Statistics of protein electrostatics.

Molecular dynamics simulations of a small redox-active protein plastocyanin address two questions. (i) Do protein electrostatics equilibrate to the Gibbsian ensemble? (ii) Do the electrostatic potential and electric field inside proteins follow the Gaussian distribution? The statistics of electrostatic potential and electric field are probed by applying small charge and dipole perturbations to different sites within the protein. Nonergodic (non-Gibbsian) sampling is detectable through violations of exact statistical rules constraining the first and second statistical moments (fluctuation–dissipation relations) and the linear relation between free-energy surfaces of the collective coordinate representing the Hamiltonian electrostatic perturbation. We find weakly nonergodic statistics of the electrostatic potential (simulation time of 0.4–1.0 μs) and non-Gibbsian and non-Gaussian statistics of the electric field. A small dipolar perturbation of the protein results in structural instabilities of the protein–water interface and multi-modal distributions of the Hamiltonian energy gap. The variance of the electrostatic potential passes through a crossover at the glass transition temperature Ttr ≃ 170 K. The dipolar susceptibility, reflecting the variance of the electric field inside the protein, strongly increases, with lowering temperature, followed by a sharp drop at Ttr. The linear relation between free-energy surfaces can be directly tested by combining absorption and emission spectra of optical dyes. It was found that the statistics of the electrostatic potential perturbation are nearly Gibbsian/Gaussian, with little deviations from the prescribed statistical rules. On the contrary, the (nonergodic) statistics of dipolar perturbations are strongly non-Gibbsian/non-Gaussian due to structural instabilities of the protein hydration shell. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]