Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
This manuscript employs a string method with swarms of trajectories to extract a free energy map of KcsA channel inactivation and its model dependence. The approach connects X-ray structures for closed, partially and fully open, and inactivated KcsA through optimisation of a string defined in a collective variable space consisting of distances involving gate size, cavity-filter and filter pinching (as defined in the proposed X-ray structure for an inactivated state). The final trajectory includes pore opening and filter collapse with water penetration behind the filter, via different intermediates depending on the force field. The authors propose a role for residue L81 in controlling water entry in the final stage of this process. The results suggest that KcsA more easily inactivates with the Charmm force field, with lower barrier and direct passage from a partially open state, whereas the pathway for Amber involves transition first to a fully open state with higher barrier, despite not being the dominant open state seen experimentally under activating conditions. The results also suggest that PG lipids help activate the channel within the Amber force field, consistent with experimental evidence. The work represents large-scale advanced MD simulation. Some questions remain, however, such as if the CV space chosen is sufficient to capture all possible slow coordinates in the inactivation process, and how the resultant free energy surfaces may potentially depend on the end structures and initial pulling procedure.
Collective variable choice:
The explanation for the choice of CVs on page 5 is not sufficient to understand the process and its likely success. How were the most important and unimportant CVs identified exactly? Table 2 on page 19 shows only gate distances, cavity-filter distances and a single variable related to filter structure itself (77 CA - 77 CA) representing a pinch. Is that pinching really the only slow variable associated with inactivation changes in the filter? Why are there no variables, say for carbonyl flipping, E71 or D80 movements or even for ion and water occupancy (although water may be sampled with control of other interactions, such as involving L81)? I understand that the X-ray structure is the one source of information used to define an inactivated structure and is one with just a pinch and no complete carbonyl flipping away from the pore, as has been identified in past studies and discussed as being involved by the authors on page 14. Key changes like carbonyl flipping surely are part of the story and may be slow variables. At the very least, if not part of the CV space, could be analysed.
On page 10 the authors discuss possible differences in Amber and Charmm involving the extent to which the 4 subunits change in respect to the L81-W67 water pathway and W67-D80 hydrogen bond, arguing the different results for force field could be to do with different numbers of subunits doing different things. If I understand, the chosen CVs are all tetramer-based distances (including across subunits) and not subunit-based CVs, so that random and incomplete changes may occur to subunits for a given point in CV space. There is thus potential for the string to converge on a local minimum pathway with partial changes to its interactions within and between subunits, and may not be a unique global solution. Can the authors please explain whether or not this is possible and what analysis has been done to check it?
X-ray endpoints and initial pathway:
The string was created from a pulling/steered MD between existing X-ray structures for the closed (5VKH), partially open (3FB5), fully open (5VK6) and finally inactivated (5VKE) states. The authors write on page 12 that "The block of conduction during inactivation appears to result from pinching at the selectivity filter...", but given the end point was forced to be the X-ray structure with pinching, wasn't this outcome predetermined? This raises a significant point of how much has choice of endpoints predetermined the final states of the string? i.e. How much is an end state actually allowed to draft away from the initial Xray structure. Was a bead placed at the very endpoint and allowed to update via swarms, or was it fixed and all beads just interpolate between those fixed end states? The reason this is important is that it is plausible the inactivated crystal structure with pinching but not other changes (such as complete V76 carbonyl flipping or outer filter splaying), may not be the actual free energy minimum structure for that state and that force field.
Another obvious concern is the possible reliance on the initial pulling procedure used before string optimisation began. Fig.2 Supp 1 shows generally that the Amber path stayed pretty close to the initial steered MD path, whereas Charmm drifted downward away from that path. One could justifiably ask, if a very different initial path was chosen, might different local minimum pathways result, including Amber sampling a path like Charmm? How does one test whether or not the final path has not been trapped in some local trough of free energy? e.g. Imagine starting the Amber string using an initial path like the more diagonal Charmm-like path, or even a more extreme unphysiological one, such as a steered trajectory that initially inactivates before opening the gate. Would the final results be the same? I appreciate the simulations are very expensive and such trials may not be possible, but what evidence is there that the final path has not been trapped away from the global minimum?
One test offered by the authors is a set of unbiased MD simulations launched from points on the string. The authors ran 200ns simulations and write on page 5 that "These simulations have the expected stability based on their starting values. This is a good quality test to check the correct estimation of the general features of the free energy surface". While this sounds reasonable, 200ns MD may only be sufficient to begin to explore locally within the solved free energy trough, much like the swarms in the iterations were able to do. My own examination of Fig2 Supp 5 is that some of these simulations linger around the expected states and some drift away within the general trough of sampling, which is a good sign. What those 200ns simulations may not be able to do is escape that trough and see evidence of other possible solutions, beyond what was sampled with the string that was tied to Xray endpoints and trapped in the solution pathway that was already formed after 100-300 iterations. Overall, the string involved 800 iterations of 10ps swarms (80ns around each bead; albeit 32 trajectories in parallel), allowing good local sampling around the beads in the free energy trough, but in terms of ability to diffuse away from that point, only being comparable in contiguous trajectory time to the unbiased MD tests. It therefore would have been interesting to see if longer simulations remain in this trough; though I understand the challenges in running so much MD. Such simulations may, however, lead to exploration beyond what was seen in the string solutions.
Force field effects and origin:
Regarding the effect of the chosen force field, the authors state that "Given that our simulations were conducted under activating conditions, we had expected the open states to be more populated than the closed ones. Simulations carried out at higher pH may be able to resolve this inconsistency". Also running at high pH would be a nice thing to do to prove the method is in fact sensitive to conditions to see a shift in the distribution of states. But the question is why were open states not more occupied under low pH and 50mM K+? From my analysis of the figures, the results show that the Charmm force field tends to allow for opening of the channel somewhat (at least with similar free energy for partially and fully open to closed) whereas Amber tends to close the channel more (with more uphill energy as the channel opens than Charmm; Fig 2). i.e. at low pH and 50 K+, isn't the Amber model incorrectly reporting fairly strong bias against opening? Moreover, regarding the free energy of the inactivated state itself, why should we not expect equilibrated channels under activating conditions to eventually fall into an inactivated state, in which case we should expect low free energy of that state (as found with Charmm and not Amber in Fig2), but with a slow rate. While much discussion in the manuscript appears to discuss limitations in Charmm (although on page 12 discussion leans either way), these factors may seem to favour Charmm over Amber.
On page 12 the authors explain the possible causes for force field dependence, although this seems limited to ion interactions, glutamate charges and dihedrals. But it would be nice to get a bit more insight into what terms may have influenced the pathway, in particular involving interactions between TM2 and the base of the selectivity filter and hydration behind the filter. Regarding ion interactions, is there a good reason to believe ions are key to the difference seen? i.e. How were ions involved differently in the state transitions involving Amber and Charmm? The authors have noted a role for ion-carbonyl interactions. It is important that the authors explain which is the two competing models has been used and why. i.e. Off-the-shelf Charmm36 force field includes strong K+-backbone carbonyl interaction, previously seen to promote high ion occupancy, similar to Amber, whereas Lennard-Jones parameters modified to match N-methyl-acetamide and water partitioning (such as early Berneche, Noskov and Roux work) reduce ion occupancy and increase water content inside the filter.