ArticleThe Journal of chemical physics2016
Comparing generalized ensemble methods for sampling of systems with many degrees of freedom.
Article in The Journal of chemical physics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Conformational Landscapes Along Anharmonic Low-Frequency Vibrations.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2024Article
- Configurational Entropy of Folded Proteins and Its Importance for Intrinsically Disordered Proteins.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Best Practices for Alchemical Free Energy Calculations [Article v1.0].Living journal of computational molecular science · 2020Article
- Recent Advances in Computational Protocols Addressing Intrinsically Disordered Proteins.Biomolecules · 2019Review
- The combined force field-sampling problem in simulations of disordered amyloid-β peptides.The Journal of chemical physics · 2019Article
- Effect of a Paramagnetic Spin Label on the Intrinsically Disordered Peptide Ensemble of Amyloid-β.Biophysical journal · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We compare two standard replica exchange methods using temperature and dielectric constant as the scaling variables for independent replicas against two new corresponding enhanced sampling methods based on non-equilibrium statistical cooling (temperature) or descreening (dielectric). We test the four methods on a rough 1D potential as well as for alanine dipeptide in water, for which their relatively small phase space allows for the ability to define quantitative convergence metrics. We show that both dielectric methods are inferior to the temperature enhanced sampling methods, and in turn show that temperature cool walking (TCW) systematically outperforms the standard temperature replica exchange (TREx) method. We extend our comparisons of the TCW and TREx methods to the 5 residue met-enkephalin peptide, in which we evaluate the Kullback-Leibler divergence metric to show that the rate of convergence between two independent trajectories is faster for TCW compared to TREx. Finally we apply the temperature methods to the 42 residue amyloid-β peptide in which we find non-negligible differences in the disordered ensemble using TCW compared to the standard TREx. All four methods have been made available as software through the OpenMM Omnia software consortium (http://www.omnia.md/).
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.