Point charge electrostatic model methods

Kibler, by a comparison of the point charge electrostatic model and the angular overlap model, has shown the equivalence between these two models he has given some simple relations between intrinsic parameters for a series of ligands and antibonding radial contributions e (X = a, 7r, 8, ) (Table 17). Kibler s I are different from our A (the basis is not the same). In Table 17 transformation formulas will be noticed. Kibler s eCT is besides seven times greater than the a found by Jorgensen s method. 

The point-charge electrostatic model is useful in illustrating how symmetry influences the signs of the crystal field parameters B. However, it does not usually result in accurate determinations of their magnitude and therefore other methods have been developed that lead to a better estimation. One such approach is based on the angular overlap model AOM developed and expanded to the/elements by Jprgensen [45]. Another approach is the simple overlap model SOM, proposed by Malta [46]. 

Another difference between the force fields is the calculation of electrostatic interactions. AMBER, BIO+, and OPLS use point charges to model electrostatic interactions. MM+ calculates electrostatic interactions using bond dipoles. The bond dipole method may not adequately simulate very polar or charged systems. 

In this work the use of molecular electrostatic potential (MEP) maps for similarity studies is reviewed in light of the latest results. First, methods of obtaining MEP maps is overviewed. The methodology, reliability and the efficiency of calculations based on semi-empirical as well as ab initio methods are discussed in detail. Point-charge models and multipole expansion methods which provide MEP maps of satisfactory quality are evaluated critically. Later on, similarity indices of various kinds are analyzed, compared and examples of their use are shown. Finally, the last section lists and summarizes software packages capable of calculating MEP map based similarity indices. 

Different solvation methods can be obtained depending on the way the (Vs(r p)) xj tern1 is calculated. So, for instance, in dielectric continuum models ( Vs(r p)) x is a function of the solvent dielectric constant and of the geometric parameters that define the molecular cavity where the solute molecule is placed. In ASEP/MD, the information necessary to calculate Vs(r, p))[Xj is obtained from molecular dynamics calculations. In this way (Vs(r p))[Xj incorporates information about the microscopic structure of the solvent around the solute, furthermore, specific solute-solvent interactions can be properly accounted for. For computational convenience, the potential Vs(r p)) X is discretized and represented by a set of point charges, that simulate the electrostatic potential generated by the solvent distribution. The set of charges, is obtained in three steps [26] ... 

The electrostatic embedding of MM partial charges as a perturbational potential in the Hamilton operator is a frequently used method to account for Coulombic interactions between QM atoms and MM point charges. As the respective potential contributions influence the quantum mechanical calculation and by that the molecular orbitals and the associated electron density, this approach is rated superior compared to a Coulombic interaction model utilising fixed partial charges. 

The PPD and shell models are nearly equivalent in this sense, because they model the electrostatic potential via static point charges and polarizable dipoles (of either zero or very small extent). Accuracy can be improved by extending the expansion to include polarizable quadrupoles or higher order terms.The added computational expense and difficulty in parameterizing these higher order methods has prevented them from being used widely. The accuracy of the ESP for dipole-based methods can also be improved by adding off-atom dipolar sites. 

---