Harmonic bonds interactions

To reliably describe PT reactions in the gas and condensed phases, the usual parameterization of a force field in terms of harmonic bonded interactions is not sufficient. H-bonded systems are quite anharmonic around the bottom of the well for bond-stretching motions, and angular bending vibrations are equally affected. Furthermore, the hydrogen motion between the donor and acceptor atoms is strongly coupled to the donor-acceptor motion. These aspects need to be taken into account for a reliable model of hydrogen or proton motion between a donor-acceptor pair. 

But the methods have not really changed. The Verlet algorithm to solve Newton s equations, introduced by Verlet in 1967 [7], and it s variants are still the most popular algorithms today, possibly because they are time-reversible and symplectic, but surely because they are simple. The force field description was then, and still is, a combination of Lennard-Jones and Coulombic terms, with (mostly) harmonic bonds and periodic dihedrals. Modern extensions have added many more parameters but only modestly more reliability. The now almost universal use of constraints for bonds (and sometimes bond angles) was already introduced in 1977 [8]. That polarisability would be necessary was realized then [9], but it is still not routinely implemented today. Long-range interactions are still troublesome, but the methods that now become popular date back to Ewald in 1921 [10] and Hockney and Eastwood in 1981 [11]. 

Figure 7-9. Variation of the potential energy of the bonded interaction of two atoms with the distance between them. The solid line comes close to the experimental situation by using a Morse function the broken line represents the approximation by a harmonic potential.

In a Urey-Bradley force field, angle bending is achieved using 1,3 non-bonded interaction rather than an explicit angle-bending potential. The stretch-bond term in such a forci field would be modelled by a harmonic function of the distance between the 1,3 atoms ... 

According to Bartell (1961a), the relative motion of the interacting non-bonded atoms is described by means of a harmonic oscillator when the two atoms are bonded to the same atom, and by means of two superimposed harmonic oscillators when the atoms are linked to each other via more than one intervening atom. It is the second case which is of interest in connection with the biphenyl inversion transition state. The non-bonded interaction will of course introduce anharmonicity, but since a first-order perturbation calculation of the energy only implies an... 

The dependence on the nuclear positions is indicated by r and the dependence on the Drude positions is indicated by d. In Eq. (9-25) Ubond (r) is the intramolecular energy contribution from, typically, the bond lengths, valence angles, and dihedral angles, Ulj (r) is a Lennard-Jones 6-12 nonpolar contribution, Ueiect (r, d) represents all Coulombic interactions, atom-atom, atom-Drude, and Drude-Drude, and Useif (d) represents the atom-Drude harmonic bonds. The term Usey (d) arises from the harmonic spring separating the two charges and has the simple expression... 

The MD simulations were carried out under standard temperature and pressure. A 1 fs time step was used with SHAKE25 applied to bonds. A 2 fs time step with SHAKE was used in the d(IC)6 d(IC)6 —> d(GC)6 d(GC)6 calculations. The non-bonded interactions for DNA complexes were subject to 10 -12 A spherical cutoff whereas no cutoff was applied to solute-solute interactions to avoid cutoff artifacts on coulombic interactions between sodium ions with phosphates. In the case of d(IC)6 d(IC)6 —> d(GC)6 d(GC)6 calculations an 8 A spherical cutoff was applied to non-bonded interactions. A weak harmonic restraint of 5.0 kcal/mol was imposed to avoid the disruption of terminal base pairs during FEP simulations of netropsin —> 0 and 2-imidazole-distamycin —> distamycin calculations. 

The bonded interactions are almost always modeled with harmonic (parabolic) functions which practice is acceptable close to equilibrium. For non-bonded interactions, the van der Waals part is modeled with inverse power terms in the interatomic distances, 12, or occa-... 

Inclusion of 1,3-nonbonded interactions1285-2871 was achieved in the same way as was used firstly for the modeling of cobalt(III) complexes11481 and more recently for a wide range of transition metal compounds14,5 451. That is, standard models with M-L harmonic bond stretching terms were used, but the L-M-L harmonic terms were deleted and L...L nonbonded interactions were used in their place. In the first of... 

An introduction to the modeling methods can be found in refs. [22,231. The classical MD simulations reported here were performed with the modified AMBER software/241 in which the potential energy consists of harmonic deformations of bond and angles, dihedral energies, plus non-bonded interactions represented by a sum of pair wise additive coulombic and van der Waals contributions ... 

The reaction for stractural diffusion involves replacing the bond-stretching (harmonic) interaction of the 0 -H of the reactant HsO with a non-bonded interaction while the reverse switch is made for the reactant 0(H20) and the H. Then the proton is moved along the 0 0 axis such that the ratio of 0 -H and O-H distances are the same in the product molecules as they were in the reactant molecules. 

Fig. 3 A comparison of different coarse grain lipid models. The Shelley model " of DMPC, and Marrink and Essex models of DPPC are compared to their atomistic equivalents (for ease of comparison, hydrogen atoms of the atomistic models are not shown). Solid lines represent harmonic bonds connecting CG particles, and the CG particle types for the Shelley and Marrink models are labelled (the labels are the same as those used in the main text). The point charges (represented by + and —) and point dipoles (represented by arrows) are shown for the Essex model (the charges and dipoles are located at the centre of their associated CG particle). The Shelley and Marrink models use LJ particles (represented by spheres), while the Essex model uses a combination of LJ particles (spheres) and Gay-Berne particles (ellipsoids). Finally, the blob model proposed by Chao et al is also shown for comparison. This model represents groups of atoms as rigid non-spherical blobs that use interaction potentials based on multipole expansions.

A classical force field is typically used in which the energy expression consists of harmonic terms for bond stretching and angle bending, a Fourier series for each torsional angle, and Coulomb and Lennard-Jones interactions between atoms separated by three or more bonds (Equations 1- 4). The latter non-bonded interactions are also evaluated between intermolecular atom pairs, and they are reduced by a factor of 2 for intramolecular 1,4-interactions. Inhibitors or substrates are represented in an all-atom format with OPLS-AA parameters" though sometimes with partial charges obtained from quantum mechanical wavefunctions. 

---