Parameterization calculations

Similar data from some CNDO/S parameterized calculations on some small nitrogen containing molecules and ions and some heterocycles are presented in Tables IV and V. (39, 40) As shown in... 

The first DFT calculations on GC and AT base pairs recently appeared. Calculations were carried out within the LSDA using the VWN parameterization. Calculations beyond the LSDA were also performed using Becke s gradient-corrected exchange functionaP and Perdew s gradient-corrected correlation functional. The results from these calculations are listed in Tables 6 and 7, along with those from HF and MP2 calculations. ... 

The use of HINDO/3 parameterized calculations for nuclear screening is not recommended (27) because of the poor predictability of the molecular excited states by the MINDO/3 procedure. 

For this reason, there has been much work on empirical potentials suitable for use on a wide range of systems. These take a sensible functional form with parameters fitted to reproduce available data. Many different potentials, known as molecular mechanics (MM) potentials, have been developed for ground-state organic and biochemical systems [58-60], They have the advantages of simplicity, and are transferable between systems, but do suffer firom inaccuracies and rigidity—no reactions are possible. Schemes have been developed to correct for these deficiencies. The empirical valence bond (EVB) method of Warshel [61,62], and the molecular mechanics-valence bond (MMVB) of Bemardi et al. [63,64] try to extend MM to include excited-state effects and reactions. The MMVB Hamiltonian is parameterized against CASSCF calculations, and is thus particularly suited to photochemistry. 

In contrast to the point charge model, which needs atom-centered charges from an external source (because of the geometry dependence of the charge distribution they cannot be parameterized and are often pre-calculated by quantum mechanics), the relatively few different bond dipoles are parameterized. An elegant way to calculate charges is by the use of so-called bond increments (Eq. (26)), which are defined as the charge contribution of each atom j bound to atom i. 

Molecular dipole moments are often used as descriptors in QPSR models. They are calculated reliably by most quantum mechanical techniques, not least because they are part of the parameterization data for semi-empirical MO techniques. Higher multipole moments are especially easily available from semi-empirical calculations using the natural atomic orbital-point charge (NAO-PC) technique [40], but can also be calculated rehably using ab-initio or DFT methods. They have been used for some QSPR models. 

This quantity is found to be related to the local polarization energy and is complementary to the MEP at the same point in space, making it a potentially very useful descriptor. Reported studies on local ionization potentials have been based on HF ab-initio calculations. However, they could equally well use semi-empirical methods, especially because these are parameterized to give accurate Koopmans theorem ionization potentials. 

The classical introduction to molecular mechanics calculations. The authors describe common components of force fields, parameterization methods, and molecular mechanics computational methods. Discusses th e application of molecular mechanics to molecules comm on in organic,and biochemistry. Several chapters deal w ith thermodynamic and chemical reaction calculations. 

The accuracy of a molecular mechanics or seim-eni pineal quantum mechanics method depends on the database used to parameterize the method. This is true for the type of molecules and the physical and chemical data in the database. Frequently, these methods give the best results for a limited class of molecules or phen omen a. A disad van tage of these methods is that you m u si have parameters available before running a calculation. Developing param eiers is time-consuming. 

Semiempirical calculations are set up with the same general structure as a HF calculation in that they have a Hamiltonian and a wave function. Within this framework, certain pieces of information are approximated or completely omitted. Usually, the core electrons are not included in the calculation and only a minimal basis set is used. Also, some of the two-electron integrals are omitted. In order to correct for the errors introduced by omitting part of the calculation, the method is parameterized. Parameters to estimate the omitted values are obtained by fitting the results to experimental data or ah initio calculations. Often, these parameters replace some of the integrals that are excluded. 

Semiempirical methods are parameterized to reproduce various results. Most often, geometry and energy (usually the heat of formation) are used. Some researchers have extended this by including dipole moments, heats of reaction, and ionization potentials in the parameterization set. A few methods have been parameterized to reproduce a specific property, such as electronic spectra or NMR chemical shifts. Semiempirical calculations can be used to compute properties other than those in the parameterization set. 

Practically all CNDO calculations are actually performed using the CNDO/ 2 method, which is an improved parameterization over the original CNDO/1 method. There is a CNDO/S method that is parameterized to reproduce electronic spectra. The CNDO/S method does yield improved prediction of excitation energies, but at the expense of the poorer prediction of molecular geometry. There have also been extensions of the CNDO/2 method to include elements with occupied d orbitals. These techniques have not seen widespread use due to the limited accuracy of results. 

There are three modihed intermediate neglect of differential overlap (MINDO) methods MINDO/1, MINDO/2, and MINDO/3. The MINDO/3 method is by far the most reliable of these. This method has yielded qualitative results for organic molecules. However its use today has been superseded by that of more accurate methods such as Austin model 1 (AMI) and parameterization method 3 (PM3). MINDO/3 is still sometimes used to obtain an initial guess for ah initio calculations. 

The PRDDO (partial retention of diatomic differential overlap) method is an attempt to get the optimal ratio of accuracy to CPU time. It has been parameterized for the periodic elements through Br, including the 3rd row transition metals. It was parameterized to reproduce ah initio results. PRDDO has been used primarily for inorganic compounds, organometallics, solid-state calculations, and polymer modeling. This method has seen less use than other methods of similar accuracy mostly due to the fact that it has not been incorporated into the most widely used semiempirical software. 

There are several variations of this method. The PRDDO/M method is parameterized to reproduce electrostatic potentials. The PRDDO/M/FCP method uses frozen core potentials. PRDDO/M/NQ uses an approximation called not quite orthogonal orbitals in order to give efficient calculations on very large molecules. The results of these methods are fairly good overall, although bond lengths involving alkali metals tend to be somewhat in error. 

All the constants in these equations must be obtained from experimental data or an ah initio calculation. The database of compounds used to parameterize the method is crucial to its success. A molecular mechanics method may be parameterized against a specific class of molecules, such as proteins or nucleotides. Such a force field would only be expected to have any relevance in... 

For molecular mechanics, the charge calculation method used in parameterizing the force field should be used if possible. Otherwise, use Q-equilibrate or electrostatic charges. 

The most commonly used semiempirical for describing PES s is the diatomics-in-molecules (DIM) method. This method uses a Hamiltonian with parameters for describing atomic and diatomic fragments within a molecule. The functional form, which is covered in detail by Tully, allows it to be parameterized from either ah initio calculations or spectroscopic results. The parameters must be fitted carefully in order for the method to give a reasonable description of the entire PES. Most cases where DIM yielded completely unreasonable results can be attributed to a poor fitting of parameters. Other semiempirical methods for describing the PES, which are discussed in the reviews below, are LEPS, hyperbolic map functions, the method of Agmon and Levine, and the mole-cules-in-molecules (MIM) method. 

Another technique is to use an ah initio method to parameterize force field terms specific to a single system. For example, an ah initio method can be used to compute the reaction coordinate for a model system. An analytic function can then be fitted to this reaction coordinate. A MM calculation can then be performed, with this analytic function describing the appropriate bonds, and so on. 

One disadvantage is that the lower levels of theory must be able to describe all atoms in the inner regions of the molecule. Thus, this method cannot be used to incorporate a metal atom into a force field that is not parameterized for it. The effect of one region of the molecule causing polarization of the electron density in the other region of the molecule is incorporated only to the extent that the lower levels of theory describe polarization. This method requires more CPU time than most of the others mentioned. However, the extra time should be minimal since it is due to lower-level calculations on smaller sections of the system. 

---