Journal
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL THEORY AND COMPUTATION
Volume 16, Issue 12, Pages 7556-7580Publisher
AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.0c00688
Keywords
-
Funding
- Swiss National Science Foundation [200021-175944]
- Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [200021_175944] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Experimental solvation free energies are nowadays commonly included as target properties in the validation and sometimes even in the calibration of condensed-phase force fields. However, this is often done in a nonsystematic fashion, by considering available solvation free energies involving an arbitrary collection of solutes in a limited set of solvents (e.g., water, octanol, chloroform, cyclohexane, or hexane). Here, this approach is made more systematic by introducing the concept of cross-solvation free energies Delta(s)G(A:B)(circle minus) for a set of N molecules that are all in the liquid state under ambient conditions, namely the matrix of N-2 entries for Delta(s)G(A:B)(circle minus) considering each of the N molecules either as a solute (A) or as a solvent (B). Relying on available experimental literature followed by careful data curation, a complete Delta(s)G(A:B)(circle minus) matrix of 625 entries is constructed for 25 molecules with one to seven carbon atoms representative for alkanes, chloroalkanes, ethers, ketones, esters, alcohols, amines, and amides. This matrix is then used to compare the relative accuracies of four popular condensed-phase force fields: GROMOS-2016H66, OPLS-AA, AMBER-GAFF, and CHARMM-CGenFF. In broad terms, and in spite of very different force-field functional-form choices and parametrization strategies, the four force fields are found to perform similarly well. Relative to the experimental values, the root-mean-square errors range between 2.9 and 4.0 kJ.mol(-1) (lowest value of 2.9 for GROMOS and OPLS), and the average errors range between -0.8 and +1.0 kJ.mol(-1) (lowest magnitude of 0.2 for AMBER and CHARMM). These differences are statistically significant but not very pronounced, especially considering the influence of outliers, some of which possibly caused by inaccurate experimental data.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available