4.5 Article

Scoring Multipole Electrostatics in Condensed-Phase Atomistic Simulations

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B
卷 117, 期 18, 页码 5460-5471

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp400593c

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [200020-132406]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (NCCR MUST)
  3. Novartis Education Office
  4. Novartis Foundation
  5. Marie Curie ITN biotrains [FP7-ITN-238531]
  6. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [200020_132406] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Permanent multipoles (MTPs) embody a natural extension to common point-charge (PC) representations in atomistic simulations. In this work, we propose an alternative to the computationally expensive MTP molecular dynamics simulations by running a simple PC simulation and later reevaluate-score-all energies using the more detailed MTP force field. The method, which relies on the assumption that the PC and MTP force fields generate closely related phase spaces, is accomplished by enforcing identical sets of monopoles between the two force fields-effectively highlighting the higher MTP terms as a correction to the PC approximation. We first detail our consistent parametrization of the electrostatics and van der Waals interactions for the two force fields. We then validate the method by comparing the accuracy of protein ligand binding free energies from both PC and MTP-scored representations with experimentally determined binding constants obtained by us. Specifically, we study the binding of several arylsulfonamide ligands to human carbonic anhydrase H. We find that both representations yield an accuracy of 1 kcal/mol with respect to experiment. Finally, we apply the method to rank the energetic contributions of individual atomic MTP coefficients for molecules solvated in water. All in all, MTP scoring is a computationally appealing method that can provide insight into the multipolar electrostatic interactions of condensed-phase systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据