Literature DB >> 30506158

Biomolecular force fields: where have we been, where are we now, where do we need to go and how do we get there?

Pnina Dauber-Osguthorpe1, A T Hagler2,3.   

Abstract

In this perspective, we review the theory and methodology of the derivation of force fields (FFs), and their validity, for molecular simulations, from their inception in the second half of the twentieth century to the improved representations at the end of the century. We examine the representations of the physics embodied in various force fields, their accuracy and deficiencies. The early days in the 1950s and 60s saw FFs first introduced to analyze vibrational spectra. The advent of computers was soon followed by the first molecular mechanics machine calculations. From the very first papers it was recognized that the accuracy with which the FFs represented the physics was critical if meaningful calculated structural and thermodynamic properties were to be achieved. We discuss the rigorous methodology formulated by Lifson, and later Allinger to derive molecular FFs, not only obtain optimal parameters but also uncover deficiencies in the representation of the physics and improve the functional form to account for this physics. In this context, the known coupling between valence coordinates and the importance of coupling terms to describe the physics of this coupling is evaluated. Early simplified, truncated FFs introduced to allow simulations of macromolecular systems are reviewed and their subsequent improvement assessed. We examine in some depth: the basis of the reformulation of the H-bond to its current description; the early introduction of QM in FF development methodology to calculate partial charges and rotational barriers; the powerful and abundant information provided by crystal structure and energetic observables to derive and test all aspects of a FF including both nonbond and intramolecular functional forms; the combined use of QM, along with crystallography and lattice energy calculations to derive rotational barriers about ɸ and ψ; the development and results of methodologies to derive "QM FFs" by sampling the QM energy surface, either by calculating energies at hundreds of configurations, or by describing the energy surface by energies, first and second derivatives sampled over the surface; and the use of the latter to probe the validity of the representations of the physics, reveal flaws and assess improved functional forms. Research demonstrating significant effects of the flaws in the use of the improper torsion angle to represent out of plane deformations, and the standard Lorentz-Berthelot combining rules for nonbonded interactions, and the more accurate descriptions presented are also reviewed. Finally, we discuss the thorough studies involved in deriving the 2nd generation all-atom versions of the CHARMm, AMBER and OPLS FFs, and how the extensive set of observables used in these studies allowed, in the spirit of Lifson, a characterization of both the abilities, but more importantly the deficiencies in the diagonal 12-6-1 FFs used. The significant contribution made by the extensive set of observables compiled in these papers as a basis to test improved forms is noted. In the following paper, we discuss the progress in improving the FFs and representations of the physics that have been investigated in the years following the research described above.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AMBER; AMOEBA; CFF; Charge flux; Charmm; Combination rules; Consistent force field; Coupling terms; Cross terms; Electrostatics; Force fields: force field derivation; Free energy; GAFF; Hydrogen bond: drug discovery; Molecular dynamics; Molecular mechanics; Molecular simulation; Multipole moments; Nonbond flux; Nonbond interactions; OPLS; Polarizability; Polarizability flux; Potential functions; Protein simulation; QDF; Quantum derivative fitting; SDFF; VFF; van der Waals

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30506158     DOI: 10.1007/s10822-018-0111-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des        ISSN: 0920-654X            Impact factor:   3.686


  96 in total

1.  A generating equation for mixing rules and two new mixing rules for interatomic potential energy parameters.

Authors:  Ali Khalaf Al-Matar; David A Rockstraw
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 3.376

2.  Conformational polymorphism.

Authors:  Aurora J Cruz-Cabeza; Joel Bernstein
Journal:  Chem Rev       Date:  2013-12-18       Impact factor: 60.622

3.  How molecules stick together in organic crystals: weak intermolecular interactions.

Authors:  Jack D Dunitz; Angelo Gavezzotti
Journal:  Chem Soc Rev       Date:  2009-07-13       Impact factor: 54.564

4.  Definition and testing of the GROMOS force-field versions 54A7 and 54B7.

Authors:  Nathan Schmid; Andreas P Eichenberger; Alexandra Choutko; Sereina Riniker; Moritz Winger; Alan E Mark; Wilfred F van Gunsteren
Journal:  Eur Biophys J       Date:  2011-04-30       Impact factor: 1.733

5.  Energy parameters in polypeptides. IV. Semiempirical molecular orbital calculations of conformational dependence of energy and partial charge in di- and tripeptides.

