19, 1270512710 DOI: 10.1002/chem.201301657
  67. 67.
    Sarkar, M.; Smith, A. E.; Pielak, G. J. Impact of Reconstituted Cytosol on Protein Stability Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2013, 110, 1934219347 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1312678110
  68. 68.
    Guseman, A. J.; Pielak, G. J. Cosolute and Crowding Effects on a Side-By-Side Protein Dimer Biochemistry 2017, 56, 971976 DOI: 10.1021/acs.biochem.6b01251
  69. 69.
    Bai, J.; Liu, M.; Pielak, G. J.; Li, C. Macromolecular and Small Molecular Crowding Have Similar Effects on α-Synuclein Structure ChemPhysChem 2017, 18, 5558 DOI: 10.1002/cphc.201601097
  70. 70.
    Cohen, R. D.; Guseman, A. J.; Pielak, G. J. Intracellular pH Modulates Quinary Structure Protein Sci. 2015, 24, 17481755 DOI: 10.1002/pro.2765
  71. 71.
    Monteith, W. B.; Pielak, G. J. Residue Level Quantification of Protein Stability in Living Cells Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014, 111, 1133511340 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1406845111
  72. 72.
    Sarkar, M.; Li, C.; Pielak, G. J. Soft Interactions and Crowding Biophys. Rev. 2013, 5, 187194 DOI: 10.1007/s12551-013-0104-4
  73. 73.
    Schlesinger, A. P.; Wang, Y.; Tadeo, X.; Millet, O.; Pielak, G. J. Macromolecular Crowding Fails To Fold a Globular Protein in Cells J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 80828085 DOI: 10.1021/ja201206t
  74. 74.
    Stadmiller, S. S.; Gorensek-Benitez, A. H.; Guseman, A. J.; Pielak, G. J. Osmotic Shock Induced Protein Destabilization in Living Cells and Its Reversal by Glycine Betaine J. Mol. Biol. 2017, 429, 11551161 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2017.03.001
  75. 75.
    Theillet, F.-X.; Binolfi, A.; Bekei, B.; Martorana, A.; Rose, H. M.; Stuiver, M.; Verzini, S.; Lorenz, D.; van Rossum, M.; Goldfarb, D. Structural Disorder of Monomeric α-Synuclein Persists in Mammalian Cells Nature 2016, 530, 4550 DOI: 10.1038/nature16531
  76. 76.
    Soranno, A.; Koenig, I.; Borgia, M. B.; Hofmann, H.; Zosel, F.; Nettels, D.; Schuler, B. Single-Molecule Spectroscopy Reveals Polymer Effects of Disordered Proteins in Crowded Environments Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014, 111, 48744879 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1322611111
  77. 77.
    Anunciado, D. B.; Nyugen, V. P.; Hurst, G. B.; Doktycz, M. J.; Urban, V.; Langan, P.; Mamontov, E.; O’Neill, H. In vivo Protein Dynamics on the Nanometer Length Scale and Nanosecond Time Scale J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2017, 8, 18991904 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.7b00399
  78. 78.
    Latham, M. P.; Kay, L. E. Is Buffer a Good Proxy for a Crowded Cell-Like Environment? A Comparative NMR Study of Calmodulin Side-Chain Dynamics in Buffer and E. coli Lysate PLoS One 2012, 7, e48226 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048226
  79. 79.
    Latham, M. P.; Kay, L. E. Probing Non-Specific Interactions of Ca2+-Calmodulin in E. coli Lysate J. Biomol. NMR 2013, 55, 239247 DOI: 10.1007/s10858-013-9705-2
  80. 80.
    Latham, M. P.; Kay, L. E. A Similar In Vitro and In Cell Lysate Folding Intermediate for the FF Domain J. Mol. Biol. 2014, 426, 32143220 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2014.07.019
  81. 81.
    Roos, M.; Ott, M.; Hofmann, M.; Link, S.; Rössler, E.; Balbach, J.; Kruschelnitsky, A.; Saalwächter, K. Coupling and Decoupling of Rotational and Translational Diffusion of Proteins under Crowding Conditions J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 1036510372 DOI: 10.1021/jacs.6b06615
  82. 82.
    Tai, J.; Dave, K.; Hahn, V.; Guzman, I.; Gruebele, M. Subcellular Modulation of Protein VlsE Stability and Folding Kinetics FEBS Lett. 2016, 590, 14091416 DOI: 10.1002/1873-3468.12193
  83. 83.
    Cino, E. A.; Karttunen, M.; Choy, W.-Y. Effects of Molecular Crowding on the Dynamics of Intrinsically Disordered Proteins PLoS One 2012, 7, e49876 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049876
  84. 84.
    Munari, F.; Bortot, A.; Zanzoni, S.; D’Onofrio, M.; Fushman, D.; Assfalg, M. Identification of Primary and Secondary UBA Footprints on the Surface of Ubiquitin in Cell-Mimicking Crowded Solution FEBS Lett. 2017, 591, 979990 DOI: 10.1002/1873-3468.12615
  85. 85.
    Ito, Y.; Selenko, P. Cellular Structural Biology Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2010, 20, 640648 DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2010.07.006
  86. 86.
    Elcock, A. H. Models of Macromolecular Crowding Effects and the Need for Quantitative Comparisons with Experiment Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2010, 20, 196206 DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2010.01.008
  87. 87.
    Danielsson, J.; Oliveberg, M. Comparing Protein Behaviour in vitro and in vivo, What Does the Data Really Tell Us? Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2017, 42, 129135 DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2017.01.002
  88. 88.
    Roberts, E. Cellular and Molecular Structure as a Unifying Framework for Whole-Cell Modeling Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2014, 25, 8691 DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2014.01.005
  89. 89.
    Im, W.; Liang, J.; Olson, A.; Zhou, H.-X.; Vajda, S.; Vakser, I. A. Challenges in Structural Approaches to Cell Modeling J. Mol. Biol. 2016, 428, 29432964 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2016.05.024
  90. 90.
    Kyne, C.; Crowley, P. B. Grasping the Nature of the Cell Interior: From Physiological Chemistry to Chemical Biology FEBS J. 2016, 283, 30163028 DOI: 10.1111/febs.13744
  91. 91.
    Zhou, H.-X. Polymer Crowders and Protein Crowders Act Similarly on Protein Folding Stability FEBS Lett. 2013, 587, 394397 DOI: 10.1016/j.febslet.2013.01.030
  92. 92.
