4.7 Article

Accelerating Membrane Simulations with Hydrogen Mass Repartitioning

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL THEORY AND COMPUTATION
Volume 15, Issue 8, Pages 4673-4686

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.9b00160

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [MCB-1452464]
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01-GM123169]
  3. Research Grants Council [14323816]
  4. Chinese University of Hong Kong
  5. National Institute on Drug Abuse [RO1-DA003934]
  6. NSF [OCI-1053575]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The time step of atomistic molecular dynamics (MD) simulations is determined by the fastest motions in the system and is typically limited to 2 fs. An increasingly popular approach is to increase the mass of the hydrogen atoms to similar to 3 amu and decrease the mass of the parent atom by an equivalent amount. This approach, known as hydrogen-mass repartitioning (HMR), permits time steps up to 4 fs with reasonable simulation stability. While HMR has been applied in many published studies to date, it has not been extensively tested for membrane-containing systems. Here, we compare the results of simulations of a variety of membranes and membrane-protein systems run using a 2 fs time step and a 4 fs time step with HMR For pure membrane systems, we find almost no difference in structural properties, such as area-per-lipid, electron density profiles, and order parameters, although there are differences in kinetic properties such as the diffusion constant. Conductance through a porin in an applied field, partitioning of a small peptide, hydrogen-bond dynamics, and membrane mixing show very little dependence on HMR and the time step. We also tested a 9 angstrom cutoff as compared to the standard CHARMM cutoff of 12 angstrom, finding significant deviations in many properties tested. We conclude that HMR is a valid approach for membrane systems, but a 9 angstrom cutoff is not.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available