Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Enhanced sampling and cryo-EM data resolve magnesium binding to RNA

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Sampling beats force fields for RNA magnesium binding

desk verdict Barrier-flattening HREX for Mg²⁺–RNA binding plus local cryo-EM motif reweighting — solid method paper with one load-bearing transferability assumption read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07186 v1 pith:3DICMRZB submitted 2026-07-08 q-bio.BM physics.bio-phphysics.comp-ph

Olivier Languin-Cattoën , Elisa Posani , Giovanni Bussi This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.BMphysics.bio-phphysics.comp-ph
keywords magnesiumRNAenhancedsamplingcryo-EMmoleculardynamicsbarrierflatteningreplicaexchangebindingmotifs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Magnesium ions bind RNA at specific sites through a slow process where the ion must shed a water molecule from its tightly held inner coordination shell and replace it with an RNA atom. This exchange happens on microsecond timescales, far beyond what standard molecular dynamics simulations can reach. The paper builds a two-part solution: a hand-crafted energy bias that flattens the barrier for this water-to-RNA swap, enabling sub-nanosecond binding events, combined with Hamiltonian replica exchange to apply this acceleration across hundreds of equivalent binding sites simultaneously in a large ribozyme. The key empirical finding is that when this accelerated sampling is compared against experimental cryo-EM density maps, the dominant factor determining agreement with experiment is whether inner-shell binding was adequately sampled at all. Two different magnesium force-field models that predict measurably different ratios of inner-bound to outer-bound ions produced nearly identical agreement with the experimental maps, because current cryo-EM resolution cannot distinguish between those binding modes. The paper also introduces a site-by-site analysis method that uses local cryo-EM density to infer the population of each individual binding motif independently, circumventing the exponential loss of statistical power that would plague a global reweighting of hundreds of simultaneous binding sites.

What carries the argument

The barrier-flattening bias U_flat acts on a two-dimensional space defined by the magnesium ion's coordination number with water oxygen atoms and with RNA phosphate oxygen atoms. It is a crescent-shaped potential that is zero in both the bound and unbound states, applying force only near the transition-state saddle point where the ion is heptacoordinated. Because all magnesium ions are chemically equivalent and the barrier shape is approximately environment-independent, the same bias is applied to every ion simultaneously via Hamiltonian replica exchange across a ladder of eight replicas with increasing bias strength. The local cryo-EM analysis separates simulation frames where a given motif

What would settle it

If a future cryo-EM map at substantially higher resolution (e.g., sub-1.5 Å) showed that one force-field model systematically matches experimental inner-shell versus outer-shell populations while the other does not, the claim that force-field differences are undetectable would be falsified. Additionally, if the barrier-flattening bias were found to produce qualitatively wrong motif populations at sites where the local environment substantially alters the transition-state geometry, the transferability assumption would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a quantitative separation of concerns: for modelling magnesium binding to RNA, inadequate sampling of inner-shell binding is the primary bottleneck limiting agreement with experiment, while differences between current force-field parameterizations are secondary and largely undetectable at available experimental resolution. The method that establishes this combines a transferable barrier-flattening potential (parameterized once on a minimal two-nucleotide system and applied without reparameterization to polydentate sites in a 386-phosphate ribozyme) with a local cryo-EM integration framework that validates individual binding motif populations rather than requiring a全局

Load-bearing premise

The barrier-flattening bias was designed and fitted on a minimal system of one magnesium ion with a two-nucleotide fragment, then transferred to the full ribozyme without reparameterization. This assumes the free-energy barrier shape for water-to-phosphate exchange is essentially the same regardless of local structural context, steric constraints, or electrostatic environment in the folded RNA. If the barrier geometry differs in the folded ribozyme, the bias could distort the

