abstract:  If the hidden sector contains more than one U(1) groups, additional dim-4 couplings (beyond the kinetic mixing) between the massive U(1) fields and the hypercharge generally appear. These are of the form similar to the Chern–Simons interactions. We study the phenomenology of such couplings including constraints from laboratory experiments and implications for dark matter. The hidden vector fields can play the role of dark matter whose characteristic signature would be monochromatic gamma ray emission from the galactic center. We show that this possibility is consistent with the LHC and other laboratory constraints, as well as astrophysical bounds.
date: 2024-10-02

= 20pt

**More on the Hypercharge Portal into the Dark Sector**

**Florian Domingo$^{~a}$, Oleg Lebedev$^{~a}$, Yann Mambrini$^{~b}$, Jérémie Quevillon$^{~b}$ and Andreas Ringwald$^{~a}$**

a: *DESY Theory Group, Notkestrasse 85, D-22607 Hamburg, Germany*
b: *Laboratoire de Physique Théorique, Université Paris-Sud, F-91405 Orsay, France*

# Introduction

The existence of new physics structures beyond those of the Standard Model (SM) is motivated, among other things, by the puzzles of dark matter (DM) and inflation. The minimal way to address these problems is to add a "hidden" sector containing the required SM–singlet fields. The existence of the hidden sector can also be motivated from the top–down viewpoint, in particular, by realistic string constructions . Such a sector can couple to the SM fields through products of gauge–singlet operators, including those of dimension 2 and 3. In this work, we study in detail the corresponding couplings to the hypercharge field.

Let us define the "hidden sector" as a set of fields which carry no SM gauge quantum numbers. Then a "portal" would be an operator that couples the SM fields to such SM singlets. Let us consider the minimal case: suppose that the relevant low energy degrees of freedom in the hidden sector are those of a Weyl fermion $\chi$, or a massive vector $V_\mu$, or a real scalar $S$ (one field at a time). Then the lowest, up to $dim$–4, dimension operators which couple the SM to the hidden sector are given by $$\begin{aligned}
&& O_1 = \Psi_L H \chi + {\rm h.c.} \;, \nonumber\\
&& O_2 = F_{\mu\nu}^Y \; F^{V \; \mu\nu} \;, \nonumber\\
&& O_3 = {\overline \Psi}_i \gamma_\mu (1 +  \alpha_{ij} \gamma_5) \Psi_j \; V^\mu  + {\rm h.c.}    \;, \nonumber\\
&& O_4 = H^\dagger H \; V_\mu V^\mu + \beta\; H^\dagger i D_\mu H \; V^\mu + {\rm h.c.} \;, \nonumber\\
&& O_5 = H^\dagger H \; S^2 +  \mu_S\; H^\dagger H \; S \;.
\end{aligned}$$ Here $\Psi_L$ is the lepton doublet; $F^{Y}_{\mu\nu}$ and $F^{V}_{\mu\nu}$ are the field strength tensors for hypercharge and $V_\mu$, respectively; $\Psi_i$ is an SM fermion with generation index $i$; $D_\mu$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the SM gauge symmetries, and $\alpha_{ij}, \beta, \mu_S$ are constants. Note that a particular version of operator $O_3$ is induced by $O_2$ after diagonalization of the vector kinetic terms.

An attractive feature of such an extension of the Standard Model is that it can offer viable dark matter candidates as well as provide a link to the inflaton sector. In particular, a sufficiently light "right–handed neutrino" $\chi$ is long–lived and can constitute warm dark matter . Also, a massive vector $V_\mu$ (or a scalar $S$ ) can inherit a $Z_2$ symmetry from hidden sector gauge interactions, which would eliminate terms linear in $V_\mu$ and make it a stable cold dark matter candidate . Finally, the Higgs coupling $H^\dagger H \; S^2$ to the inflaton $S$ would be instrumental in reconciling metastability of the electroweak vacuum with inflation .

In this work, we explore a more general $dim$–4 hypercharge coupling to the hidden sector, when the latter contains multiple U(1)'s. In this case, a Chern–Simons–type coupling becomes possible . If such a coupling is the only SM portal into the hidden sector, the lightest U(1) vector field can play the role of dark matter. The trademark signature of this scenario is the presence of monochromatic gamma–ray lines in the photon spectrum of the galactic center. We analyze general experimental constraints on the Chern–Simons–type coupling as well as the constraints applicable when the vector field constitutes dark matter.

# Hypercharge couplings to the "hidden" sector

Suppose the "hidden" sector contains two massive U(1) gauge fields $C_\mu$ and $D_\mu$. Before electroweak symmetry breaking, the most general dim-4 interactions of these fields with the hypercharge boson $B_\mu$ are described by the Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
 {\cal L}&=& -{1\over 4} B_{\mu \nu} B^{\mu \nu} -{1\over 4} C_{\mu \nu} C^{\mu \nu}
 -{1\over 4} D_{\mu \nu} D^{\mu \nu}
-{\delta_1\over 2} B_{\mu \nu} C^{\mu \nu}  -{\delta_2\over 2} B_{\mu \nu} D^{\mu \nu}
-  {\delta_3\over 2} C_{\mu \nu} D^{\mu \nu} \nonumber\\
& + & {M_C^2\over 2} C_\mu C^\mu  +  {M_D^2\over 2} D_\mu D^\mu + \delta M^2 C_\mu D^\mu
+ \kappa\; \epsilon_{\mu\nu \rho\sigma} B^{\mu\nu} C^\rho D^\sigma \;.
\label{L0}
\end{aligned}$$ Here we have assumed CP symmetry such that terms of the type $B^{\mu\nu} C_\mu D_\nu$ are not allowed (see for a study of the latter). The kinetic and mass mixing can be eliminated by field redefinition , which to first order in the mixing parameters $\delta_i$ and $\delta M^2$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
&& B_\mu \rightarrow B_\mu + \delta_1 \; C_\mu + \delta_2 \; D_\mu \;, \nonumber \\
&& C_\mu  \rightarrow C_\mu + { \delta_3 \; M_D^2 - \delta M^2 \over M_D^2-M_C^2  }~ D_\mu \;, \nonumber \\
&& D_\mu  \rightarrow D_\mu - { \delta_3 \; M_C^2 - \delta M^2 \over M_D^2-M_C^2  }~ C_\mu \;.
\end{aligned}$$ In terms of the new fields, the Lagrangian is $${\cal L}= -{1\over 4} B_{\mu \nu} B^{\mu \nu} -{1\over 4} C_{\mu \nu} C^{\mu \nu}
 -{1\over 4} D_{\mu \nu} D^{\mu \nu}   +
 {M_C^2\over 2} C_\mu C^\mu  +  {M_D^2\over 2} D_\mu D^\mu
+ \kappa\; \epsilon_{\mu\nu \rho\sigma} B^{\mu\nu} C^\rho D^\sigma,  \label{L}$$ which will be the starting point for our phenomenological analysis. We note that, due to the kinetic mixing $\delta_{1,2}$, $C_\mu$ and $D_\mu$ have small couplings to the Standard Model matter. Since we are mainly interested in the effect of the Chern–Simons–type term $\epsilon_{\mu\nu \rho\sigma} B^{\mu\nu} C^\rho D^\sigma$, we will set $\delta_{1,2}$ to be very small or zero in most of our analysis.

The term $\epsilon_{\mu\nu \rho\sigma} B^{\mu\nu} C^\rho D^\sigma$ has dimension 4. However, it vanishes in the limit of zero vector boson masses by gauge invariance, both for the Higgs and Stückelberg mechanisms. This means that it comes effectively from a higher dimensional operator with $\kappa$ proportional to $M_C M_D/\Lambda^2$, where $\Lambda$ is the cutoff scale or the mass scale of heavy particles we have integrated out. On one hand, this operator does not decouple as $\Lambda \rightarrow \infty$ since both $M_{C,D}$ and $\Lambda$ are given by the "hidden" Higgs VEV times the appropriate couplings; on the other hand, $\epsilon_{\mu\nu \rho\sigma} B^{\mu\nu} C^\rho D^\sigma$ is phenomenologically relevant only if $M_{C,D}$ are not far above the weak scale. Thus, this term represents a meaningful approximation in a particular energy window, which we will quantify later. (A similar situation occurs in the vector Higgs portal models, where the interaction $H^\dagger H V_\mu V^\mu$ has naive dimension 4, but originates from a dim-6 operator .) From the phenomenological perspective, it is important that $\epsilon_{\mu\nu \rho\sigma} B^{\mu\nu} C^\rho D^\sigma$ is the leading operator at low energies, e.g. relevant to non–relativistic annihilation of dark matter composed of $C_\mu$ or $D_\mu$, and thus we will restrict our attention to this coupling only.

A coupling of this sort appears in various models upon integrating out heavy fields charged under both U(1)'s and hypercharge. Explicit anomaly–free examples can be found in and . In these cases, the Chern–Simons term arises upon integrating out heavy, vector–like with respect to the SM, fermions. Both the vectors and the fermions get their masses from the Higgs mechanism, while the latter can be made heavy by choosing large Yukawa couplings compared to the gauge couplings. In this limit, Eq. $\ref{L}$ gives the corresponding low energy action.[^1]

Finally, we note that increasing the number of hidden U(1)'s does not bring in hypercharge–portal interactions with a new structure, so our considerations apply quite generally.

# Phenomenological constraints

In this section we derive constraints on the coupling constant $\kappa$ from various laboratory experiments as well as unitarity considerations. The relevant interaction to leading order is given by $$\Delta {\cal L}=
\kappa\; \cos\theta_W\;
\epsilon_{\mu\nu \rho\sigma} F^{\mu\nu} C^\rho D^\sigma -
\kappa\; \sin\theta_W\;
\epsilon_{\mu\nu \rho\sigma} Z^{\mu\nu} C^\rho D^\sigma \;,
\label{coupling}$$ where $F^{\mu\nu}$ and $Z^{\mu\nu}$ are the photon and Z-boson field strengths, respectively.

In what follows, we set the kinetic mixing to be negligibly small such that the lighter of the $C$ and $D$ states is not detected and thus appears as missing energy and momentum. There are then two possibilities: the heavier state decays into the lighter state plus $\gamma$ either outside or inside the detector. Consider first the case where the mass splitting and $\kappa$ are relatively small such that both $C$ and $D$ are "invisible".

## Unitarity

The coupling $\epsilon_{\mu\nu \rho\sigma} B^{\mu\nu} C^\rho D^\sigma$ involves longitudinal components of the massive vectors. Therefore, some scattering amplitudes will grow indefinitely with energy, which imposes a cutoff on our effective theory. For a fixed cutoff, this translates into a bound on $\kappa$.