    Miklos, A. C.; Li, C.; Sharaf, N. G.; Pielak, G. J. Volume Exclusion and Soft Interaction Effects on Protein Stability under Crowded Conditions Biochemistry 2010, 49, 69846991 DOI: 10.1021/bi100727y
  93. 93.
    Ignatova, Z.; Krishnan, B.; Bombardier, J. P.; Marcelino, A. M. C.; Hong, J.; Gierasch, L. M. From the Test Tube to the Cell: Exploring the Folding and Aggregation of a β-Clam Protein Biopolymers 2007, 88, 157163 DOI: 10.1002/bip.20665
  94. 94.
    Hong, J.; Gierasch, L. M. Macromolecular Crowding Remodels the Energy Landscape of a Protein by Favoring a More Compact Unfolded State J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 1044510452
  95. 95.
    Macdonald, B.; McCarley, S.; Noeen, S.; van Giessen, A. E. Protein–Protein Interactions Affect α-Helix Stability in Crowded Environments J. Phys. Chem. B 2015, 119, 29562967 DOI: 10.1021/jp512630s
  96. 96.
    Macdonald, B.; McCarley, S.; Noeen, S.; van Giessen, A. E. β-Hairpin Crowding Agents Affect α-Helix Stability in Crowded Environments J. Phys. Chem. B 2016, 120, 650659 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.5b10575
  97. 97.
    Bille, A.; Mohanty, S.; Irbäck, A. Peptide Folding in the Presence of Interacting Protein Crowders J. Chem. Phys. 2016, 144, 175105 DOI: 10.1063/1.4948462
  98. 98.
    Bille, A.; Linse, B.; Mohanty, S.; Irbäck, A. Equilibrium Simulation of Trp-Cage in the Presence of Protein Crowders J. Chem. Phys. 2015, 143, 175102 DOI: 10.1063/1.4934997
  99. 99.
    Kadumuri, R. V.; Gullipalli, J.; Subramanian, S.; Jaipuria, G.; Atreya, H. S.; Vadrevu, R. Crowding Interactions Perturb Structure and Stability by Destabilizing the Stable Core of the α-Subunit of Tryptophan Synthase FEBS Lett. 2016, 590, 20962105 DOI: 10.1002/1873-3468.12259
  100. 100.
    Qin, S.; Zhou, H.-X. Effects of Macromolecular Crowding on the Conformational Ensembles of Disordered Proteins J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2013, 4, 34293434 DOI: 10.1021/jz401817x
  101. 101.
    Goldenberg, D. P.; Argyle, B. Minimal Effects of Macromolecular Crowding on an Intrinsically Disordered Protein: A Small-Angle Neutron Scattering Study Biophys. J. 2014, 106, 905914 DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2013.12.003
  102. 102.
    Nakano, S.-i.; Sugimoto, N. Model Studies of the Effects of Intracellular Crowding on Nucleic Acid Interactions Mol. BioSyst. 2017, 13, 3241 DOI: 10.1039/C6MB00654J
  103. 103.
    Yildirim, A.; Sharma, M.; Varner, B. M.; Fang, L.; Feig, M. Conformational Preferences of DNA in Reduced Dielectric Environments J. Phys. Chem. B 2014, 118, 1087410881 DOI: 10.1021/jp505727w
  104. 104.
    Nakano, S.-i.; Miyoshi, D.; Sugimoto, N. Effects of Molecular Crowding on the Structures, Interactions, and Functions of Nucleic Acids Chem. Rev. 2014, 114, 27332758 DOI: 10.1021/cr400113m
  105. 105.
    Gao, M.; Gnutt, D.; Orban, A.; Appel, B.; Righetti, F.; Winter, R.; Narberhaus, F.; Müller, S.; Ebbinghaus, S. RNA Hairpin Folding in the Crowded Cell Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2016, 55, 32243228 DOI: 10.1002/anie.201510847
  106. 106.
    Baltierra-Jasso, L. E.; Morten, M. J.; Laflör, L.; Quinn, S. D.; Magennis, S. W. Crowding-Induced Hybridization of Single DNA Hairpins J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 1602016023 DOI: 10.1021/jacs.5b11829
  107. 107.
    Kilburn, D.; Roh, J. H.; Guo, L.; Briber, R. M.; Woodson, S. A. Molecular Crowding Stabilizes Folded RNA Structure by the Excluded Volume Effect J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 86908696 DOI: 10.1021/ja101500g
  108. 108.
    Tyrrell, J.; McGinnis, J. L.; Weeks, K. M.; Pielak, G. J. The Cellular Environment Stabilizes Adenine Riboswitch RNA Structure Biochemistry 2013, 52, 87778785 DOI: 10.1021/bi401207q
  109. 109.
    Tyrrell, J.; Weeks, K. M.; Pielak, G. J. Challenge of Mimicking the Influences of the Cellular Environment on RNA Structure by PEG-Induced Macromolecular Crowding Biochemistry 2015, 54, 64476453 DOI: 10.1021/acs.biochem.5b00767
  110. 110.
    Bryant, J. E.; Lecomte, J. T. J.; Lee, A. L.; Young, G. B.; Pielak, G. J. Protein Dynamics in Living Cells Biochemistry 2005, 44, 92759279 DOI: 10.1021/bi050786j
  111. 111.
    Bryant, J. E.; Lecomte, J. T. J.; Lee, A. L.; Young, G. B.; Pielak, G. J. Cytosol Has a Small Effect on Protein Backbone Dynamics Biochemistry 2006, 45, 1008510091 DOI: 10.1021/bi060547b
  112. 112.
    Abriata, L.; Spiga, E.; Dal Peraro, M. All-Atom Simulations of Crowding Effects on Ubiquitin Dynamics Phys. Biol. 2013, 10, 045006 DOI: 10.1088/1478-3975/10/4/045006
  113. 113.
    Minh, D. D. L.; Chang, C.-e.; Trylska, J.; Tozzini, V.; McCammon, J. A. The Influence of Macromolecular Crowding on HIV-1 Protease Internal Dynamics J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 60066007 DOI: 10.1021/ja060483s
  114. 114.
    Makowski, L.; Rodi, D. J.; Mandava, S.; Minh, D. D. L.; Gore, D. B.; Fischetti, R. F. Molecular Crowding Inhibits Intramolecular Breathing Motions in Proteins J. Mol. Biol. 2008, 375, 529546 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2007.07.075
  115. 115.
    Li, C.; Charlton, L. M.; Lakkavaram, A.; Seagle, C.; Wang, G.; Young, G. B.; Macdonald, J. M.; Pielak, G. J. Differential Dynamical Effects of Macromolecular Crowding on an Intrinsically Disordered Protein and a Globular Protein: Implications for In-Cell NMR Spectroscopy J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 63106311 DOI: 10.1021/ja801020z
  116. 116.
