A Towering Figure in Chemistry and Molecular Biophysics
Martin Karplus (1930–2024), Nobel Laureate for Chemistry in 2013, passed away on December 29, 2024 at age 94.
While in high school in 1947, Martin realized that a solid background in chemistry, physics, and mathematics was imperative to approach biology at a fundamental level (i.e., to understand life). He followed through on this concept, spending decades in small-molecule theoretical chemistry before pioneering computational molecular biophysics.
Martin was born in Vienna in 1930 into an intellectually successful Jewish family—the research of his grandfather Johann Paul, for example, led to the discovery of the hypothalamus. After fleeing the Nazis in 1938, he arrived as a refugee in the United States, living initially in relative poverty, but obtaining a BA from Harvard. After a meeting at Princeton with J. Robert Oppenheimer, who described CalTech to him as a “shining light in a sea of darkness,” Martin chose CalTech for PhD study and there ended up studying with Linus Pauling. Karplus was inspired by Pauling’s intuitive approach to chemistry, which, even if for the wrong reasons, always seemed to get the right answer.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Martin used quantum chemistry to study various aspects of molecules and their interactions. Notable among these were his methods for relating nuclear and electron spin magnetic resonance parameters to the electronic structure of molecules, including the derivation of the Karplus Equation, which links NMR J-coupling constants to molecular conformation.
In 1969, three years after having moved back to Harvard, Martin took a sabbatical to the Weizmann Institute, and this was influential in his subsequent biological work. There, Shneior Lifson had been working with Arieh Warshel and others on developing rapidly calculable empirical (molecular mechanics) potential energy functions, which could calculate potential energies as a function of the relative positions of atoms and therefore be used for determining structure and dynamics. Molecular mechanics functions were used in much subsequent work in computational molecular biophysics. Among these, in 1974, was the first molecular dynamics (MD) simulation of a protein, a 9-ps in vacuo simulation of bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor (BPTI) performed by Martin’s co-workers, Andy McCammon and Bruce Gelin. This paper contributed greatly to the realization that biological macromolecules are not rigid, static structures, but that they fluctuate and change conformation.
Much resistance to MD was met, however. From one side, purist analytical theoreticians would occasionally snipe at the need to use “inelegant” numerical methods (one wonders what such philosophers would now think of AI!). In contrast, Martin had always appreciated the usefulness of computer power. “People learn” was his typical response. A much greater challenge was a common notion in empirical biology that if theory agrees with experiment, it is not interesting, because the result is already known, whereas if one is making a prediction, then it is of minor interest because there is no evidence that the prediction is correct. Decades later, MD has mostly overcome this blinkered view and has become a staple of biological and chemical science, with hundreds of thousands of applications.
Post-BPTI, the Karplus group at Harvard became a magnet for aspiring computational biophysicists, such as myself, from all over the world. As his group grew, his group’s CHARMM MD program became widely used, and his own research interests expanded further—from understanding internal motions in proteins through to allostery in hemoglobin and protein folding and quantum mechanics/molecular mechanics (QM/MM) studies, to name but a few. With increasing computer power, the sizes of the systems his group could study increased, and in later years he embarked on understanding complex molecular machines such as GroEL and F1 ATPase.
France was always an attraction to Martin, and he was very close to moving there in 1974. However, an impediment was that French university professors were civil servants, and only French citizens could be civil servants. His colleague Jacques Dubois, a chemistry professor at Paris VII who was also Director of Research for the French Defence Research Agency, who therefore had with connections with the Pompidou government, took up this problem and managed eventually to obtain a governmental decree exempting university professors from the citizenship requirement. In the end, Martin did not stay, but he was thanked afterwards by others benefitting from the decree. He maintained a chalet high in the mountains near Annecy (I tried to sell him a car there in 1985 but smashed it up after slipping on ice on the way up; unsurprisingly, he did not take the bait). In later years he worked part of the time in Strasbourg. Among his French-influenced pastimes was cooking, a lifelong passion. Martin was also a distinguished photographer, and his early color (1950s/1960s) photography of people and places around the world was exhibited in many forums, including the Bibliotheque Nationale de France in Paris in 2013.
The scientific world will remember Martin Karplus as a towering figure of achievement and influence with his more than 800 publications impacting widely and deeply. His Nobel, awarded prima facie for QM/MM, is better seen as a recognition of his sustained lifetime’s work. Hundreds of group members will also remember him for attracting like-minded young souls to his Harvard stable, for patient, deep discussions, and for always going the extra mile, a trait manifested in sometimes seemingly endless revisions of manuscripts—this was Martin the perfectionist, working tirelessly, striving to do the very best job he could. For me personally, another small memory comes to mind. An equation for a correlation function that I had written in a manuscript had an erroneous minus sign in an exponent. He simply circled it with a question mark. I asked him if he had derived the correct answer. He replied, “No. It just seemed wrong.” A touch of Pauling-style intuition, perhaps?
—Jeremy Smith