ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2025
Comparison among Amber-ff14SB, Amber-ff19SB, and CHARMM36 Force Fields for Ionic and Electroosmotic Flows in Biological Nanopores.
Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the Anti-Inflammatory Potential of Saudi Propolis Through Phytochemical Characterization, Molecular Docking, and Dynamic Simulation.Pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- Bioinformatic and computational biophysics tools for nanopore engineering: a review from standard approaches to machine learning advancements.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Molecular dynamics has been widely used in nanofluidics as it provides an atomistic description of fluid transport that cannot be achieved experimentally. The interactions among atoms are modeled by empirical force fields whose reliability for a specific problem must be tested against experimental evidence. Such validation is often difficult to obtain in nanofluidics due to the challenges associated with measuring nanoscale flows. Here, we systematically compare three popular force fields (CHARMM36, Amber-ff14SB, both with TIP3P water, and Amber-ff19SB with the OPC water) in terms of their electrohydrodynamical outputs. As test cases, we used CytK and MspA, two biological nanopores employed in sensing. For each nanopore, we simulated one cation-selective and one anion-selective mutant. Our results show that while, overall, the anion/cation selectivity and the direction of electroosmosis are coherent across the force fields, quantitative differences are observed. These differences cannot be simply explained by the transport properties of the solution, such as the ion conductivity and viscosity. For narrow pores such as MspA, these differences can become so significant as to yield qualitatively different outcomes; for example, one force field may predict no detectable electroosmosis while another shows a clear electroosmotic flow.
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.