Consider the scattering process $$C_\mu ~ C_\nu \rightarrow D_\rho ~ D_\sigma$$ at high energies, $E \gg M_{C,D}$. The vertex can contain longitudinal components of at most one vector since $\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} (p_1+p_2)^\mu p_1^\nu p_2^\rho =0$. Then one finds that the amplitude grows quadratically with energy, $${\cal A} \sim \kappa^2 ~{E^2\over M_{C,D}^2} \;,$$ with the subscripts $C$ and $D$ applying to the processes involving longitudinal components of $C_\mu$ and $D_\mu$, respectively. On the other hand, the amplitude cannot exceed roughly $8 \pi$. Neglecting order one factors, the resulting constraint is $${\kappa  \over M} < { \sqrt{8 \pi}\over \Lambda  } \;,
\label{uni}$$ where $M=\min \{ M_C , M_D \}$ and $\Lambda$ is the cutoff scale. As explained in the previous section, $\Lambda$ is associated with the mass scale of new states charged under $\rm{U(1)}_Y$. Since constraints on such states are rather stringent, it is reasonable to take $\Lambda \sim 1$ TeV. This implies that light vector bosons can couple only very weakly, e.g. $\kappa < 10^{-5}$ for $M \sim 1$ MeV.

It is important to note that the unitarity bound applies irrespective of whether $C$ and $D$ are stable or not. Thus it applies to the case $M_D \gg M_C$ or vice versa and also in the presence of the kinetic mixing.

## Invisible $\Upsilon$ decay

Suppose that $D$ is the heavier state and the decay $D \rightarrow C +\gamma$ is not fast enough to occur inside the detector. Then production of $C$ and $D$ would appear as missing energy. In particular, light $C,D$ can be produced in the invisible $\Upsilon$ decay $$\Upsilon \rightarrow {\rm inv} ~~,$$ which is a powerful probe of new physics since its branching ratio in the Standard Model is small, about $10^{-5}$ . In our case, this decay is dominated by the $s$–channel annihilation through the photon, while the $Z$–contribution is suppressed by $m_\Upsilon^4/m_Z^4$. We find $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma (\Upsilon \rightarrow CD) &=& 2\alpha \kappa^2 \cos^2 \theta_W \;Q_d^2 \; {f_\Upsilon^2 \over m_\Upsilon}~
\sqrt{ 1- 2 {M_C^2 + M_D^2 \over m_\Upsilon^2} + {(M_C^2-M_D^2)^2\over m_\Upsilon^4 }}
\nonumber \\
&\times& \left[ 1 + {m_\Upsilon^2 \over 12}~ \left( {1\over M_C^2} + {1\over M_D^2}  \right)
\left(  1- 2 {M_C^2 + M_D^2 \over m_\Upsilon^2} + {(M_C^2-M_D^2)^2\over m_\Upsilon^4 }
\right) \right] \;,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ is the fine structure constant, $Q_d$ is the down quark charge and $f_\Upsilon$ is the $\Upsilon$ decay constant, $\langle 0 \vert \bar b \gamma^\mu b
\vert \Upsilon  \rangle  = f_\Upsilon m_\Upsilon \epsilon^\mu$ with $\epsilon^\mu$ being the $\Upsilon$ polarization vector. In the limit $M_{C,D}^2 \ll m_\Upsilon^2$ and $M_C \simeq M_D = M$, the decay rate becomes $$\Gamma (\Upsilon \rightarrow CD) \simeq {1\over 3} \alpha\kappa^2
\cos^2 \theta_W \;Q_d^2 \; { f_\Upsilon^2 m_\Upsilon \over M^2  }  \;.$$ Taking $m_\Upsilon(1S)=9.5$ GeV, $\Gamma_\Upsilon(1S)=5.4\times 10^{-5}$ GeV, $f_\Upsilon=0.7$ GeV and using the BaBar limit BR$(\Upsilon \rightarrow {\rm inv}) <3\times 10^{-4}$ at 90% CL , we find $${\kappa \over M} < 4 \times 10^{-3}~ {\rm GeV^{-1}} \;.$$ This bound applies to vector boson masses up to a few GeV and disappears above $m_\Upsilon /2$. An analogous bound from $J/\Psi  \rightarrow {\rm inv}$ is weaker.

We note that the $\Gamma \propto 1/M^2$ dependence is characteristic to production of the longitudinal components of massive vector bosons. The corresponding polarization vector grows with energy as $E/M$, or in other words, at $M \ll m_\Upsilon$, the decay is dominated by the Goldstone boson production, whose couplings grow with energy. Thus, stronger constraints on $\kappa$ are expected from the decay of heavier states.

The corresponding bound from the radiative $\Upsilon$ decay $\Upsilon
\rightarrow \gamma + {\rm inv}$ is much weaker. By $C$–parity, such a decay can only be mediated by the $Z$ boson, which brings in the $m_\Upsilon^4/m_Z^4$ suppression factor. The resulting constraint is negligible.

##  Invisible $Z$ decay

The invisible width of the $Z$ boson $\Gamma^Z_{\rm inv}$ is strongly constrained by the LEP measurements . The process $Z \rightarrow C D$ contributes to $\Gamma^Z_{\rm inv}$ for vector boson masses up to about 45 GeV, thereby leading to a bound on $\kappa$. We find $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma (Z \rightarrow CD) &=& {1\over 2 \pi} \; \kappa^2 \sin^2 \theta_W \; m_Z                 ~
\sqrt{ 1- 2 {M_C^2 + M_D^2 \over m_Z^2} + {(M_C^2-M_D^2)^2\over m_Z^4 }}
\nonumber \\
&\times& \left[ 1 + {m_Z^2 \over 12}~ \left( {1\over M_C^2} + {1\over M_D^2}  \right)
\left(  1- 2 {M_C^2 + M_D^2 \over m_Z^2} + {(M_C^2-M_D^2)^2\over m_Z^4 }
\right) \right] \;.
\end{aligned}$$ In the limit $M_{C,D}^2 \ll m_Z^2$ and $M_C \simeq M_D = M$, it becomes $$\Gamma (Z \rightarrow CD) \simeq {\kappa^2 \sin^2 \theta_W \over 12 \pi }~ {m_Z^3 \over M^2} \;.$$ Taking the bound on the BSM contribution to $\Gamma^Z_{\rm inv}$ to be roughly 3 MeV (twice the experimental error–bar of $\Gamma^Z_{\rm inv}$ ), we have $${\kappa \over M} <  8\times 10^{-4}~ {\rm GeV^{-1}} \;.$$ In the given kinematic range, this constraint is even stronger than the unitarity bound for $\Lambda=1$ TeV and comparable to the latter with a multi–TeV cutoff. As explained above, such sensitivity of $Z \rightarrow {\rm inv}$ to $\kappa$ is due to the $E/M$ enhancement of the longitudinal vector boson production.

##  $B \rightarrow K + {\rm inv}$ and $K \rightarrow \pi + {\rm inv}$

Flavor changing transitions with missing energy are also a sensitive probe of matter couplings to "invisible" states (see e.g. ). The decay $B \rightarrow K + C\;D$ proceeds via the SM flavor violating $\bar b s Z$ and $\bar b s \gamma$ vertices with subsequent conversion of $Z,\gamma$ into $C$ and $D$. Numerically, the process is dominated by the $Z$ contribution with the flavor changing vertex $${\cal L}_{\bar b s Z}= \lambda_{\bar b s Z}
~ \bar b_L \gamma_\mu s_L~Z^\mu \;,$$ with $$\lambda_{\bar b s Z} = {g^3 \over 16 \pi^2 \cos\theta_W}\; V^*_{tb} V_{ts} ~f\left({m_t^2\over m_W^2}\right) \;,$$ where $V_{ij}$ are the CKM matrix elements and $f(x)$ is the Inami–Lim function , $$f(x) = {x\over 4} \; \left(   {x-6 \over x-1}  + {3x+2 \over (x-1)^2} \; \ln x             \right) \;.$$ We find $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma (B \rightarrow K + C\;D) &=&   {\kappa^2 \lambda_{\bar b s Z}^2 \sin^2\theta_W
\over 2^7 \pi^3 m_B^3 m_Z^4 }  \int^{(m_B-m_K)^2}_{(M_C+M_D)^2} {ds \over  s}~ f_+^2(s) \\
&\times& \sqrt{ (s-M_C^2-M_D^2)^2-4M_C^2 M_D^2}
~ \Bigl( (s+m_B^2-m_K^2)^2-4m_B^2s  \Bigr)^{3/2} \nonumber\\
& \times& \biggl[ 1+ {1\over 12 s} \left( {1\over M_C^2} + {1\over M_D^2}  \right)
\Bigl( (s-M_C^2-M_D^2)^2-4M_C^2 M_D^2 \Bigr) \biggr] \;, \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where the form factor $f_+(s)$ is defined by $\langle K(p_K) \vert \bar b \gamma^\mu s \vert B(p_B)  \rangle  = (p_K+p_B)^\mu f_+(s)+
(p_B-p_K)^\mu f_-(s)$ with $s=(p_B-p_K)^2$. The decay rate is dominated by the contribution from large invariant masses of the $C,D$ pair due to the longitudinal vector boson production. This justifies the subleading character of the photon contribution: the corresponding dipole operator can be significant at low invariant masses due to the $1/s$ pole, as in the $B\rightarrow K l^+ l^-$ processes (see e.g. for a recent summary). The relative size of various $\Delta F=1$ operators can be found in , and we find that the photon contribution is unimportant.

The relevant experimental limit has been obtained by BaBar: BR$(B^+ \rightarrow K^+ \nu \bar \nu)  < 1.3 \times 10^{-5}$ at 90% CL . Then taking $f_+(0)=0.3$ and using its $s$–dependence from , we find $${\kappa \over M} <  1~ {\rm GeV^{-1}} \;,$$ for $M_C\simeq M_D =M$ up to roughly 2 GeV. The above considerations equally apply to the process $K\rightarrow \pi + {\rm inv}$, up to trivial substitutions. We find that the resulting bound is weak, $\kappa /M < 30 ~ {\rm GeV^{-1}}$. This stems from the $m_{\rm meson}^7/(M^2 m_Z^4)$ behavior of the rate, which favors heavier mesons.

