Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36659982›Full record

ReviewBiophysical reviews2022

Non-Ewald methods for evaluating the electrostatic interactions of charge systems: similarity and difference.

Ikuo Fukuda, Haruki Nakamura

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biophysical reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Ikuo FukudaGraduate School of Information Science, University of Hyogo, 7-1-28 Minatojima, Minamimachi, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo 650-0047 Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-8668-7197
Haruki NakamuraInstitute for Protein Research, Osaka University, 3-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871 Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In molecular simulations, it is essential to properly calculate the electrostatic interactions of particles in the physical system of interest. Here we consider a method called the non-Ewald method, which does not rely on the standard Ewald method with periodic boundary conditions, but instead relies on the cutoff-based techniques. We focus on the physicochemical and mathematical conceptual aspects of the method in order to gain a deeper understanding of the simulation methodology. In particular, we take into account the reaction field (RF) method, the isotropic periodic sum (IPS) method, and the zero-multipole summation method (ZMM). These cutoff-based methods are based on different physical ideas and are completely distinguishable in their underlying concepts. The RF and IPS methods are "additive" methods that incorporate information outside the cutoff region, via dielectric medium and isotropic boundary condition, respectively. In contrast, the ZMM is a "subtraction" method that tries to remove the artificial effects, generated near the boundary, from the cutoff sphere. Nonetheless, we find physical and/or mathematical similarities between these methods. In particular, the modified RF method can be derived by the principle of neutralization utilized in the ZMM, and we also found a direct relationship between IPS and ZMM.

Indexed as

Coulombic energyCutoff-based methodElectrostatic interactionElectrostatic neutralityMolecular dynamicsNon-Ewald methodReaction field method

Identifiers

PMID36659982
PMCPMC9842848

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.