Distance embedding

Twelve parameters were required for every specific element in order to develop the function within the modified embedded-atom method [40]. The Usted values include the sublimation energy of elements, nearest-neighbor distance, embedding energy, factors for atomic densities, and so on. The modified embedded-atom method was successfiiUy applied to calculating various bonding characteristics. 

More recently Andrews and Juzeliunas [6, 7] developed a unified tlieory that embraces botli radiationless (Forster) and long-range radiative energy transfer. In otlier words tliis tlieory is valid over tire whole span of distances ranging from tliose which characterize molecular stmcture (nanometres) up to cosmic distances. It also addresses tire intennediate range where neitlier tire radiative nor tire Forster mechanism is fully valid. Below is tlieir expression for tire rate of pairwise energy transfer w from donor to acceptor, applicable to transfer in systems where tire donor and acceptor are embedded in a transparent medium of refractive index ... 

In light of tire tlieory presented above one can understand tliat tire rate of energy delivery to an acceptor site will be modified tlirough tire influence of nuclear motions on tire mutual orientations and distances between donors and acceptors. One aspect is tire fact tliat ultrafast excitation of tire donor pool can lead to collective motion in tire excited donor wavepacket on tire potential surface of tire excited electronic state. Anotlier type of collective nuclear motion, which can also contribute to such observations, relates to tire low-frequency vibrations of tire matrix stmcture in which tire chromophores are embedded, as for example a protein backbone. In tire latter case tire matrix vibration effectively causes a collective motion of tire chromophores togetlier, witliout direct involvement on tire wavepacket motions of individual cliromophores. For all such reasons, nuclear motions cannot in general be neglected. In tliis connection it is notable tliat observations in protein complexes of low-frequency modes in tlie... 

We can now proceed to the generation of conformations. First, random values are assigne to all the interatomic distances between the upper and lower bounds to give a trial distam matrix. This distance matrix is now subjected to a process called embedding, in which tl distance space representation of the conformation is converted to a set of atomic Cartesic coordinates by performing a series of matrix operations. We calculate the metric matrix, each of whose elements (i, j) is equal to the scalar product of the vectors from the orig to atoms i and j ... 

A distance geometry calculation consists of two major parts. In the first, the distances are checked for consistency, using a set of inequalities that distances have to satisfy (this part is called bound smoothing ) in the second, distances are chosen randomly within these bounds, and the so-called metric matrix (Mij) is calculated. Embedding then converts this matrix to three-dimensional coordinates, using methods akin to principal component analysis [40]. 

The second step concerns distance selection and metrization. Bound smoothing only reduces the possible intervals for interatomic distances from the original bounds. However, the embedding algorithm demands a specific distance for every atom pair in the molecule. These distances are chosen randomly within the interval, from either a uniform or an estimated distribution [48,49], to generate a trial distance matrix. Unifonn distance distributions seem to provide better sampling for very sparse data sets [48]. 

Note that although the bounds on the distances satisfy the triangle inequalities, particular choices of distances between these bounds will in general violate them. Therefore, if all distances are chosen within their bounds independently of each other (the method that is used in most applications of distance geometry for NMR strucmre determination), the final distance matrix will contain many violations of the triangle inequalities. The main consequence is a very limited sampling of the conformational space of the embedded structures for very sparse data sets [48,50,51] despite the intrinsic randomness of the tech-... 

This model of the hydrogen atom accordingly consists of a nucleus embedded in a ball of negative electricity—the electron distributed through space. The atom is spherically symmetrical. The electron density is greatest at the nucleus, and decreases exponentially as r, the distance from the nucleus, increases. It remains finite, however, for all finite values of r, so that the atom extends to infinity the greater part of the atom, however, is near the nucleus—within 1 or 2 A. 

The procedure of DG calculations can be subdivided in three separated steps [119-121]. At first, holonomic matrices (see below for explanahon) with pairwise distance upper and lower limits are generated from the topology of the molecule of interest. These limits can be further restrained by NOE-derived distance information which are obtained from NMR experiments. In a second step, random distances within the upper and lower limit are selected and are stored in a metric matrix. This operation is called metrization. Finally, all distances are converted into a complex geometry by mathematical operations. Hereby, the matrix-based distance space is projected into a Gartesian coordinate space (embedding). 

Due to the fact that the pairwise atom distances inside the upper and lower limits were randomly chosen, the produced embedded structures are often distorted. To overcome this problem further optimizahon is a must. This can be achieved by the utQization of either distance-dependent or classical force fields. 

The simplest formulation of the packing problem is to give some collection of distance constraints and to calculate these coordinates in ordinary three-dimensional Euclidean space for the atoms of a molecule. This embedding problem - the Fundamental Problem of Distance Geometry - has been proven to be NP-hard [116]. However, this does not mean that practical algorithms for its solution do not exist [117-119]. 

Three-dimensional electron densities have no boundaries they converge to zero exponentially with distance from the nuclei of the peripheral atoms in the molecule. Considering a single, isolated molecule, the exact quantum-mechanical electron density becomes zero in a strict sense only at infinite distance from the center of mass of the molecule. Consequently, the electron density is not a compact set, just as the embedding three-dimensional Euclidean space E3 is not compact either. However, the three-dimensional Euclidean space E3, as a subset of a four-dimensional Euclidean space E4, can be slightly extended (for example, by adding one point) and made compact by various compactification techniques. 

---