Finally, the Chern–Simons coupling does not contribute to $B \rightarrow CD$ due to the $\epsilon$–tensor contraction, so there is no bound from the $B \rightarrow {\rm inv}$ decay. Also, $\kappa$ contributes to $(g-2)_\mu$ only at the two loop level such that the resulting bound is insignificant.

The summary of the bounds is shown in Fig. . We see that the most stringent limits are set by the $Z$ invisible width and unitarity considerations. The latter has the advantage of not being limited by kinematics and places a tight bound on $\kappa$ for vector masses up to about 100 GeV.

## Bounds on decaying vector bosons $D \rightarrow C + \gamma$

When the vector boson mass difference is not too small, the heavier particle, say $D$, will decay inside the detector. In this case, the constraints on $\kappa$ get somewhat modified. The decay width $\Gamma_D$ is given by $$\Gamma (D \rightarrow C + \gamma) = { \kappa^2 \cos^2\theta_W \over 24 \pi}~
{ (M_D^2-M_C^2)^3 \over M_D^3 }~ \left(  {1\over M_C^2} + {1\over M_D^2}   \right) \;,$$ assuming that the $Z$–emission is kinematically forbidden. Given the velocity $v_D$ and lifetime $\tau_D$, $D$ decays inside the detector if $v_D \tau_D = \vert {\bf p}_D \vert /(M_D \Gamma_D )$ is less than the detector size $l_0$, which we take to be $\sim 3$ m. In this case, $\kappa$ is constrained by radiative decays with missing energy.

Consider the radiative decay $\Upsilon(1S) \rightarrow \gamma + {\rm inv}$. Its branching ratio is constrained by BaBar: BR$(\Upsilon(1S) \rightarrow \gamma + {\rm inv})
< 6 \times 10^{-6}$ for a 3–body final state and $M_C$ up to about 3 GeV . Since BR$(D \rightarrow C + \gamma) \sim$ 100%, this requires approximately $${\kappa \over M} < 6 \times 10^{-4}~ {\rm GeV^{-1}} \;,
\label{ups-rad}$$ which is the strongest bound on $\kappa$ in the kinematic range $M\raise 0.3ex\hbox{$\;<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}}3$ GeV. This bound applies for $$\Delta M \raise 0.3ex\hbox{$\;>$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}}\left( 3 \pi m_\Upsilon M \over 4 \kappa^2 \cos^2\theta_W \; l_0   \right)^{1/3} \;,$$ where we have made the approximation $M_D-M_C = \Delta M \ll M \ll m_\Upsilon$. For example, taking the maximal allowed $\kappa$ consistent with () at $M=1$ GeV, the decay occurs within the detector for $\Delta M > 2$ MeV. (However, since the experimental cut on the photon energy is 150 MeV, $\Delta M$ close to this bound would not lead to a detectable signal.)

On the other hand, the bound on $\kappa$ from the invisible $Z$ width does not change even for decaying $D$. The reason is that the invisible width is defined by subtracting the visible decay width into fermions $\Gamma ( Z \rightarrow  \bar f f)$ from the total width $\Gamma_Z$ measured via the energy dependence of the hadronic cross section . Thus, $Z \rightarrow \gamma +
{\rm inv}$ qualifies as "invisible" decay and we still have $${\kappa \over M} <  8\times 10^{-4}~ {\rm GeV^{-1}} \;,$$ as long as the decay is kinematically allowed.

Finally, the unitarity bound $${\kappa  \over M} < { \sqrt{8 \pi}\over \Lambda  }$$ remains intact as well. Another constraint in the higher mass range $m_Z/2 \raise 0.3ex\hbox{$\;<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}}M \raise 0.3ex\hbox{$\;<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}}100$ GeV is imposed by the LEP monophoton searches $e^+ e^- \rightarrow \gamma + {\rm inv}$ . We find, however, that it is somewhat weaker than the unitarity bound for $\Lambda=1$ TeV (the same applies to $e^+ e^- \rightarrow {\rm inv}$).

Thus, the strongest constraints in Fig.  apply also to the case of decaying vector bosons, while the $\Upsilon$ bound becomes competitive and even the tightest one at lower masses. For $M \raise 0.3ex\hbox{$\;>$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}}100$ GeV, some of the relevant LHC constraints will be discussed in the next section, while their comprehensive analysis requires a separate study.

Let us conclude by remarking on the astrophysical constraints. These apply to very light, up to ${\cal O}$(MeV), particles. In particular, the rate of energy loss in horizontal–branch stars sets stringent bounds on light particle emission in Compton–like scattering $\gamma + e \rightarrow e + C +D$. We find that this cross section in the non–relativistic limit scales approximately as $\alpha^2 \kappa^2/(6 \pi m_e^2) \; (T/M)^{2}$, with $T \sim \;$keV being the core temperature. Comparison to the axion models leads then to the bound $\kappa/M < 10^{-7}\;
 {\rm GeV}^{-1}$ for $M \ll \;$keV, which is much stronger than the laboratory constraints in this mass range. Analogous supernova cooling considerations extend the range to ${\cal O}$(MeV). A dedicated study of astrophysical constraints will be presented elsewhere.

# Vector Dark Matter and the Chern–Simons coupling

In this section, we consider a special case of the Lagrangian () with $$\delta_{1,2}=0 \;,$$ that is, the new gauge bosons do not mix with the hypercharge. This can be enforced by the $Z_2$ symmetry $$C_\mu \rightarrow - C_\mu ~~~,~~~ D_\mu \rightarrow - D_\mu  \;.$$ It is straightforward to construct microscopic models which lead to an effective theory endowed with this symmetry at one loop. However, to make the $Z_2$ persist at higher loop levels is much more challenging and beyond the scope of this paper.

The relevant Lagrangian in terms of the propagation eigenstates is again given by (), except now $C$ and $D$ do not couple to ordinary matter. The $Z_2$ symmetry forbids their kinetic mixing with the photon and the $Z$. This makes the lighter state, $C$, stable and a good dark matter candidate. In what follows, we consider $M_C$ of order the electroweak scale such that dark matter is of WIMP type.

Our vector dark matter interacts with the SM only via the Chern–Simons type terms (). These allow for DM annihilation into photons and $Z$ bosons (Fig.  and its cross–version). The corresponding cross sections for $M_C \simeq M_D=M$ in the non–relativistic limit are given by[^2] $$\begin{aligned}
 &\langle \sigma v\rangle (CC\to\gamma\gamma)\simeq\frac{29\kappa^4 \cos^4\theta_W }{36\pi M^2} \;,
\label{annih}\\
 &\langle \sigma v \rangle(CC\to\gamma Z)\simeq\frac{\kappa^4\sin^2\theta_W \; \cos^2\theta_W}{18\pi M^2}\left(1-\frac{M_Z^2}{4M^2}\right)\left[29-\frac{5M_Z^2}{2M^2}+\frac{5M_Z^4}{16M^4}\right]\Theta(2M-M_Z) \;, \nonumber\\
 &\langle \sigma v\rangle (CC\to ZZ)\simeq\frac{\kappa^4 \sin^4\theta_W }{36\pi M^2}\sqrt{1-\frac{M_Z^2}{M^2}}\left(1-\frac{M_Z^2}{2M^2}\right)^{-2}\left[29-34\frac{M_Z^2}{M^2}+14\frac{M_Z^4}{M^4}\right]\Theta(M-M_Z) , \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Theta$ is the Heaviside distribution. These processes both regulate dark matter abundance and lead to potentially observable gamma–ray signatures, which we study in detail below.

The distinctive feature of the model is the presence of monochromatic gamma–ray lines in the spectrum of photons coming from the Galactic Center (see e.g. ). In particular, for heavy dark matter ($M^2 \gg M_Z^2$), the final states $\gamma \gamma$, $\gamma Z$ and $ZZ$ are produced in the proportion $\cos^4\theta_W$, $2\sin^2\theta_W \; \cos^2\theta_W$ and $\sin^4\theta_W$, respectively. This implies that continuous gamma–ray emission is subdominant and constitutes about a third of the annihilation cross section, while the monochromatic gamma–ray emission dominates.

## WMAP/PLANCK constraints

Assuming that dark matter is thermally produced, its abundance should be consistent with the WIMP freeze–out paradigm. As explained above, the only DM annihilation channel is $CC\rightarrow VV$ with $V=\gamma,Z$. The corresponding cross section must be in a rather narrow window to fit observations. The left panel of Fig.  shows parameter space consistent with the WMAP/PLANCK measurements of the DM relic abundance for different values of $\kappa$, $M_C$ and $M_D$. For generality, we allow for vastly different $M_C$ and $M_D$ in our numerical analysis. In the case $M_C^2 \ll M_D^2$, the scaling behaviour $\langle \sigma v \rangle \sim \kappa^4/M^2$ of Eq.  is replaced by $$\langle \sigma v \rangle \sim \kappa^4 \; {M_C^2 \over M_D^4 } \;,$$ which stems from the momentum factors at the vertices. Thus, the annihilation cross section grows with the dark matter mass and, in turn, the WMAP/PLANCK–allowed $\kappa$'s decrease with increasing $M_C$. The former take on rather natural values of order one for $M_D$ between 100 GeV and several TeV. The main annihilation channel is $CC \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$, which for $M_C \simeq M_D \simeq 200$ GeV constitutes about 60% of the total cross section. The channels $CC \rightarrow \gamma Z$ and $CC \rightarrow Z Z$ contribute 35% and 5%, respectively. The allowed parameter space is subject to the FERMI and HESS constraints on the gamma–ray emission, which we study in the next subsection.

## Indirect DM detection constraints

Dark matter can be detected indirectly by observing products of its annihilation in regions with enhanced DM density. The main feature of the Chern–Simons–type dark matter is that the dominant annihilation channel leads to a di–photon final state. These photons are monochromatic due to the low DM velocity nowadays ($v_C \simeq 300~\mathrm{km s^{-1}}$), which is a "smoking–gun" signature of our model. The proportion of the di–photon final state increases somewhat compared to that in the Early Universe due to the (slight) reduction of the center–of–mass energy of the colliding DM particles. In particular, for $M_C \simeq M_D \simeq 200$ GeV, the channels $CC \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$, $CC \rightarrow \gamma Z$ and $CC \rightarrow Z Z$ constitute approximately 63%, 33%, 4% of the total cross section. One therefore expects an intense monochromatic gamma–ray line at $E_\gamma = M_C$ and a weaker line at $E_\gamma = M_C - M_Z^2/(4 M_C)$. Such lines would provide convincing evidence for DM annihilation since astrophysical processes are very unlikely to generate such a photon spectrum.

Recently, FERMI and HESS collaborations have released their analyses of the monochromatic line searches around the Galactic Center. Due to its limited energy sensitivity, the FERMI satellite sets a bound on the di–photon annihilation cross section $\langle \sigma v \rangle_{\gamma \gamma}$ in the DM mass range $1~\mathrm{GeV} \lesssim M_C \lesssim 300$ GeV. HESS, on the other hand, is restrained by its threshold limitations and provides bounds in the DM mass range $500 \;{\rm GeV}  \lesssim M_C \lesssim 20$ TeV.[^3] Combining the two analyses allows us to eliminate large portions of parameter space as shown in Fig.  \[right\] and Fig. . We note that increasing the mediator mass $M_D$ has the same effect as decreasing the coupling $\kappa$. The important conclusion is that FERMI and HESS exclude the possibility of thermal DM relic abundance in the relevant mass ranges. Indeed, their bounds are of order $\langle \sigma v\rangle_{\gamma\gamma} \lesssim 10^{-27} \mathrm{cm^3 s^{-1}}$, whereas thermal dark matter requires $\langle \sigma v \rangle \simeq 10^{-26} \mathrm{cm^3 s^{-1}}$.

To fill the gap between 300 and 500 GeV where the monochromatic signal is not constrained, one can use the diffuse gamma–ray flux. Indeed, even though the FERMI energy cuf–off is at 300 GeV, annihilation of heavy particles produces a continuum photon spectrum which can be detected by FERMI. In our case, the continuum comes from the $ZZ$ and $Z\gamma$ final states with subsequent $Z$–decay. Since such final states contribute about 40% to the total cross section, the resulting constraint is not very strong. There exist several analyses of bounds on DM annihilation in the galactic halo , galactic center and dwarf galaxies . The latter provides the strongest FERMI constraint at the moment, while that from HESS is very weak, and we use it to restrict our parameter space (Fig. ). The conclusion is that thermal DM in the 300–500 GeV mass range remains viable and can soon be tested by HESS/FERMI.

## On the tentative 135 GeV gamma–ray line

When analyzing FERMI data, several groups found some indications of a monochromatic (135 GeV) gamma–ray line from the galactic center . The significance of the "signal" appears to be around 3.3 sigma taking into account the look–elsewhere effect, although this has not been confirmed by the FERMI collaboration. A somewhat optimistic interpretation of the line is that it could be due to DM annihilation at the galactic center (see for recent discussions), with the cross section $\langle \sigma v \rangle_{\gamma \gamma} = (1.27 \pm 0.32^{+0.18}_{-0.28})\times 10^{-27} ~\mathrm{cm^3 s^{-1}}$ for an Einasto–like profile .

In this work, we will be impartial as to whether the line is really present in the data or not. Instead, we use the analysis of as an example to show that the hypercharge portal can easily accommodate a monochromatic signal from the sky. Our result is shown in Fig. . Having fixed $M_C=135$ GeV, we observe that the gamma–ray line can be accommodated for any mediator mass $M_D$. As explained above, the continuum constraint is inefficient here since it applies to subdominant final states. On the other hand, the required annihilation cross section is too small for DM to be a thermal relic.

## Direct detection constraints

An important constraint on properties of dark matter is set by direct detection experiments which utilize possible DM interactions with nuclei. In our case, dark matter scattering off nuclei is described by the 1–loop diagram of Fig.  together with its cross–version, and similar diagrams with $Z$–bosons in the loop. Setting for simplicity $M_C \simeq M_D =M$, we find that in the non–relativistic limit this process is described by the operators $$\begin{aligned}
&& O_{SI} \sim {\alpha \kappa^2 \over 4 \pi} {m_N \over M^2} \; {\overline \Psi} \Psi \; C^\mu C_\mu \;, \nonumber\\
&& O_{SD} \sim {\alpha \kappa^2 \over 4 \pi} {1\over M^2} \;  \epsilon_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma}
{\overline \Psi} \gamma^\mu \gamma^5 \Psi \; C^\nu i\partial^\rho C^\sigma \;,
\end{aligned}$$ where $m_N$ is a hadronic scale of the order of the nucleon mass and $\Psi$ is the nucleon spinor. $O_{SI}$ and $O_{SD}$ are responsible for spin–independent and spin–dependent scattering, respectively. The former is suppressed both by the loop factor and the nucleon mass, while the latter is suppressed by the loop factor only. The resulting cross sections are quite small, $\sigma_{SI} \sim \kappa^4/M^2 \; (\alpha/4\pi)^2 (m_N / M)^4 \sim 10^{-46}{\rm cm^2}$ for $\kappa \sim 1$ and $M\sim 100$ GeV, whereas the spin–dependent cross–section is of the order of $\sigma_{SD} \sim \kappa^4/M^2 \; (\alpha/4\pi)^2 (m_N / M)^2 \sim 10^{-42}{\rm cm^2}$ for the same parameters. The current XENON100 bounds are $\sigma_{SI} \raise 0.3ex\hbox{$\;<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}}{\cal O} (10^{-45})
{\rm cm^2}$ and $\sigma_{SD} \raise 0.3ex\hbox{$\;<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}}{\cal O} (10^{-40}) {\rm cm^2}$ for the DM mass around 100 GeV (which maximizes the XENON100 sensitivity). We thus conclude that no significant bounds on $\kappa$ can be obtained from direct detection experiments. Furthermore, since the gamma–ray constraints require $\kappa < {\cal O}(10^{-1})$ in this mass range, the prospects for direct DM detection are rather bleak, orders of magnitude beyond the projected sensitivity of XENON1T .

## LHC monojet constraints

The vector states $C$ and $D$ can be produced at the LHC. If their mass difference is not sufficiently large, the photon coming from $D$–decay would not pass the experimental cut on the photon energy ($p_T>150$ GeV). In this case, production of $C$ and $D$ would appear as missing energy. The latter can be detected in conjunction with a jet coming from initial–state radiation, which sets a bound on DM production (see also ).

In this subsection, we estimate the sensitivity of current monojet searches at the LHC to dark matter production through its coupling to $Z$ and $\gamma$. Our constraints are based on the search for monojets performed by the CMS collaboration which makes use of 19.5 fb$^{-1}$ of data at 8 TeV center of mass energy . The basic selection requirements used by the CMS experiment for monojet events are as follows:

-   at least 1 jet with $p_T^j > 110$ GeV and $|\eta^j| < 2.4$;

-   at most 2 jets with $p_T^j > 30$ GeV;

-   no isolated leptons.

The CMS collaboration quotes the event yields for 7 different cuts on the missing transverse momentum $p_T^{\rm miss}$ between $250$ and $550$ GeV. These are largely dominated by the SM backgrounds, namely $Z$+jets, where the $Z$ boson decays invisibly, and $W$+jets, where the $W$ boson decays leptonically and the charged lepton is not reconstructed. In particular, with 19.5 fb$^{-1}$ data, the CMS collaboration estimates the background to be $18506 \pm 690 (1931 \pm 131)$ events for $p_T^{\rm miss} >300 \;(450)$ GeV.

A virtual $Z$–boson or a photon produced with a significant transverse momentum and coupled to invisible states can also lead to the topology that is targeted by the monojet searches. In order to estimate the sensitivity of the CMS monojet search to the "$Z/\gamma \rightarrow$ invisible" signal, we generate the $pp \! \to \!Z/\gamma \!+ \!{\rm jets} \to {\rm
C D} \!+ \!{\rm jets}$ process at the parton level with `Madgraph 5` . Showering and hadronization is performed using `Pythia 6` , while `Delphes 1.9`  is employed to simulate the ATLAS and CMS detector response. We have imposed the analysis cuts listed above on the simulated events to find the signal efficiency. As a cross-check, we have passed $(Z \to \nu \nu)$ + jets background events through the same simulation chain, obtaining efficiencies consistent with the data–driven estimates of that background provided by CMS.

We use the total event cross section to put constraints on the dark matter coupling to the $Z/\gamma$ gauge bosons. We compute the observed 95%CL exclusion limits on the dark matter–SM coupling $\kappa$ for given masses ${M_{C},M_{D}}$ by requiring (see, e.g. ) $$\chi^2 =
\frac{(N_{obs}-N_{SM}-N_{DM}(M_{C},M_{D},\kappa))^2}{N_{SM}+N_{DM}(M_{C},M_{D},\kappa)+\sigma_{SM}^{2}
} = 3.84 \;.$$ Here $N_{obs}$ is the number of observed events, $N_{SM}$ the number of expected events, $N_{DM}$ the number of expected signal events and $\sigma_{SM}$ being the uncertainty in the predicted number of backgrounds events. The expected strongest bounds should come from the analysis with the hardest $p_T^{\rm miss}>550$ GeV cuts, but the strongest observed bound come from the $p_T^{\rm miss}>450$ GeV cuts due to an important downward fluctuations in the data. Fig.  shows the resulting limits on $\kappa$ for two different sets of cuts, $p_T^{\rm miss}>300$ GeV and $p_T^{\rm
miss}>450$ GeV, with the latter providing the best limit. We see that the current monojet bounds are relatively weak, $\kappa < {\cal O}(1)$ for $M_C \sim M_D \sim 100$ GeV, and not competetive with the constraints from the monochromatic gamma–ray searches.

## LHC monophoton constraints

Another characteristic collider signature of vector DM production is monophoton emission plus missing energy. In this case, $C$ and $D$ are produced on–shell through the photon or $Z$, while their mass difference must be sufficiently large such that $D$ decays inside the detector and the photon energy is above the threshold. We rely on the search for a single photon performed by the CMS collaboration which makes use of 5 fb$^{-1}$ of data at 7 TeV center of mass energy and the one performed by the ATLAS collaboration which makes use of 4.6 fb$^{-1}$ of data at 7 TeV center of mass energy . The basic selection requirements used by the CMS experiment for monophoton events are as follows:

-   1 photon with $p_T^\gamma > 145$ GeV and $|\eta^\gamma| < 1.44$;

-   $p_T^{\rm miss} > 130$ GeV;

-   no jet with $p_T^j > 20$ GeV that is $\Delta R > 0.04$ away from the photon candidate;

-   no jet with $p_T^j > 40$ GeV and $|\eta^j| < 3.0$ within $\Delta R < 0.5$ of the axis of the photon;

Analogous requirements used by ATLAS are:

-   1 photon with $p_T^\gamma > 150$ GeV and $|\eta^\gamma| < 2.37$;

-   $p_T^{\rm miss} > 150$ GeV;

-   no more than 1 jet with $p_T^j > 30$ GeV and $|\eta^j| < 4.5$;

-   $\Delta \Phi(\gamma,p_T^\gamma) > 0.4$, $\Delta R(\gamma,jet) > 0.4$ and $\Delta \Phi(jet,p_T^{\rm
    miss}) > 0.4$;

The event yields obtained by ATLAS and CMS are largely dominated by the SM backgrounds, namely $Z$+$\gamma$, where the $Z$ boson decays invisibly, and $W$+$\gamma$, where the $W$ boson decays leptonically and the charged lepton is not reconstructed. Since ATLAS accepts events with one jet, $W/Z$+jets is also an important background for the ATLAS analysis. With 4.6 fb$^{-1}$ data, the ATLAS collaboration estimates the background to be $137 \pm 18 (stat.) \pm 9 (syst.)$ events and observed $116$ events. The analogous numbers for CMS with 5 fb$^{-1}$ are $75.1 \pm 9.4$ and $73$ events, respectively.

