BODIPY-Ruthenium(II) Bis-Terpyridine Complexes for Cellular Imaging and Type-I/-II Photodynamic Therapy.

RESEARCH ARTICLE MDverse, shedding light on the dark matter of molecular dynamics simulations Johanna KS Tiemann1*†, Magdalena Szczuka2, Lisa Bouarroudj3, Mohamed Oussaren3, Steven Garcia4, Rebecca J Howard5, Lucie Delemotte6, Erik Lindahl5,6, Marc Baaden7, Kresten Lindorff-­Larsen1, Matthieu Chavent2*, Pierre Poulain3* 1 *For correspondence: johanna.tiemann@gmail.com (JKST); matthieu.chavent@ipbs.fr (MC); pierre.poulain@u-paris.fr (PP) Present address: NovozymesA/S, Lyngby, Denmark † Competing interest: See page 16 Funding: See page 16 Preprint posted 02 May 2023 Sent for Review 28 June 2023 Reviewed preprint posted 20 September 2023 Reviewed preprint revised 01 July 2024 Version of Record published 30 August 2024 Reviewing Editor: Shozeb Haider, University College London, United Kingdom ‍ ‍Copyright Tiemann et al. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited. Linderstrøm-­Lang Centre for Protein Science, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; 2Institut de Pharmacologie et Biologie Structurale, CNRS, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France; 3Université Paris Cité, CNRS, Institut Jacques Monod, Paris, France; 4Independent researcher, Amsterdam, Netherlands; 5Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Science for Life Laboratory, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; 6Department of applied physics, Science for Life Laboratory, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden; 7Laboratoire de Biochimie Théorique, CNRS, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France Abstract The rise of open science and the absence of a global dedicated data repository for molecular dynamics (MD) simulations has led to the accumulation of MD files in generalist data repositories, constituting the dark matter of MD — data that is technically accessible, but neither indexed, curated, or easily searchable. Leveraging an original search strategy, we found and indexed about 250,000 files and 2000 datasets from Zenodo, Figshare and Open Science Framework. With a focus on files produced by the Gromacs MD software, we illustrate the potential offered by the mining of publicly available MD data. We identified systems with specific molecular composition and were able to characterize essential parameters of MD simulation such as temperature and simulation length, and could identify model resolution, such as all-­atom and coarse-­grain. Based on this analysis, we inferred metadata to propose a search engine prototype to explore the MD data. To continue in this direction, we call on the community to pursue the effort of sharing MD data, and to report and standardize metadata to reuse this valuable matter. eLife assessment The study presents a valuable tool for searching molecular dynamics simulation data, making such datasets accessible for open science. The authors provide convincing evidence that it is possible to identify noteworthy molecular dynamics simulation datasets and that their analysis can produce information of value to the community. Introduction The volume of data available in biology has increased tremendously (Marx, 2013; Stephens et al., 2015), through the emergence of high-­throughput experimental technologies, often referred to as -omics, and the development of efficient computational techniques, associated with high-­performance computing resources. The Open Access (OA) movement to make research results free and available to anyone (including e.g. the Budapest Open Access Initiative and the Berlin declaration on Open Access to Knowledge) has led to an explosive growth of research data made available by scientists (Wilson Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  1 of 22 Research article Computational and Systems Biology | Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics et al., 2021). The FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) principles Wilkinson et al., 2016 have emerged to structure the sharing of these data with the goals of reusing research data and to contribute to the scientific reproducibility. This leads to a world where research data has become widely available and exploitable, and consequently new applications based on artificial intelligence (AI) emerged. One example is AlphaFold (Jumper et al., 2021), which enables the construction of a structural model of any protein from its sequence. However, it is important to be aware that the development of AlphaFold was only possible because of the existence of extremely well annotated and cleaned open databases of protein structures (wwPDB Berman et al., 2003) and sequences (UniProt Consortium, 2022). Similarly, accurate predictions of NMR chemical shifts and chemical-­shift-­driven structure determination was only made possible via a community-­driven collection of NMR data in the Biological Magnetic Resonance Data Bank (Hoch et al., 2023). One can easily imagine novel possibilities of AI and deep learning reusing previous research data in other fields, if that data is curated and made available at a large scale (Fan and Shi, 2022; Mahmud et al., 2021). Molecular Dynamics (MD) is an example of a well-­established research field where simulations give valuable insights into dynamic processes, ranging from biological phenomena to material science (Perilla et al., 2015; Hollingsworth and Dror, 2018; Yoo et al., 2020; Alessandri et al., 2021; Krishna et al., 2021). By unraveling motions at details and timescales invisible to the eye, this well-­ established technique complements numerous experimental approaches (Bottaro and Lindorff-­ Larsen, 2018; Marklund and Benesch, 2019; Fawzi et al., 2021). Nowadays, large amounts of MD data could be generated when modelling large molecular systems (Gupta et al., 2022) or when applying biased sampling methods (Hénin et al., 2022). Most of these simulations are performed to decipher specific molecular phenomena, but typically they are only used for a single publication. We have to confess that many of us used to believe that it was not worth the storage to collect all simulations (in particular since all might not have the same quality), but in hindsight this was wrong. Storage is exceptionally cheap compared to the resources used to generate simulations data, and they represent a potential goldmine of information for researchers wanting to reanalyze them (Antila et al., 2021), in particular when modern machine-­learning methods are typically limited by the amount of training data. In the era of open and data-­driven science, it is critical to render the data generated by MD simulations not only technically available but also practically usable by the scientific community. In this endeavor, discussions started a few years ago (Abraham et al., 2019; Abriata et al., 2020; Merz et al., 2020) and the MD data sharing trend has been accelerated with the effort of the MD community to release simulation results related to the COVID-­19 pandemic (Amaro and Mulholland, 2020; Mulholland and Amaro, 2020) in a centralized database (https://​ covid.bioexcel.eu). Specific databases have also been developed to store sets of simulations related to protein structures (MoDEL: Meyer et al., 2010), membrane proteins in general (MemProtMD: Stansfeld et al., 2015; Newport et al., 2019), G-­protein-­coupled receptors in particular (GPCRmd: Rodríguez-­Espigares et al., 2020), or lipids (Lipidbook:Domański et al., 2010, NMRLipids Databank: Kiirikki et al., 2023). Albeit previous attempts in the past (Tai et al., 2004; Meyer et al., 2010), there is, as of now, no central data repository that could host all kinds of MD simulation files. This is not only due to the huge volume of data and its heterogeneity, but also because interoperability of the many file formats used adds to the complexity. Thus, faced with the deluge of biosimulation data (Hospital et al., 2020), researchers often share their simulation files in multiple generalist data repositories. This makes it difficult to search and find available data on, for example, a specific protein or a given set of parameters. We are qualifying this amount of scattered data as the dark matter of MD, and we believe it is essential to shed light onto this overlooked but high-­potential volume of data. When unlocked, publicly available MD files will gain more visibility. This will help people to access and reuse these data more easily and overall, by making MD simulation data more FAIR (Wilkinson et al., 2016), it will also improve the reproducibility of MD simulations (Elofsson et al., 2019; Porubsky et al., 2020; Bonomi et al., 2019). In this work, we have employed a search strategy to index scattered MD simulation files deposited in generalist data repositories. With a focus on the files generated by the Gromacs MD software, we performed a proof-­of-­concept large-­scale analysis of publicly available MD data. We revealed the high value of these data and highlighted the different categories of the simulated molecules, as well as the biophysical conditions applied to these systems. Based on these results and our annotations, we proposed a search engine prototype to easily explore this dark matter of MD. Finally, building on Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  2 of 22 Computational and Systems Biology | Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics Research article Figure 1. Explore and Expand ($Ex^2$) strategy used to index MD-­related files and number of deposited files in generalist data repositories, identified by this strategy. (A) Explore and Expand (‍Ex2 ‍) strategy used to index and collect MD-­related files. Within the explore phase, we search in the respective data repositories for datasets that contain specific keywords (e.g. ‘molecular dynamics’, ‘md simulation’, ‘namd’, ‘martini’...) in conjunction with specific file extensions (e.g. ‘mdp’, ‘psf’, ‘parm7’...), depending on their uniqueness and level of trust to not report false-­positives (i.e. not MD related). In the expand phase, the content of the identified datasets is fully cataloged, including files that individually could result in false positives (such as e.g. ‘.log’ files). (B) Number of deposited files in generalist data repositories, identified by our ‍Ex2 ‍strategy. this experience, we provide simple guidelines for data sharing to gradually improve the FAIRness of MD data. Results With the rise of open science, researchers increasingly share their data and deposit them into generalist data repositories, such as Zenodo (https://zenodo.org), Figshare (https://figshare.com), Open Science Framework (OSF, https://osf.io), and Dryad (https://datadryad.org/). In this first attempt to find out how many files related to MD are deposited in data repositories, we focused our exploration on three major data repositories: Figshare (∼3.3 million files, ∼112 TB of data, as of January 2023), OSF (∼2 million files, as of November 2022) [Figures provided by Figshare and OSF user support teams.], and Zenodo (∼9.9 million files, ∼1.3 PB of data, as of December 2022; Panero and Benito, 2022). One immediate strategy to index MD simulation files available in data repositories is to perform a text-­based Google-­like search. For that, one queries these repositories with keywords such as ‘molecular dynamics’ or ‘Gromacs’. Unfortunately, we experienced many false positives with this search strategy. This could be explained by the strong discrepancy we observed in the quantity and quality of metadata (title, description) accompanying datasets and queried in text-­based search. For instance, a description text could be composed of a couple of words to more than 1200 words. Metadata is provided by the user depositing the data, with no incentive to issue relevant details to support the