Authors:  F A Momany; R F McGuire; J F Yan; H A Scheraga
Journal:  J Phys Chem       Date:  1971-07-22

6.  Precision space-filling atomic models.

Authors:  W L Koltun
Journal:  Biopolymers       Date:  1965-12       Impact factor: 2.505

7.  Modelling organic crystal structures using distributed multipole and polarizability-based model intermolecular potentials.

Authors:  Sarah L Price; Maurice Leslie; Gareth W A Welch; Matthew Habgood; Louise S Price; Panagiotis G Karamertzanis; Graeme M Day
Journal:  Phys Chem Chem Phys       Date:  2010-07-07       Impact factor: 3.676

8.  Molecular dynamics simulations of AP/HMX composite with a modified force field.

Authors:  Wei Zhu; Xijun Wang; Jijun Xiao; Weihua Zhu; Huai Sun; Heming Xiao
Journal:  J Hazard Mater       Date:  2009-01-23       Impact factor: 10.588

9.  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

10.  Further along the Road Less Traveled: AMBER ff15ipq, an Original Protein Force Field Built on a Self-Consistent Physical Model.

Authors:  Karl T Debiec; David S Cerutti; Lewis R Baker; Angela M Gronenborn; David A Case; Lillian T Chong
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2016-07-22       Impact factor: 6.006

View more
  17 in total

Review 1.  Force field development phase II: Relaxation of physics-based criteria… or inclusion of more rigorous physics into the representation of molecular energetics.

Authors:  A T Hagler
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2018-11-30       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Data-driven analysis of the number of Lennard-Jones types needed in a force field.

Authors:  Michael Schauperl; Sophie Kantonen; Lee-Ping Wang; Michael K Gilson
Journal:  Commun Chem       Date:  2020-11-13

3.  Biomolecular modeling thrives in the age of technology.

Authors:  Tamar Schlick; Stephanie Portillo-Ledesma
Journal:  Nat Comput Sci       Date:  2021-05-20

4.  High Order Ab Initio Valence Force Field with Chemical Pattern Based Parameter Assignment.

Authors:  Xudong Yang; Chengwen Liu; Pengyu Ren
Journal:  J Comput Biophys Chem       Date:  2021-12-29

5.  Improving Force Field Accuracy by Training against Condensed-Phase Mixture Properties.

Authors:  Simon Boothroyd; Owen C Madin; David L Mobley; Lee-Ping Wang; John D Chodera; Michael R Shirts
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 6.578

6.  Bayesian-Inference-Driven Model Parametrization and Model Selection for 2CLJQ Fluid Models.

Authors:  Owen C Madin; Simon Boothroyd; Richard A Messerly; Josh Fass; John D Chodera; Michael R Shirts
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 6.162

7.  Transition State Force Field for the Asymmetric Redox-Relay Heck Reaction.

Authors:  Anthony R Rosales; Sean P Ross; Paul Helquist; Per-Ola Norrby; Matthew S Sigman; Olaf Wiest
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 15.419

8.  GemSpot: A Pipeline for Robust Modeling of Ligands into Cryo-EM Maps.

Authors:  Michael J Robertson; Gydo C P van Zundert; Kenneth Borrelli; Georgios Skiniotis
Journal:  Structure       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 5.006

9.  Stereoselectivity Predictions for the Pd-Catalyzed 1,4-Conjugate Addition Using Quantum-Guided Molecular Mechanics.

Authors:  Jessica Wahlers; Michael Maloney; Farbod Salahi; Anthony R Rosales; Paul Helquist; Per-Ola Norrby; Olaf Wiest
Journal:  J Org Chem       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 4.354

10.  Improving small molecule force fields by identifying and characterizing small molecules with inconsistent parameters.

Authors:  Jordan N Ehrman; Victoria T Lim; Caitlin C Bannan; Nam Thi; Daisy Y Kyu; David L Mobley
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 3.686

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.