4.5 Article

Are Mixed Explicit/implicit Solvation Models Reliable for Studying Phosphate Hydrolysis? A Comparative Study of Continuum, Explicit and Mixed Solvation Models

Journal

CHEMPHYSCHEM
Volume 10, Issue 7, Pages 1125-1134

Publisher

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cphc.200800753

Keywords

ab initio calculations; molecular modelling; phosphate hydrolysis; reaction mechanisms; solvation models

Funding

  1. NIH [5U19A105010]
  2. NSF [MCB-0342276]
  3. U. S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH 11237]
  4. Div Of Molecular and Cellular Bioscience
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [0836400] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Phosphate hydrolysis is ubiquitous in biology. However, despite intensive research on this class of reactions, the precise nature of the reaction mechanism remains controversial. Herein, we have examined the hydrolysis of three homologous phosphate diesters. The solvation free energy was simulated by means of either an implicit solvation model (COSMO), hybrid quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical free energy perturbation (QM/MM-FEP) or a mixed solvation model in which N water molecules were explicitly included in the ab initio description of the reacting system (where N=1-3), with the remainder of the solvent being implicitly modelled as a continuum. Here, both COSMO and QM/MM-FEP reproduce Delta G(obs) within an error of about 1 kcal mol(-1). However, we demonstrate that in order to obtain any kind of reliable results from a mixed model, it is essential to carefully select the explicit water molecules from short QM/MM runs that act as a model for the true infinite system. Additionally, the mixed models tend to be increasingly unstable and miss larger entropic contributions as more explicit water molecules are placed into the system. Thus, our analysis indicates that this approach provides an unreliable way for modelling phosphate hydrolysis in solution.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available