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If sampling is the dominant bottleneck, then existing RNA structures in the PDB with manually placed magnesium ions may contain systematic errors from under-sampled binding modes that enhanced sampling could correct.
  • The local reweighting framework is generalizable to any system where many weakly coupled local events contribute to an experimental observable, including protein-ligand binding, lipid flip-flop, or proton transfer in reactive dynamics.
  • The inability of cryo-EM to distinguish inner-shell from outer-shell magnesium binding means that ion-counting experiments or X-ray methods providing different observables would be needed to discriminate between force-field models.
  • The finding that a bias parameterized on a minimal model transfers to the full ribozyme suggests that local free-energy barrier shapes are robust to structural context, which if general would simplify enhanced-sampling design for other biomolecular systems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the barrier-flattening bias is truly environment-independent, one could construct a universal library of such biases for different ion-ligand chemistries (e.g., Ca2+, Mn2+, Zn2+) and apply them as modular plug-ins to any biomolecular simulation.
  • The local reweighting approach could be extended into an iterative refinement loop: use cryo-EM-inferred populations to reseed simulations, re-sample, and re-validate, potentially converging to ensembles that are self-consistent with experiment without global reweighting.
  • The observation that RNA conformational restraints dominate the cryo-EM cross-correlation suggests that current RNA force fields may have larger systematic errors in conformational dynamics than in ion binding, implying that ion-binding accuracy is limited not by the ion model but by the RNA model.
  • If cryo-EM resolution improves beyond the current 2.2 Å, the framework could be used to discriminate between force-field models, turning this validation tool into a force-field selection criterion.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents an enhanced-sampling strategy for accelerating Mg²⁺ inner-shell binding to RNA, combining a barrier-flattening bias (designed on a model diuridine system) with Hamiltonian replica exchange. The method is applied to the Tetrahymena group I intron ribozyme, and results are validated against cryo-EM density maps using a local reweighting framework that infers individual binding-motif populations. The central findings are that insufficient sampling of inner-shell binding degrades agreement with experiment, while differences between the µMg and nMg force fields are not resolvable at current cryo-EM resolution. The work builds on the authors' top-ranked CASP16 submission and provides a methodologically detailed, internally consistent study.

Significance. The methodological contribution is substantial: the barrier-flattening bias is elegantly designed to be zero in bound/unbound states (enabling straightforward reweighting), generalizes to polydentate motifs without reparameterization, and is efficiently implemented with neighbor lists. The local cryo-EM reweighting framework is a pragmatic solution to the intractability of global reweighting in large systems. The systematic comparison of force fields, sampling strategies, and restraint strengths — with proper statistical treatment including Bayesian bootstrap confidence intervals — sets a high standard. The code and input files are publicly available, enhancing reproducibility. The finding that cryo-EM at ~2.2 Å resolution cannot distinguish µMg from nMg is an important negative result for the field, clearly delineating the current limits of experimental validation.