    Schreiber, G. Kinetic Studies of Protein–Protein Interactions Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2002, 12, 4147 DOI: 10.1016/S0959-440X(02)00287-7
  117. 117.
    Northrup, S. H.; Erickson, H. P. Kinetics of Protein-Protein Association Explained by Brownian Dynamics Computer Simulation Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1992, 89, 33383342 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.89.8.3338
  118. 118.
    Zhou, H. X. Brownian Dynamics Study of the Influences of Electrostatic Interaction and Diffusion on Protein-Protein Association Kinetics Biophys. J. 1993, 64, 17111726 DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3495(93)81543-1
  119. 119.
    Slutsky, M.; Mirny, L. A. Kinetics of Protein-DNA Interaction: Facilitated Target Location in Sequence-Dependent Potential Biophys. J. 2004, 87, 40214035 DOI: 10.1529/biophysj.104.050765
  120. 120.
    Berg, O. G.; Winter, R. B.; Von Hippel, P. H. Diffusion-Driven Mechanisms of Protein Translocation on Nucleic Acids. 1. Models and Theory Biochemistry 1981, 20, 69296948 DOI: 10.1021/bi00527a028
  121. 121.
    Li, C.; Wang, Y.; Pielak, G. J. Translational and Rotational Diffusion of a Small Globular Protein under Crowded Conditions J. Phys. Chem. B 2009, 113, 1339013392 DOI: 10.1021/jp907744m
  122. 122.
    Wang, Y.; Benton, L. A.; Singh, V.; Pielak, G. J. Disordered Protein Diffusion under Crowded Conditions J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2012, 3, 27032706 DOI: 10.1021/jz3010915
  123. 123.
    Wang, Y.; Li, C.; Pielak, G. J. Effects of Proteins on Protein Diffusion J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 93929397 DOI: 10.1021/ja102296k
  124. 124.
    Li, C.; Pielak, G. J. Using NMR to Distinguish Viscosity Effects from Nonspecific Protein Binding under Crowded Conditions J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 13681369 DOI: 10.1021/ja808428d
  125. 125.
    Geyer, T. Mixing Normal and Anomalous Diffusion J. Chem. Phys. 2012, 137, 115101 DOI: 10.1063/1.4753804
  126. 126.
    Banks, D. S.; Fradin, C. Anomalous Diffusion of Proteins due to Molecular Crowding Biophys. J. 2005, 89, 29602971 DOI: 10.1529/biophysj.104.051078
  127. 127.
    Hasnain, S.; McClendon, C. L.; Hsu, M. T.; Jacobson, M. P.; Bandyopadhyay, P. A New Coarse-Grained Model for E. coli Cytoplasm: Accurate Calculation of the Diffusion Coefficient of Proteins and Observation of Anomalous Diffusion PLoS One 2014, 9, e106466 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106466
  128. 128.
    Galanti, M.; Fanelli, D.; Maritan, A.; Piazza, F. Diffusion of Tagged Particles in a Crowded Medium Europhys. Lett. 2014, 107, 20006 DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/107/20006
  129. 129.
    Wilcox, A. E.; LoConte, M. A.; Slade, K. M. Effects of Macromolecular Crowding on Alcohol Dehydrogenase Activity Are Substrate-Dependent Biochemistry 2016, 55, 35503558 DOI: 10.1021/acs.biochem.6b00257
  130. 130.
    Johansson, H.; Jensen, M. R.; Gesmar, H.; Meier, S.; Vinther, J. M.; Keeler, C.; Hodsdon, M. E.; Led, J. J. Specific and Nonspecific Interactions in Ultraweak Protein–Protein Associations Revealed by Solvent Paramagnetic Relaxation Enhancements J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 1027710286 DOI: 10.1021/ja503546j
  131. 131.
    Cohen, R. D.; Pielak, G. J. A Cell is More than the Sum of Its (Dilute) Parts: A Brief History of Quinary Structure Protein Sci. 2017, 26, 403413 DOI: 10.1002/pro.3092
  132. 132.
    Pérez Santero, S.; Favretto, F.; Zanzoni, S.; Chignola, R.; Assfalg, M.; D’Onofrio, M. Effects of Macromolecular Crowding on a Small Lipid Binding Protein Probed at the Single-Amino Acid Level Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2016, 606, 99110 DOI: 10.1016/j.abb.2016.07.017
  133. 133.
    Kim, Y. C.; Bhattacharya, A.; Mittal, J. Macromolecular Crowding Effects on Coupled Folding and Binding J. Phys. Chem. B 2014, 118, 1262112629 DOI: 10.1021/jp508046y
  134. 134.
    Kim, Y. C.; Best, R. B.; Mittal, J. Macromolecular Crowding Effects on Protein-Protein Binding Affinity and Specificity J. Chem. Phys. 2010, 133, 205101 DOI: 10.1063/1.3516589
  135. 135.
    Qin, S. B.; Cai, L.; Zhou, H. X. A Method for Computing Association Rate Constants of Atomistically Represented Proteins under Macromolecular Crowding Phys. Biol. 2012, 9, 066008 DOI: 10.1088/1478-3975/9/6/066008
  136. 136.
    Musiani, F.; Giorgetti, A. Protein Aggregation and Molecular Crowding: Perspectives from Multiscale Simulations Int. Rev. Cell Mol. Biol. 2017, 329, 4977 DOI: 10.1016/bs.ircmb.2016.08.009
  137. 137.
    White, D. A.; Buell, A. K.; Knowles, T. P. J.; Welland, M. E.; Dobson, C. M. Protein Aggregation in Crowded Environments J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 51705175 DOI: 10.1021/ja909997e
  138. 138.
    Ellis, R. J.; Minton, A. P. Protein Aggregation in Crowded Environments Biol. Chem. 2006, 387, 485497 DOI: 10.1515/BC.2006.064
  139. 139.
    Qin, S.; Zhou, H.-X. Protein Folding, Binding, and Droplet Formation in Cell-Like Conditions Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2017, 43, 2837 DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2016.10.006
  140. 140.
    Spitzer, J.; Poolman, B. How Crowded is the Prokaryotic Cytoplasm? FEBS Lett. 2013, 587, 20942098 DOI: 10.1016/j.febslet.2013.05.051
  141. 141.
