Dataset Information

Electrostatic polarization is crucial in reproducing Cu(I) interaction energies and hydration.

ABSTRACT: We have explored the suitability of fixed-charges and polarizable force fields for modeling interactions of the monovalent Cu(I) ion. Parameters for this ion have been tested and refitted within the fixed-charges OPLS-AA and polarizable force field (PFF) frameworks. While this ion plays an important role in many protein interactions, the attention to it in developing empirical force fields is limited. Our PFF parameters for the copper ion worked very well for the Cu(I) interactions with water, while both the original OPLS2005 and our refitted OPLS versions moderately underestimated the copper-water interaction energy. However, the greatest problem in using the nonpolarizable fixed-charges OPLS force field was observed while calculating interaction energies and distances for Cu(I)-benzene complexes. The OPLS2005 model underestimates the interaction energy by a factor of 4. Refitting the OPLS parameters reduced this underestimation to a factor of 2.2-2.4, but only at a cost of distorting the complex geometry. At the same time, the polarizable calculations had an error of about 4%. Moreover, we then used the PFF and nonpolarizable refitted OPLS models for finding free energy of hydration for copper ion via molecular dynamics simulations. While the OPLS calculations lead to a 22% error in the solvation energy, the PFF result was off by only 1.8%. This was achieved with no refitting of the parameters but simply by employing the model developed for the Cu(I) interaction with a single water molecule. We believe that the presented results not only lead to a conclusion about a qualitatively greater suitability of polarizable force fields for simulating molecular interactions with ions but also attest to the excellent level of transferability of PFF parameters.

SUBMITTER: Ponomarev SY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3158297 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Electrostatic polarization is crucial in reproducing Cu(I) interaction energies and hydration.

Ponomarev Sergei Y SY Click Timothy H TH Kaminski George A GA

The journal of physical chemistry. B 20110728 33

We have explored the suitability of fixed-charges and polarizable force fields for modeling interactions of the monovalent Cu(I) ion. Parameters for this ion have been tested and refitted within the fixed-charges OPLS-AA and polarizable force field (PFF) frameworks. While this ion plays an important role in many protein interactions, the attention to it in developing empirical force fields is limited. Our PFF parameters for the copper ion worked very well for the Cu(I) interactions with water, w ...[more]

PMID: 21761909

Similar Datasets

Project description:Accurate yet efficient computational models of solvent environment are central for most calculations that rely on atomistic modeling, such as prediction of protein-ligand binding affinities. In this study, we evaluate the accuracy of a recently developed generalized Born implicit solvent model, GBNSR6 (Aguilar et al. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2010, 6, 3613-3639), in estimating the electrostatic solvation free energies (?G(pol)) and binding free energies (??G(pol)) for small protein-ligand complexes. We also compare estimates based on three different explicit solvent models (TIP3P, TIP4PEw, and OPC). The two main findings are as follows. First, the deviation (RMSD = 7.04 kcal/mol) of GBNSR6 binding affinities from commonly used TIP3P reference values is comparable to the deviations between explicit models themselves, e.g. TIP4PEw vs TIP3P (RMSD = 5.30 kcal/mol). A simple uniform adjustment of the atomic radii by a single scaling factor reduces the RMS deviation of GBNSR6 from TIP3P to within the above "error margin" - differences between ??G(pol) estimated by different common explicit solvent models. The simple radii scaling virtually eliminates the systematic deviation (??G(pol)) between GBNSR6 and two out of the three explicit water models and significantly reduces the deviation from the third explicit model. Second, the differences between electrostatic binding energy estimates from different explicit models is disturbingly large; for example, the deviation between TIP4PEw and TIP3P estimates of ??G(pol) values can be up to ?50% or ?9 kcal/mol, which is significantly larger than the "chemical accuracy" goal of ?1 kcal/mol. The absolute ?G(pol) calculated with different explicit models could differ by tens of kcal/mol. These discrepancies point to unacceptably high sensitivity of binding affinity estimates to the choice of common explicit water models. The absence of a clear "gold standard" among these models strengthens the case for the use of accurate implicit solvation models for binding energetics, which may be orders of magnitude faster.

Dataset Information

Electrostatic polarization is crucial in reproducing Cu(I) interaction energies and hydration.

Publications

Electrostatic polarization is crucial in reproducing Cu(I) interaction energies and hydration.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets