Literature DB >> 26588742

Assessing the Accuracy of Density Functional and Semiempirical Wave Function Methods for Water Nanoparticles: Comparing Binding and Relative Energies of (H2O)16 and (H2O)17 to CCSD(T) Results.

Hannah R Leverentz1, Helena W Qi1, Donald G Truhlar1.   

Abstract

The binding energies and relative conformational energies of five configurations of the water 16-mer are computed using 61 levels of density functional (DF) theory, 12 methods combining DF theory with molecular mechanics damped dispersion (DF-MM), seven semiempirical-wave function (SWF) methods, and five methods combining SWF theory with molecular mechanics damped dispersion (SWF-MM). The accuracies of the computed energies are assessed by comparing them to recent high-level ab initio results; this assessment is more relevant to bulk water than previous tests on small clusters because a 16-mer is large enough to have water molecules that participate in more than three hydrogen bonds. We find that for water 16-mer binding energies the best DF, DF-MM, SWF, and SWF-MM methods (and their mean unsigned errors in kcal/mol) are respectively M06-2X (1.6), ωB97X-D (2.3), SCC-DFTB-γ(h) (35.2), and PM3-D (3.2). We also mention the good performance of CAM-B3LYP (1.8), M05-2X (1.9), and TPSSLYP (3.0). In contrast, for relative energies of various water nanoparticle 16-mer structures, the best methods (and mean unsigned errors in kcal/mol), in the same order of classes of methods, are SOGGA11-X (0.3), ωB97X-D (0.2), PM6 (0.4), and PMOv1 (0.6). We also mention the good performance of LC-ωPBE-D3 (0.3) and ωB97X (0.4). When both relative and binding energies are taken into consideration, the best methods overall (out of the 85 tested) are M05-2X without molecular mechanics and ωB97X-D when molecular mechanics corrections are included; with considerably higher average errors and considerably lower cost, the best SWF or SWF-MM method is PMOv1. We use six of the best methods for binding energies of the water 16-mers to calculate the binding energies of water hexamers and water 17-mers to test whether these methods are also reliable for binding energy calculations on other types of water clusters.

Entities:  

Year:  2013        PMID: 26588742     DOI: 10.1021/ct300848z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput        ISSN: 1549-9618            Impact factor:   6.006


  6 in total

Review 1.  Semiempirical Quantum Mechanical Methods for Noncovalent Interactions for Chemical and Biochemical Applications.

Authors:  Anders S Christensen; Tomáš Kubař; Qiang Cui; Marcus Elstner
Journal:  Chem Rev       Date:  2016-04-13       Impact factor: 60.622

2.  Intermolecular interactions in the condensed phase: Evaluation of semi-empirical quantum mechanical methods.

Authors:  Anders S Christensen; Jimmy C Kromann; Jan H Jensen; Qiang Cui
Journal:  J Chem Phys       Date:  2017-10-28       Impact factor: 3.488

3.  Improving intermolecular interactions in DFTB3 using extended polarization from chemical-potential equalization.

Authors:  Anders S Christensen; Marcus Elstner; Qiang Cui
Journal:  J Chem Phys       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 4.  Enhanced semiempirical QM methods for biomolecular interactions.

Authors:  Nusret Duygu Yilmazer; Martin Korth
Journal:  Comput Struct Biotechnol J       Date:  2015-02-28       Impact factor: 7.271

5.  Combined Docking with Classical Force Field and Quantum Chemical Semiempirical Method PM7.

Authors:  A V Sulimov; D C Kutov; E V Katkova; V B Sulimov
Journal:  Adv Bioinformatics       Date:  2017-01-16

Review 6.  Modeling Molecular Interactions in Water: From Pairwise to Many-Body Potential Energy Functions.

Authors:  Gerardo Andrés Cisneros; Kjartan Thor Wikfeldt; Lars Ojamäe; Jibao Lu; Yao Xu; Hedieh Torabifard; Albert P Bartók; Gábor Csányi; Valeria Molinero; Francesco Paesani
Journal:  Chem Rev       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 60.622

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.