Literature DB >> 16186652

A third blind test of crystal structure prediction.

G M Day1, W D S Motherwell, H L Ammon, S X M Boerrigter, R G Della Valle, E Venuti, A Dzyabchenko, J D Dunitz, B Schweizer, B P van Eijck, P Erk, J C Facelli, V E Bazterra, M B Ferraro, D W M Hofmann, F J J Leusen, C Liang, C C Pantelides, P G Karamertzanis, S L Price, T C Lewis, H Nowell, A Torrisi, H A Scheraga, Y A Arnautova, M U Schmidt, P Verwer.   

Abstract

Following the interest generated by two previous blind tests of crystal structure prediction (CSP1999 and CSP2001), a third such collaborative project (CSP2004) was hosted by the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre. A range of methodologies used in searching for and ranking the likelihood of predicted crystal structures is represented amongst the 18 participating research groups, although most are based on the global minimization of the lattice energy. Initially the participants were given molecular diagrams of three molecules and asked to submit three predictions for the most likely crystal structure of each. Unlike earlier blind tests, no restriction was placed on the possible space group of the target crystal structures. Furthermore, Z' = 2 structures were allowed. Part-way through the test, a partial structure report was discovered for one of the molecules, which could no longer be considered a blind test. Hence, a second molecule from the same category (small, rigid with common atom types) was offered to the participants as a replacement. Success rates within the three submitted predictions were lower than in the previous tests - there was only one successful prediction for any of the three ;blind' molecules. For the ;simplest' rigid molecule, this lack of success is partly due to the observed structure crystallizing with two molecules in the asymmetric unit. As in the 2001 blind test, there was no success in predicting the structure of the flexible molecule. The results highlight the necessity for better energy models, capable of simultaneously describing conformational and packing energies with high accuracy. There is also a need for improvements in search procedures for crystals with more than one independent molecule, as well as for molecules with conformational flexibility. These are necessary requirements for the prediction of possible thermodynamically favoured polymorphs. Which of these are actually realised is also influenced by as yet insufficiently understood processes of nucleation and crystal growth.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16186652     DOI: 10.1107/S0108768105016563

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Crystallogr B        ISSN: 0108-7681


  20 in total

1.  Materials engineering of solid-state dosage forms.

Authors:  Tonglei Li
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2007-11-06       Impact factor: 4.200

2.  Crystal Structure Prediction from First Principles: The Crystal Structures of Glycine.

Authors:  Albert M Lund; Gabriel I Pagola; Anita M Orendt; Marta B Ferraro; Julio C Facelli
Journal:  Chem Phys Lett       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 2.328

3.  Comparison of Methods To Reweight from Classical Molecular Simulations to QM/MM Potentials.

Authors:  Eric C Dybeck; Gerhard König; Bernard R Brooks; Michael R Shirts
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2016-03-23       Impact factor: 6.006

4.  Unmasking a third polymorph of a benchmark crystal-structure-prediction compound.

Authors:  Saikat Roy; Adam J Matzger
Journal:  Angew Chem Int Ed Engl       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 15.336

5.  Molecular shape and medicinal chemistry: a perspective.

Authors:  Anthony Nicholls; Georgia B McGaughey; Robert P Sheridan; Andrew C Good; Gregory Warren; Magali Mathieu; Steven W Muchmore; Scott P Brown; J Andrew Grant; James A Haigh; Neysa Nevins; Ajay N Jain; Brian Kelley
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2010-05-27       Impact factor: 7.446

6.  Crystal structure prediction of flexible molecules using parallel genetic algorithms with a standard force field.

Authors:  Seonah Kim; Anita M Orendt; Marta B Ferraro; Julio C Facelli
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.376

7.  The polymorphism of indomethacin: an analysis by density functional theory calculations.

Authors:  Clare Aubrey-Medendorp; Matthew J Swadley; Tonglei Li
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2007-05-31       Impact factor: 4.200

8.  Towards crystal structure prediction of complex organic compounds--a report on the fifth blind test.

Authors:  David A Bardwell; Claire S Adjiman; Yelena A Arnautova; Ekaterina Bartashevich; Stephan X M Boerrigter; Doris E Braun; Aurora J Cruz-Cabeza; Graeme M Day; Raffaele G Della Valle; Gautam R Desiraju; Bouke P van Eijck; Julio C Facelli; Marta B Ferraro; Damian Grillo; Matthew Habgood; Detlef W M Hofmann; Fridolin Hofmann; K V Jovan Jose; Panagiotis G Karamertzanis; Andrei V Kazantsev; John Kendrick; Liudmila N Kuleshova; Frank J J Leusen; Andrey V Maleev; Alston J Misquitta; Sharmarke Mohamed; Richard J Needs; Marcus A Neumann; Denis Nikylov; Anita M Orendt; Rumpa Pal; Constantinos C Pantelides; Chris J Pickard; Louise S Price; Sarah L Price; Harold A Scheraga; Jacco van de Streek; Tejender S Thakur; Siddharth Tiwari; Elisabetta Venuti; Ilia K Zhitkov
Journal:  Acta Crystallogr B       Date:  2011-11-17

9.  Disappearing polymorphs revisited.

Authors:  Dejan-Krešimir Bučar; Robert W Lancaster; Joel Bernstein
Journal:  Angew Chem Int Ed Engl       Date:  2015-06-08       Impact factor: 15.336

10.  Crystal structure prediction of organic pigments: quinacridone as an example.

Authors:  N Panina; F J J Leusen; F F B J Janssen; P Verwer; H Meekes; E Vlieg; G Deroover
Journal:  J Appl Crystallogr       Date:  2007-01-12       Impact factor: 3.304

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.