ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Evaluating Force-Field London Dispersion Coefficients Using the Exchange-Hole Dipole Moment Model

OR SEARCH CITATIONS

My Activity
Publications

Figure 1Loading Img
Download Hi-Res ImageDownload to MS-PowerPointCite This:J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2017, 13, 12, 6146-6157
    Article

    Evaluating Force-Field London Dispersion Coefficients Using the Exchange-Hole Dipole Moment Model
    Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

    View Author Information
    † Department of Chemistry, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
    ‡ Department of Chemistry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
    *E-mail: [email protected]
    Other Access OptionsSupporting Information (2)

    Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation

    Cite this: J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2017, 13, 12, 6146–6157
    Click to copy citationCitation copied!
    https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00522
    Published November 17, 2017
    Copyright © 2017 American Chemical Society
    Request reuse permissions

    Abstract

    Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
    Abstract Image

    London dispersion interactions play an integral role in materials science and biophysics. Force fields for atomistic molecular simulations typically represent dispersion interactions by the 12-6 Lennard-Jones potential using empirically determined parameters. These parameters are generally underdetermined, and there is no straightforward way to test if they are physically realistic. Alternatively, the exchange-hole dipole moment (XDM) model from density-functional theory predicts atomic and molecular London dispersion coefficients from first principles, providing an innovative strategy to validate the dispersion terms of molecular-mechanical force fields. In this work, the XDM model was used to obtain the London dispersion coefficients of 88 organic molecules relevant to biochemistry and pharmaceutical chemistry and the values compared with those derived from the Lennard-Jones parameters of the CGenFF, GAFF, OPLS, and Drude polarizable force fields. The molecular dispersion coefficients for the CGenFF, GAFF, and OPLS models are systematically higher than the XDM-calculated values by a factor of roughly 1.5, likely due to neglect of higher order dispersion terms and premature truncation of the dispersion-energy summation. The XDM dispersion coefficients span a large range for some molecular-mechanical atom types, suggesting an unrecognized source of error in force-field models, which assume that atoms of the same type have the same dispersion interactions. Agreement with the XDM dispersion coefficients is even poorer for the Drude polarizable force field. Popular water models were also examined, and TIP3P was found to have dispersion coefficients similar to the experimental and XDM references, although other models employ anomalously high values. Finally, XDM-derived dispersion coefficients were used to parametrize molecular-mechanical force fields for five liquids—benzene, toluene, cyclohexane, n-pentane, and n-hexane—which resulted in improved accuracy in the computed enthalpies of vaporization despite only having to evaluate a much smaller section of the parameter space.

    Copyright © 2017 American Chemical Society

    Subjects

    what are subjects

    Read this article

    To access this article, please review the available access options below.

    Get instant access

    Purchase Access

    Read this article for 48 hours. Check out below using your ACS ID or as a guest.

    Recommended

    Access through Your Institution

    You may have access to this article through your institution.

    Your institution does not have access to this content. Add or change your institution or let them know you’d like them to include access.

    Supporting Information

    Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

    The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00522.

    • CSV file of average C6, C8, and C10 coefficients for each atom type (PDF)

    • Sample input files for ORCA, Gaussian 09, and GROMACS (ZIP)

    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

    Cited By

    Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

    This article is cited by 41 publications.