    Duff, M. R., Jr.; Grubbs, J.; Serpersu, E.; Howell, E. E. Weak Interactions between Folate and Osmolytes in Solution Biochemistry 2012, 51, 23092318 DOI: 10.1021/bi3000947
  142. 142.
    Miklos, A. C.; Sumpter, M.; Zhou, H.-X. Competitive Interactions of Ligands and Macromolecular Crowders with Maltose Binding Protein PLoS One 2013, 8, e74969 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074969
  143. 143.
    Abriata, L. A.; Spiga, E.; Dal Peraro, M. Molecular Effects of Concentrated Solutes on Protein Hydration, Dynamics, and Electrostatics Biophys. J. 2016, 111, 743755 DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2016.07.011
  144. 144.
    Heinen, M.; Zanini, F.; Roosen-Runge, F.; Fedunova, D.; Zhang, F. J.; Hennig, M.; Seydel, T.; Schweins, R.; Sztucki, M.; Antalik, M. Viscosity and Diffusion: Crowding and Salt Effects in Protein Solutions Soft Matter 2012, 8, 14041419 DOI: 10.1039/C1SM06242E
  145. 145.
    Szymanski, J.; Patkowski, A.; Wilk, A.; Garstecki, P.; Holyst, R. Diffusion and Viscosity in a Crowded Environment: From Nano- to Macroscale J. Phys. Chem. B 2006, 110, 2559325597 DOI: 10.1021/jp0666784
  146. 146.
    Despa, F.; Fernandez, A.; Berry, R. S. Dielectric Modulation of Biological Water Phys. Rev. Lett. 2004, 93, 228104 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.228104
  147. 147.
    Huang, K.-Y.; Kingsley, C. N.; Sheil, R.; Cheng, C.-Y.; Bierma, J. C.; Roskamp, K. W.; Khago, D.; Martin, R. W.; Han, S. Stability of Protein-Specific Hydration Shell on Crowding J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 53925402 DOI: 10.1021/jacs.6b01989
  148. 148.
    Guigas, G.; Weiss, M. Effects of Protein Crowding on Membrane Systems Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Biomembr. 2016, 1858, 24412450 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2015.12.021
  149. 149.
    Wang, Q.; Cheung; Margaret, S. A Physics-Based Approach of Coarse-Graining the Cytoplasm of Escherichia coli (CGCYTO) Biophys. J. 2012, 102, 23532361 DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2012.04.010
  150. 150.
    Sterpone, F.; Derreumaux, P.; Melchionna, S. Protein Simulations in Fluids: Coupling the OPEP Coarse-Grained Force Field with Hydrodynamics J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2015, 11, 18431853 DOI: 10.1021/ct501015h
  151. 151.
    Blanco, P.; Via, M.; Garcés, J.; Madurga, S.; Mas, F. Brownian Dynamics Computational Model of Protein Diffusion in Crowded Media with Dextran Macromolecules as Obstacles Entropy 2017, 19, 105 DOI: 10.3390/e19030105
  152. 152.
    Feig, M.; Tanizaki, S.; Sayadi, M. Implicit Solvent Simulations of Biomolecules in Cellular Environments. Annual Reviews in Computational Chemistry; Elsevier: Oxford, U.K., 2008; Vol. 4, pp 107121.
  153. 153.
    Starzyk, A.; Wojciechowski, M.; Cieplak, M. Structural Fluctuations and Thermal Stability of Proteins in Crowded Environments: Effects of the Excluded Volume Phys. Biol. 2016, 13, 066002 DOI: 10.1088/1478-3975/13/6/066002
  154. 154.
    McGuffee, S. R.; Elcock, A. H. Diffusion, Crowding & Protein Stability in a Dynamic Molecular Model of the Bacterial Cytoplasm PLoS Comput. Biol. 2010, 6, e1000694 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000694
  155. 155.
    Ando, T.; Skolnick, J. Crowding and Hydrodynamic Interactions Likely Dominate in vivo Macromolecular Motion Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2010, 107, 1845718462 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1011354107
  156. 156.
    Mereghetti, P.; Wade, R. C. Atomic Detail Brownian Dynamics Simulations of Concentrated Protein Solutions with a Mean Field Treatment of Hydrodynamic Interactions J. Phys. Chem. B 2012, 116, 85238533 DOI: 10.1021/jp212532h
  157. 157.
    Mereghetti, P.; Gabdoulline, R. R.; Wade, R. C. Brownian Dynamics Simulation of Protein Solutions Structural and Dynamical Properties Biophys. J. 2010, 99, 37823791 DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2010.10.035
  158. 158.
    Trovato, F.; Tozzini, V. Diffusion within the Cytoplasm: A Mesoscale Model of Interacting Macromolecules Biophys. J. 2014, 107, 25792591 DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2014.09.043
  159. 159.
    Qin, S. B.; Minh, D. D. L.; McCammon, J. A.; Zhou, H. X. Method to Predict Crowding Effects by Postprocessing Molecular Dynamics Trajectories: Application to the Flap Dynamics of HIV-1 Protease J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2010, 1, 107110 DOI: 10.1021/jz900023w
  160. 160.
    Cheung, M. S.; Thirumalai, D. Effects of crowding and confinement on the structures of the transition state ensemble in proteins J. Phys. Chem. B 2007, 111, 82508257 DOI: 10.1021/jp068201y
  161. 161.
    Homouz, D.; Perham, M.; Samiotakis, A.; Cheung, M. S.; Wittung-Stafshede, P. Crowded, Cell-Like Environment Induces Shape Changes in Aspherical Protein Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2008, 105, 1175411759 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803672105
  162. 162.
    Homouz, D.; Stagg, L.; Wittung-Stafshede, P.; Cheung, M. S. Macromolecular Crowding Modulates Folding Mechanism of alpha/beta Protein Apoflavodoxin Biophys. J. 2009, 96, 671680 DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2008.10.014
  163. 163.
    McGuffee, S. R.; Elcock, A. H. Atomically Detailed Simulations of Concentrated Protein Solutions: The Effects of Salt, pH, Point Mutations, and Protein Concentration in Simulations of 1000-Molecule Systems J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 1209812110 DOI: 10.1021/ja0614058
  164. 164.
    Gabdoulline, R. R.; Wade, R. C. Protein-Protein Association: Investigation of Factors Influencing Association Rates by Brownian Dynamics Simulations J. Mol. Biol. 2001, 306, 11391155 DOI: 10.1006/jmbi.2000.4404
  165. 165.
    Kar, P.; Feig, M. Recent Advances in Transferable Coarse-Grained Modeling of Proteins Adv. Protein Chem. Struct. Biol. 2014, 96, 143180 DOI: 10.1016/bs.apcsb.2014.06.005
  166. 166.