understanding of the simulation. For the three data repositories studied, no human curation other by that of the providers is performed when submitting data. It is also worth mentioning that title and description are provided as free-­text and do not abide to any controlled vocabulary such as a specific MD ontology. Table 1. Statistics of the MD-­related datasets and files found in the data repositories Figshare, OSF, and Zenodo. Data repository datasets first dataset latest dataset files total size (GB) zip files files within zip total files Zenodo 1011 19/11/2014 05/03/2023 20,250 12,851 1780 141,304 161,554 Figshare 913 20/08/2012 03/03/2023 3336 736 590 74,720 78,056 OSF 55 24/05/2017 05/02/2023 6146 495 14 0 6146 Total 1979 – – 29,732 14,082 2384 216,024 245,756 Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  3 of 22 Research article Computational and Systems Biology | Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics To circumvent this issue, we developed an original and specific search strategy that we called Explore and Expand (‍Ex2‍) (see Figure 1A and Materials and methods section) and that relies on a combination of file types and keywords queries. In the Explore phase, we searched for files based on their file types (for instance: .xtc, .gro, etc) with MD-­related keywords (for instance: ‘molecular dynamics’, ‘Gromacs’, ‘Martini’, etc). Each of these hit files belonged to a dataset, which we further screened in the Expand phase. There, we indexed all files found in a dataset identified in the previous Explore phase with, this time, no restriction to the collected file types (see Figure 1A and details on the data scraping procedure in the Materials and methods section). Globally, we indexed about 250,000 files and 2000 datasets that represented 14 TB of data deposited between August 2012 and March 2023 (see Table 1). One major difficulty were the numerous files stored in zipped archives, about seven times more than files steadily available in datasets (see Table 1). While this choice is very convenient for depositing the files (as one just needs to provide one big zip file to upload to the data repository server), it hinders the analysis of MD files as data repositories only provide a limited preview of the content of the zip archives and completely inhibits, for example, data streaming for remote analysis and visualization. Files within zip files are not indexed and cannot be searched individually. The use of zip archives also hampers the reusability of MD data, since a specific file cannot be downloaded individually. One has to download the entire zip archive (sometimes with a size up to several gigabytes) to extract the one file of interest. The first dataset we found related to MD data that has been deposited in August 2012 in Figshare and corresponds to the work of Fuller et al., 2012 (see Table 1) but we may consider the start of more substantial deposition of the MD data to be 2016 with more than 20,000 files deposited, mainly in Figshare (see Figure 1B). While the number of files deposited in Zenodo was first relatively limited, the last few years (2020–2022) saw a steep increase, passing from a few thousands files in 2018 to almost 50,000 files in 2022 (see Figure 1B). In 2018, the number of MD files deposited in OSF was similar to those in the two other data repositories, but did not take off as much as the other data repositories. Zenodo seems to be favored by the MD community since 2019, even though Figshare in 2022 also saw a sharp increase in deposited MD files. The preference for Zenodo could also be explained by the fact that it is a publicly funded repository developed under the European OpenAIRE program and operated by CERN (European Organization For Nuclear Research, 2013). Overall, the trend showed a rise of deposited data with a steep increase in 2022 (Figure 1B). We believe that this trend will continue in future years, which will lead to a greater amount of MD data available. It is thus urgent to deploy a strategy to index this vast amount of data, and to allow the MD community to easily explore and reuse such gigantic resource. The following describes what is already feasible in terms of meta analysis, in particular what types of data are deposited in data repositories and the simulation setup parameters used by MD experts that have deposited their data. With our ‍Ex2‍strategy (see Figure 1A), we assigned the deposited files to the MD packages: AMBER (Salomon‐Ferrer et al., 2013), DESMOND (Bowers et al., 2006), Gromacs (Berendsen et al., 1995; Abraham et al., 2015), and NAMD/CHARMM (Phillips et al., 2020; Brooks et al., 2009), based on Figure 2. Categorization of index files based on their file types and assigned MD engine. (A) Distribution of files among MD simulation engines (B) Expansion of (A) MD Engine category ‘Unknown’ into the 10 most observed file types. Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  4 of 22 Research article Computational and Systems Biology | Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics their corresponding file types (see Materials and methods section). In the case of NAMD/CHARMM, file extensions were mostly identical, which prevented us from distinguishing the respective files from these two MD programs. With 87,204 files deposited, the Gromacs program was most represented (see Figure 2A), followed by NAMD/CHARMM, AMBER, and DESMOND. This statistic is limited as it does not consider more specific databases related to a particular MD program. For example, the DE Shaw Research website contains a large amount of simulation data related to SARS-­CoV-­2 that has been generated using the ANTON supercomputer (https://www.deshawresearch.com/downloads/​ download_trajectory_sarscov2.cgi/) or other extensively simulated systems of interest to the community. However, this in itself might also serve as a good example, since few automated search strategies will be able to find custom stand-­alone web servers as valuable repositories. Here, our goal was not to compare the availability of all data related to each MD program but to give a snapshot of the type of data available at a given time (i.e. March 2023) in generalist data repositories. Interestingly, many files (>133,000) were not directly associated to any MD program (see Figure 2A label ‘Unknown’). We categorized these files based on their extensions (see Figure 2B). While 10% of these files were without file extension (Figure 2B, column none), we found numerous files corresponding to structure coordinates such as .pdb (∼12,000) and .xyz (∼6800) files. We also got images (.tiff files) and graphics (.xvg files). Finally, we found many text files such as .txt, .dat, and .out which can potentially hold details about how simulations were performed. Focusing further on files related to the Gromacs program, being currently most represented in the studied data repositories, we demonstrated in the following present possibilities to retrieve numerous information related to deposited MD simulations. First, we were interested in what file types researchers deposited and thereby find potentially of great value to share. We therefore quantified the types of files generated by Gromacs (Figure 3A). The most represented file type is ​the.​xtc file (28,559 files, representing 8.6 TB). This compressed (binary) file is used to store the trajectory of an MD simulation and is an important source of information to characterize the evolution of the simulated molecular system as a function of time. It is thus logical to mainly find this type of file shared in data repositories, as it is of great value for reusage and new analyses. Nevertheless, it is not directly readable but needs to be read by a third-­party program, such as Gromacs itself, a molecular viewer like VMD (Humphrey et al., 1996) or an analysis library such as MDAnalysis (Gowers et al., 2016; Michaud-­Agrawal et al., 2011). In addition, this trajectory file can only be of use in combination with a matching coordinates file, in order to correctly access the dynamics information stored in this file. Thus, as it is, this file is not easily mineable to extract useful information, especially if multiple .xtc and coordinate files are available in one dataset. Interestingly, we found 1406 .trr files, which contain trajectory but also additional information such as velocities, energy of the system, etc. While this file is especially useful in terms of reusability, the large size (can go up to several 100 GB) limits its deposition in most data repositories. For instance, a file cannot usually exceed 50 GB in Zenodo, 20 GB in Figshare (for free accounts) and 5 GB in OSF. Altogether, Gromacs trajectory files represented about 30,000 files in the three explored generalist repositories (34% of Gromacs files). This is a large number in comparison to existing trajectories stored in known databases dedicated to MD with 1700 MD trajectories available in MoDEL, 1737 trajectories (as of November 2022) available in GPCRmd, 5971 (as of January 2022) trajectories available in MemProtMD and 726 trajectories (as of March 2023) available in the NMRLipids Databank. Although fewer in count, these numbers correspond to manually or semi-­automatically curated trajectories of specific systems, mostly proteins and lipids. Thus, ∼30,000 MD trajectories available in generalist data repositories may represent a wider spectrum of simulated systems but need to be further analyzed and filtered to separate usable data from less interesting trajectories such as minimization or equilibration runs. Given the large volume of data represented by .xtc files (see above), we could only scratch the surface of the information stored in these trajectory files by analyzing a subset of 779 .xtc files - one per dataset in which this type of file was found. We were able to get the size of the molecular systems and the number of frames available in these files (Figure 3B). The system size was up to more than one million atoms for a simulation of the TonB protein (Virtanen et al., 2020). The cumulative distribution of the number of frames showed that half of the files contain more than 10,000 frames. This conformational sampling can be very useful for other research fields besides the MD community that study, for instance, protein flexibility or protein engineering where diverse backbones can be of value. We found an .xtc file containing more than 5 million frames, where the authors probe the picosecond–nanosecond dynamics of T4 lysozyme and guide the MD simulation with NMR relaxation data (Kümmerer Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  5 of 22 Research article Computational and Systems Biology | Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics Figure 3. Content analysis of .xtc and .gro files. (A) Number of Gromacs-­related files available in searched data repositories. In red, files used for further analyses. (B) Simple analyze of a subset of .xtc files with the cumulative distribution of the number of frames (in green) and the system size (in orange). (C) Cumulative distribution of the system sizes extracted from .gro files. (D) Upset plot of systems grouped by molecular composition, inferred from the analysis of .gro files. For this figure, 3D structures of representative systems were displayed, including soluble proteins such as TonB and T4 Lysozyme, membrane proteins such as Kir Channels and the Gasdermin prepore, Protein-/RNA and G-­quadruplex and other non-­protein molecules. et al., 2021). Extending this analysis to all 28,559 .xtc files detected would be of great interest for a more holistic view, but this would require an initial step of careful checking and cleaning to be sure that these files are analyzable. Of note, as .xtc files also contain time stamps, it would be interesting to study the relationship between the time and the