In order to estimate the sensitivity of the ATLAS and CMS single photon search to DM production, we have generated the $pp \! \to \!Z/\gamma \! \to { C D} \! \to { C C} + \!{\rm
\gamma}$ process. We have used the program `Madgraph 5` for the channels at the parton level. Showering and hadronisation was performed using `Pythia 6`  and `Delphes 1.9`  was employed to simulate the CMS detector response. We have imposed the analysis cuts listed above on the simulated events to find the signal efficiency and used the total event cross–section to constrain the DM coupling to $\gamma$ and $Z$. The observed 95%CL exclusion limits on $\kappa$ for given ${M_{C},M_{D}}$ are obtained by requiring $$\chi^2 =
\frac{(N_{obs}-N_{SM}-N_{DM}(M_{C},M_{D},\kappa))^2}{N_{SM}+N_{DM}(M_{C},M_{D},\kappa)+\sigma_{SM}^{2} }
= 3.84 \;.$$

The resulting limits on $\kappa$ for two choices of $M_{D}=500$ GeV and $M_{D}=1$ TeV are shown in Fig. . In the latter case, the bounds are relatively weak, $\kappa < 1$ for $M_C >100$ GeV, and do not constrain the parameter space consistent with WMAP/PLANCK, FERMI and HESS (Fig. ). For $M_D=500$ GeV, the monophoton constraint is more important, although it does not yet probe interesting regions of parameter space (Fig. ). In particular, it does not rule out the DM interpretation of the 135 GeV gamma–ray line (Fig. ). Indeed, for $M_C=135$ GeV, the LHC bound is about $\kappa < 0.5$, whereas the gamma–ray line requires $\kappa \sim 0.3$.

We thus find that the monophoton constraint is not yet competitive with the astrophysical/cosmological ones. We have also checked that no useful constraint is imposed by searches for mono–$Z$ emission ($D \rightarrow Z + C$), mostly due to its smaller production cross section.

## Summary of constraints

For the DM mass above 100 GeV, the most relevant laboratory constraints are imposed by the LHC searches for monojets and monophotons. The former are applicable for quasi–degenerate $C$ and $D$, while the latter apply if there is a substantial mass difference between them. The monophoton constraint is rather tight for light DM, e.g. $\kappa <$ few$\times
10^{-1}$ for $M_C \sim 100$ GeV and $M_D \sim 500$ GeV. This is stronger than the unitarity bound (), which only applies for $\Lambda \gg M_{C,D}$. On the other hand, the monojet constraint is rather weak, $\kappa \raise 0.3ex\hbox{$\;<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}}1$.

The most important bounds on the model are imposed by astrophysical observations, in particular, by FERMI and HESS searches for monochromatic gamma–ray lines. These exclude substantial regions of parameter space even for relatively heavy dark matter, $M_{C,D} \sim 1$ TeV. Analogous bounds from continuum gamma–ray emission are significantly weaker as the latter is subleading in our framework (unlike in other models ), while direct DM detection is inefficient due to loop suppression. These constraints still allow for thermal DM in the mass range 200–600 GeV (Fig. ).

Finally, the model allows for an "optimistic" interpretation of the tentative 135 GeV gamma–ray line in the FERMI data. The line can be due to (non–thermal) dark matter annihilation with $M_C \simeq 135$ GeV for a range of the mediator mass $M_D$. This interpretation is consistent with the constraints coming from the continuum gamma–ray emission, direct DM detection and the LHC searches.

# Conclusion

We have considered the possibility that the hidden sector contains more than one massive vector fields. In this case, an additional $dim$–4 interaction structure of the Chern–Simons type becomes possible. It couples the hypercharge field strength to the antisymmetric combination of the massive vectors. If the latter are long–lived, the phenomenological signatures of such a coupling include missing energy in decays of various mesons and $Z$, as well as monojet and monophoton production at the LHC.

The hidden sector may possess a $Z_2$ symmetry, which would make the lighter vector field stable and a good dark matter candidate. The characteristic signature of this scenario is monochromatic gamma–ray emission from the Galactic Center, while the corresponding continuum contribution is suppressed. We find that this possibility is consistent with other constraints, including those from the LHC and direct DM detection. Large portions of the allowed parameter space can be probed both by indirect DM detection and the LHC monophoton searches.

**Acknowledgements.** We are grateful to A. Ali for useful discussions. This work was partially supported by the French ANR TAPDMS **ANR-09-JCJC-0146**, the Spanish MICINNs Consolider-Ingenio 2010 Programme under grant Multi- Dark **CSD2009-00064** and the Collaborative Research Center SFB 676 of the DFG, "Particles, Strings, and the Early Universe". Y. M. and J. Q. also acknowledge partial support from the European Union FP7 ITN INVISIBLES (Marie Curie Actions, PITN- GA-2011- 289442) and the ERC advanced grant Higgs@LHC.

[^1]: We note that certain "genuine" gauge invariant dim-6 operators such as ${1\over \Lambda^2} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} B_{\mu\nu} C_{~\rho}^{\tau} D_{\tau\sigma }$ reduce to the Chern-Simons term on–shell in the non–relativistic limit ($C_{\mu\nu} \rightarrow C_{0i}=iM_C C_i~$; $C_0=0$ and similarly for $D_{\mu\nu}$). Such operators should generally be taken into account when deriving the low energy action in explicit microscopic models.

[^2]: For simplicity, we have assumed a single mass scale for the vectors with $D$ being somewhat heavier such that it decays into $C$ and a photon. Further details are unimportant for our purposes.

[^3]: HESS reports its results for the Einasto DM distribution profile, while FERMI has extended its study to other profiles as well. To be conservative, we use the FERMI limits for the isothermal profile.


abstract: We introduce a formulation for normal mode analyses of globular proteins that significantly improves on an earlier, 1-parameter formulation that characterized the slow modes associated with protein data bank structures. Here we develop that empirical potential function which is minimized at the outset to include two features essential to reproduce the eigenspectra and associated density of states in the $0$ – $300\,{\rm cm}^{-1}$ frequency range, not merely the slow modes. First, introduction of preferred dihedral-angle configurations via use of torsional stiffness constants eliminates anomalous dispersion characteristics due to insufficiently bound surface sidechains, and helps fix the spectrum thin tail frequencies ($100$ – $300\,{\rm cm}^{-1}$). Second, we take into account the atomic identities and the distance of separation of all pairwise interactions, improving the spectrum distribution in the $20$ – $300\,{\rm cm}^{-1}$ range. With these modifications not only does the spectrum reproduce that of full atomic potentials, but we obtain stable, reliable eigenmodes for the slow modes and over a wide range of frequencies.
author: Monique M. Tirion; Daniel ben-Avraham
title: Atomic Torsional Modal Analysis for high-resolution proteins

Proteins, nanomachines of the living world, provide a bewildering array of inter and intra-cellular services: catalysis, transport, scaffolding, support, cell-signaling and replication among others. Each protein functions with extraordinary almost paradoxical efficiency, specificity and accuracy. A single molecule of acetylcholine esterase, for example, breaks down 25,000 neurotransmitters molecules per second, a rate that seems to be diffusion-limited.

Proteins are linear polymers of 20 different amino acid building blocks whose sequence specifies all covalent bonds. The so-called primary sequence of over 8 million proteins are known, and vary in length from a few dozen to tens of thousands of amino acids. The primary sequences fold into distinct secondary patterns of helices, sheets and loops that in turn combine to create distinct globular arrangements that range in cross-sectional diameter from ten to hundreds of Angstroms. X-ray crystallographers have determined the atomic arrangements of nearly 100,000 protein molecules, revealing recurring folding patterns and structural motifs .

Proteins are not rigid molecules. Ever since the first crystal structures, of hemoglobin and myoglobin, revealed the absence of entry and exit channels for ligand to reach the buried heme binding site , motility was understood to be vital to function . Protein molecules possess motility spectra over time-scales of at least 14 orders of magnitude, from the femtosecond regime for bond breaking, to the pico- and nanosecond regimes for events like flipping of interior and surface indole and benzene rings, to the micro- to millisecond regimes for conformational changes such as occur during allosteric re-arrangements of secondary and tertiary structural elements, to millisecond to seconds for rigid-like tumbling. As each of these dynamic processes is best characterized by different physical theories such as quantum vs. classical mechanics, diffusion and Brownian motion, characterizing and sorting the many dynamic features of proteins is challenging.

Ingenious methods to track local and global motions experimentally continue to be developed using X-rays, NMR spectroscopy, and inelastic and quasi-elastic neutron scattering, to name a few . Experiments detect complex net motility spectra of proteins in particular environments, and isolating specific molecular events from the data remains difficult. Theory segregates events and models catalytic, diffusive and allosteric events separately into fast local and relatively slower nonlocal motions.

Rapid, local catalytic events are well-studied and modeled using quantum mechanical and detailed semi-empirical formulations . Extended, global motions are less well characterized as they are hard to isolate experimentally and require lengthy simulations. One attractive candidate to characterize global motion is normal mode analysis (NMA) where instantaneous, equilibrium motility spectra are computed . The highly idealized condition of an absence of unbalanced forces permits rapid and simple snapshots of the internal flexibilities of proteins, unattainable by standard MD, and provides fascinating insights into protein architecture and design.