    Kar, P.; Gopal, S. M.; Cheng, Y. M.; Predeus, A. V.; Feig, M. PRIMO: A Transferable Coarse-Grained Force Field for Proteins J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2013, 9, 37693788 DOI: 10.1021/ct400230y
  167. 167.
    Andrews, C. T.; Elcock, A. H. COFFDROP: A Coarse-Grained Nonbonded Force Field for Proteins Derived from All-Atom Explicit-Solvent Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Amino Acids J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2014, 10, 51785194 DOI: 10.1021/ct5006328
  168. 168.
    Chiricotto, M.; Sterpone, F.; Derreumaux, P.; Melchionna, S. Multiscale Simulation of Molecular Processes in Cellular Environments Philos. Trans. R. Soc., A 2016, 374, 20160225 DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2016.0225
  169. 169.
    Predeus, A. V.; Gul, S.; Gopal, S. M.; Feig, M. Conformational Sampling of Peptides in the Presence of Protein Crowders from AA/CG-Multiscale Simulations J. Phys. Chem. B 2012, 116, 86108620 DOI: 10.1021/jp300129u
  170. 170.
    Feig, M.; Sugita, Y. Variable Interactions between Protein Crowders and Biomolecular Solutes are Important in Understanding Cellular Crowding J. Phys. Chem. B 2012, 116, 599605 DOI: 10.1021/jp209302e
  171. 171.
    Harada, R.; Tochio, N.; Kigawa, T.; Sugita, Y.; Feig, M. Reduced Native State Stability in Crowded Cellular Environment Due to Protein-Protein Interactions J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 36963701 DOI: 10.1021/ja3126992
  172. 172.
    Wang, P.-h.; Yu, I.; Feig, M.; Sugita, Y. Influence of Protein Crowder Size on Hydration Structure and Dynamics in Macromolecular Crowding Chem. Phys. Lett. 2017, 671, 6370 DOI: 10.1016/j.cplett.2017.01.012
  173. 173.
    Yu, I.; Mori, T.; Ando, T.; Harada, R.; Jung, J.; Sugita, Y.; Feig, M. Biomolecular Interactions Modulate Macromolecular Structure and Dynamics in Atomistic Model of a Bacterial Cytoplasm eLife 2016, 5, e19274 DOI: 10.7554/eLife.19274
  174. 174.
    Candotti, M.; Orozco, M. The Differential Response of Proteins to Macromolecular Crowding PLoS Comput. Biol. 2016, 12, e1005040 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005040
  175. 175.
    Virk, A. S.; Stait-Gardner, T.; Willis, S. A.; Torres, A. M.; Price, W. S. Macromolecular Crowding Studies of Amino Acids Using NMR Diffusion Measurements and Molecular Dynamics Simulations Front. Phys. 2015, 3, 1 DOI: 10.3389/fphy.2015.00001
  176. 176.
    Karandur, D.; Wong, K.-Y.; Pettitt, B. M. Solubility and Aggregation of Gly5 in Water J. Phys. Chem. B 2014, 118, 95659572 DOI: 10.1021/jp503358n
  177. 177.
    Petrov, D.; Zagrovic, B. Are Current Atomistic Force Fields Accurate Enough to Study Proteins in Crowded Environments? PLoS Comput. Biol. 2014, 10, e1003638 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003638
  178. 178.
    Andrews, C. T.; Elcock, A. H. Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Highly Crowded Amino Acid Solutions: Comparisons of Eight Different Force Field Combinations with Experiment and with Each Other J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2013, 9, 45854602 DOI: 10.1021/ct400371h
  179. 179.
    Abriata, L. A.; Dal Peraro, M. Assessing the Potential of Atomistic Molecular Dynamics Simulations to Probe Reversible Protein-Protein Recognition and Binding Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 10549 DOI: 10.1038/srep10549
  180. 180.
    Piana, S.; Donchev, A. G.; Robustelli, P.; Shaw, D. E. Water Dispersion Interactions Strongly Influence Simulated Structural Properties of Disordered Protein States J. Phys. Chem. B 2015, 119, 51135123 DOI: 10.1021/jp508971m
  181. 181.
    Best, R. B.; Mittal, J. Protein Simulations with an Optimized Water Model: Cooperative Helix Formation and Temperature-Induced Unfolded State Collapse J. Phys. Chem. B 2010, 114, 1491614923 DOI: 10.1021/jp108618d
  182. 182.
    Hermans, J.; Berendsen, H. J. C.; van Gunsteren, W. F.; Postma, J. P. M. A Consistent Empirical Potential for Water-Protein Interactions Biopolymers 1984, 23, 15131518 DOI: 10.1002/bip.360230807
  183. 183.
    Jorgensen, W. L.; Chandrasekhar, J.; Madura, J. D.; Impey, R. W.; Klein, M. L. Comparison of Simple Potential Functions for Simulating Liquid Water J. Chem. Phys. 1983, 79, 926935 DOI: 10.1063/1.445869
  184. 184.
    Yeh, I. C.; Hummer, G. System-Size Dependence of Diffusion Coefficients and Viscosities from Molecular Dynamics Simulations with Periodic Boundary Conditions J. Phys. Chem. B 2004, 108, 1587315879 DOI: 10.1021/jp0477147
  185. 185.
    Venable, R. M.; Hatcher, E.; Guvench, O.; MacKerell, A. D.; Pastor, R. W. Comparing Simulated and Experimental Translation and Rotation Constants: Range of Validity for Viscosity Scaling J. Phys. Chem. B 2010, 114, 1250112507 DOI: 10.1021/jp105549s
  186. 186.
    Huang, J.; Rauscher, S.; Nawrocki, G.; Ran, T.; Feig, M.; de Groot, B. L.; Grubmüller, H.; MacKerell, A. D., Jr. CHARMM36m: An Improved Force Field for Folded and Intrinsically Disordered Proteins Nat. Methods 2017, 14, 7173 DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.4067
  187. 187.
    Best, R. B.; Zhu, X.; Shim, J.; Lopes, P.; Mittal, J.; Feig, M.; MacKerell, A. D., Jr Optimization of the Additive CHARMM All-Atom Protein Force Field Targeting Improved Sampling of the Backbone ϕ, ψ and Side-Chain χ1 and χ2 Dihedral Angles J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2012, 8, 32573273 DOI: 10.1021/ct300400x
  188. 188.