major comments (3)
  1. Section 1.2 and Section 1.6 (also Fig. 5): The barrier-flattening bias U_flat is parameterized on the minimal UpU system and transferred to the full ribozyme without reparameterization. The paper states that the barrier shape is 'only marginally affected by the local environment' and that the bias is zero in bound/unbound states. While the zero-in-states property is a genuine mitigation, the local cryo-EM reweighting framework (Section 1.6) adjusts only the population of each motif independently — it cannot correct for distortions in the conformational statistics within the 'present' or 'absent' ensembles caused by an imperfectly transferred bias. In the folded ribozyme, steric constraints, electrostatic preorganization, and multi-phosphate coordination could shift the barrier location or shape relative to UpU. The paper would be strengthened by a more direct test of transferability: for
  2. Section 1.4, Fig. 4C: The global cryo-EM validation shows that the ranking of setups (e.g., nMg-MD vs. µMg-REx) is 'not robust to a change in alignment and voxel selection,' and that the strongest factor is the restraint strength on RNA. The authors acknowledge that 'observed variations in density are dominated by how cations organize RNA local dynamics rather than direct features of the solvation shell.' This raises a concern about whether the cryo-EM validation is actually testing ion sampling or primarily testing RNA conformational restraint protocol. The Core Phosphates Shell analysis (excluding RNA itself) is the most direct test of ion placement, but even there the differences between µMg-REx and µMg-MD remain below significance. The authors should more explicitly state the limitations of cryo-EM validation at this resolution for distinguishing sampling strategies, and clarify that
  3. Section 1.6, Fig. 5 and Table S5: The local reweighting procedure computes, for each motif, the population mixture maximizing cross-correlation with the experimental map. This is a fitting procedure with one free parameter per motif. The paper frames it as 'integration' rather than 'prediction,' which is appropriate. However, the risk of overfitting is not discussed. With ~60+ motifs each fit independently, some will achieve high CCmax by chance. The CCmax < 0.7 threshold (Fig. S12) removes poorly resolved regions but does not control for false positives among the remaining sites. A brief discussion of this limitation — and whether the agreement across independent ensembles (µMg-MD, nMg-MD, µMg-REx) provides a natural cross-validation — would strengthen the analysis. The cross-ensemble agreement is noted ('reweighted occupancies agree across conformational ensembles') but could be quant
minor comments (6)
  1. Section 1.4: The strong conformational restraints on RNA (κ = 10^5 kJ/mol/nm²) are a significant methodological choice that limits RNA flexibility. While the authors acknowledge this and test a softer restraint (κ = 5×10²), the soft-restraint results perform significantly worse. It would help to briefly discuss whether the strong restraints might artificially enforce ion-binding geometries that depend on the native fold, particularly for keystone motifs.
  2. Figure 5: The figure is information-dense and difficult to parse in its current form. The four highlighted motif examples with local cross-correlation plots are useful, but the main heatmap of motif frequencies across setups is hard to read. Consider splitting into separate panels or providing an interactive version.
  3. Section 1.1: The interchange associative (Ia) mechanism observed for µMg is noted to be 'at odds' with the Id or D mechanism suggested by experiment and ab initio calculations. This discrepancy is mentioned but not discussed further. A brief comment on whether this affects the reliability of the bias design would be helpful.
  4. Table S1: The 'indicative' performance numbers (h/ns) and total CPU time are useful but the footnote notes actual setups 'may have differed.' For reproducibility, providing the exact wall-clock times and hardware used for each setup would be preferable.
  5. Section 3.2: The paper mentions a PLUMED bug fix for the cosine switching function that was backported during the study. This is good practice to report, but it would help to clarify whether any results in the paper were affected by the pre-fix version of the code.
  6. The reference list includes several 2025–2026 dates (e.g., refs 11, 12, 15, 17, 37, 63), suggesting these are preprints or in-press articles. The authors should verify that all citations are to published or properly versioned preprints at submission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: bias parameterized on independent model system, cryo-EM validation uses independent experimental maps, local reweighting is explicitly framed as inference not prediction

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external data. (1) The barrier-flattening bias U_flat is designed from the free-energy landscape of a minimal model system (diuridine phosphate, UpU) computed via well-tempered metadynamics — an independent input, not the ribozyme system being studied. (2) The bias is transferred to the ribozyme without reparameterization, which is a modeling assumption (and the paper's weakest point), but not circularity: the ribozyme results are outputs, not inputs to the bias design. (3) Global cryo-EM validation (Section 1.4) compares back-calculated density maps against experimental maps from a separate, newer experiment (EMD-42499, PDB: 9cbu) — independent external data. (4) The local reweighting framework (Section 1.6) is explicitly framed as integrative inference ('we record the occupancy that maximize agreement as our best estimate'), not as a prediction. The paper does not claim these fitted populations validate the simulations; instead, validation comes from the independent global cross-correlation analysis and from cross-ensemble consistency of the reweighted occupancies. (5) The CASP16 self-citation (ref [15], co-authored by Bussi and Languin-Cattoën) is used as motivational context only; the current work validates against different, newer cryo-EM maps than were used in CASP16. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or postulated particles. The free parameters are all fitting/protocol choices for the bias and analysis pipeline. The key axioms are transferability assumptions (bias from model system to full system, force field accuracy, cryo-EM fidelity, motif independence, restraint non-interference) that are standard domain assumptions except for the restraint non-interference axiom, which is somewhat ad hoc to this paper's setup.

