ArticleThe Journal of chemical physics2021
A comparison of three DFT exchange-correlation functionals and two basis sets for the prediction of the conformation distribution of hydrated polyglycine.
Article in The Journal of chemical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- AsRSC advances · 2026Article
- DFT study of frontier orbitals and NLO properties of a phenanthroline and nitrophenol complex.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- An Adaptive Force Matching Potential for Alanine Developed with Møller-Plesset Perturbation Theory and Smooth Fourier Transform Correction Map.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2025Article
- Dipole Cooperativity and Polarization Frustration Determine the Secondary Structure Distribution of Short Alanine Peptides in Water.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2023Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The performance of three density functional theory (DFT) exchange-correlation functionals, namely, Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE), BP86, and B3LYP, in predicting conformational distributions of a hydrated glycine peptide is tested with two different basis sets in the framework of adaptive force matching (AFM). The conformational distributions yielded the free energy profiles of the DFT functional and basis set combinations. Unlike traditional validations of potential energy and structural parameters, our approach allows the free energy of DFT to be validated. When compared to experimental distributions, the def2-TZVP basis set provides better agreement than a slightly trimmed aug-cc-pVDZ basis set. B3LYP is shown to be better than BP86 and PBE. The glycine model fitted against B3LYP-D3(BJ) with the def2-TZVP basis set is the most accurate and named the AFM2021 model for glycine. The AFM2021 glycine model provides better agreement with experimental J-coupling constants than C36m and ff14SB, although the margin is very small when compared to C36m. Our previously published alanine model is also refitted with the slightly simplified AFM2021 energy expression. This work shows good promise of AFM for developing force fields for a range of proteinogenic peptides using only DFT as reference.
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.