number of frames to get useful information about the sampling. Nevertheless, this analysis would be possible only for unbiased MD simulations. So, we would need to decipher if the .xtc file is coming from biased or unbiased simulations, which may not be trivial. These results bring a first explanation on why there is not a single special-­purpose repository for MD trajectory files. Databases dedicated to molecular structures such as the Protein Databank (Berman et al., 2000; Kinjo et al., 2017; Armstrong et al., 2020), or even the recent PDB-­dev (Burley et al., 2017), designed for integrative models, cannot accept such large-­size files, even less Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  6 of 22 Research article Computational and Systems Biology | Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics if complete trajectories without reducing the number of frames would be uploaded. This would also require implementing extra steps of data curation and quality control. In addition, the size of the IT infrastructure and the human skills required for data curation represents a significant cost that could probably not be supported by a single institution. Subsequently, our interest shifted towards exploring which systems are being investigated by MD researchers who deposit their files. We found 9718 .gro files which are text files that contain the number of particles and the Cartesian coordinates of the system modelled. By parsing the number of particles and the type of residue, we were able to give an overview of all Gromacs systems deposited (Figure 3C, D). In terms of system size, they ranged from very small - starting with two coarse-­ grain (CG) particles of graphite (Piskorz et al., 2019), followed by coordinates of a water molecule (3 atoms) (Ivanov et al., 2017), CG model of benzene (3 particles) (Dandekar and Mondal, 2020) and atomistic model of ammonia (4 atoms) (Kelly and Smith, 2020) — to go up to atomistic and coarse-­grain systems composed of more than 3 million particles (Duncan et al., 2020; Schaefer and Hummer, 2022; Figure 3C). Interestingly, the system sizes in .gro files exceeded those of the analyzed .xtc files (Figure 3B). Even if we cannot exclude that the limited number of .xtc files analyzed (779 .xtc files selected from 28,559 .xtc files indexed) could explain this discrepancy, an alternate hypothesis is that the size of an .xtc file also depends on the number of frames stored. To reduce the size of .xtc files deposited in data repositories, besides removing some frames, researchers might also remove parts of the system, such as water molecules. As a consequence for reusability, this solvent removal could limit the number of suitable datasets available for researchers interested in re-­analysing the simulation with respect to, in this case, water diffusion. While the size of systems extracted from .gro files was homogeneously spread, we observed a clear bump around system sizes of circa 8500 atoms/particles. This enrichment of data could be explained by the deposition of ∼340 .gro files related to the simulation of a peptide translocation through a membrane (Figure 3C; Kabelka et al., 2021). Beyond 1 million particles/atoms, the number of systems is, for the moment, very limited. We then analyzed residues in .gro files and inferred different types of molecular systems (see Figure 3D). Two of the most represented systems contained lipid molecules. This may be related to NMRLipids initiative (http://nmrlipids.blogspot.com). For several years, this consortium has been actively working on lipid modelling with a strong policy of data sharing and has contributed to share numerous datasets of membrane systems. As illustrated in Figure 3C, a variety of membrane systems, especially membrane proteins, were deposited. This highlights the vitality of this research field, and the will of this community to share their data. We also found numerous systems containing solvated proteins. This type of data, combined with .xtc trajectory files (see above), could be invaluable to describe protein dynamics and potentially train new artificial intelligence models to go beyond the current representation of the static protein structure (Lane, 2023). There was also a good proportion of systems containing nucleic acids alone or in interaction with proteins (1237 systems). At this time, we found only few systems containing carbohydrates that also contained proteins and corresponded to one study to model hyaluronan–CD44 interactions (Vuorio et al., 2017). Maybe a reason for this limited number is that systems containing sugars are often modelled using AMBER force field (Salomon‐Ferrer et al., 2013), in combination with GLYCAM (Kirschner et al., 2008). A future study on the ∼10,200 AMBER files deposited could retrieve more data related to carbohydrate containing systems. Given the current developments to model glycans (Fadda, 2022), we expect to see more deposited systems with carbohydrates in the coming years. Finally, we found 1029 gro files which did not belong to the categories previously described. These files were mostly related to models of small molecules, or molecules used in organic chemistry (Young et al., 2020) and material science (Piskorz et al., 2019; Zheng et al., 2022) (see central panel, Figure 3D). Several datasets contained lists of small molecules used for calculating free energy of binding (Aldeghi et al., 2016), solubility of molecules (Liu et al., 2016), or osmotic coefficient (Zhu, 2019). Then, we identified models of nanoparticles (Kyrychenko et al., 2012; Pohjolainen et al., 2016), polymers (Sarkar et al., 2020; Karunasena et al., 2021; Gertsen et al., 2020), and drug molecules like EPI-­7170, which binds disordered regions of proteins (Zhu et al., 2022). Finally, an interesting case from material sciences was the modelling of the PTEG-­1 molecule, an addition of polar triethylene glycol (TEG) onto a fulleropyrrolidine molecule (see central panel, Figure 3D). This molecule was synthesized to improve semiconductors (Jahani et al., 2014). We found several models related to this peculiar molecule and its derivatives, both atomistic (Qiu et al., 2017; Sami et al., 2022) and coarse Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  7 of 22 Research article Computational and Systems Biology | Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics grained (Alessandri et al., 2020). With a good indexing of data and appropriate metadata to identify modelled molecules, a simple search, which was previously to this study missing, could easily retrieve different models of the same molecule to compare them or to run multi-­scale dynamics simulations. Beyond .gro files, we would like to analyze the ensemble of the ∼12,000 .pdb extracted in this study (see Figure 2B) to better characterize the types of molecular structures deposited. Another important category of deposited files are those containing information about the topology of the simulated molecules, including file extensions such as .itp and .top. Further, they are often the results of long parametrization processes (Vanommeslaeghe and MacKerell, 2012; Souza et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2004) and therefore of significant value for reusability. Based on our analysis, we indexed almost 20,000 topology files which could spare countless efforts to the MD community if these files could be easily found, annotated and reused. Interestingly, the number of .itp files was elevated (13,058 files) with a total size of 2 GB, while there were less .top files (7009 files) with a total size of 17 GB. Thus, .itp files seemed to contain much less information than the .top files. Among the remaining file types, .tpr files contain all the information to potentially directly run a simulation. Here, we found 4987 .tpr files, meaning that it could virtually be possible to rerun almost 5000 simulations without the burden of setting up the system to simulate. Finally, the 3730 .log files are also a source of useful information as it is relatively easy to parse this text file to extract details on how MD simulations were run, such as the version of Gromacs, which command line was used to run the simulation, etc. Our next step was to gain insight into the parameter settings employed by the MD community, which may aid us in identifying preferences in MD setups and potential necessity for further education to avoid suboptimal or outdated configurations. We therefore analyzed 10,055 .mdp files stored in the different data repositories. These text files contain information regarding the input parameters to run the simulations such as the integrator, the number of steps, the different algorithms for barostat and thermostat, etc. (for more details see: https://manual.gromacs.org/documentation/current/user-​ guide/mdp-options.html). We determined the expected simulation time corresponding to the product of two parameters found in .mdp files: the number of steps and the time step. Here, we acknowledge that one can set up a very long simulation time and stop the simulation before the end or, on contrary, use a limited time (especially when calculations are performed on HPC resources with wall-­time) and then extend the simulation for a longer duration. Using only the .mdp file, we cannot know if the simulation reached its term. To do so, comparison with an .xtc file from the same dataset may help to answer this specific question. However, in this study, we were interested in MD setup practices, in particular what simulation time researchers would set up their system with - likely in the mindset to reach that ending time. We restricted this analysis to the 4623 .mdp files that used the md or sd integrator, and that have a simulation time above 1 ns. We found that the majority of the .mdp files were used for simulations of 50 ns or less (see Figure 4A). Further, 697 .mdp files with simulations times set-­up between 50 ns and 1 µs and 585 .mdp files with simulation time above 1 µs were identified. As analyzing .gro files showed a good proportion of coarse-­grained models (Figure 3B, C), we discriminated simulations setups for these two types of models using the time step as a simple cutoff. We considered that a time step greater than 10 fs (i.e. dt = 0.01) corresponded to MD setups for coarse grained models (Ingólfsson et al., 2014). Globally, we found that over all simulations, the setups for atomistic simulations were largely dominant. However, for simulations with a simulation time above 1 µs specifically, coarse-­grain simulations represented 86% of all. We then looked into the combinations of thermostat and barostat (see Figure 4B) from 9199 .mdp files. The main thermostat used is by far the V-­rescale (Bussi et al., 2007) often associated with the Parrinello-­Rahman barostat (Parrinello and Rahman, 1981). This thermostat was also used with the Berendsen barostat (Berendsen et al., 1984). In a few cases, we observed the use of the V-­rescale thermostat with the very recently developed C-­rescale barostat (Bernetti and Bussi, 2020). A total of 2021 .mdp files presented neither thermostat nor barostat, which means they would not be used in production runs. This could correspond to setups used for energy minimization, or to add ions to the system (with the genion command), or for molecular mechanics with Poisson–Boltzmann and surface area solvation (MM/PBSA) and molecular mechanics with generalised Born and surface area solvation (MM/GBSA) calculations (Genheden and Ryde, 2015). Finally, we analyzed the range of starting temperatures used to perform simulations (see Figure 4C). We found a clear peak around the temperatures 298 K - 310 K which corresponds to the range Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  8 of 22 Research article Computational and Systems Biology | Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics Figure 4. Content analysis of .mdp files. (A) Cumulative distribution of .mdp files versus the simulation time for all-­atom and coarse-­grain simulations. (B) Sankey graph of the repartition between different values for thermostat and barostat. (C) Temperature distribution, full scale in upper panel and zoom-­in in lower panel. between ambient room (298 K - 25 °C) and physiological (310 K - 37 °C) temperatures. Nevertheless, we also observed lower temperatures, which often relate to studies of specific organic systems or simulations of Lennard-­Jones models (Jeon et al., 2016). Interestingly, we noticed the appearance of several pikes at 400 K, 600 K, and 800 K, which were not present before the end of the year 2022. These peaks corresponded to the same study related to the stability of hydrated crystals (Dybeck et al., 2023). Overall, this analysis revealed that a wide range of temperatures have been explored, starting mostly from 100 K and going up to 800 K. To encourage further analysis of the collected files, we shared our data collection with the community in Zenodo (see Data availability statement). The data scrapping procedure and data analysis is available on GitHub with a detailed documentation. To let researchers having a quick glance and explore this data collection, we created a prototype web application called MDverse data explorer available at https://mdverse.streamlit.app/ and illustrated in Figure 5A. With this web application, it is easy to use keywords and filters to access interesting datasets for all MD engines, as well as .gro and .mdp files. Furthermore, when available, a description of the found data is provided and searchable for keywords (Figure 5A, on the left sidebar). The sets of data found can then be exported as a tab-­ separated values (.tsv) file for further analysis (Figure 5B). Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  9 of 22 Research article Computational and Systems Biology | Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics Figure 5. Snapshots of the MDverse data explorer, a prototype search engine to explore collected files and datasets. (A) General view of the web application. (B) Focus on the .mdp and .gro files sets of data exported as.tsv files. The web application also includes links to their original repository. Towards a better sharing of MD data With this work, we have shown that it was possible to not only retrieve MD data from the generalist data repositories Zenodo, Figshare and OSF, but to shed light onto the dark matter of MD data in terms of learning current scientific practice, extracting valuable topology information, and analysing how the field is developing. Our objective was not to assess the quality of the data but only to show what kind of data was available. The ‍Ex2‍ strategy to find files related to MD simulations relied on the fact that many MD software output files with specific file extensions. This strategy could not be applied in research fields where data exhibits non-­specific file types. We experienced this limitation while indexing zip archives related to MD simulations, where we were able to decide if a zip archive was pertinent for this work only by accessing the list of files contained in the archive. This valuable feature is provided by data repositories like Zenodo and Figshare, with some caveats, though. As of March 2023, we managed to index 245,756 files from 1979 datasets, representing altogether 14 TB of data. This is a fraction of all files stored in data repositories. For instance, as of December 2022, Zenodo hosted about 9.9 million files for ∼1.3 PB of data (Panero and Benito, 2022). All these files are stored on servers available 24/7. This high availability costs human resources, IT infrastructures and energy. Even if MD data represents only 1% of the total volume of data stored in Zenodo, we believe it is our responsibility, as a community, to develop a better sharing and reuse of MD simulation files - and it will neither have to be particularly cumbersome nor expensive. To this end, Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  10 of 22 Computational and Systems Biology | Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics Research article we are proposing two solutions. First, improve practices for sharing and depositing MD data in data repositories. Second, improve the FAIRness of already available MD data notably by improving the quality of the current metadata. Guidelines for better sharing of MD simulation data Without a community-­approved methodology for depositing MD simulation files in data repositories, and based on the current experience we described here, we propose a few simple guidelines when sharing MD data to make them more FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable): Avoid zip or tar archives whose content cannot be properly indexed by data repositories. As much as possible, deposit original data files directly. • Describe the MD dataset with extensive metadata. Provide adequate information along your dataset, such as: The scope of the study, e.g. investigate conformation dynamics, benchmark force field,... The method on a basic (e.g. quantum mechanics, all-­atom, coarse-­grain) or advanced (accelerated, metadynamics, well-­tempered) level. The MD software: name, version (tag) and whether modifications have been made. The simulation settings (for each of the steps, including minimization, equilibration and production): temperature(s), thermostat, barostat, time step, total runtime (simulation length), force field, additional force field parameters. The composition of the system, with the precise names of the molecules and their numbers, if possible also PDB, UniProt or Ensemble identifiers and whether the default structure has been modified. Give information about any post-­processing of the uploaded files (e.g. truncation or stripping of the trajectory), including before and after values of what has been modified e.g. number of frames or number of atoms of uploaded files. Highlight especially valuable data, e.g. excessively QM-­based parameterized molecules, and their parameter files. Store this metadata in the description of the dataset. An adaptation of the Minimum Information About a Simulation Experiment (MIASE) guidelines Waltemath et al., 2011 in the context of MD simulations would be useful to define required metadata. • Link the MD dataset to other associated resources, such as: The research article (if any) for which these data have been produced. Datasets are usually mentioned in the research articles, but rarely the other way around, since the deposition has to be done prior to publication. However, it is eminently possible to submit a revised version, and providing a link to the related research paper in updated metadata of the MD dataset will ease the reference to the original publication upon data reuse. The code used to analyze the data, ideally deposited in the repository to guarantee availability, or in a GitHub or GitLab repository. Any other datasets that belong to the same study. • Provide sufficient files to reproduce simulations and use a clear naming convention to make explicit links between related files. For instance, for the Gromacs MD engine, t​ rajectory.​xtc files could share the same names as s​ tructure.​gro files (e.g. p ​ roteinA.​gro and p ​ roteinA.​xtc). • Revisit your data deposition after paper acceptance and update information if necessary. Zenodo and Figshare provide a DOI for every new version of a dataset as well as a ‘master’ DOI that always refers to the latest version available. • These guidelines are complementary to the reliability and reproducibility checklist for molecular dynamics simulations (Commun Biol, 2023). Eventually, they could be implemented in machine actionable Data Management Plan (maDMP) (Miksa et al., 2019). So far, MD metadata is formalized as free text. We advocate for the creation of a standardized and controlled vocabulary to describe artifacts and properties of MD simulations. Normalized metadata will, in turn, enable scientific knowledge graphs (Auer, 2018; Färber and Lamprecht, 2021) that could link MD data, research articles and MD software in a rich network of research outputs. Converging on a set of metadata and format requires a large consensus of different stakeholders, from users, to MD program developers, and journal editors. It would be especially useful to organize Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  11 of 22 Computational and Systems Biology | Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics Research article specific workshops with representatives of all these communities to collectively tackle this specific issue. Improving metadata of current MD data While indexing about 2000 MD datasets, we found that title and description accompanying these datasets were very heterogeneous in terms of quality and quantity and were difficult for machines to process automatically. It was sometimes impossible to find even basic information such as the identity of the molecular system simulated, the temperature or the length of the simulation. Without appropriate metadata, sharing data is pointless, and its reuse is doomed to fail (Musen, 2022). It is thus important to close the gap between the availability of MD data and its discoverability and description through appropriate metadata. We could gradually improve the metadata by following two strategies. First, since MD engines produce normalized and well-­documented files, we could extract parameters of the simulation by parsing specific files. We already explored this path with Gromacs, by extracting the molecular size and composition from .gro files and the simulation time (with some limitations), thermostat and barostat from .mdp files. We could go even further, by extracting for instance Gromacs version from .log file (if provided) or by identifying the simulated system from its atomic topology stored ​in.​gro files. This strategy can in principle be applied to files produced by other MD engines. A second approach that we are currently exploring uses data mining and named entity recognition (NER) methods (Perera et al., 2020) to automatically identify the molecular system, the temperature, and the simulation length from existing textual metadata (dataset title and description), providing they are of sufficient length. Finally, the possibilities afforded by large language models supplemented by domain-­specific tools (Bran et al., 2023) might help interpret the heterogenous metadata that is often associated with the simulations. Future works In the future, it is desirable to go further in terms of analysis and integrate other data repositories, such as Dryad and Dataverse instances (for example Recherche Data Gouv in France). The collaborative platform for source code GitHub could also be of interest. Albeit dedicated to source code and not designed to host large-­size binary files, GitHub handles small to medium-­size text files like tabular .csv and .tsv data files and has been extensively used to record cases of the Ebola epidemic in 2014 (Perkel, 2016) and the Covid-­19 pandemic (Johns Hopkins University, 2020). Thus, GitHub could probably host small text-­based MD simulation files. For Gromacs, we already found 70,000 parameter .mdp files and 55,000 structure .gro files. Scripts found along these files could also provide valuable insights to understand how a given MD analysis was performed. Finally, GitHub repositories might also be an entry point to find other datasets by linking to simulation data, such as institutional repositories (see for instance Pesce and Lindorff-­Larsen, 2023). However, one potential point of concern is that repositories like GitHub or GitLab do not make any promises about long-­term availability of repositories, in particular ones not under active development. Archiving of these repositories could be achieved in Zenodo (for data-­centric repositories) or Software Heritage (Di Cosmo and Zacchiroli, 2017; for source-­code-­centric repositories). An obvious next step is the enrichment of metadata with the hope to render open MD data more findable, accessible and ultimately reusable. Possible strategies have already been detailed previously in this paper. We could also go further by connecting MD data in the research ecosystem. For this, two apparent resources need to be linked to MD datasets: their associated research papers to mine more information and to establish a connection with the scientific context, and their simulated biomolecular systems, which ultimately could cross-­reference MD datasets to reference databases such as UniProt Consortium, 2022, the PDB (Berman et al., 2000) or Lipid Maps (Sud et al., 2007). For already deposited datasets, the enrichment of metadata can only be achieved via systematic computational approaches, while for future depositions, a clear and uniformly used ontology and dedicated metadata reference file (as it is used by the PLUMED-­NEST: Bonomi et al., 2019) would facilitate this task. Eventually, front-­ end solutions such as the MDverse data explorer tool can evolve to being more user-­friendly by interfacing the structures and dynamics with interactive 3D molecular viewers (Tiemann et al., 2017; Kampfrath et al., 2022; Martinez and Baaden, 2021). Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  12 of 22 Computational and Systems Biology | Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics Research article Conclusion In this work, we showed that sharing data generated from MD simulations is now a common practice. From Zenodo, Figshare and OSF alone, we indexed about 250,000 files from 2000 datasets, and we showed that this trend is increasing. This data brings incentive and opportunities at different levels. First, for researchers who cannot access high-­performance computing (HPC) facilities, or do not want to rerun a costly simulation to save time and energy, simulations of many systems are already available. These simulations could be useful to reanalyze existing trajectories, to extend simulations with already equilibrated systems or to compare simulations of a dedicated molecular system modelled with different settings. Second, building annotated and highly curated datasets for artificial intelligence will be invaluable to develop dynamic generative deep-­learning models. Then, improving metadata along available data will foster their reuse and will mechanically increase the reproducibility of MD simulations. At last, we see here the occasion to push for good practices in the setup and production of MD simulations. Materials and methods Initial data collection We searched for MD-­ related files in the data repositories Zenodo, Figshare and Open Science Framework (OSF). Queries were designed with a combination of file types and optionally keywords, depending on how a given file type was solely associated to MD simulations. We therefore built a list of manually curated and cross-­checked file types and keywords (https://github.com/MDverse/mdws/​ blob/main/params/query.yml; Poulain et al., 2023). All queries were automated by Python scripts that utilized Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) provided by data repositories. Since APIs offered by data repositories were different, all implementations were performed in dedicated Python (van Rossum, 1995) (version 3.9.16) scripts with the NumPy (Oliphant, 2007) (version 1.24.2), Pandas (McKinney, 2010) (version 1.5.3) and Requests (version 2.28.2) libraries. We made the assumption that files deposited by researchers in data repositories were coherent and all related to a same research project. Therefore, when an MD-­related file was found in a dataset, all files belonging to this dataset were indexed, regardless of whether their file types were actually identified as MD simulation files. This is the core of the Explore and Expand strategy (‍Ex2)‍ we applied in this work and illustrated in Figure 1. By default, the last version of the datasets was collected. When a zip file was found in a dataset, its content was extracted from a preview provided by Zenodo and Figshare. This preview was not provided through APIs, but as HTML code, which we parsed using the Beautiful Soup library (version 4.11.2). Note that the zip file preview for Zenodo was limited to the first 1000 files. To avoid false-­positive files collected from zip archives, a final cleaning step was performed to remove all datasets that did not share at least one file type with the file type list mentioned above. In the case of OSF, there was no preview for zip files, so their content has not been retrieved. Gromacs files After the initial data collection, Gromacs .mdp and .gro files were downloaded with the Pooch library (version 1.6.0). When a .mdp or .gro file was found to be in a zip archive, the latter was downloaded and the targeted .mdp or .gro file was selectively extracted from the archive. The same procedure was applied for a subset of .xtc files that consisted of about one .xtc file per Gromacs datasets. Once downloaded, .mdp files were parsed to extract the following parameters: integrator, time step, number of steps, temperature, thermostat, and barostat. Values for thermostat and barostat were normalized according to values provided by the Gromacs documentation. For the simulation time analysis, we selected .mdp files with the md or sd integrator and with simulation time above 1 ns to exclude most minimization and equilibrating simulations. For the thermostat and barostat analysis, only files with non-­missing values and with values listed in the Gromacs documentation were considered. The .gro files were parsed with the MDAnalysis library (Michaud-­Agrawal et al., 2011) to extract the number of particles of the system. Values found in the residue name column were also extracted and compared to a list of residues we manually associated to the following categories: protein, Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  13 of 22 Computational and Systems Biology | Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics Research article lipid, nucleic acid, glucid and water or ions (https://github.com/MDverse/mdws/blob/main/params/​ residue_names.yml; Poulain et al., 2023). The .xtc files were analyzed using the gmxcheck command (https://manual.gromacs.org/current/​ onlinehelp/gmx-check.html) to extract the number of particles and the number of frames. MDverse data explorer web app The MDverse data explorer web application was built in Python with the Streamlit library. Data was downloaded from Zenodo (see the Data availability statement). System visualization and molecular graphics Molecular graphics were performed with VMD (Humphrey et al., 1996) and Chimera (Pettersen et al., 2004). For all visualizations, .gro files containing molecular structure were used. In the case of the two structures in Figure 3B, .xtc files were manually assigned to their corresponding .gro (for the TonB protein) or .tpr (for the T4 Lysozyme) files based on their names in their datasets. Origin of the structures displayed in this work: TonB Dataset URL: https://zenodo.org/record/3756664 Publication (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1039/D0CP03473H T4 Lyzozyme Dataset URL: https://zenodo.org/record/3989044 Publication (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.0c01338 Benzene Dataset URL: https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Capturing_Protein_Ligand_Recognition_​ Pathways_in_Coarse-Grained_Simulation/12517490/1 Publication (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.0c01683 Ammonia Dataset URL: https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Alchemical_Hydration_Free-Energy_Calculations_Using_Molecular_Dynamics_with_Explicit_Polarization_and_Induced_Polarity_Decoupling_An_On_the_Fly_Polarization_Approach/11702442 Publication (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.9b01139 Peptide with membrane Dataset URL: https://zenodo.org/record/4371296 Publication (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.0c01312 Kir channels Dataset URL: https://zenodo.org/record/3634884 Publication (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1918387117 Gasdermin Dataset URL: https://zenodo.org/record/6797842 Publication (DOI): https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.81432 Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  14 of 22 Computational and Systems Biology | Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics Research article Protein-RNA Dataset URL: https://zenodo.org/record/1308045 Publication (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006642 G-quadruplex Dataset URL: https://zenodo.org/record/5594466 Publication (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.1c11248 Ptb Dataset URL: https://osf.io/4aghb/ Publication (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2116543119 EPI-7170 Dataset URL: https://zenodo.org/record/7120845 Publication (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-34077-z Gold nanoparticle Dataset URL: https://acs.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Fluorescence_Probing_of_Thiol_Functionalized_Gold_Nanoparticles_Is_Alkylthiol_Coating_of_a_Nanoparticle_as_Hydrophobic_as_​ Expected_/2481241 Publication (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1021/jp3060813 Gd(DOTA) Dataset URL: https://acs.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Modeling_Gd_sup_3_sup_Complexes_​ for_Molecular_Dynamics_Simulations_Toward_a_Rational_Optimization_of_MRI_Contrast_​ Agents/20334621 Publication (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.2c01597 Metalo cage Dataset URL: https://acs.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Rationalizing_the_Activity_of_an_Artificial_Diels-Alderase_Establishing_Efficient_and_Accurate_Protocols_for_Calculating_Supramolecular_Catalysis/11569452 Publication (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.9b10302 AL1 Dataset URL: https://acs.