    Best, R. B.; Mittal, J.; Feig, M.; MacKerell, A. D. Inclusion of Many-Body Effects in the Additive CHARMM Protein CMAP Potential Results in Enhanced Cooperativity of α-Helix and β-Hairpin Formation Biophys. J. 2012, 103, 10451051 DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2012.07.042
  189. 189.
    Harder, E.; Damm, W.; Maple, J.; Wu, C.; Reboul, M.; Xiang, J. Y.; Wang, L.; Lupyan, D.; Dahlgren, M. K.; Knight, J. L. OPLS3: A Force Field Providing Broad Coverage of Drug-like Small Molecules and Proteins J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2016, 12, 281296 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00864
  190. 190.
    Margreitter, C.; Reif, M. M.; Oostenbrink, C. Update on Phosphate and Charged Post-Translationally Modified Amino Acid Parameters in the GROMOS Force Field J. Comput. Chem. 2017, 38, 714720 DOI: 10.1002/jcc.24733
  191. 191.
    Best, R. B.; Zheng, W.; Mittal, J. Balanced Protein-Water Interactions Improve Properties of Disorderd Proteins and Non-Specific Protein Association J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2014, 10, 51135124 DOI: 10.1021/ct500569b
  192. 192.
    Maier, J. A.; Martinez, C.; Kasavajhala, K.; Wickstrom, L.; Hauser, K. E.; Simmerling, C. ff14SB: Improving the Accuracy of Protein Side Chain and Backbone Parameters from ff99SB J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2015, 11, 36963713 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00255
  193. 193.
    Jung, J.; Mori, T.; Kobayashi, C.; Matsunaga, Y.; Yoda, T.; Feig, M.; Sugita, Y. GENESIS: A Hybrid-Parallel and Multi-Scale Molecular Dynamics Simulator with Enhanced Sampling Algorithms for Biomolecular and Cellular Simulations Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Comput. Mol. Sci. 2015, 5, 310323 DOI: 10.1002/wcms.1220
  194. 194.
    Jung, J.; Naurse, A.; Kobayashi, C.; Sugita, Y. Graphics Processing Unit Acceleration and Parallelization of GENESIS for Large-Scale Molecular Dynamics Simulations J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2016, 12, 49474958 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.6b00241
  195. 195.
    Friedrichs, M. S.; Eastman, P.; Vaidyanathan, V.; Houston, M.; Legrand, S.; Beberg, A. L.; Ensign, D. L.; Bruns, C. M.; Pande, V. S. Accelerating Molecular Dynamic Simulation on Graphics Processing Units J. Comput. Chem. 2009, 30, 864872 DOI: 10.1002/jcc.21209
  196. 196.
    Krieger, E.; Vriend, G. New Ways to Boost Molecular Dynamics Simulations J. Comput. Chem. 2015, 36, 9961007 DOI: 10.1002/jcc.23899
  197. 197.
    Abraham, M. J.; Murtola, T.; Schulz, R.; Páll, S.; Smith, J. C.; Hess, B.; Lindahl, E. GROMACS: High Performance Molecular Simulations through Multi-Level Parallelism from Laptops to Supercomputers SoftwareX 2015, 1–2, 1925 DOI: 10.1016/j.softx.2015.06.001
  198. 198.
    Salomon-Ferrer, R.; Götz, A. W.; Poole, D.; Le Grand, S.; Walker, R. C. Routine Microsecond Molecular Dynamics Simulations with AMBER on GPUs. 2. Explicit Solvent Particle Mesh Ewald J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2013, 9, 38783888 DOI: 10.1021/ct400314y
  199. 199.
    Shaw, D. E.; Maragakis, P.; Lindorff-Larsen, K.; Piana, S.; Dror, R. O.; Eastwood, M. P.; Bank, J. A.; Jumper, J. M.; Salmon, J. K.; Shan, Y. B. Atomic-Level Characterization of the Structural Dynamics of Proteins Science 2010, 330, 341346 DOI: 10.1126/science.1187409
  200. 200.
    Abrams, C.; Bussi, G. Enhanced Sampling in Molecular Dynamics Using Metadynamics, Replica-Exchange, and Temperature-Acceleration Entropy 2014, 16, 163199 DOI: 10.3390/e16010163
  201. 201.
    Torrie, G. M.; Valleau, J. P. Monte-Carlo Free-Energy Estimates using Non-Boltzmann Sampling - Application to Subcritical Lennard-Jones Fluid Chem. Phys. Lett. 1974, 28, 578581 DOI: 10.1016/0009-2614(74)80109-0
  202. 202.
    Sugita, Y.; Okamoto, Y. Replica-Exchange Molecular Dynamics Method for Protein Folding Chem. Phys. Lett. 1999, 314, 141151 DOI: 10.1016/S0009-2614(99)01123-9
  203. 203.
    Okamoto, Y. Generalized-Ensemble Algorithms: Enhanced Sampling Techniques for Monte Carlo and Molecular Dynamics Simulations J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2004, 22, 425439 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmgm.2003.12.009
  204. 204.
    Micheletti, C.; Laio, A.; Parrinello, M. Reconstructing the Density of States by History-Dependent Metadynamics Phys. Rev. Lett. 2004, 92, 92 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.170601
  205. 205.
    Guo, Z.; Brooks, C. L., III Rapid Screening of Binding Affinities: Application of the λ-Dynamics Method to a Trypsin-Inhibitor System J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 19201921 DOI: 10.1021/ja973418e
  206. 206.
    Hamelberg, D.; Mongan, J.; McCammon, J. A. Accelerated Molecular Dynamics: A Promising and Efficient Simulation Method for Biomolecules J. Chem. Phys. 2004, 120, 1191911929 DOI: 10.1063/1.1755656
  207. 207.
    Cossins, B. P.; Jacobson, M. P.; Guallar, V. A New View of the Bacterial Cytosol Environment PLoS Comput. Biol. 2011, 7, e1002066 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002066
  208. 208.
    Spiga, E.; Abriata, L. A.; Piazza, F.; Dal Peraro, M. Dissecting the Effects of Concentrated Carbohydrate Solutions on Protein Diffusion, Hydration, and Internal Dynamics J. Phys. Chem. B 2014, 118, 53105321 DOI: 10.1021/jp4126705
  209. 209.
    Zhou, H.-X. Influences of Crowded Cellular Environments on Protein Folding, Binding, and Oligomerization: Biological Consequences and Potentials of Atomistic Modeling FEBS Lett. 2013, 587, 10531061 DOI: 10.1016/j.febslet.2013.01.064
  210. 210.