Do proteins ever exhibit the motility spectra suggested by NMA? Experimental studies, from Mossbauer spectroscopy, inelastic neutron scattering and X-ray crystallography, demonstrate the existence of equilibrium or harmonic motion in proteins only below a critical "glass transition" temperature of around 180-220K . Do the eigenmodes then retain relevance at physiological temperatures? At least two lines of evidence suggest they do. High resolution X-ray crystallography provide isotropic and sometimes anisotropic Debye-Waller values for each scattering center. These experimental values, a reflection of the net mobility of each atom in the crystalline environment, are surprisingly well-modeled by the normal mode spectrum of an isolated molecule. Second, and equally surprising perhaps, is the successful use of normal modes to model non-equilibrium, allosteric transitions between known, crystal structures of apo- and holo-forms of the same enzyme . Both lines of inquiry suggest that the very simple and idealized normal mode computation can provide helpful insights above the glass transition temperature as well.

Normal mode analyses provide different levels of detail depending on the formulation adopted in setting up the algorithm. The use of atomic coordinates vs. reduced coordinates, internal Cartesian vs. dihedral coordinates, simple vs. detailed energy potentials, as well as the resolution and stability of the coordinate file all affect the computed eigenfrequency spectra and associated amplitudes as well as the appearance of each independent mode, over the entire frequency range.

Since demonstrating that an idealized, one-parameter energy potential reproduces very well the overall appearance of temperature factors and therefore the slow modes that contribute primarily to this distribution , the question remained: What details were sacrificed? Might it be useful to more faithfully reproduce eigenfrequency spectra observed by spectroscopy and standard NMAs that use full, molecular mechanic potentials and exact molecular topology ? Is it indeed possible, within the Hookean approximation of , to achieve the level of detail seen in standard NMA? If yes, we could (a) begin to correlate observed spectral characteristics with specific structural features, and (b) obtain more realistic flexibility descriptions of proteins whose structures are known.

The current work represents an effort to address these questions. We demonstrate that use of (1) complete atomic coordinate files, (2) dihedral coordinates, and (3) more realistic energy formulations than single-parameter Hookean springs can more realistically reproduce experimental and theoretical vibration spectra. Dubbed ATMAN for Atomic Torsional Modal ANalysis, this method provides a rapid visual assessment of the internal flexibility characteristics inherent in the overall design of each protein and may be useful to study design characteristics that contribute to observed maxima in spectroscopic data.

The general formalism for NMA was presented in . Briefly, given a protein consisting of $N$ atoms of mass $m_l$, located at $\mathbf{r}_l$, and a potential energy function $E_p(\mathbf{r})$, one selects a proper set of generalized degrees of freedom $\{q_i\}_{i=1}^M$ and solves the co-diagonalization problem $$\mathbf {FA = \Lambda H A},$$ where the elements of the *force matrix* $\mathbf F$ (also known as the *Hessian*), and the mass-weighted *inertia matrix* $\mathbf H$, are: $$\label{FandH.eq}
F_{ij} = \left.\frac{\partial^2E_p}{\partial q_i \partial q_j}\right|_{q=0},\qquad
H_{ij} = \sum_{l=1}^{N} m_l \frac{\partial \mathbf{r}_l}{\partial q_i}\cdot
                                             \frac{\partial \mathbf{r}_l}{\partial q_j},$$ and the potential is assumed to be minimized at $q_i=0$. The eigenfrequencies are given by the elements of the diagonal matrix $\mathbf{\Lambda}$; $\omega_i^2=\Lambda_{ii}$, and the corresponding eigenmodes are the columns of $\mathbf A$, normalized according to $\mathbf {A^\dagger HA} = \mathbf I$. With this normalization, the amplitude $\alpha_i$ of mode $i$, resulting from thermal activation at temperature $T$, is $\alpha_i=\sqrt{k_BT}/\omega_i$. Thus, the dominant contribution to the total mean-square fluctuation, given by the sum over all the modes, comes from the low-frequency modes.

The various NMA approaches differ mainly in their choice of the degrees of freedom $\{q\}$ and the form (and level of detail) of the potential energy function, $E_p$. Especially for proteins whose structure files are incomplete or known to low resolution, a suitable approach is to select the Cartesian coordinates of reduced masses centered at the $C_{\alpha}$ carbons, and select an $E_p$ suitable for such a coarse-grained description . For high resolution structures, coarse-graining of the atomic coordinates is unnecessary.

We strongly advocate the use of dihedral degrees of freedom to compute slow modes of proteins. When comparing two protein sequences, one in an active, folded form and one in an unfolded, extended form, very little variation in bond lengths and bond angles exists. The two forms vary mostly in the distribution of 4-atom rotational torsional degrees of freedom (for this reason, algorithms to predict protein folding using dihedral angles abound ). We use the "soft" torsional angles of proteins: all main-chain (MC) $\phi$ and $\psi$ as well as side-chain (SC) $\chi$ angles (except for the MC $\phi$ angles of prolines) as detailed in the L79 potential of Levitt . Not only does this reduce the size of the computation compared to $3N$ atomic coordinates, but more importantly use of torsional degrees of freedom necessarily maintains stereochemically correct bond lengths and bond angles throughout.

A suitable potential energy $E_p$ is needed to quantify the energetic costs of distorting the protein's configuration along each internal coordinate $q_i$. Detailed semi-empirical formulations such as ENCAD  and CHARMM exist that accurately model the various types of relevant interactions: van der Waals, hydrogen bonds, etc. A drawback of these potentials for the current use is that the protein configuration as read from the PDB, $\{\mathbf{r}_i^0\}$, is not initially at a local minimum, as required by a NMA. Minimizing a complex potential function of hundreds of parameters is problematic: The potential landscape consists of many close local minima, making it difficult to compare among the results from different studies; and the minima one finds numerically exhibit various unstable modes, due to inaccuracies, casting doubt on the frequencies and shape of the remaining, stable modes.

In previous work  we proposed that a potential *centered around the *PDB* configuration* of the protein gives a reasonable description of the modes. Specifically, we suggested $$E_p = \sum_{(a,b)} E(\mathbf{r}_a,\mathbf{r}_b),$$ where the sum is restricted to non-bonded atom pairs separated by at least three bond lengths and a certain interaction range, $R_{ab}$ (see below). Each pair-wise potential term followed a simple Hookean form: $$\label{C.eq}
E(\mathbf{r}_a,\mathbf{r}_b) = \frac{C}{2} ( \left| \mathbf{r}_{ab} \right| -
\left| \mathbf{r}^0_{ab}\right|)^2,$$ where $\mathbf{r}_{ab}=\mathbf{r}_b-\mathbf{r}_a$, and $|\mathbf{r}^0_{ab}|$ is the initial separation between each interacting $a,b\,$-pair as read from the PDB file. This potential has the obvious advantage of being at a well defined (stable) minimum at the outset.

In  we also argued that for the *slow* modes of densely packed globular proteins one can use a single universal value for the spring constants $C$, since they depend on a large number of non-covalent interactions (NBI) whose sum approaches a universal form, governed by the central limit theorem, regardless of the details of individual pair-wise potentials. The actual value of the universal spring constant was adjusted to fit other NMA work. We now discuss how to generalize this single bond-strength formulation, and replace $C$ with atom- and distance-dependent non-bonded stiffness constants, $C_{ab}$, as well as add a new stiffness constant, $K$, for the dihedral angles. The advantages, as we will see, include more realistic frequency spectra and a greater range of applicability due to the greater stability of side chains that may be unbound or minimally bound in the PDB coordinate file.

The general principle is as follows. Given the PDB coordinates of a protein, $\{\mathbf{r}^0\}$, and a reliable empirical potential function $E_p(\{\mathbf{r}\})$, we assume that the minimum of $E_p$ lies nearby $\{\mathbf{r}^0\}$ . In that case, one can approximate the Hessian $\mathbf{F}$, from Eq. (), by simply evaluating the second derivatives at $\{\mathbf{r}^0\}$ instead of at the minimum of $E_p$. The fact that first derivatives are *not* zero at $\{\mathbf{r}^0\}$ is not a problem because they do not contribute to the Hessian. This can be seen by Taylor-expanding pair-wise potentials around the PDB coordinates: $V_{ab}(r_{ab})=V_{ab}(r_{ab}^0)+V_{ab}'(r_{ab}^0)(r_{ab}-r_{ab}^0)+(1/2)V_{ab}''(r_{ab}^0)(r_{ab}-r_{ab}^0)^2+\cdots$. The contribution of $V_{ab}'$ to $\mathbf{F}$ vanishes if the relation between the ${\mathbf r}$ coordinates and the generalized degrees of freedom is linear, $r_{ab}-r_{ab}^0=\sum_ic_iq_i$, as coded in the $\mathbf{H}$ matrix. Since we are replacing the potential with second-order terms, ignoring first derivatives, this guarantees an *extremum* point. To ensure that the point is a *minimum* and the PDB configuration represents a stable equilibrium we exclude the domain where $V_{ab}''<0$.

Consider, for example, a van der Waals (vdW) force between atoms $a$ and $b$ given by the Lennard-Jones 6-12 potential $$V_{ab}=\epsilon_{ab}\left[\left(\frac{r^{\rm min}_{ab}}{r_{ab}}\right)^{12}
-2\left(\frac{r^{\rm min}_{ab}}{r_{ab}}\right)^{6}\right],$$ where $\epsilon_{ab}=\sqrt{\epsilon_a \epsilon_b}$ and $r_{ab}^{\rm min}$ are the potential well-depths and the distance between $a$ and $b$ at the minimum of $V_{ab}$, respectively, while $r_{ab}$ is the distance between the atoms. Note that $r_{ab}^{\rm min}$ need not necessarily equal the starting value from the PDB file, $r_{ab}^0$. For $V_{ab}$'s contribution to the Hessian, it suffices to consider only the second-order derivative: $$\label{V''.eq}
V_{ab}''(r_{ab}^0)=\frac{12\epsilon_{ab}}{(r_{ab}^0)^2}\left[13\left(\frac{r^{\rm min}_{ab}}{r_{ab}^0}\right)^{12}
-7\left(\frac{r^{\rm min}_{ab}}{r_{ab}^0}\right)^{6}\right].$$ This expression turns negative for $r_{ab}^0>(13/7)^{1/6}r_{ab}^{\rm min}\equiv r_{ab}^*$, and we must exclude that domain in order to avoid potential instabilities. Chopping off the domain results, however, in an effectively reduced interaction range between the $a,b$ atoms. In practice, empirical potentials consider interactions between atoms $a$ and $b$ up to a certain range $R_{ab}$ that is computed by adding an arbitrary cutoff distance $r_c$ to the sum (or a multiple of the sum) of the van der Waals radii: $$\label{Rab.eq}
R_{ab}=(13/7)^{1/6}r_{ab}^{\rm min}+r_c,$$ and we would like to extend our interaction range all the way to $R_{ab}$ as well. This can be done by "stretching" our domain. We first note that $V_{ab}''$ admits a simpler (but approximate) form: $$\label{V''approx.eq}
V_{ab}''(r_{ab}^0)\approx\frac{72\epsilon_{ab}}{(r_{ab}^0)^2}\frac{(r_{ab}^0-r_{ab}^*)^2}{(r_{ab}^{\rm min}-r_{ab}^*)^2}\,,$$ see Fig .