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Nucleation_Mechanisms_of_Self-​ Assembled_Physisorbed_Monolayers_on_Graphite/8846045 Publication (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.9b01234 PTEG-1 (all-atom) Dataset URL: https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/PTEG-1_PP_and_N-DMBI_atomistic_force_​ fields/5458144 Publication (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1039/C7TA06609K Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  15 of 22 Computational and Systems Biology | Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics Research article PTEG-1 (coarse-grain) Dataset URL: https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Neat_and_P3HT-Based_Blend_Morphologies_for_PCBM_and_PTEG-1/12338633 Publication (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202004799 Theophylline Dataset URL: https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/A_Comparison_of_Methods_for_​ Computing_Relative_Anhydrous_Hydrate_Stability_with_Molecular_Simulation/21644393 Publication (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.cgd.2c00832 Acknowledgements We thank Lauri Mesilaakso, Bryan White, Jorge Hernansanz Biel, Zihwei Li and Kirill Baranov for their participation in the Copenhagen BioHackathon 2020, whose results showcased the need for a more advanced search strategy. We acknowledge Massimiliano Bonomi, Giovanni Bussi, Patrick Fuchs and Elise Lehoux for helpful discussions and suggestions. We also thank the Zenodo, Figshare and OSF support teams for providing figures on the content of their respective data repository and for their help in using APIs. This work was supported by Institut français du Danemark (Blåtand program, 2021), the Data Intelligence Institute of Paris (diiP, IdEx Université Paris Cité, ANR-­18-­IDEX-­0001, 2023). JKST and KL-­L acknowledge funding by the Novo Nordisk Foundation [NNF18OC0033950 to KL-­L], and workshops funded by The BioExcel Center-­of-­Excellence (grant agreements 823830, 101093290). Additional information Competing interests Lucie Delemotte: Reviewing editor, eLife. The other authors declare that no competing interests exist. Funding Funder Grant reference number Author Institut francais du Danemark Blatand program 2021 Matthieu Chavent Pierre Poulain Data Intelligence Institute of Paris IdEx Université Paris Cité ANR-18-IDEX-0001 2023 Mohamed Oussaren Pierre Poulain Novo Nordisk Foundation NNF18OC0033950 Johanna KS Tiemann Kresten Lindorff-Larsen BioExcel Center-ofExcellence 823830 Erik Lindahl BioExcel Center-ofExcellence 101093290 Erik Lindahl The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication. Author contributions Johanna KS Tiemann, Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Supervision, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing; Magdalena Szczuka, Lisa Bouarroudj, Mohamed Oussaren, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Visualization; Steven Garcia, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis; Rebecca J Howard, Lucie Delemotte, Erik Lindahl, Marc Baaden, Kresten Lindorff-­Larsen, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing; Matthieu Chavent, Pierre Poulain, Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  16 of 22 Computational and Systems Biology | Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics Research article Author ORCIDs Rebecca J Howard ‍ ‍https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2049-3378 Erik Lindahl ‍ ‍https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2734-2794 Marc Baaden ‍ ‍https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6472-0486 Kresten Lindorff-­Larsen ‍ ‍https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4750-6039 Matthieu Chavent ‍ ‍https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4524-4773 Pierre Poulain ‍ ‍https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4177-3619 Peer review material Reviewer #1 (Public Review): https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061.3.sa1 Reviewer #2 (Public Review): https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061.3.sa2 Reviewer #3 (Public Review): https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061.3.sa3 Author response https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061.3.sa4 Additional files Supplementary files •  MDAR checklist Data availability Data files produced from the data collection and processing are shared in Parquet format in Zenodo. They are freely available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-­BY). Python scripts to search and index MD files, and to download and parse .mdp a ​ nd.​gro files are open-­ source (under the AGPL-­3.0 license), freely available on GitHub and archived in Software Heritage (Poulain et al., 2023). A detailed documentation is provided along the scripts to easily reproduce the data collection and processing. Jupyter notebooks used to analyze results and create the figures of this paper are open-­source (under the BSD 3-­Clause license), freely available on GitHub and archived in Software Heritage (Poulain, 2023). The code of the MDverse data explorer web application is open-­source (under the BSD 3-­Clause license), freely available on GitHub and archived in Software Heritage (Poulain and Oussaren, 2023). The following dataset was generated: Author(s) Year Dataset title Dataset URL Database and Identifier Johanna KST, Mathieu C, Pierre P 2023 MDverse datasets https://​zenodo.​org/​ records/​7856806 Zenodo, 10.5281/ zenodo.7856806 References Abraham MJ, Murtola T, Schulz R, Páll S, Smith JC, Hess B, Lindahl E. 2015. GROMACS: High performance molecular simulations through multi-­level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX 1–2:19–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2015.06.001 Abraham M, Apostolov R, Barnoud J, Bauer P, Blau C, Bonvin AMJJ, Chavent M, Chodera J, Čondić-Jurkić K, Delemotte L, Grubmüller H, Howard RJ, Jordan EJ, Lindahl E, Ollila OHS, Selent J, Smith DGA, Stansfeld PJ, Tiemann JKS, Trellet M, et al. 2019. Sharing data from molecular simulations. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 59:4093–4099. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00665, PMID: 31525920 Abriata LA, Lepore R, Dal Peraro M. 2020. About the need to make computational models of biological macromolecules available and discoverable. Bioinformatics 36:2952–2954. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/​ bioinformatics/btaa086, PMID: 32053168 Aldeghi M, Heifetz A, Bodkin MJ, Knapp S, Biggin PC. 2016. Accurate calculation of the absolute free energy of binding for drug molecules. Chemical Science 7:207–218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/c5sc02678d, PMID: 26798447 Alessandri R, Sami S, Barnoud J, de Vries AH, Marrink SJ, Havenith RWA. 2020. Resolving donor–acceptor interfaces and charge carrier energy levels of organic semiconductors with polar side chains. Advanced Functional Materials 30:2004799. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202004799 Alessandri R, Grünewald F, Marrink SJ. 2021. The martini model in materials science. Advanced Materials 33:e2008635. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202008635, PMID: 33956373 Amaro RE, Mulholland AJ. 2020. A community letter regarding sharing biomolecular simulation data for COVID-­19. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 60:2653–2656. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.​ jcim.0c00319, PMID: 32255648 Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  17 of 22 Research article Computational and Systems Biology | Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics Antila HS, M Ferreira T, Ollila OHS, Miettinen MS. 2021. Using open data to rapidly benchmark biomolecular simulations: Phospholipid conformational dynamics. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 61:938– 949. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.0c01299, PMID: 33496579 Armstrong DR, Berrisford JM, Conroy MJ, Gutmanas A, Anyango S, Choudhary P, Clark AR, Dana JM, Deshpande M, Dunlop R, Gane P, Gáborová R, Gupta D, Haslam P, Koča J, Mak L, Mir S, Mukhopadhyay A, Nadzirin N, Nair S, et al. 2020. PDBe: improved findability of macromolecular structure data in the PDB. Nucleic Acids Research 48:D335–D343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz990, PMID: 31691821 Auer S. 2018. Towards an open research knowledge graph. Version 1. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.​ 1157185 Berendsen HJC, Postma JPM, van Gunsteren WF, DiNola A, Haak JR. 1984. Molecular dynamics with coupling to an external bath. The Journal of Chemical Physics 81:3684–3690. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.448118 Berendsen HJC, van der Spoel D, van Drunen R. 1995. GROMACS: A message-­passing parallel molecular dynamics implementation. Computer Physics Communications 91:43–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-​ 4655(95)00042-E Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE. 2000. The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Research 28:235–242. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/28.1.235, PMID: 10592235 Berman H, Henrick K, Nakamura H. 2003. Announcing the worldwide protein data bank. Nature Structural Biology 10:980. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nsb1203-980, PMID: 14634627 Bernetti M, Bussi G. 2020. Pressure control using stochastic cell rescaling. The Journal of Chemical Physics 153:114107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0020514, PMID: 32962386 Bonomi M, Bussi G, Camilloni C, Tribello GA, Banáš P, Barducci A, Bernetti M. 2019. Promoting transparency and reproducibility in enhanced molecular simulations. Nature Methods 16:670–673. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/​ s41592-019-0506-8 Bottaro S, Lindorff-­Larsen K. 2018. Biophysical experiments and biomolecular simulations: A perfect match? Science 361:355–360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat4010, PMID: 30049874 Bowers KJ, Chow DE, Xu H, Dror RO, Eastwood MP, Gregersen BA, Klepeis JL, Kolossvary I, Moraes MA, Sacerdoti FD, Salmon JK, Shan Y, Shaw DE. 2006. Scalable Algorithms for Molecular Dynamics Simulations on Commodity Clusters. SC 2006 Proceedings Supercomputing. . DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/SC.2006.54 Bran AM, Cox S, White AD, Schwaller P. 2023 ChemCrow: augmenting large-­language models with chemistry tools. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.05376 Brooks BR, Brooks CL, Mackerell AD, Nilsson L, Petrella RJ, Roux B, Won Y, Archontis G, Bartels C, Boresch S, Caflisch A, Caves L, Cui Q, Dinner AR, Feig M, Fischer S, Gao J, Hodoscek M, Im W, Kuczera K, et al. 2009. CHARMM: the biomolecular simulation program. Journal of Computational Chemistry 30:1545–1614. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21287, PMID: 19444816 Burley SK, Kurisu G, Markley JL, Nakamura H, Velankar S, Berman HM, Sali A, Schwede T, Trewhella J. 2017. PDB-­Dev: A prototype system for depositing integrative/hybrid structural models. Structure 25:1317–1318. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2017.08.001, PMID: 28877501 Bussi G, Donadio D, Parrinello M. 2007. Canonical sampling through velocity rescaling. The Journal of Chemical Physics 126:014101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2408420, PMID: 17212484 Commun Biol. 2023. Reliability and reproducibility checklist for molecular dynamics simulations. Communications Biology 6:268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-023-04653-0, PMID: 36918708 Dandekar BR, Mondal J. 2020. Capturing protein-­ligand recognition pathways in coarse-­grained simulation. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 11:5302–5311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.0c01683, PMID: 32520567 Di Cosmo R, Zacchiroli S. 2017. Software Heritage: Why and How to Preserve Software Source Code. iPRES 2017 - 14th International Conference on Digital Preservation. 1–10. Domański J, Stansfeld PJ, Sansom MSP, Beckstein O. 2010. Lipidbook: a public repository for force-­field parameters used in membrane simulations. The Journal of Membrane Biology 236:255–258. DOI: https://doi.​ org/10.1007/s00232-010-9296-8, PMID: 20700585 Duncan AL, Corey RA, Sansom MSP. 2020. Defining how multiple lipid species interact with inward rectifier potassium (Kir2) channels. PNAS 117:7803–7813. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1918387117, PMID: 32213593 Dybeck EC, Thiel A, Schnieders MJ, Pickard FC, Wood GPF, Krzyzaniak JF, Hancock BC. 2023. A comparison of methods for computing relative anhydrous–hydrate stability with molecular simulation. Crystal Growth & Design 23:142–167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.cgd.2c00832 Elofsson A, Hess B, Lindahl E, Onufriev A, van der Spoel D, Wallqvist A. 2019. Ten simple rules on how to create open access and reproducible molecular simulations of biological systems. PLOS Computational Biology 15:e1006649. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006649, PMID: 30653494 European Organization For Nuclear Research. 2013. Zenodo. OpenAIRE. https://catalogue.openaire.eu/​ service/openaire.zenodo/overview Fadda E. 2022. Molecular simulations of complex carbohydrates and glycoconjugates. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 69:102175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2022.102175, PMID: 35728307 Fan FJ, Shi Y. 2022. Effects of data quality and quantity on deep learning for protein-­ligand binding affinity prediction. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry 72:117003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bmc.2022.117003 Färber M, Lamprecht D. 2021. The data set knowledge graph: Creating a linked open data source for data sets. Quantitative Science Studies 2:1324–1355. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00161 Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  18 of 22 Research article Computational and Systems Biology | Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics Fawzi NL, Parekh SH, Mittal J. 2021. Biophysical studies of phase separation integrating experimental and computational methods. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 70:78–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.​ 2021.04.004, PMID: 34144468 Fuller JC, Jackson RM, Edwards TA, Wilson AJ, Shirts MR. 2012. Modeling of arylamide helix mimetics in the P53 peptide binding site of hDM2 suggests parallel and anti-­parallel conformations are both stable. PLOS ONE 7:e43253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043253, PMID: 22916232 Genheden S, Ryde U. 2015. The MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods to estimate ligand-­binding affinities. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery 10:449–461. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1517/17460441.2015.1032936, PMID: 25835573 Gertsen AS, Sørensen MK, Andreasen JW. 2020. Nanostructure of organic semiconductor thin films: Molecular dynamics modeling with solvent evaporation. Physical Review Materials 4:075405. DOI: https://doi.org/10.​ 1103/PhysRevMaterials.4.075405 Gowers R, Linke M, Barnoud J, Reddy T, Melo M, Seyler S, Domański J, Dotson D, Buchoux S, Kenney I, Beckstein O. 2016. MDAnalysis: A Python Package for the Rapid Analysis of Molecular Dynamics Simulations. Python in Science Conference. . DOI: https://doi.org/10.25080/Majora-629e541a-00e Gupta C, Sarkar D, Tieleman DP, Singharoy A. 2022. The ugly, bad, and good stories of large-­scale biomolecular simulations. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 73:102338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2022.102338, PMID: 35245737 Hénin J, Lelièvre T, Shirts MR, Valsson O, Delemotte L. 2022. Enhanced sampling methods for molecular dynamics simulations [Article v1.0]. Living Journal of Computational Molecular Science 4:1583. DOI: https://​ doi.org/10.33011/livecoms.4.1.1583 Hoch JC, Baskaran K, Burr H, Chin J, Eghbalnia HR, Fujiwara T, Gryk MR, Iwata T, Kojima C, Kurisu G, Maziuk D, Miyanoiri Y, Wedell JR, Wilburn C, Yao H, Yokochi M. 2023. Biological magnetic resonance data bank. Nucleic Acids Research 51:D368–D376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac1050, PMID: 36478084 Hollingsworth SA, Dror RO. 2018. Molecular dynamics simulation for all. Neuron 99:1129–1143. DOI: https://​ doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.08.011, PMID: 30236283 Hospital A, Battistini F, Soliva R, Gelpí JL, Orozco M. 2020. Surviving the deluge of biosimulation data. WIREs Computational Molecular Science 10:e1449. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1449 Humphrey W, Dalke A, Schulten K. 1996. VMD: visual molecular dynamics. Journal of Molecular Graphics 14:33–38, . DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7855(96)00018-5, PMID: 8744570 Ingólfsson HI, Lopez CA, Uusitalo JJ, de Jong DH, Gopal SM, Periole X, Marrink SJ. 2014. The power of coarse graining in biomolecular simulations. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Computational Molecular Science 4:225–248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1169, PMID: 25309628 Ivanov P, Mu J, Leay L, Chang SY, Sharrad CA, Masters AJ, Schroeder SLM. 2017. Organic and Third Phase in HNO3/TBP/n-­Dodecane System: No Reverse Micelles. Solvent Extraction and Ion Exchange 35:251–265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07366299.2017.1336048 Jahani F, Torabi S, Chiechi RC, Koster LJA, Hummelen JC. 2014. Fullerene derivatives with increased dielectric constants. Chemical Communications 50:10645–10647. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/c4cc04366a, PMID: 25075465 Jeon JH, Javanainen M, Martinez-­Seara H, Metzler R, Vattulainen I. 2016. Protein crowding in lipid bilayers gives rise to non-­gaussian anomalous lateral diffusion of phospholipids and proteins. Physical Review X 6:021006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.6.021006 Johns Hopkins University. 2020. COVID-­19 data repository by the center for systems science and engineering (CSSE) at johns hopkins university [GitHub]. . https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19 Jumper J, Evans R, Pritzel A, Green T, Figurnov M, Ronneberger O, Tunyasuvunakool K, Bates R, Žídek A, Potapenko A, Bridgland A, Meyer C, Kohl SAA, Ballard AJ, Cowie A, Romera-­Paredes B, Nikolov S, Jain R, Adler J, Back T, et al. 2021. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 596:583–589. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2, PMID: 34265844 Kabelka I, Brožek R, Vácha R. 2021. Selecting collective variables and free-­energy methods for peptide translocation across membranes. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 61:819–830. DOI: https://doi.​ org/10.1021/acs.jcim.0c01312, PMID: 33566605 Kampfrath M, Staritzbichler R, Hernández GP, Rose AS, Tiemann JKS, Scheuermann G, Wiegreffe D, Hildebrand PW. 2022. MDsrv: visual sharing and analysis of molecular dynamics simulations. Nucleic Acids Research 50:W483–W489. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac398, PMID: 35639717 Karunasena C, Li S, Heifner MC, Ryno SM, Risko C. 2021. Reconsidering the roles of noncovalent intramolecular “locks” in π-conjugated molecules. Chemistry of Materials 33:9139–9151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.​ chemmater.1c02335 Kelly BD, Smith WR. 2020. Alchemical hydration free-­energy calculations using molecular dynamics with explicit polarization and induced polarity decoupling: An on-­the-­fly polarization approach. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 16:1146–1161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.9b01139, PMID: 31930918 Kiirikki A, Antila H, Bort L, Buslaev P, Fernando F, Mendes Ferreira T, Fuchs P, Garcia-­Fandino R, Gushchin I, Kav B, Kučerka N, Kula P, Kurki M, Kuzmin A, Madsen J, Miettinen M, Nencini R, Piggot T, Pineiro A, Suarez-­Leston F, et al. 2023. NMRlipids Databank Makes Data-­Driven Analysis of Biomembrane Properties Accessible for All. ChemRxiv. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26434/chemrxiv-2023-jrpwm-v2 Kinjo AR, Bekker GJ, Suzuki H, Tsuchiya Y, Kawabata T, Ikegawa Y, Nakamura H. 2017. Protein Data Bank Japan (PDBj): updated user interfaces, resource description framework, analysis tools for large structures. Nucleic Acids Research 45:D282–D288. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw962, PMID: 27789697 Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  19 of 22 Research article Computational and Systems Biology | Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics Kirschner KN, Yongye AB, Tschampel SM, González-­Outeiriño J, Daniels CR, Foley BL, Woods RJ. 2008. GLYCAM06: a generalizable biomolecular force field. Carbohydrates. Journal of Computational Chemistry 29:622–655. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.20820, PMID: 17849372 Krishna S, Sreedhar I, Patel CM. 2021. Molecular dynamics simulation of polyamide-­based materials – A review. Computational Materials Science 200:110853. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2021.110853 Kümmerer F, Orioli S, Harding-­Larsen D, Hoffmann F, Gavrilov Y, Teilum K, Lindorff-­Larsen K. 2021. Fitting side-­chain nmr relaxation data using molecular simulations. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 17:5262–5275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.0c01338, PMID: 34291646 Kyrychenko A, Karpushina GV, Svechkarev D, Kolodezny D, Bogatyrenko SI, Kryshtal AP, Doroshenko AO. 2012. Fluorescence probing of thiol-­functionalized gold nanoparticles: Is alkylthiol coating of a nanoparticle as hydrophobic as expected? The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 116:21059–21068. DOI: https://doi.org/10.​ 1021/jp3060813 Lane TJ. 2023. Protein structure prediction has reached the single-­structure frontier. Nature Methods 20:170– 173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-022-01760-4, PMID: 36639584 Liu S, Cao S, Hoang K, Young KL, Paluch AS, Mobley DL. 2016. Using MD simulations to calculate how solvents modulate solubility. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 12:1930–1941. DOI: https://doi.org/10.​ 1021/acs.jctc.5b00934, PMID: 26878198 Mahmud M, Kaiser MS, McGinnity TM, Hussain A. 2021. Deep learning in mining biological data. Cognitive Computation 13:1–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-020-09773-x, PMID: 33425045 Marklund EG, Benesch JL. 2019. Weighing-­up protein dynamics: the combination of native mass spectrometry and molecular dynamics simulations. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 54:50–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.​ 1016/j.sbi.2018.12.011 Martinez X, Baaden M. 2021. UnityMol prototype for FAIR sharing of molecular-­visualization experiences: from pictures in the cloud to collaborative virtual reality exploration in immersive 3D environments. Acta Crystallographica. Section D, Structural Biology 77:746–754. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1107/​ S2059798321002941, PMID: 34076589 Marx V. 2013. Biology: The big challenges of big data. Nature 498:255–260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/​ 498255a, PMID: 23765498 McKinney W. 2010. Data Structures for Statistical Computing in Python. Python in Science Conference. 56–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a Merz KM, Amaro R, Cournia Z, Rarey M, Soares T, Tropsha A, Wahab HA, Wang R. 2020. Editorial: Method and data sharing and reproducibility of scientific results. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 60:5868– 5869. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.0c01389, PMID: 33378854 Meyer T, D’Abramo M, Hospital A, Rueda M, Ferrer-­Costa C, Pérez A, Carrillo O, Camps J, Fenollosa C, Repchevsky D, Gelpí JL, Orozco M. 2010. MoDEL (Molecular Dynamics Extended Library): a database of atomistic molecular dynamics trajectories. Structure 18:1399–1409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2010.07.​ 013, PMID: 21070939 Michaud-­Agrawal N, Denning EJ, Woolf TB, Beckstein O. 2011. MDAnalysis: A toolkit for the analysis of molecular dynamics simulations. Journal of Computational Chemistry 32:2319–2327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.​ 1002/jcc.21787, PMID: 21500218 Miksa T, Simms S, Mietchen D, Jones S. 2019. Ten principles for machine-­actionable data management plans. PLOS Computational Biology 15:e1006750. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006750, PMID: 30921316 Mulholland AJ, Amaro RE. 2020. COVID19 - Computational Chemists Meet the Moment. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 60:5724–5726. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.0c01395, PMID: 33378852 Musen MA. 2022. Without appropriate metadata, data-­sharing mandates are pointless. Nature 609:222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-02820-7, PMID: 36064801 Newport TD, Sansom MSP, Stansfeld PJ. 2019. The MemProtMD database: a resource for membrane-­embedded protein structures and their lipid interactions. Nucleic Acids Research 47:D390–D397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.​ 1093/nar/gky1047 Oliphant TE. 2007. Python for scientific computing. Computing in Science & Engineering 9:10–20. DOI: https://​ doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.58 Panero P, Benito J. 2022 OpenAIRE webinar: Zenodo - open digital repository. Version v1. Zenodo. https://doi.