free parameters (7)
  • U_flat parameters (σ_s, σ_z, ε) = fitted numerically to minimize barrier height on UpU FES
    Three parameters of the crescent-shaped bias functional form, fitted to the UpU free-energy landscape (§3.3, Eq. 2).
  • λ-ladder values = 8 replicas, λ from 0 to 0.87
    Chosen based on UpU kinetics and phase-space overlap estimates; higher values discarded as offering diminishing returns (§3.10).
  • α(λ) affinity correction = grid-optimized per λ value
    Slope correction U_corr = α(λ)·n_OP, fitted to cancel the attractive contribution of U_flat to binding free energy (§3.6, Eq. 3-5).
  • B-factor smoothing = scanned 0-100 Ų, selected to maximize CC
    Applied to generated maps before comparison with experimental density; selected per setup and voxel selection (§3.13, Fig. S13).
  • CCmax threshold = 0.7
    Motifs with maximum cross-correlation below 0.7 are discarded from cryo-EM reweighting analysis (§3.14).
  • RNA restraint force constant κ = 10⁵ kJ/mol/nm² (default), 5×10² (soft)
    Harmonic RMSD restraint on P, C1', C2 atoms; chosen to prevent unfolding while allowing local dynamics (§3.8).
  • Inner/outer binding distance cutoffs = 2.8 Å / 5.0 Å
    Distance cutoffs for classifying Mg²⁺ as inner-bound, outer-bound, or unbound (§3.12, Fig. S6).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The free-energy barrier for Mg²⁺-phosphate binding is only marginally affected by the local RNA environment, so a bias parameterized on UpU transfers to the folded ribozyme.
    Stated in §1.2 and Discussion: 'the shape of the free-energy barrier for binding Oph is only marginally affected by the local environment.' This is the key transferability assumption underpinning the entire approach.
  • domain assumption The µMg and nMg force fields accurately represent Mg²⁺-RNA interactions for phosphate binding.
    The method and validation are built on these specific force field parametrizations (Grotz et al. 2021). The paper acknowledges neither was optimized for non-phosphate sites.
  • domain assumption Cryo-EM density maps, even unsharpened half-maps, faithfully represent the time-averaged solvent/ion distribution.
    The entire validation framework depends on this. The paper discusses potential artifacts (sharpening, particle selection, conformational heterogeneity) but ultimately treats the maps as ground truth for ion distribution.
  • domain assumption Binding motifs at different sites are approximately independent, justifying local reweighting.
    The local reweighting strategy (§1.6) assumes motifs can be assessed independently. The paper acknowledges this is an approximation: 'quasi-independent binding sites.'
  • ad hoc to paper Strong conformational restraints on RNA do not substantially distort the ion distribution.
    The paper uses κ=10⁵ kJ/mol/nm² restraints and notes they 'partially obscure otherwise detectable differences between force fields and sampling strategies' (§1.4), but does not test whether the ion distribution itself is affected by restraint strength.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhanced sampling and cryo-EM data resolve magnesium binding to RNA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3DICMRZB

@misc{pith2026260707186,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhanced sampling and cryo-EM data resolve magnesium binding to RNA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3DICMRZB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07186}
}
abstract

Magnesium ions are essential for RNA structure but difficult to model due to slow binding kinetics and experimental limitations. We present an enhanced-sampling strategy that accelerates Mg$^{2+}$ inner-shell binding by orders of magnitude, enabling quantitative exploration of ion-binding motifs in a large ribozyme. The method combines a barrier-flattening bias with Hamiltonian replica exchange to efficiently sample multiple equivalent binding sites, and builds on an approach that achieved top performance in the CASP16 blind assessment of RNA solvation structure. Using cryo-electron microscopy maps for validation, we introduce a local analysis framework that infers the population of individual binding motifs from their agreement with experimental density, enabling site-by-site validation. We find that insufficient sampling of inner-shell binding leads to significantly poorer agreement with experiment, whereas force fields predicting different inner/outer binding equilibria remain largely indistinguishable at the current experimental resolution. These results highlight the dominant role of sampling in modelling divalent ion binding and provide a general strategy for integrating simulations with experimental data in complex biomolecular systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07186 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Designing a barrier-flattening bias. (A) The free energy landscape of Mg2+ binding to diuridine phosphate oxy￾gen atoms is obtained performing well-tempered metadynamics on the two-dimensional space formed by the coordination number of Mg2+ with water oxygen atoms (nOW) and phosphate OP1/OP2 (nOP ). Numbers indicate states shown on the right and in Fig. S1. (B) A barrier-flattening bias Uflat is defined on a two-dim… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Testing the efficacy of the flattening bias on UpU. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Magnesium binding to Apo L-21 ScaI. (A) Time evolution of the number of inner-bound (d ≤ 2.8 Å) Mg2+ for the two models microMg (µMg) and nanoMg (nMg) using conventional Molecular Dynamics (MD) or Replica Exchange with accelerating bias (REx). Curves are averages over 8 (MD) or 2 (REx) replicates, shaded area show point-wise 95% CI. The dashed line indicates the number of inner-bound ions in the input PDB: 7ez0. (B)… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Validation of simulation setups against experimental cryo-EM maps. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Prediction of Mg2+ binding motif frequency in simulations and after integrating cryo-EM data. Black squares indicate either the presence in reference PDB structures 7ez0 and 9cbu. Bi-colored squares (lower half and upper half show the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles) indi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. C. Bowman, T. K. Lenz, N. V. Hud, and L. D. Williams. Cations in charge: Magnesium ions in RNA folding and catalysis.Current Opinion in Structural Biology, 22(3), 262–272, (2012)