The stretching of the interaction range is then achieved by mapping $r_{ab}^*\mapsto R_{ab}$, to yield $$\label{V''effective.eq}
V_{ab}''(r_{ab}^0)\approx \frac{72\epsilon_{ab}}{(r_{ab}^0)^2}\frac{(r_{ab}^0-R_{ab})^2}{(r_{ab}^{\rm min}-R_{ab})^2}\,.$$ This atom- and distance-dependent spring strength $V''_{ab}(r_{ab}^0)$ replaces the universal constant $C$ of Eq. ().

As a second example consider the potential function for the rotation of the dihedral angles coordinates. Typically: $$V_{\rm dihedral}(\phi)=\frac{V_0}{2}[1-\cos n(\phi - \phi^{\rm min})],$$ where $V_0$ is the potential depth, $n$ is the number of minima along the rotation coordinate $\phi$, and $\phi^{\rm min}$ is the value of $\phi$ at the potential's minimum. Once again, if we are using dihedral angles as our internal coordinates, only the second derivative contributes (in this case, to the $F_{\phi\phi}$ entry): $$\label{Vd''.eq}
V''(\phi^0)=\frac{n^2V_0}{2}\cos n(\phi^0-\phi^{\rm min}).$$ To ensure stability, we limit ourselves to the domain $|\phi^0-\phi^{\rm min}|<\pi/2n\equiv\phi^*$ where $V''>0$. The reduced $\phi^0-\phi^{\rm min}$ interaction range that results from this procedure can be stretched from $\phi^*$ to a larger arbitrary cutoff $\Phi$: $$\label{Vdapprox".eq}
V''(\phi^0)=\frac{n^2V_0}{2}\cos \frac{\pi(\phi^0-\phi^{\rm min})}{2\Phi}.$$ Each of the torsional degrees of freedom can then be endowed with a potential $V(\phi)=\frac{1}{2}V''(\phi^0)(\phi-\phi^0)^2$, where $V''(\phi^0)$ is computed as above, with the appropriate values of $V_0$, $\phi^{\rm min}$ and $n$ prescribed by the empirical parent potential. In practice, for our purposes of fitting the total distribution of modes to that of a detailed potential, we find that it is sufficient to assume a universal constant $V''(\phi^0)=K$ for all torsional degrees of freedom (instead of the more detailed expression ()) and to take the range of $\phi$ to include the whole circle.

It should be clear from these examples that any potential formulation, whatever its complexity and degree of sophistication, can be treated similarly. We note that our procedure of cutting off the range of the variables when 2nd derivatives become negative (unstable) is not actually necessary in a properly minimized configuration. Without this procedure, our analysis leads to instabilities, and the cutting of the range (and extending and stretching to some additional arbitrary distance, to compensate) is the price one pays for approximating the real minimum by the PDB configuration.

While our formulation of the potential energy is still oversimplified, it retains the advantage of defining the initial configuration to be an exact energy minimum, obviating the need for structure-distorting energy minimizations and the concomitant risk of negative eigenvalues due to incomplete minimizations. The simple potential of  yielded slow modes (below the $20\,{\rm cm}^{-1}$ range) that were comparable to those found using more sophisticated, detailed potentials. However, for $\omega>20\,{\rm cm}^{-1}$ the distribution of the modes deviated markedly from that obtained by standard methods (see curve (f) in the inset of Fig. ). In the following we show that making the single, non-bonded stiffness strength $C$ from atom-type and distance dependent, as in Eq. (), plus adding a simple dihedral potential with the same constant $K$ for the various torsional degrees of freedom, achieves a better description of the distribution of modes throughout the whole range of frequencies (up to $300\,{\rm cm}^{-1}$). Interestingly, a recent independent study, focusing on B-factors rather than on the distribution of modes, by H. Na and G. Song  reached a very similar conclusion: Including detailed van der Waal interactions and a universal dihedral potential achieves the best fit to standard NMA in their excellent and comprehensive case study.

To demonstrate, we computed the normal modes of xylanase 10A (PDB entry 1GOK confomer A), a 302 amino-acid enzyme with a mass of nearly 33,000 daltons produced by a thermophilic ascomycetous fungus. Xylanase 10A, a member of the family 10 glycoside hydrolases, cleaves internal bonds of xylan, a major polysaccharide component of plant cell walls, releasing shorter xylose subunits. The crystal structure of 1GOK has been determined to $1.14\AA$ resolution and is seen to possess a classic TIM barrel fold, Fig. , consisting of eight parallel $\beta$-strands forming a central tube connected by 8 $\alpha$-helices external to the $\beta$-strand tube. The structure has been likened to a 'salad bowl' as one face has a larger radius, of about $45\AA$, while the opposite face has a smaller radius of about $30\AA$ . The active site consists of a substrate-binding cleft running the length of the larger face of the 'salad bowl' and includes two conserved residues, Glu-131 and Glu-237, that act as the catalytic proton donor and nucleophile for the hydrolysis. The crystal structure reveals that three conserved tryptophans, at locations 87, 267 and 275, form an aromatic cage around the active site.

To compute the normal modes associated with this structure, we built in MC amide hydrogens to obtain a 2598-atom system with 589 MC $\psi$ and $\phi$ and 471 SC $\chi$ dihedrals, resulting in a total of 1060 degrees of freedom. We computed the **F** and **H** matrices in Eq. () using both analytic and numeric algorithms to check for consistency. The use of non-Cartesian degrees of freedom necessitates elimination of overall translations and rotations about the center of mass in the computation of $\mathbf{H}$. Failure to do so results in incorrect frequencies and eigenmodes, including zero- or numerically unstable modes.

Our original formulation of the Hookean NMA set the dihedral stiffness constants to zero. Compared to the cumulative non-bonded interactions of thousands of atom pairs, the contribution to the total energy of each dihedral was considered negligible. Careful examination of the eigenspectra, however, revealed that the slowest modes often included ones resulting in root mean square (RMS) displacements discontinuous with neighboring modes. Studying the animations of these anomalous eigenmodes revealed isolated surface sidechains sweeping wide arcs, independent of the remainder of the molecule. These side chains were characterized by relatively small numbers of interatomic interactions to stabilize their conformations, which resulted in the anomalous RMS displacements. In past studies, we replaced such residues with alanine residues lacking sidechain degrees of freedom, obviating the problem. However, introducing physically plausible constraints on the dihedral bond deformations removes the need to alter the PDB coordinates. We found that a $K$ value of $0.1\,{\rm kcal}/{\rm mol}/ {\rm rad}^2$ stabilized all surface side chains and resulted in reliable and accurate eigenspectra.

For the non-bonded, vdW forces we used Eq. () with $r_{ab}^{min}=2^{1/6}[R_{vdW}(a)+R_{vdW}(b)]/2$, to identify all non-bonded atom pairs separated by at least 3 bond lengths and within an interaction distance $R_{ab}$ given by Eq. (). With $r_c$ values ranging from 1.5 to 2.4 $\AA$, this resulted in 8,000 to 21,000 non-bonded interactions. The resulting stiffness constants were computed using Eq. () and set to $C_{ab} = CV^{''}_{ab}(r^0_{ab})$. $C$ is a constant introduced to adjust the overall scale of the eigenfrequencies and was chosen, in each case, to make the frequency of mode 1 equal to $2\,{\rm cm}^{-1}$. This required $C$ values ranging from 160. to 4.0. The values of the van der Waals radii, $R_{vdW}$, and the Lennard-Jones well depths $\epsilon$ were taken from ENCAD .

With the various van der Waals radii and $\epsilon_{ab}$ determined from standard potentials, there remain only three parameters to adjust: The cutoff distance $r_c$; the overall constant $C$, in the relation $C_{ab }= C V''_{ab}$; and the dihedral curvature constant $K$. The distribution of modes of globular proteins (at all frequencies), as obtained from standard potentials, tend all to fall under one universal curve  and we use this curve to fit our parameters. The universal curve provides two important clues, as $K$ and and $C$ have very different effects on the shape of the distribution. This, coupled with the fact that the slowest mode of such a protein as xylanase is expected to be around $2\,{\rm cm}^{-1}$ constrains the value of the three parameters quite effectively .

The resulting eigenfrequency spectra, $g({\omega})$, are presented in Fig.  as histograms with $5\,{\rm cm}^{-1}$ bin size. The spectra (a-d) for different numbers of NBI are superposed on the eigenvalue spectra of various proteins computed by Levitt using a standard energy formulation and energy-minimized coordinates. In an effort to better characterize the effects of the current formulation, we include in the inset of Fig.  equivalent spectra of 1GOK using the earlier formulation presented in (f), as well as that formulation combined with the $K=0.1$ constraints on the dihedrals (g). In all cases, the low-frequency modes overlap, indicating that the various formulations identify the character of the slowest modes equally well. The simplest Hookean formulation (f), using identical spring-constants for all non-bonded interactions and no dihedral constraints, obtains a sharp peak and narrow distribution centered around $25\,{\rm cm}^{-1}$, with no high-frequency tail. Interestingly, inelastic neutron scattering experiments by Cusack and Doster identify such a well-defined maximum in the dynamic structure factors at around $25\,{\rm cm}^{-1}$ in myoglobin for temperatures below 180K . This peak is well resolved in all NMA formulations we tested.

Inclusion of dihedral stiffness constraints adds a second maximum to these spectra, as seen in (g), around $45\,{\rm cm}^{-1}$, widening the distribution and introducing higher-frequency, tail-end contributions. While higher frequency contributions are observed, the additional peak at $45\,{\rm cm}^{-1}$ is not reported on in experiments and not resolved by standard NMA, and indicates that the formulation remains overly simplistic. Use of scaled non-bonded stiffness constants adjusted the spectra significantly (a-d). Decreasing the number of NBI has the effect of widening the distribution over a larger frequency range and de-emphasizing the $45\,{\rm cm}^{-1}$ peak. The largest number of NBI tested, at 21,000 \[curve (a)\], produces a distribution similar to that of (g) that used a single stiffness constant, $C$ for all interacting atom pairs. At $r_c$ equal to 1.6Å, resulting in 9000 nonbonded interactions, we obtained the best fit to the theoretical curve of Levitt. Decreasing the cutoff further tends to spread the distribution even more evenly, as seen in (d) for $r_c=1.5\AA$.

