ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2018
A Comparison of QM/MM Simulations with and without the Drude Oscillator Model Based on Hydration Free Energies of Simple Solutes.
Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dual-Coordinate Relative Free Energy Simulations Using Machine-Learned Interatomic Potentials.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2026Article
- Quantum-Centric Alchemical Free Energy Calculations.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2026Article
- Efficient Multistate Free-Energy Calculations with QM/MM Accuracy Using Replica-Exchange Enveloping Distribution Sampling.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2025Article
- Insights and Challenges in Correcting Force Field Based Solvation Free Energies Using a Neural Network Potential.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2024Article
- Comparison of the United- and All-Atom Representations of (Halo)alkanes Based on Two Condensed-Phase Force Fields Optimized against the Same Experimental Data Set.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2022Article
- Fragmentation Method for Computing Quantum Mechanics and Molecular Mechanics Gradients for Force Matching: Validation with Hydration Free Energy Predictions Using Adaptive Force Matching.The journal of physical chemistry. A · 2022Article
- Performing Molecular Dynamics Simulations and Computing Hydration Free Energies on the B3LYP-D3(BJ) Potential Energy Surface with Adaptive Force Matching: A Benchmark Study with Seven Alcohols and One Amine.ACS physical chemistry Au · 2021Article
- A Many-Body, Fully Polarizable Approach to QM/MM Simulations.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2020Article
- On the faithfulness of molecular mechanics representations of proteins towards quantum-mechanical energy surfaces.Interface focus · 2020Article
- Alchemical Binding Free Energy Calculations in AMBER20: Advances and Best Practices for Drug Discovery.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2020Article
- Predicting partition coefficients of drug-like molecules in the SAMPL6 challenge with Drude polarizable force fields.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2020Article
- How accurate are approximate quantum chemical methods at modelling solute-solvent interactions in solvated clusters?Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP · 2020Article
- Development of a Robust Indirect Approach for MM → QM Free Energy Calculations That Combines Force-Matched Reference Potential and Bennett's Acceptance Ratio Methods.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2019Article
- Use of Interaction Energies in QM/MM Free Energy Simulations.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2019Article
- Interactions of Water and Alkanes: Modifying Additive Force Fields to Account for Polarization Effects.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Maintaining a proper balance between specific intermolecular interactions and non-specific solvent interactions is of critical importance in molecular simulations, especially when predicting binding affinities or reaction rates in the condensed phase. The most rigorous metric for characterizing solvent affinity are solvation free energies, which correspond to a transfer from the gas phase into solution. Due to the drastic change of the electrostatic environment during this process, it is also a stringent test of polarization response in the model. Here, we employ both the CHARMM fixed charge and polarizable force fields to predict hydration free energies of twelve simple solutes. The resulting classical ensembles are then reweighted to obtain QM/MM hydration free energies using a variety of QM methods, including MP2, Hartree⁻Fock, density functional methods (BLYP, B3LYP, M06-2X) and semi-empirical methods (OM2 and AM1 ). Our simulations test the compatibility of quantum-mechanical methods with molecular-mechanical water models and solute Lennard⁻Jones parameters. In all cases, the resulting QM/MM hydration free energies were inferior to purely classical results, with the QM/MM Drude force field predictions being only marginally better than the QM/MM fixed charge results. In addition, the QM/MM results for different quantum methods are highly divergent, with almost inverted trends for polarizable and fixed charge water models. While this does not necessarily imply deficiencies in the QM models themselves, it underscores the need to develop consistent and balanced QM/MM interactions. Both the QM and the MM component of a QM/MM simulation have to match, in order to avoid artifacts due to biased solute⁻solvent interactions. Finally, we discuss strategies to improve the convergence and efficiency of multi-scale free energy simulations by automatically adapting the molecular-mechanics force field to the target quantum method.
Indexed as
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.