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Yamagami, J

    R. Yamagami, J. P. Sieg, and P. C. Bevilacqua. Functional Roles of Chelated Magnesium Ions in RNA Folding and Function.Biochemistry, 60(31), 2374–2386, (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    D. E. Draper. A guide to ions and RNA structure.RNA, 10(3), 335–343, (2004)

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Hsiao, E

    C. Hsiao, E. Tannenbaum, H. VanDeusen, E. Hershkovitz, G. Perng, A. R. Tannenbaum, and L. D. Williams. Complexes of Nucleic Acids with Group I and II Cations. In N. V. Hud, editor, Nucleic Acid–Metal Ion Interactions, pages 1–38. The Royal Society of Chemistry, (2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Martinez-Monge, I

    A. Martinez-Monge, I. Pastor, C. Bustamante, M. Manosas, and F. Ritort. Measurement of the specific and non-specific binding energies of Mg2+ to RNA.Biophysical Journal, 121(16), 3010–3022, (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    D. R. Jacobson and O. A. Saleh. Counting the ions surrounding nucleic acids.Nucleic Acids Research, 45(4), 1596–1605, (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Gebala and D

    M. Gebala and D. Herschlag. Quantitative Studies of an RNA Duplex Electrostatics by Ion Counting.Biophysical Journal, 117(6), 1116–1124, (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    R. W. Jackson, C. M. Smathers, and A. R. Robart. General Strategies for RNA X-ray Crystal- lography.Molecules, 28(5), 2111, (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Chari and H

    A. Chari and H. Stark. Prospects and Limitations of High-Resolution Single-Particle Cryo- Electron Microscopy.Annual Review of Biophysics, 52(1), 391–411, (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Auffinger, E

    P. Auffinger, E. Ennifar, and L. D’Ascenzo. Deflating the RNA Mg2+ bubble: Stereochemistry to the rescue!RNA, 27(3), 243–252, (2021). 21

    2021

  3. [11]

    Naleem, A

    N. Naleem, A. Henning-Knechtel, S. Kirmizialtin, and P. Auffinger. Cat_Wiz: A stereochemistry-guided toolkit for locating, diagnosing, and annotating Mg2+ ions in RNA structures.Nucleic Acids Research, 54(4), gkag120, (2026)

    2026

  4. [12]

    Leonarski, A

    F. Leonarski, A. Henning-Knechtel, S. Kirmizialtin, E. Ennifar, and P. Auffinger. Principles of ion binding to RNA inferred from the analysis of a 1.55Å resolution bacterial ribosome structure – Part I: Mg2+.Nucleic Acids Research, 53(1), gkae1148, (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    Languin-Cattoën and G

    O. Languin-Cattoën and G. Bussi. RNA Dynamics and Interactions Revealed Through Atom- istic Simulations.Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, 77(1), 489–512, (2026)

    2026

  6. [14]

    Bleuzen, P.-A

    A. Bleuzen, P.-A. Pittet, L. Helm, and A. E. Merbach. Water exchange on magnesium(II) in aqueous solution: A variable temperature and pressure17O NMR study.Magnetic Resonance in Chemistry, 35(11), 765–773, (1997)

    1997

  7. [15]

    R. C. Kretsch, E. Posani, E. F. Baulin, J. M. Bujnicki, G. Bussi, T. E. Cheatham, S.-J. Chen, A. Elofsson, M. A. Farsani, O. N. Fisher, M. M. Gromiha, A. Gupta, M. Hamada, K. Harini, G. Hu, D. Huang, J. Iwakiri, A. Jain, Y. Kagaya, D. Kihara, S. Kmiecik, S. R. Krishnan, I. Kur...

