Published in

American Chemical Society, Journal of Physical Chemistry B (Soft Condensed Matter and Biophysical Chemistry), 5(115), p. 1329-1332, 2010

DOI: 10.1021/jp108173f

American Chemical Society, Journal of Physical Chemistry B (Soft Condensed Matter and Biophysical Chemistry), 9(111), p. 2242-2254, 2007

DOI: 10.1021/jp0667442

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Comparison of Charge Models for Fixed-Charge Force Fields: Small-Molecule Hydration Free Energies in Explicit Solvent

Journal article published in 2007 by David L. Mobley, Elise Dumont ORCID, John D. Chodera, Ken A. Dill
This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
  • Must obtain written permission from Editor
  • Must not violate ACS ethical Guidelines
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
  • Must obtain written permission from Editor
  • Must not violate ACS ethical Guidelines
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

In molecular simulations with fixed-charge force fields, the choice of partial atomic charges influences numerous computed physical properties, including binding free energies. Many molecular mechanics force fields specify how nonbonded parameters should be determined, but various choices are often available for how these charges are to be determined for arbitrary small molecules. Here, we compute hydration free energies for a set of 44 small, neutral molecules in two different explicit water models (TIP3P and TIP4P-Ew) to examine the influence of charge model on agreement with experiment. Using the AMBER GAFF force field for nonbonded parameters, we test several different methods for obtaining partial atomic charges, including two fast methods exploiting semiempirical quantum calculations and methods deriving charges from the electrostatic potentials computed with several different levels of ab initio quantum calculations with and without a continuum reaction field treatment of solvent. We find that the best charge sets give a root-mean-square error from experiment of roughly 1 kcal/mol. Surprisingly, agreement with experimental hydration free energies does not increase substantially with increasing level of quantum theory, even when the quantum calculations are performed with a reaction field treatment to better model the aqueous phase. We also find that the semiempirical AM1- BCC method for computing charges works almost as well as any of the more computationally expensive ab initio methods and that the root-mean-square error reported here is similar to that for implicit solvent models reported in the literature. Further, we find that the discrepancy with experimental hydration free energies grows substantially with the polarity of the compound, as does its variation across theory levels.