Molecular interactions electrostatic energies

At such distances, the use, as an interpretative tool, of the molecular electrostatic potential (which is simply the Gateaux derivative of the molecular classical electrostatic energy functional with respect to the electron density) becomes arguable since classical electrostatics does not exclusively drive the studied interactions. This... 

Ligand-Protein Interactions The energy of formation of ligand-protein contacts can be computed as a sum of non-bonded (Lennard-Jones and electrostatic) terms similar to those used in a molecular dynamics simulation. 

In periodic boimdary conditions, one possible way to avoid truncation of electrostatic interaction is to apply the so-called Particle Mesh Ewald (PME) method, which follows the Ewald summation method of calculating the electrostatic energy for a number of charges [27]. It was first devised by Ewald in 1921 to study the energetics of ionic crystals [28]. PME has been widely used for highly polar or charged systems. York and Darden applied the PME method already in 1994 to simulate a crystal of the bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor (BPTI) by molecular dynamics [29]. 

Electron distribution governs the electrostatic potential of molecules. The electrostatic potential describes the interaction of energy of the molecular system with a positive point charge. Electrostatic potential is useful for finding sites of reaction in a molecule positively charged species tend to attack where the electrostatic potential is strongly negative (electrophilic attack). 

Electronic interactions with the formation of bonding molecular orbitals (orbital energy) and the electrostatic attraction between the nuclei of atoms and electrons. These two contributions cause the bonding forces of covalent bonds. 

The electrostatic energy is calculated using the distributed multipolar expansion introduced by Stone [39,40], with the expansion carried out through octopoles. The expansion centers are taken to be the atom centers and the bond midpoints. So, for water, there are five expansion points (three at the atom centers and two at the O-H bond midpoints), while in benzene there are 24 expansion points. The induction or polarization term is represented by the interaction of the induced dipole on one fragment with the static multipolar field on another fragment, expressed in terms of the distributed localized molecular orbital (LMO) dipole polarizabilities. That is, the number of polarizability points is equal to the number of bonds and lone pairs in the molecule. One can opt to include inner shells as well, but this is usually not useful. The induced dipoles are iterated to self-consistency, so some many body effects are included. 

The molecular interaction of cytochrome c and cardiolipin has been extensively studied. A mode of the interaction has been confirmed to be both electrostatic and hydrophobic, by using infrared spectroscopy (Choi and Swanson, 1995), fluorescence resonance energy transfer method (Rytdmaa and Kinnunen, 1994), protease digestion (de Jongh et al., 1995), cyclic voltammetry (Salamon and ToUin, 1997), deuterium and phosphorus NMR measurements (Spooner et al., 1993), and surface plasmon resonance spectroscopy (Salamon and Tollin, 1996). 

Another class of 3D descriptors is molecular interaction field (MIF) descriptors, with its well-known example of Comparative Molecular Field Analysis (204,205) (CoMFA). In CoMFA, the steric and electrostatic fields are calculated for each molecule by interaction with a probe atom at a series of grid points surrounding the aligned molecules in 3D space. These interaction energy fields are correlated with the property of interest. The 3D nature of the CoMFA technique provides a convenient tool for visualization of the significant features of the resulting models. 

Expression (9.15) gives the total electrostatic energy and not the cohesive energy of a molecular crystal. It ignores the quantum-mechanical nature of the charge distribution an electron cannot interact with itself, but just such a self-energy is included in the expression. 

The conformational properties of trimer molecules modeling PVDB (S 100) and PVDF are analyzed by the molecular mechanics method of Boyd and Kesner [J. Chem. Phys. 1980, 72, 21791, which takes into account both steric and electrostatic energy. Total conformational energies are used to calculate a set of intramolecular interaction energies that, by means of the RIS model, allowed estimation of the characteristic ratios and dipole moment ratios of PVDB and PVDF under unperturbed conditions. 

Basis set superposition error (BSSE) is a particular problem for supermolecule treatments of intermolecular forces. As two moieties with incomplete basis sets are brought together, there is an unavoidable improvement in the overall quality of the supermolecule basis set, and thus an artificial energy lowering. Various approximate corrections to BSSE are available, with the most widely used being those based on the counterpoise method (CP) proposed by Boys and Bemardi [3]. There are indications that potential energy surfaces corrected via the CP method may not describe correctly the anisotropy of the molecular interactions, and there have been some suggestions of a bias in the description of the electrostatic properties of the monomers (secondary basis set superposition errors). 

---