    2026

  8. [16]

    Z. Su, K. Zhang, K. Kappel, S. Li, M. Z. Palo, G. D. Pintilie, R. Rangan, B. Luo, Y. Wei, R. Das, and W. Chiu. Cryo-EM structures of full-length Tetrahymena ribozyme at 3.1Å reso- lution.Nature, 596(7873), 603–607, (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    R. C. Kretsch, S. Li, G. Pintilie, M. Z. Palo, D. A. Case, R. Das, K. Zhang, and W. Chiu. ComplexwaternetworksvisualizedbycryogenicelectronmicroscopyofRNA.Nature, 642(8066), 250–259, (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Neumann and N

    J. Neumann and N. Schwierz. Artificial Intelligence Resolves Kinetic Pathways of Magnesium Binding to RNA.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 18(2), 1202–1212, (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Falkner and N

    S. Falkner and N. Schwierz. Kinetic pathways of water exchange in the first hydration shell of magnesium: Influence of water model and ionic force field.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 155(8), 084503, (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    K. K. Grotz, S. Cruz-León, and N. Schwierz. Optimized Magnesium Force Field Parame- ters for Biomolecular Simulations with Accurate Solvation, Ion-Binding, and Water-Exchange Properties.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 17(4), 2530–2540, (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    R. A. Cunha and G. Bussi. Unraveling Mg2+–RNA binding with atomistic molecular dynamics. RNA, 23(5), 628–638, (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Barducci, G

    A. Barducci, G. Bussi, and M. Parrinello. Well-Tempered Metadynamics: A Smoothly Con- verging and Tunable Free-Energy Method.Physical Review Letters, 100(2), 020603, (2008). 22

    2008

  15. [23]

    Koca Fındık, M

    B. Koca Fındık, M. Jafari, L. F. Song, Z. Li, V. Aviyente, and K. M. Merz. Binding of Phosphate Species to Ca2+ and Mg2+ in Aqueous Solution.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 20(10), 4298–4307, (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Ferretti, G

    A. Ferretti, G. Melani, L. Benedetti, R. A. Sorodoc, A. Fortunelli, and G. Brancato. Ac- curate Simulations of Water and Aqueous Solutions through Fine-Tuned Dispersion-Corrected Density Functional Theory and Machine-Learning Interatomic Potentials.Journal of Chemical Informat...

    2025

  17. [25]

    A. S. Petrov, J. C. Bowman, S. C. Harvey, and L. D. Williams. Bidentate RNA–magnesium clamps: On the origin of the special role of magnesium in RNA folding.RNA, 17(2), 291–297, (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    Zheng, I

    H. Zheng, I. G. Shabalin, K. B. Handing, J. M. Bujnicki, and W. Minor. Magnesium-binding architectures in RNA crystal structures: Validation, binding preferences, classification and motif detection.Nucleic Acids Research, 43(7), 3789–3801, (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    J. A. Cowan. Understanding the Thermodynamics of Magnesium Binding to RNA Structural Motifs.Life, 14(6), 765, (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Kish.Survey Sampling

    L. Kish.Survey Sampling. A Wiley Interscience Publication. Wiley, New York, (1995)

    1995

  21. [29]

    Curuksu and M

    J. Curuksu and M. Zacharias. Enhanced conformational sampling of nucleic acids by a new Hamiltonian replica exchange molecular dynamics approach.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 130(10), 104110, (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    Gil-Ley and G

    A. Gil-Ley and G. Bussi. Enhanced Conformational Sampling Using Replica Exchange with Collective-Variable Tempering.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 11(3), 1077– 1085, (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Leonarski, L

    F. Leonarski, L. D’Ascenzo, and P. Auffinger. Mg2+ ions: Do they bind to nucleobase nitro- gens?Nucleic Acids Research, 45(2), 987–1004, (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    S. K. Kolev, P. St. Petkov, T. I. Milenov, and G. N. Vayssilov. Sodium and Magnesium Ion Location at the Backbone and at the Nucleobase of RNA:Ab InitioMolecular Dynamics in Water Solution.ACS Omega, 7(27), 23234–23244, (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    L. M. Peng, G. Ren, S. L. Dudarev, and M. J. Whelan. Robust Parameterization of Elastic and Absorptive Electron Atomic Scattering Factors.Acta Crystallographica Section A: Foundations of Crystallography, 52(2), 257–276, (1996)