    1. Nguyen Thien Phuc Tu, Siri Williamson, Erin R. Johnson, Christopher N. Rowley. Modeling Intermolecular Interactions with Exchange-Hole Dipole Moment Dispersion Corrections to Neural Network Potentials. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2024, 128 (35) , 8290-8302. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.4c02882
    2. Luis Macaya, Duván González, Esteban Vöhringer-Martinez. Nonbonded Force Field Parameters from MBIS Partitioning of the Molecular Electron Density Improve Binding Affinity Predictions of the T4-Lysozyme Double Mutant. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 2024, 64 (8) , 3269-3277. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.3c01912
    3. Michael Brunsteiner, Sten Nilsson-Lil, Lucy M. Morgan, Adrian Davis, Amrit Paudel. Finite-Temperature Mechanical Properties of Organic Molecular Crystals from Classical Molecular Simulation. Crystal Growth & Design 2023, 23 (4) , 2155-2168. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.cgd.2c01187
    4. Kristian Kříž, Lisa Schmidt, Alfred T. Andersson, Marie-Madeleine Walz, David van der Spoel. An Imbalance in the Force: The Need for Standardized Benchmarks for Molecular Simulation. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 2023, 63 (2) , 412-431. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.2c01127
    5. Marina P. Oliveira, Yan M. H. Gonçalves, S. Kashef Ol Gheta, Salomé R. Rieder, Bruno A. C. Horta, Philippe H. Hünenberger. Comparison of the United- and All-Atom Representations of (Halo)alkanes Based on Two Condensed-Phase Force Fields Optimized against the Same Experimental Data Set. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2022, 18 (11) , 6757-6778. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00524
    6. Duván González, Luis Macaya, Carlos Castillo-Orellana, Toon Verstraelen, Stefan Vogt-Geisse, Esteban Vöhringer-Martinez. Nonbonded Force Field Parameters from Minimal Basis Iterative Stockholder Partitioning of the Molecular Electron Density Improve CB7 Host–Guest Affinity Predictions. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 2022, 62 (17) , 4162-4174. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.2c00316
    7. Simon Boothroyd, Owen C. Madin, David L. Mobley, Lee-Ping Wang, John D. Chodera, Michael R. Shirts. Improving Force Field Accuracy by Training against Condensed-Phase Mixture Properties. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2022, 18 (6) , 3577-3592. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.1c01268
    8. Chetan R. Rupakheti, Alexander D. MacKerell, Jr., Benoît Roux. Global Optimization of the Lennard-Jones Parameters for the Drude Polarizable Force Field. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2021, 17 (11) , 7085-7095. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00664
    9. Yejie Qiu, Wenjie Shan, Haiyang Zhang. Force Field Benchmark of Amino Acids. 3. Hydration with Scaled Lennard-Jones Interactions. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 2021, 61 (7) , 3571-3582. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.1c00339
    10. Wiktoria Jedwabny, Edyta Dyguda-Kazimierowicz, Katarzyna Pernal, Krzysztof Szalewicz, Konrad Patkowski. Extension of an Atom–Atom Dispersion Function to Halogen Bonds and Its Use for Rational Design of Drugs and Biocatalysts. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 2021, 125 (8) , 1787-1799. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.0c11347
    11. Marina P. Oliveira, Maurice Andrey, Salomé R. Rieder, Leyla Kern, David F. Hahn, Sereina Riniker, Bruno A. C. Horta, Philippe H. Hünenberger. Systematic Optimization of a Fragment-Based Force Field against Experimental Pure-Liquid Properties Considering Large Compound Families: Application to Saturated Haloalkanes. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2020, 16 (12) , 7525-7555. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.0c00683
    12. Sadra Kashefolgheta, Marina P. Oliveira, Salomé R. Rieder, Bruno A. C. Horta, William E. Acree, Jr., Philippe H. Hünenberger. Evaluating Classical Force Fields against Experimental Cross-Solvation Free Energies. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2020, 16 (12) , 7556-7580. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.0c00688
    13. Braden D. Kelly, William R. Smith. A Simple Method for Including Polarization Effects in Solvation Free Energy Calculations When Using Fixed-Charge Force Fields: Alchemically Polarized Charges. ACS Omega 2020, 5 (28) , 17170-17181. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.0c01148
    14. Nozomu Kamiya, Megumi Kayanuma, Hideaki Fujitani, Keiko Shinoda. A New Lipid Force Field (FUJI). Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2020, 16 (6) , 3664-3676. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.9b01195
    15. Koen M. Visscher, Daan P. Geerke. Deriving a Polarizable Force Field for Biomolecular Building Blocks with Minimal Empirical Calibration. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2020, 124 (9) , 1628-1636. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.9b10903
    16. Leandro Oliveira Bortot, Zahedeh Bashardanesh, David van der Spoel. Making Soup: Preparing and Validating Models of the Bacterial Cytoplasm for Molecular Simulation. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 2020, 60 (1) , 322-331. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00971
    17. Zahedeh Bashardanesh, Johan Elf, Haiyang Zhang, David van der Spoel. Rotational and Translational Diffusion of Proteins as a Function of Concentration. ACS Omega 2019, 4 (24) , 20654-20664. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.9b02835
