Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32770927›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of chemical physics2020

A protocol for preparing explicitly solvated systems for stable molecular dynamics simulations.

Daniel R Roe, Bernard R Brooks

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of chemical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. hexABC seeking the physical code of DNA.Nature communications · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Europium Metal Complex [Eu(dbm)Chemistry & biodiversity · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Frontiers in medicine · 2026
    Article
  19. Computational Pipeline for Accelerating the Design of Glycomimetics.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Daniel R RoeLaboratory of Computational Biology, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.ORCID 0000000258342447
Bernard R BrooksLaboratory of Computational Biology, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.ORCID 0000000235862730

Funding

Theoretical Methods to Study Biological MacromoleculesZ01HL001051 · NHLBI · NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE · PI BROOKS, BERNARD R · 1998 to 2008
$1.4M
Intramural NIH HHS Z01 HL001051
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Before beginning the production phase of molecular dynamics simulations, i.e., the phase that produces the data to be analyzed, it is often necessary to first perform a series of one or more preparatory minimizations and/or molecular dynamics simulations in order to ensure that subsequent production simulations are stable. This is particularly important for simulations with explicit solvent molecules. Despite the preparatory minimizations and simulations being ubiquitous and essential for stable production simulations, there are currently no general recommended procedures to perform them and very few criteria to decide whether the system is capable of producing a stable simulation trajectory. Here, we propose a simple and well-defined ten step simulation preparation protocol for explicitly solvated biomolecules, which can be applied to a wide variety of system types, as well as a simple test based on the system density for determining whether the simulation is stabilized.

Identifiers

PMID32770927
PMCPMC7413747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.