Parameterization method three

PLS (partial least-squares) algorithm used for 3D QSAR calculations PM3 (parameterization method three) a semiempirical method PMF (potential of mean force) a solvation method for molecular dynamics calculations... 

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 However its use today has been superseded by that of more accurate methods such as Austin model 1 (AMI) and parameterization method 3 (PM3).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. 

Spherical harmonics provide a parameterization of three-dimensional shape which is especially useful for protein structure description (4). Overlap volume comparisons are the basis for the Molecular Shape Analysis (MSA) method of Hopfinger (5,6). TTiis technique has been extended to include a quantification of the steric and electrostatic fields surrounding a molecule (7). A further refinement of field analysis, which merges statistical and molecular modeling techniques, is the COMparative Molecular Field Analysis method (COMFA) of Cramer (8). These latter approaches seek to encode information about more than just steric bulk or form. They express multivariate information about the structure, so they might be considered multidimensional shape descriptors. 

An especially interesting model, termed the generalized Born model, has been developed primarily for water as a solvent. We will describe it briefly here, because it nicely illustrates in a quantitative way some of the topics we have discussed in this chapter. The approach is a parameterized method that produces Gsoiv, the solvation free energy for a molecule or ion. First, Gsoiv is divided into three terms (Eq. 3.32). 

The first quantum mechanical improvement to MNDO was made by Thiel and Voityuk [19] when they introduced the formalism for adding d-orbitals to the basis set in MNDO/d. This formalism has since been used to add d-orbitals to PM3 to give PM3-tm and to PM3 and AMI to give PM3(d) and AMl(d), respectively (aU three are available commercially but have not been published at the time of writing). Voityuk and Rosch have published parameters for molybdenum for AMl(d) [20] and AMI has been extended to use d-orbitals for Si, P, S and Q. in AMI [21]. Although PM3, for instance, was parameterized with special emphasis on hypervalent compounds but with only an s,p-basis set, methods such as MNDO/d or AMI, that use d-orbitals for the elements Si-Cl are generally more reliable. 

The model contains a surface energy method for parameterizing winds and turbulence near the ground. Its chemical database library has physical properties (seven types, three temperature dependent) for 190 chemical compounds obtained from the DIPPR" database. Physical property data for any of the over 900 chemicals in DIPPR can be incorporated into the model, as needed. The model computes hazard zones and related health consequences. An option is provided to account for the accident frequency and chemical release probability from transportation of hazardous material containers. When coupled with preprocessed historical meteorology and population den.sitie.s, it provides quantitative risk estimates. The model is not capable of simulating dense-gas behavior. 

The most significant treatment of excited states within the CNDO approach is that of Del Bene and Jaffe, who made three modifications to the original CNDO parameterization scheme. Two of the modifications were just minor tinkering with the integral evaluation, and need not concern us. The key point in their method was the treatment of the p parameters. Think of a pair of bonded carbon atoms in a large molecule. Some of the p-type basis functions on Ca will be aligned to those on Cb in a type interaction was reduced. They wrote... 

Three versions of Modified Intermediate Neglect of Differential Overlap (MINDO) models exist, MINDO/1, MINDO/2 and MINDO/3. The first two attempts at parameterizing INDO gave quite poor results, but MINDO/3, introduced in 1975, produced the first general purpose quantum chemical method which could successfully... 

To circumvent problems associated with the link atoms different approaches have been developed in which localized orbitals are added to model the bond between the QM and MM regions. Warshel and Levitt [17] were the first to suggest the use of localized orbitals in QM/MM studies. In the local self-consistent field (LSCF) method the QM/MM frontier bond is described with a strictly localized orbital, also called a frozen orbital [43]. These frozen orbitals are parameterized by use of small model molecules and are kept constant in the SCF calculation. The frozen orbitals, and the localized orbital methods in general, must be parameterized for each quantum mechanical model (i.e. energy-calculation method and basis set) to achieve reliable treatment of the boundary [34]. This restriction is partly circumvented in the generalized hybrid orbital (GHO) method [44], In this method, which is an extension of the LSCF method, the boundary MM atom is described by four hybrid orbitals. The three hybrid orbitals that would be attached to other MM atoms are fixed. The remaining hybrid orbital, which represents the bond to a QM atom, participates in the SCF calculation of the QM part. In contrast with LSCF approach the added flexibility of the optimized hybrid orbital means that no specific parameterization of this orbital is needed for each new system. 

An example of a smart tabulation method is the intrinsic, low-dimensional manifold (ILDM) approach (Maas and Pope 1992). This method attempts to reduce the number of dimensions that must be tabulated by projecting the composition vectors onto the nonlinear manifold defined by the slowest chemical time scales.162 In combusting systems far from extinction, the number of slow chemical time scales is typically very small (i.e, one to three). Thus the resulting non-linear slow manifold ILDM will be low-dimensional (see Fig. 6.7), and can be accurately tabulated. However, because the ILDM is non-linear, it is usually difficult to find and to parameterize for a detailed kinetic scheme (especially if the number of slow dimensions is greater than three ). In addition, the shape, location in composition space, and dimension of the ILDM will depend on the inlet flow conditions (i.e., temperature, pressure, species concentrations, etc.). Since the time and computational effort required to construct an ILDM is relatively large, the ILDM approach has yet to find widespread use in transported PDF simulations outside combustion. 

This review indicates that all-atom protein structure prediction with stochastic optimization methods becomes feasible with present-day computational resources. The fact that three proteins were reproducibly folded with different optimization methods to near-native conformation increases the confidence in the parameterization of our all-atom protein force field PFFOl. The... 

Various parameterizations of NDDO have been proposed. Among these are modified neglect of diatomic overlap (MNDO),152 Austin Model 1 (AMI),153 and parametric method number 3 (PM3),154 all of which often perform better than those based on INDO. The parameterizations in these methods are based on atomic and molecular data. All three methods include only valence s and p functions, which are taken as Slater-type orbitals. The difference in the methods is in how the core-core repulsions are treated. These methods involve at least 12 parameters per atom, of which some are obtained from experimental data and others by fitting to experimental data. The AMI, MNDO, and PM3 methods have been focused on ground state properties such as enthalpies of formation and geometries. One of the limitations of these methods is that they can be used only with molecules that have s and p valence electrons, although MNDO has been extended to d electrons, as mentioned below. 

The molecular electron density function needed for EP calculation can be obtained through ab initio as well as various semi-empirical methods. Since ab initio calculations are not economical for large molecules (several hundred atoms), the use of well-parameterized semi-empirical methods are still justified. When semi-empirical methods are used the three-center potential integrals usually disappear, and therefore the electronic contribution can be easily calculated by Slater-type orbitals. In ab initio methods (primitive or contracted) Gaussian-type orbitals are used for calculating the three-center integrals because their calculations are clumsy with Slater-type orbitals. 

A fairly recent reparameterization of AMI, called RM1 (for Recife, a city in Brazil where three of the four authors work by analogy with Austin method 1) is said to be better than AMI and PM3 and to be at least very competitive with PM5 (PM3, PM5 and PM6 see below) [64]. RM1 keeps the mathematical structure and qualities of AMI, while significantly improving its quantitative accuracy with the help of today s computers and also of the more advanced techniques available for nonlinear optimization. RM1 can be implemented in the AMI software without changing the code, other than altering the parameters. For 1,736 species considered in the parameterization some average errors were ... 

---