​ org/10.5281/zenodo.7417839 Parrinello M, Rahman A. 1981. Polymorphic transitions in single crystals: A new molecular dynamics method. Journal of Applied Physics 52:7182–7190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.328693 Perera N, Dehmer M, Emmert-­Streib F. 2020. Named entity recognition and relation detection for biomedical information extraction. Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology 8:673. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.​ 2020.00673, PMID: 32984300 Perilla JR, Goh BC, Cassidy CK, Liu B, Bernardi RC, Rudack T, Yu H, Wu Z, Schulten K. 2015. Molecular dynamics simulations of large macromolecular complexes. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 31:64–74. DOI: https://​ doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2015.03.007, PMID: 25845770 Perkel J. 2016. Democratic databases: science on GitHub. Nature 538:127–128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/​ 538127a, PMID: 27708327 Pesce F, Lindorff-­Larsen K. 2023. Combining Experiments and Simulations to Examine the Temperature-­ Dependent Behaviour of a Disordered Protein. bioRxiv. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.04.531094 Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  20 of 22 Research article Computational and Systems Biology | Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics Pettersen EF, Goddard TD, Huang CC, Couch GS, Greenblatt DM, Meng EC, Ferrin TE. 2004. UCSF Chimera--A visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. Journal of Computational Chemistry 25:1605–1612. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.20084, PMID: 15264254 Phillips JC, Hardy DJ, Maia JDC, Stone JE, Ribeiro JV, Bernardi RC, Buch R, Fiorin G, Hénin J, Jiang W, McGreevy R, Melo MCR, Radak BK, Skeel RD, Singharoy A, Wang Y, Roux B, Aksimentiev A, Luthey-­Schulten Z, Kalé LV, et al. 2020. Scalable molecular dynamics on CPU and GPU architectures with NAMD. The Journal of Chemical Physics 153:044130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0014475, PMID: 32752662 Piskorz TK, Gobbo C, Marrink SJ, De Feyter S, de Vries AH, van Esch JH. 2019. Nucleation mechanisms of self-­assembled physisorbed monolayers on graphite. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 123:17510–17520. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.9b01234 Pohjolainen E, Chen X, Malola S, Groenhof G, Häkkinen H. 2016. A Unified AMBER-­compatible molecular mechanics force field for thiolate-­protected gold nanoclusters. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 12:1342–1350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.5b01053, PMID: 26845636 Porubsky VL, Goldberg AP, Rampadarath AK, Nickerson DP, Karr JR, Sauro HM. 2020. Best practices for making reproducible biochemical models. Cell Systems 11:109–120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2020.06.012, PMID: 32853539 Poulain P. 2023. MDverse data analysis swh:1:rev:4562c50d1b51a51fdf952ae6e9efaa407dd06e20. Software Heritage. https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:fc72ac7a9c9f0489a361cb2b7fcf8ba48898e4ee;origin=​ https://github.com/MDverse/mdda;visit=swh:1:snp:dbfe8b4401ac98d3728ebb00241429274c619beb;anchor=​ swh:1:rev:4562c50d1b51a51fdf952ae6e9efaa407dd06e20 Poulain P, Bouarroudj L, Tiemann JKS, Bussi G. 2023. MDverse web scrapper. swh:1:rev:0524199041e84be2d69993540ad8e2223d3b4698. Software Heritage. https://archive.​ softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:ce91602834cf79e634d26aff585a9fea22b0fea3;origin=https://github.com/​ MDverse/mdws;visit=swh:1:snp:540580756b211c116bd602423e0262d3055b8251;anchor=swh:1:rev:05241990​ 41e84be2d69993540ad8e2223d3b4698 Poulain P, Oussaren M. 2023. MDverse data explorer. swh:1:rev:52604906f80f96b27fd61209a78a93cd36be9a45. Software Heritage. https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:1fc8b8eaabf4a9087e6d5b0ec5ed9703​ 1482bcbf;origin=https://github.com/MDverse/mdde;visit=swh:1:snp:5a3326fd135f604290fb799470f52438​ 4a959b04;anchor=swh:1:rev:52604906f80f96b27fd61209a78a93cd36be9a45 Qiu L, Liu J, Alessandri R, Qiu X, Koopmans M, Havenith RWA, Marrink SJ, Chiechi RC, Anton Koster LJ, Hummelen JC. 2017. Enhancing doping efficiency by improving host-­dopant miscibility for fullerene-­based n-­type thermoelectrics. Journal of Materials Chemistry A 5:21234–21241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/​ C7TA06609K Rodríguez-­Espigares I, Torrens-­Fontanals M, Tiemann JKS, Aranda-­García D, Ramírez-­Anguita JM, Stepniewski TM, Worp N, Varela-­Rial A, Morales-­Pastor A, Medel-­Lacruz B, Pándy-­Szekeres G, Mayol E, Giorgino T, Carlsson J, Deupi X, Filipek S, Filizola M, Gómez-­Tamayo JC, Gonzalez A, Gutiérrez-­de-­Terán H, et al. 2020. GPCRmd uncovers the dynamics of the 3D-­GPCRome. Nature Methods 17:777–787. DOI: https://​ doi.org/10.1038/s41592-020-0884-y, PMID: 32661425 Salomon‐Ferrer R, Case DA, Walker RC. 2013. An overview of the Amber biomolecular simulation package. WIREs Computational Molecular Science 3:198–210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1121 Sami S, Alessandri R, W. Wijaya JB, Grünewald F, de Vries AH, Marrink SJ, Broer R, Havenith RWA. 2022. Strategies for enhancing the dielectric constant of organic materials. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 126:19462–19469. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.2c05682 Sarkar A, Sasmal R, Empereur-­mot C, Bochicchio D, Kompella SVK, Sharma K, Dhiman S, Sundaram B, Agasti SS, Pavan GM, George SJ. 2020. Self-­sorted, random, and block supramolecular copolymers via sequence controlled, multicomponent self-­assembly. Journal of the American Chemical Society 142:7606–7617. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.0c01822 Schaefer SL, Hummer G. 2022. Sublytic gasdermin-­D pores captured in atomistic molecular simulations. eLife 11:e81432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.81432, PMID: 36374182 Souza PCT, Alessandri R, Barnoud J, Thallmair S, Faustino I, Grünewald F, Patmanidis I, Abdizadeh H, Bruininks BMH, Wassenaar TA, Kroon PC, Melcr J, Nieto V, Corradi V, Khan HM, Domański J, Javanainen M, Martinez-­Seara H, Reuter N, Best RB, et al. 2021. Martini 3: a general purpose force field for coarse-­grained molecular dynamics. Nature Methods 18:382–388. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-021-01098-3, PMID: 33782607 Stansfeld PJ, Goose JE, Caffrey M, Carpenter EP, Parker JL, Newstead S, Sansom MSP. 2015. MemProtMD: Automated insertion of membrane protein structures into explicit lipid membranes. Structure 23:1350–1361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2015.05.006, PMID: 26073602 Stephens ZD, Lee SY, Faghri F, Campbell RH, Zhai C, Efron MJ, Iyer R, Schatz MC, Sinha S, Robinson GE. 2015. Big data: Astronomical or genomical? PLOS Biology 13:e1002195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.​ 1002195, PMID: 26151137 Sud M, Fahy E, Cotter D, Brown A, Dennis EA, Glass CK, Merrill AH Jr, Murphy RC, Raetz CRH, Russell DW, Subramaniam S. 2007. LMSD: LIPID MAPS structure database. Nucleic Acids Research 35:D527–D532. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkl838, PMID: 17098933 Tai K, Murdock S, Wu B, Ng MH, Johnston S, Fangohr H, Cox SJ, Jeffreys P, Essex JW, P. Sansom MS. 2004. BioSimGrid: towards a worldwide repository for biomolecular simulations. Organic &Biomolecular Chemistry 2:3219. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/b411352g Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  21 of 22 Research article Computational and Systems Biology | Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics Tiemann JKS, Guixà-González R, Hildebrand PW, Rose AS. 2017. MDsrv: viewing and sharing molecular dynamics simulations on the web. Nature Methods 14:1123–1124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4497, PMID: 29190271 UniProt Consortium. 2022. UniProt: The universal protein knowledgebase in 2023. Nucleic Acids Research 51:D523–D531. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac1052 Vanommeslaeghe K, MacKerell AD. 2012. Automation of the CHARMM General Force Field (CGenFF) I: bond perception and atom typing. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 52:3144–3154. DOI: https://doi.​ org/10.1021/ci300363c, PMID: 23146088 van Rossum G. 1995. Python Tutorial. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica. https://ir.cwi.nl/pub/5007 Virtanen SI, Kiirikki AM, Mikula KM, Iwaï H, Ollila OHS. 2020. Heterogeneous dynamics in partially disordered proteins. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 22:21185–21196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d0cp03473h, PMID: 32929427 Vuorio J, Vattulainen I, Martinez-­Seara H. 2017. Atomistic fingerprint of hyaluronan-­CD44 binding. PLOS Computational Biology 13:e1005663. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005663, PMID: 28715483 Waltemath D, Adams R, Beard DA, Bergmann FT, Bhalla US, Britten R, Chelliah V, Cooling MT, Cooper J, Crampin EJ, Garny A, Hoops S, Hucka M, Hunter P, Klipp E, Laibe C, Miller AK, Moraru I, Nickerson D, Nielsen P, et al. 2011. Minimum Information About a Simulation Experiment (MIASE). PLOS Computational Biology 7:e1001122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001122 Wang J, Wolf RM, Caldwell JW, Kollman PA, Case DA. 2004. Development and testing of a general amber force field. Journal of Computational Chemistry 25:1157–1174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.20035, PMID: 15116359 Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, Blomberg N, Boiten JW, da Silva Santos LB, Bourne PE, Bouwman J, Brookes AJ, Clark T, Crosas M, Dillo I, Dumon O, Edmunds S, Evelo CT, Finkers R, Gonzalez-­Beltran A, et al. 2016. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data 3:160018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18, PMID: 26978244 Wilson SL, Way GP, Bittremieux W, Armache JP, Haendel MA, Hoffman MM. 2021. Sharing biological data: why, when, and how. FEBS Letters 595:847–863. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.14067, PMID: 33843054 Yoo J, Winogradoff D, Aksimentiev A. 2020. Molecular dynamics simulations of DNA-­DNA and DNA-­protein interactions. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 64:88–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2020.06.007, PMID: 32682257 Young TA, Martí-Centelles V, Wang J, Lusby PJ, Duarte F. 2020. RAtionalizing the activity of an “artificial diels-­alderase”: Establishing efficient and accurate protocols for calculating supramolecular catalysis. Journal of the American Chemical Society 142:1300–1310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.9b10302, PMID: 31852191 Zheng X, Chan MHY, Chan AKW, Cao S, Ng M, Sheong FK, Li C, Goonetilleke EC, Lam WWY, Lau TC, Huang X, Yam VWW. 2022. Elucidation of the key role of Pt···Pt interactions in the directional self-­assembly of platinum(II) complexes. PNAS 119:e2116543119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2116543119, PMID: 35298336 Zhu S. 2019. Validation of the Generalized Force Fields GAFF, CGenFF, OPLS-­AA, and PRODRGFF by Testing Against Experimental Osmotic Coefficient Data for Small Drug-­Like Molecules. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 59:4239–4247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00552 Zhu J, Salvatella X, Robustelli P. 2022. Small molecules targeting the disordered transactivation domain of the androgen receptor induce the formation of collapsed helical states. Nature Communications 13:6390. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-34077-z, PMID: 36302916 Tiemann et al. eLife 2023;12:RP90061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90061  22 of 22