Potential energy force field

In contrast to the methods mentioned above which differentiated between primary and secondary structure or utilized a data base of known protein structures, there is the possibility of utilizing one of the many potential energy functions which have been shown to accurately reproduce many features of proteins, including thermodynamics and molecular motions. The potential energy force fields vary in specific details, mainly depending on the target molecule for which they were developed. A very typical energy force field is shown below. 

Figure 4 Typical potential energy force field for a protein.

To theoretical and computational chemists, the world may seem to revolve around the Schrodinger equation, potential energy force field equations, or perhaps some quantitative structure-activity relationship equations for predicting biological activity. These various equations have been the basis of the livelihood of many a computational chemist. Interestingly, author Guillen apparently did not deem these equations to have risen to the level of having... 

Recently, a novel decomposition-based approach has been proposed for predicting binding site structures in the MHC 11 HLA-DRl protein [183]. In this approach, existing MHC n crystal structures are used to predict the binding site conformations of other MHC n molecules. The approach uses the detailed potential energy force field ECEPP/3 and an area-based solvation method. A... 

Molecular Energetics. Molecular energies can be computed in a variety of ways including empirical fixed valence potentials, full force field potentials, and semi-empirical molecular orbital techniques (CNDO-2, INDO, MINDO-3, MNDO, PCILO). 

The various terms in this formula have the meaning of the potential function (force field) V(r1,r2,0) the vibrational, 7 rotational, fx, Ty, Tz and rotational-vibrational, Tvr kinetic energy terms. The latter are differential operators acting in the space of wave functions )/(/ ,r2,0 a,P,y). The potential function V(rur2,Q) is either calculated ab initio or parametrized in a suitable fashion. A commonly used parametrization is that provided by the force-field method... 

The ftrst two terms within brackets define the van der Waals repulsions, which vary as l/r. and the London dispersion attractions, which vary as l/r . The con.stantiT.., is related to the size of the atom pair being considered. r,j is the distance between the atom pairs, and e,j refers to the depth of the potential energy well. It i.s based on the Lcnnard-Jones 6-12 potential. Many force fields u.se functions of this type to describe steric interactions (Fig. 28-9). Only atoms with a 1.4 nonbonded relation.ship to one another (i.e.. with three chemical bonds. separating them) are included in these calculations. The bending and stretching terms include I..1 nonbonded attractive and repulsion terms implicitly. 

The use of Wigner type correlation correction to Hartree-Fock energies [78] and/or the inclusion of dispersion forces [79] and/or the use of Cl energies [80] to define different potentials in Monte Carlo simulations of liquid water, underscores the problem on the reliability of ab initio potentials for force fields. Note that at the time the force fields were obtained only semi-empirically, but I was championing the ab initio banner. 

The most commonly applied method is the atom-atom potential, or force field, method for calculating lattice energies. Initially considering intermolecular interactions only, the total lattice energy is assessed as a sum over intermolecular interactions, which in turn are computed as a sum over atom-atom interactions, U ... 

MD simulations of electrolytes for lithium batteries retain the atomistic representation of the electrolyte molecules but do not treat electrons explicitly. Instead the influence of electrons on intermolecular interactions is subsumed into the description of the interatomic interactions that constitute the atomistic potential or force field. The interatomic potential used in MD simulations is made up of dispersion/ repulsion terms. Coulomb interactions described by partial atomic charges, and in some cases, dipole polarizability described by atom-based polarizabilities. The importance of explicit inclusion of polarization effects is considered below. In the most accurate force fields, interatomic potentials are informed by high-level QC calculations. Specifically, QC calculations provide molecular geometries, conformational energetic, binding energies, electrostatic potential distributions, and dipole polarizabilities that can be used to parameterize atomic force fields. 

The energy of the overall system is the sum of contributions from the atomistic part and the continuum part. The atomistic part contributes a potential energy determined by the interatomic potentials (the force field ) and a kinetic energy from the momenta of the atoms. The continuum system contributes an elastic energy as the sum of the elastic deformations of all finite elements ... 

While simulations reach into larger time spans, the inaccuracies of force fields become more apparent on the one hand properties based on free energies, which were never used for parametrization, are computed more accurately and discrepancies show up on the other hand longer simulations, particularly of proteins, show more subtle discrepancies that only appear after nanoseconds. Thus force fields are under constant revision as far as their parameters are concerned, and this process will continue. Unfortunately the form of the potentials is hardly considered and the refinement leads to an increasing number of distinct atom types with a proliferating number of parameters and a severe detoriation of transferability. The increased use of quantum mechanics to derive potentials will not really improve this situation ab initio quantum mechanics is not reliable enough on the level of kT, and on-the-fly use of quantum methods to derive forces, as in the Car-Parrinello method, is not likely to be applicable to very large systems in the foreseeable future. 

Conformational Adjustments The conformations of protein and ligand in the free state may differ from those in the complex. The conformation in the complex may be different from the most stable conformation in solution, and/or a broader range of conformations may be sampled in solution than in the complex. In the former case, the required adjustment raises the energy, in the latter it lowers the entropy in either case this effect favors the dissociated state (although exceptional instances in which the flexibility increases as a result of complex formation seem possible). With current models based on two-body potentials (but not with force fields based on polarizable atoms, currently under development), separate intra-molecular energies of protein and ligand in the complex are, in fact, definable. However, it is impossible to assign separate entropies to the two parts of the complex. 

---