ArticleThe journal of physical chemistry. B2024
Solid-State NMR Validation of OPLS4: Structure of PC-Lipid Bilayers and Its Modulation by Dehydration.
Article in The journal of physical chemistry. B, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discovery of Quercetin as a Potential Entry Inhibitor of Nipah Virus: A Path Toward Antiviral Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Uridine, a Therapeutic Nucleoside, Exacerbates Alcoholic Liver Disease via SRC Kinase Activation: A Network Toxicology and Molecular Dynamics Perspective.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atomistic molecular dynamics (MD) simulations are a much-used tool for investigating the structure and dynamics of biomembranes with atomic resolution. The validity of the representations obtained is determined by the accuracy and realism of the MD model (force field). Here, we evaluated the proprietary OPLS4 force field of Schrödinger, Inc. against atomic-resolution experimental data, and compared its performance to CHARMM36, one of the best-performing openly available force fields. As a benchmark, we used high-resolution nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) order parameters for C-H bonds─directly and reliably calculable from MD simulations─measured in phosphatidylcholine (PC) lipid bilayers under varying hydration conditions. Comparisons were made with two dehydration data sets: for saturated (1,2-dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine, DMPC) lipid bilayers from the literature and for unsaturated (1-palmitoyl-2-oleoylphosphatidylcholine, POPC) lipid bilayers measured here. Our findings indicate that OPLS4 reproduces the structure and dehydration response of PC-lipid bilayers fairly well, even slightly outperforming CHARMM36. Both models' main inaccuracies appear in (1) the order parameter magnitudes in the glycerol backbone and unsaturated carbon segments and (2) the qualitatively differing structural response of the PC headgroup to dehydration compared to experiments. In summary, this work underscores the importance of independent validation for (proprietary) force fields and highlights the striking similarities and nuanced differences between OPLS4 and CHARMM36 in describing biomembranes.
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.