    1996

  26. [34]

    S. E. Hoff, F. E. Thomasen, K. Lindorff-Larsen, and M. Bonomi. Accurate model and ensemble refinement using cryo-electron microscopy maps and Bayesian inference.PLOS Computational Biology, 20(7), e1012180, (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Bernetti and G

    M. Bernetti and G. Bussi. Integrating experimental data with molecular simulations to inves- tigate RNA structural dynamics.Current Opinion in Structural Biology, 78, 102503, (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Hénin, T

    J. Hénin, T. Lelièvre, M. R. Shirts, O. Valsson, and L. Delemotte. Enhanced Sampling Methods for Molecular Dynamics Simulations [Article v1.0].Living Journal of Computational Molecular Science, 4(1), 1583, (2022). 23

    2022

  29. [37]

    Kantin, J

    L. Kantin, J. Puyo-Fourtine, J. Hénin, and E. Duboué-Dijon. FIREX: Fast-Ion Replica EXchange enables rapid sampling of Mg2+ pairing with nucleic acids, chemRxiv. (2026). https://doi.org/10.26434/chemrxiv.15005591/v1

    2026 doi

  30. [38]

    L. Wang, R. A. Friesner, and B. J. Berne. Replica Exchange with Solute Scaling: A More Efficient Version of Replica Exchange with Solute Tempering (REST2).The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 115(30), 9431–9438, (2011)

    2011

  31. [39]

    G. Bussi. Hamiltonian replica exchange in GROMACS: A flexible implementation.Molecular Physics, 112(3-4), 379–384, (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    Appadurai, J

    R. Appadurai, J. Nagesh, and A. Srivastava. High resolution ensemble description of metamor- phic and intrinsically disordered proteins using an efficient hybrid parallel tempering scheme. Nature Communications, 12(1), 958, (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Bellucci, G

    L. Bellucci, G. Bussi, R. Di Felice, and S. Corni. Fibrillation-prone conformations of the amyloid-β-42 peptide at the gold/water interface.Nanoscale, 9(6), 2279–2290, (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Bottaro, F

    S. Bottaro, F. Di Palma, and G. Bussi. The role of nucleobase interactions in RNA structure and dynamics.Nucleic Acids Research, 42(21), 13306–13314, (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    Li and R

    D.-W. Li and R. Brüschweiler. Iterative Optimization of Molecular Mechanics Force Fields from NMR Data of Full-Length Proteins.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 7(6), 1773–1782, (2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    L. S. Stelzl, L. M. Pietrek, A. Holla, J. Oroz, M. Sikora, J. Köfinger, B. Schuler, M. Zweck- stetter, and G. Hummer. Global Structure of the Intrinsically Disordered Protein Tau Emerges from Its Local Structure.Journal of the American Chemical Society Au, 2(3), 673–686, (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Murshudov

    G. Murshudov. Refinement of Atomic Structures Against cryo-EM Maps. InMethods in Enzymology, volume 579, pages 277–305. Elsevier, (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    Pintilie and W

    G. Pintilie and W. Chiu. Validation, analysis and annotation of cryo-EM structures.Acta Crystallographica Section D: Structural Biology, 77(9), 1142–1152, (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Posani, P

    E. Posani, P. Janoš, D. Haack, N. Toor, M. Bonomi, A. Magistrato, and G. Bussi. Ensemble refinement of mismodeled cryo-EM RNA structures using all-atom simulations.Nature Com- munications, 16(1), 4549, (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    M. J. Abraham, T. Murtola, R. Schulz, S. Páll, J. C. Smith, B. Hess, and E. Lindahl. GRO- MACS: High performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers.SoftwareX, 1–2, 19–25, (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    G. A. Tribello, M. Bonomi, D. Branduardi, C. Camilloni, and G. Bussi. PLUMED 2: New feathers for an old bird.Computer Physics Communications, 185(2), 604–613, (2014)

    2014

  42. [50]