Studying each of these cases (a-e) via animations as well as RMS fluctuations demonstrates an interesting pattern, a pattern further clarified in the limit of zero non-bonded interactions. In the case of zero NBI and only dihedral stiffness constraints, we obtain an eigenspectrum with purely one-dimensional traits: a broad distribution over the entire frequency range, and a density of states $g(\omega)\sim\omega^0$ for small frequencies. As the number of NBI increases, the spectrum begins to shift toward that of a two-dimensional solid, with distinct peaks and with $g(\omega)\sim\omega^1$. In particular, for cutoff values that permit fewer than about 5,000 non-bonded interactions, the spectra remain largely two-dimensional and no "hitching" of neighboring (non-bonded) regions toward cohesive motion is observed. As the number of NBI increase, neighboring strands begin to "hitch" together and move cohesively. Increasing the NBI still further strengthens the cohesion and larger domains move in lockstep. The largest cutoff values lead to a motility spectrum exhibiting very smooth motions more typical of three-dimensional solids with $g(\omega)\sim\omega^2$.

Larger cutoffs resulting in more cohesive motions appeal to the eye in animations due to their ultra-smooth, rubber-like deformations. However, the computed frequency spectra indicate that this regime does not best model either spectroscopic or theoretical results, which indicate a broader maximum and softer molecule, even in the case of the temperature regime below 180K. We find that small cutoff distances leading to minimal cohesion, or "hitching," best reproduce eigenspectra characteristics. This condition also ensures sensible activation amplitudes relevant to computing mean square displacement values and describe stereochemically sound structural deformations. (What constitutes "minimal cohesion" seems to depend on the resolution of structures, with lower-resolution structures obtaining larger cutoff values than high-resolution structures.)

Animated GIF sequences of the first three slowest modes are available at . These sequences were created by PyMol and rendered in GIF format by LICEcap, and use a surface rendering mode to simplify the representation of the many atoms. In each left-hand panel, the structure is oriented as in Fig.  so as to look at the top of the "salad bowl" where the ligand-binding groove and active site are situated. The active site residues, Glu-131 and Glu-237, are colored magenta, while the active-site cage formed by the triad Trp-87, Trp-267 andTrp-275, is colored green. The ligand-binding groove runs horizontally, with subsites binding nonhydrolyzed subunits binding to the left of the active site and subsites holding hydrolyzed reactants to the right. In mode 1, the molecule was rotated around a vertical axis by $90^\circ$ to create the right-hand panel. In mode 2, the molecule was rotated around a vertical axis to create the view in the right-hand panel looking down from the top of the molecule to demonstrate the twisting nature of the motion. In mode 3, the molecule was rotated around a vertical axis to see the bottom of the molecule in the right-hand panel.

What is immediately apparent is that while the computation of eigenmodes proceeds without any information about ligand-binding propensities and active site residues information, the slowest 3 modes each center on precisely these regions. It would seem that structure has been selected to promote dynamic access to the active site and ligand-binding groove. The slowest mode pertains to an up-and-down chewing type motion, the second slowest mode resembles a rotational grinding motion, while the third slowest mode describes a side-wise rolling type motion. These eigenmodes appear ideally suited to enhance entry of ligand and release of products from the binding groove, and to possibly influence the translocation of the polysaccharide chain along the binding-groove. While detailed, mechanistic models may be unwarranted by these simple calculations and visualizations, it would appear that protein architecture co-evolved with catalytic functionality, precisely in order to exploit innate flexibility characteristics to optimize yield.

To better appreciate the combination and distribution of dihedral angles contributing to each mode and their associated domain motions, we overwrote the Debye-Waller temperature factor, $B$, in the PDB coordinate file with normalized and binned dihedral values for each eigenmode vector. To visualize the distribution of the dihedral strengths for each mode, we associated all the $\phi$ torsions with their associated MC amide nitrogens and all the $\psi$ torsions to the MC carbonyl carbons.

Studying the distribution of dihedral shifts for mode 1, for example, explains how the C-terminal and N-terminal domains move *en-masse*, and how the overall appearance is of two domains that come together across the ligand-binding groove, as in the first animation . $\psi$ angles in mode 1 with normalized values of 0.5 or higher include Gly-41, Pro-45 and Pro-200. $\phi$ angles with values over 0.5 include Gly-41, Ile-201 and Thr-208. These "hinge-points" permit the relative reorientation of regions, with the N and C terminal regions moving as a unit above the binding-groove. Gly-41 at the N-terminal end of $\beta$-strand 8 is seen to move in phase with the upper domain, while Pro-45 at the C-terminal end of the same strand moves in phase with the lower domain. Likewise, Pro-200 preceding $\beta$-strand 4 moves in phase with the lower domain, while Thr-208 at the C-terminal end of the same strand moves along with the upper domain. So mode 1 would seem to have an upper domain extending across residues 1-45 as well as residues 208-302, while the lower domain seems to extend from residues 46-200.

In this manner we tried to isolate "hot spots" that enable this motion and sought to mutate these hinge-points to suppress the observed motility pattern. Suspecting Gly-41, Pro-45, Pro-200 and Thr-208 as essential to the motion inherent in mode 1, we "mutated" these residues by eliminating their associated MC dihedral degrees of freedom (reducing the size of the computation by 8 degrees of freedom, in other words). Suspecting we might suppress mode 1 in this way, we wondered if mode 2 would now make the dominant contribution to the RMS fluctuations. In fact, this did not happen. Mode 1 reappeared as before, but with a different distribution of hinges, to once again present as two domains that come together across the binding-groove. And this seems to be a general finding: the slow modes are a characteristic of the overall architecture of the molecule, independent of any particular residues (publication in preparation).

In conclusion, we find that NMA does support efforts to characterize global protein motion on relatively slow time scales. A straightforward computation that characterizes the full motility spectrum at a single instant, NMAs require neither excessive memory nor CPU capabilities (current computations were run on a Mac Mini with a single Intel Core i5 processor). Visualizations of eigenmodes via animations, using the many tools available for rendering atomic coordinate files, are effortless. A simple sequence of 5 to 9 PDB entries, flashed consecutively on the screen, creates a dynamic effect with a level of realism not attainable using reduced coordinates.

Furthermore, features of the eigenfrequency spectra contain additional clues to structural characteristics. Cusack and Doster, for example, deduced that the experimentally observed maximum at around $25\,{\rm cm}^{-1}$ is not due to internal deformations of secondary structures, but rather to cross-chain interactions, such as the relative motions of $\alpha$ helices . Our current analyses support this interpretation, as a reduction in the non-bonded cutoff range eliminates the "knitting together" of non-bonded regions and the pronounced peak at $25\,{\rm cm}^{-1}$. Furthermore, we find the appearance of a second peak, near $45\,{\rm cm}^{-1}$, by the inclusion of dihedral stiffness constants. The height and width of this additional peak depends sensitively on the value(s) of $K$ chosen, as does the appearance of the resultant high-frequency tail-end of the distribution. Here we used a small value, equal to $0.1\,{\rm kcal}/{\rm mol}/{\rm rad}^2$ across all dihedrals, simply in order to stabilize the structure. However, it is certainly possible to adopt more realistic values for each dihedral angle in order to more faithfully reproduce the spectra.

Inclusion of dihedral stiffness constants stabilizes surface side-chain residues and C- and N-terminal residues that typically obtain less packing constraints than inner residues, and enable more reliable diagonalizations, ones that do not obtain anomalous slow frequencies. However, these spectra still lack the width typical of standard NMA. In order to reproduce this characteristic, we needed to soften or lessen the energetic contribution of nonbonded atom pairs at greater distances. Cutting the nonbonded cutoff distance to the smallest permissible while still maintaining minimal cohesion between nonbonded strands is helpful in softening the distribution but does not appear to be sufficient. We find that de-emphasizing the contributions of pairwise interactions at larger distances recreates the soft, wide distribution successfully. Dividing the total numbers of NBI by the number of atoms in the molecule provides a crude estimate of the numbers of nonbonded interaction per atom, on average. Values over 12/atom lead to stiff molecules with narrow distributions and steeper slopes at small frequencies. Optimal results occur when the average numbers of interactions per atom are no more than 6, which would seem to include only nearest neighbor interactions, within a single "shell". Interestingly, at these smaller cutoff values, a shift in the distribution of types of nonbonded interactions occur. If we divide the list of non-bonded interactions into 3 groups, for those that pertain to MC-MC, MC-SC and SC-SC interactions, the largest group depends on the cutoff value. In particular, at small cutoff values, MC-MC type interactions predominate, while as the cutoff increases, MC-SC type interactions become dominant, perhaps providing further rationalization of how linear chains folded into compact shapes obtain spectra with spectral dimension greater than 1 but less than 2 .

How might solvent affect computed modes? Frequency shifts due to solvent depend on whether proteins are overdamped or underdamped in their aqueous environments. Oscillators in underdamped environments experience no shifts in their eigenfrequencies while overdamped oscillators do. Experimental evidence favors the underdamped situation for proteins. Recently, for example, Turton and collaborators reported results with extremely sensitive optical Kerr-effect spectroscopy of lysozyme . They found global vibrational modes that are underdamped, and concluded that "the ligand-binding coordinate in proteins is underdamped and not simply solvent-controlled as previously assumed" . The current analysis adds to this intriguing finding by demonstrating motility patterns centered on the active site.

We conclude that slow (ATMAN) modes of PDB entries can provide novel insights to crystallographers and biochemists who aim to elucidate structure and function correlates. While "a picture is worth a thousand words," we suspect an animation is worth another hundred or so and foresee a future where each PDB entry may obtain another tab for visualizing the consequence of its particular architecture by gifs demonstrating the first few slowest modes, and with the possibility of downloading such sequence files to study that information independently .

MMT gratefully acknowledges support from Michael Levitt who emailed every two or three years to assure us that (a) modes were still very much in vogue and (b) were really easy to do nowadays. Without his continued support my interest would not have been reawakened, and I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude for this. MMT also thanks M. Hildred Blewett whose generous bequest provided the means to re-activate this research. This work is supported in part by the M. Hildred Blewett Fellowship of the American Physical Society, <http://www.aps.org>.