2013
DOI: 10.1089/cmb.2012.0239
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Charge Group Partitioning in Biomolecular Simulation

Abstract: Molecular simulation techniques are increasingly being used to study biomolecular systems at an atomic level. Such simulations rely on empirical force fields to represent the intermolecular interactions. There are many different force fields available-each based on a different set of assumptions and thus requiring different parametrization procedures. Recently, efforts have been made to fully automate the assignment of force-field parameters, including atomic partial charges, for novel molecules. In this work,… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
87
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 146 publications
(87 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
87
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In contrast, the mid-level method highlighted in Figure 5, submission 529, has significantly but not dramatically worse performance by most metrics, while submission 197 is clearly worse by all metrics. Submission 529 used MD alchemical free energy calculations in explicit solvent with the GROMOS simulation package, using parameters from Automated Topology Builder[18, 2]. In contrast, submission 197 used the AMSOL solvation model[9] from the ZINC processing pipeline[13] for hydration free energy predictions, with conformations predicted by Open-Eye's Omega[11, 10, 1].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, the mid-level method highlighted in Figure 5, submission 529, has significantly but not dramatically worse performance by most metrics, while submission 197 is clearly worse by all metrics. Submission 529 used MD alchemical free energy calculations in explicit solvent with the GROMOS simulation package, using parameters from Automated Topology Builder[18, 2]. In contrast, submission 197 used the AMSOL solvation model[9] from the ZINC processing pipeline[13] for hydration free energy predictions, with conformations predicted by Open-Eye's Omega[11, 10, 1].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lennard-Jones parameters and partial charges for the acid molecules were taken from the OPLS-AA library, [34,35] and their geometries were determined using the Automated Topology Builder (ATP) tool. [36][37][38] In order to be consistent with our previous studies, [24][25][26] water molecules have been represented by the five-site TIP5P model. [39] These molecules have been kept rigid in the simulations, whereas no constraint has been applied to acid molecules.…”
Section: Computational Detailsmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…44,45 The systems were solvated using the SPC 46 water model in a cubic box of size B72.3 Â 72.3 Â 72.3. All atom molecular dynamic simulations were carried out using Gromacs 4.6.7 42 with a GROMOS 53a6 43 force field.…”
Section: Molecular Dynamics Simulation Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%