    Qin, S.; Zhou, H.-X. Further Development of the FFT-based Method for Atomistic Modeling of Protein Folding and Binding under Crowding: Optimization of Accuracy and Speed J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2014, 10, 28242835 DOI: 10.1021/ct5001878
  211. 211.
    Qin, S.; Zhou, H.-X. Atomistic Modeling of Macromolecular Crowding Predicts Modest Increases in Protein Folding and Binding Stability Biophys. J. 2009, 97, 1219 DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2009.03.066
  212. 212.
    Drake, J. A.; Pettitt, B. M. Force Field-Dependent Solution Properties of Glycine Oligomers J. Comput. Chem. 2015, 36, 12751285 DOI: 10.1002/jcc.23934
  213. 213.
    Kuroda, Y.; Suenaga, A.; Sato, Y.; Kosuda, S.; Taiji, M. All-Atom Molecular Dynamics Analysis of Multi-Peptide Systems Reproduces Peptide Solubility In Line with Experimental Observations Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 19479 DOI: 10.1038/srep19479
  214. 214.
    Feig, M.; Harada, R.; Mori, T.; Yu, I.; Takahashi, K.; Sugita, Y. Complete Atomistic Model of a Bacterial Cytoplasm Integrates Physics, Biochemistry, and Systems Biology J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2015, 58, 19 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmgm.2015.02.004
  215. 215.
    Kurniawan, N. A.; Enemark, S.; Rajagopalan, R. Crowding Alters the Folding Kinetics of a β-Hairpin by Modulating the Stability of Intermediates J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 1020010208 DOI: 10.1021/ja302943m
  216. 216.
    Carballo-Pacheco, M.; Strodel, B. Advances in the Simulation of Protein Aggregation at the Atomistic Scale J. Phys. Chem. B 2016, 120, 29912999 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.6b00059
  217. 217.
    Maffeo, C.; Luan, B.; Aksimentiev, A. End-To-End Attraction of Duplex DNA Nucleic Acids Res. 2012, 40, 38123821 DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkr1220
  218. 218.
    Hajnic, M.; Osorio, J. I.; Zagrovic, B. Interaction Preferences between Nucleobase Mimetics and Amino Acids in Aqueous Solutions Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2015, 17, 2141421422 DOI: 10.1039/C5CP01486G
  219. 219.
    Hajnic, M.; Osorio, J. I.; Zagrovic, B. Computational Analysis of Amino Acids and their Sidechain Analogs in Crowded Solutions of RNA Nucleobases with Implications for the mRNA–Protein Complementarity Hypothesis Nucleic Acids Res. 2014, 42, 1298412994 DOI: 10.1093/nar/gku1035
  220. 220.
    Palazzesi, F.; Prakash, M. K.; Bonomi, M.; Barducci, A. Accuracy of Current All-Atom Force-Fields in Modeling Protein Disordered States J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2015, 11, 27 DOI: 10.1021/ct500718s
  221. 221.
    Henriques, J.; Cragnell, C.; Skepö, M. Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Intrinsically Disordered Proteins: Force Field Evaluation and Comparison with Experiment J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2015, 11, 34203431 DOI: 10.1021/ct501178z
  222. 222.
    Rauscher, S.; Gapsys, V.; Gajda, M. J.; Zweckstetter, M.; de Groot, B. L.; Grubmüller, H. Structural Ensembles of Intrinsically Disordered Proteins Depend Strongly on Force Field: A Comparison to Experiment J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2015, 11, 55135524 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00736
  223. 223.
    Cho, S. S.; Reddy, G.; Straub, J. E.; Thirumalai, D. Entropic Stabilization of Proteins by TMAO J. Phys. Chem. B 2011, 115, 1340113407 DOI: 10.1021/jp207289b
  224. 224.
    Auton, M.; Bolen, D. W.; Rosgen, J. Structural Thermodynamics of Protein Preferential Solvation: Osmolyte Solvation of Proteins, Aminoacids, and Peptides Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet. 2008, 73, 802813 DOI: 10.1002/prot.22103
  225. 225.
    Record, M. T.; Anderson, C. F. Interpretation of Preferential Interaction Coefficients of Nonelectrolytes and of Electrolyte Ions in Terms of a Two-Domain Model Biophys. J. 1995, 68, 786794 DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3495(95)80254-7
  226. 226.
    Canchi, D. R.; García, A. E. Cosolvent Effects on Protein Stability Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 2013, 64, 273293 DOI: 10.1146/annurev-physchem-040412-110156
  227. 227.
    Arakawa, T.; Timasheff, S. N. The Stabilization of Proteins by Osmolytes Biophys. J. 1985, 47, 411414 DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3495(85)83932-1
  228. 228.
    Yu, I.; Jindo, Y.; Nagaoka, M. Microscopic Understanding of Preferential Exclusion of Compatible Solute Ectoine: Direct Interaction and Hydration Alteration J. Phys. Chem. B 2007, 111, 1023110238 DOI: 10.1021/jp068367z
  229. 229.
    Kokubo, H.; Pettitt, B. M. Preferential Solvation in Urea Solutions at Different Concentrations: Properties from Simulation Studies J. Phys. Chem. B 2007, 111, 52335242 DOI: 10.1021/jp067659x
  230. 230.
    Aburi, M.; Smith, P. E. A Combined Simulation and Kirkwood-Buff Approach to Quantify Cosolvent Effects on the Conformational Preferences of Peptides in Solution J. Phys. Chem. B 2004, 108, 73827388 DOI: 10.1021/jp036582z
  231. 231.
    Shimizu, S.; Matubayasi, N. Preferential Hydration of Proteins: A Kirkwood-Buff Approach Chem. Phys. Lett. 2006, 420, 518522 DOI: 10.1016/j.cplett.2006.01.034
  232. 232.
    Yu, I.; Nakada, K.; Nagaoka, M. Spatio-Temporal Characteristics of Transfer Free Energy of Apomyoglobin into the Crowding Condition with Trimethylamine N-oxide: A Study with Three Types of the Kirkwood-Buff Integral J. Phys. Chem. B 2012, 116, 40804088 DOI: 10.1021/jp300380p
  233. 233.
    Minton, A. P. Excluded Volume as a Determinant of Macromolecular Structure and Reactivity Biopolymers 1981, 20, 20932120 DOI: 10.1002/bip.1981.360201006
  234. 234.
    Koshland, D. E. The Key–Lock Theory and the Induced Fit Theory Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1995, 33, 23752378 DOI: 10.1002/anie.199423751
  235. 235.