    Bussi, D

    G. Bussi, D. Donadio, and M. Parrinello. Canonical sampling through velocity rescaling.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 126(1), 014101, (2007)

    2007

  43. [51]

    Bernetti and G

    M. Bernetti and G. Bussi. Pressure control using stochastic cell rescaling.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 153(11), 114107, (2020). 24

    2020

  44. [52]

    Miyamoto and P

    S. Miyamoto and P. A. Kollman. Settle: An analytical version of the SHAKE and RATTLE algorithm for rigid water models.Journal of Computational Chemistry, 13(8), 952–962, (1992)

    1992

  45. [53]

    B. Hess, H. Bekker, H. J. C. Berendsen, and J. G. E. M. Fraaije. LINCS: A linear con- straint solver for molecular simulations.Journal of Computational Chemistry, 18(12), 1463– 1472, (1997)

    1997

  46. [54]

    Essmann, L

    U. Essmann, L. Perera, M. L. Berkowitz, T. Darden, H. Lee, and L. G. Pedersen. A smooth particle mesh Ewald method.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 103(19), 8577–8593, (1995)

    1995

  47. [55]

    Pérez, I

    A. Pérez, I. Marchán, D. Svozil, J. Sponer, T. E. Cheatham, C. A. Laughton, and M. Orozco. Refinement of the AMBER Force Field for Nucleic Acids: Improving the Description ofα/γ Conformers.Biophysical Journal, 92(11), 3817–3829, (2007)

    2007

  48. [56]

    Zgarbová, M

    M. Zgarbová, M. Otyepka, J. Šponer, A. Mládek, P. Banáš, T. E. Cheatham, and P. Jurečka. Refinement of the Cornell et al. Nucleic Acids Force Field Based on Reference Quantum Chem- ical Calculations of Glycosidic Torsion Profiles.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 7(9...

    2011

  49. [57]

    W. L. Jorgensen, J. Chandrasekhar, J. D. Madura, R. W. Impey, and M. L. Klein. Comparison ofsimplepotentialfunctionsforsimulatingliquidwater.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 79(2), 926–935, (1983)

    1983

  50. [58]

    Mamatkulov and N

    S. Mamatkulov and N. Schwierz. Force fields for monovalent and divalent metal cations in TIP3P water based on thermodynamic and kinetic properties.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 148(7), 074504, (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    Branduardi, G

    D. Branduardi, G. Bussi, and M. Parrinello. Metadynamics with Adaptive Gaussians.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 8(7), 2247–2254, (2012)

    2012

  52. [60]

    T. M. Schäfer and G. Settanni. Data Reweighting in Metadynamics Simulations.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 16(4), 2042–2052, (2020)

  53. [61]

    M. R. Shirts and J. D. Chodera. Statistically optimal analysis of samples from multiple equi- librium states.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 129(12), 124105, (2008)

    2008

  54. [62]

    Eastman, J

    P. Eastman, J. Swails, J. D. Chodera, R. T. McGibbon, Y. Zhao, K. A. Beauchamp, L.-P. Wang, A. C. Simmonett, M. P. Harrigan, C. D. Stern, R. P. Wiewiora, B. R. Brooks, and V. S. Pande. OpenMM 7: Rapid development of high performance algorithms for molecular dynamics.PLOS Compu...

    2017

  55. [63]

    R. Kretsch. Water-CryoEM-ribozyme/maps at main·DasLab/Water-CryoEM-ribozyme. https://github.com/DasLab/Water-CryoEM-ribozyme/tree/main/maps, (2026). 25 Supplementary Information: Enhanced sampling and cryo-EM data resolve magnesium binding to RNA Olivier Languin-Cattoën, Elisa...

    2026

  56. [64]

    R. C. Kretsch, S. Li, G. Pintilie, M. Z. Palo, D. A. Case, R. Das, K. Zhang, and W. Chiu. Com- plex water networks visualized by cryogenic electron microscopy of RNA.Nature, 642(8066), 250–259, (2025)

    2025

  57. [65]

    Turisini, M

    M. Turisini, M. Cestari, and G. Amati. LEONARDO: A Pan-European Pre-Exascale Super- computer for HPC and AI applications.Journal of large-scale research facilities JLSRF, 9(1), (2024). 24

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.