    Ebbinghaus, S.; Gruebele, M. Protein Folding Landscapes in the Living Cell J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2011, 2, 314319 DOI: 10.1021/jz101729z
  236. 236.
    Miklos, A. C.; Li, C.; Sorrell, C. D.; Lyon, L. A.; Pielak, G. J. An Upper Limit for Macromolecular Crowding Effects BMC Biophys. 2011, 4, 13 DOI: 10.1186/2046-1682-4-13
  237. 237.
    Roosen-Runge, F.; Hennig, M.; Zhang, F. J.; Jacobs, R. M. J.; Sztucki, M.; Schober, H.; Seydel, T.; Schreiber, F. Protein Self-Diffusion in Crowded Solutions Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2011, 108, 1181511820 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1107287108
  238. 238.
    Dix, J. A.; Verkman, A. S. Crowding Effects on Diffusion in Solutions and Cells Annu. Rev. Biophys. 2008, 37, 247263 DOI: 10.1146/annurev.biophys.37.032807.125824
  239. 239.
    Dauty, E.; Verkman, A. S. Molecular Crowding Reduces to a Similar Extent the Diffusion of Small Solutes and Macromolecules: Measurement by Fluorescence Correlation Spectroscopy J. Mol. Recognit. 2004, 17, 441447 DOI: 10.1002/jmr.709
  240. 240.
    Höfling, F.; Franosch, T. Anomalous Transport in the Crowded World of Biological Cells Rep. Prog. Phys. 2013, 76, 046602 DOI: 10.1088/0034-4885/76/4/046602
  241. 241.
    Ridgway, D.; Broderick, G.; Lopez-Campistrous, A.; Ru’aini, M.; Winter, P.; Hamilton, M.; Boulanger, P.; Kovalenko, A.; Ellison, M. J. Coarse-Grained Molecular Simulation of Diffusion and Reaction Kinetics in a Crowded Virtual Cytoplasm Biophys. J. 2008, 94, 37483759 DOI: 10.1529/biophysj.107.116053
  242. 242.
    Shaw, D. E.; Grossman, J. P.; Bank, J. A.; Batson, B.; Butts, J. A.; Chao, J. C.; Deneroff, M. M.; Dror, R. O.; Even, A.; Fenton, C. H.; Anton 2: Raising the Bar for Performance and Programmability in a Special-Purpose Molecular Dynamics Supercomputer. Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis; IEEE Press: New Orleans, LA, 2014; pp 4153.
  243. 243.
    Schutz, C. N.; Warshel, A. What are the Dielectric ″Constants″ of Proteins and How to Validate Electrostatic Models? Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet. 2001, 44, 400417 DOI: 10.1002/prot.1106
  244. 244.
    Gilson, M. K.; Honig, B. H. The Dielectric-Constant of a Folded Protein Biopolymers 1986, 25, 20972119 DOI: 10.1002/bip.360251106
  245. 245.
    Horn, H. W.; Swope, W. C.; Pitera, J. W.; Madura, J. D.; Dick, T. J.; Hura, G. L.; Head-Gordon, T. Development of an improved four-site water model for biomolecular simulations: TIP4P-Ew J. Chem. Phys. 2004, 120, 96659678 DOI: 10.1063/1.1683075
  246. 246.
    Paschek, D.; Day, R.; Garcia, A. E. Influence of Water-Protein Hydrogen Bonding on the Stability of Trp-Cage Miniprotein. A Comparison between the TIP3P and TIP4P-Ew Water Models Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2011, 13, 1984019847 DOI: 10.1039/c1cp22110h
  247. 247.
    Freedberg, D. I.; Selenko, P. Live Cell NMR Annu. Rev. Biophys. 2014, 43, 171192 DOI: 10.1146/annurev-biophys-051013-023136
  248. 248.
    Gruebele, M.; Dave, K.; Sukenik, S. Globular Protein Folding in vitro and in vivo Annu. Rev. Biophys. 2016, 45, 233251 DOI: 10.1146/annurev-biophys-062215-011236
  249. 249.
    Shtengel, G.; Galbraith, J. A.; Galbraith, C. G.; Lippincott-Schwartz, J.; Gillette, J. M.; Manley, S.; Sougrat, R.; Waterman, C. M.; Kanchanawong, P.; Davidson, M. W. Interferometric Fluorescent Super-Resolution Microscopy Resolves 3D Cellular Ultrastructure Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2009, 106, 31253130 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0813131106
  250. 250.
    Cheng, Y.; Grigorieff, N.; Penczek; Pawel, A.; Walz, T. A Primer to Single-Particle Cryo-Electron Microscopy Cell 2015, 161, 438449 DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.03.050
  251. 251.
    Lee, S. F.; Thompson; Michael, A.; Schwartz, M. A.; Shapiro, L.; Moerner, W. E. Super-Resolution Imaging of the Nucleoid-Associated Protein HU in Caulobacter crescentus Biophys. J. 2011, 100, L31L33 DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2011.02.022
  252. 252.
    Bakshi, S.; Choi, H.; Weisshaar, J. C. The Spatial Biology of Transcription and Translation in Rapidly Growing Escherichia coli Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 636 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00636
  253. 253.
    Wang, X.; Llopis, P. M.; Rudner, D. Z. Organization and Segregation of Bacterial Chromosomes Nat. Rev. Genet. 2013, 14, 191203 DOI: 10.1038/nrg3375
  254. 254.
    Zhou, H. X. Crowding Effects of Membrane Proteins J. Phys. Chem. B 2009, 113, 79958005 DOI: 10.1021/jp8107446
  255. 255.
    Kim, J. S.; Yethiraj, A. Crowding Effects on Association Reactions at Membranes Biophys. J. 2010, 98, 951958 DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2009.11.022
  256. 256.
    Gane, P. J.; Dean, P. M. Recent Advances in Structure-Based Rational Drug Design Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2000, 10, 401404 DOI: 10.1016/S0959-440X(00)00105-6
  257. 257.
    Taft, C. A.; Da Silva, V. B.; Da Silva, C. Current Topics in Computer-Aided Drug Design J. Pharm. Sci. 2008, 97, 10891098 DOI: 10.1002/jps.21293

Citation data is made available by participants in Crossref's Cited-by Linking service. For a more comprehensive list of citations to this article, users are encouraged to perform a search inSciFinder.

Explore by:

Metrics

Article Views: 4,601 Times
Received 15 April 2017
Published online 30 June 2017
Published in print 31 August 2017
+
Altmetric Logo Icon More Article Metrics

This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By continuing to use the site, you are accepting our use of cookies. Read the ACS privacy policy.

CONTINUE