    18. Koen M. Visscher, Daan P. Geerke. Deriving Force-Field Parameters from First Principles Using a Polarizable and Higher Order Dispersion Model. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2019, 15 (3) , 1875-1883. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.8b01105
    19. Zahedeh Bashardanesh, David van der Spoel. Impact of Dispersion Coefficient on Simulations of Proteins and Organic Liquids. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2018, 122 (33) , 8018-8027. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.8b05770
    20. Evan T. Walters, Mohamad Mohebifar, Erin R. Johnson, Christopher N. Rowley. Evaluating the London Dispersion Coefficients of Protein Force Fields Using the Exchange-Hole Dipole Moment Model. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2018, 122 (26) , 6690-6701. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.8b02814
    21. Sereina Riniker. Fixed-Charge Atomistic Force Fields for Molecular Dynamics Simulations in the Condensed Phase: An Overview. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 2018, 58 (3) , 565-578. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00042
    22. Joshua T. Horton, Simon Boothroyd, Pavan Kumar Behara, David L. Mobley, Daniel J. Cole. A transferable double exponential potential for condensed phase simulations of small molecules. Digital Discovery 2023, 2 (4) , 1178-1187. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3DD00070B
    23. Katja‐Sophia Csizi, Markus Reiher. Universal QM / MM approaches for general nanoscale applications. WIREs Computational Molecular Science 2023, 13 (4) https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1656
    24. Owen C. Madin, Michael R. Shirts. Using physical property surrogate models to perform accelerated multi-fidelity optimization of force field parameters. Digital Discovery 2023, 2 (3) , 828-847. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2DD00138A
    25. Nguyen Thien Phuc Tu, Nazanin Rezajooei, Erin R. Johnson, Christopher N. Rowley. A neural network potential with rigorous treatment of long-range dispersion. Digital Discovery 2023, 2 (3) , 718-727. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2DD00150K
    26. Jinzhe Zeng, Yujun Tao, Timothy J. Giese, Darrin M. York. Modern semiempirical electronic structure methods and machine learning potentials for drug discovery: Conformers, tautomers, and protonation states. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2023, 158 (12) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0139281
    27. Chris Ringrose, Joshua T. Horton, Lee-Ping Wang, Daniel J. Cole. Exploration and validation of force field design protocols through QM-to-MM mapping. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2022, 24 (28) , 17014-17027. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2CP02864F
    28. David van der Spoel, Jin Zhang, Haiyang Zhang. Quantitative predictions from molecular simulations using explicit or implicit interactions. WIREs Computational Molecular Science 2022, 12 (1) https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1560
    29. Takuro Tokunaga, Amun Jarzembski, Takuma Shiga, Keunhan Park, Mathieu Francoeur. Extreme near-field heat transfer between gold surfaces. Physical Review B 2021, 104 (12) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.104.125404
    30. Marina P. Oliveira, Philippe H. Hünenberger. Systematic optimization of a fragment-based force field against experimental pure-liquid properties considering large compound families: application to oxygen and nitrogen compounds. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2021, 23 (33) , 17774-17793. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1CP02001C
    31. Alastair J. A. Price, Kyle R. Bryenton, Erin R. Johnson. Requirements for an accurate dispersion-corrected density functional. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2021, 154 (23) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0050993
    32. Mohamad Mohebifar, Christopher N. Rowley. An efficient and accurate model for water with an improved non-bonded potential. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2020, 153 (13) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0014469
    33. A. Otero-de-la-Roza, Luc M. LeBlanc, Erin R. Johnson. What is “many-body” dispersion and should I worry about it?. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2020, 22 (16) , 8266-8276. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0CP01213K
    34. VS Sandeep Inakollu, Daan P Geerke, Christopher N Rowley, Haibo Yu. Polarisable force fields: what do they add in biomolecular simulations?. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 2020, 61 , 182-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2019.12.012
    35. Shae-Lynn J. Lahey, Christopher N. Rowley. Simulating protein–ligand binding with neural network potentials. Chemical Science 2020, 11 (9) , 2362-2368. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9SC06017K
    36. Daniel J. Cole, Israel Cabeza de Vaca, William L. Jorgensen. Computation of protein–ligand binding free energies using quantum mechanical bespoke force fields. MedChemComm 2019, 10 (7) , 1116-1120. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9MD00017H
    37. Paul A. Gabrys, Leonardo Z. Zornberg, Robert J. Macfarlane. Programmable Atom Equivalents: Atomic Crystallization as a Framework for Synthesizing Nanoparticle Superlattices. Small 2019, 15 (26) https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201805424
    38. José Luis Casals-Sainz, Aurora Costales Castro, Evelio Francisco, Ángel Martín Pendás. Tetrel Interactions from an Interacting Quantum Atoms Perspective. Molecules 2019, 24 (12) , 2204. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24122204
    39. Daisuke Yokogawa. Isotropic Site-Site Dispersion Potential Constructed Using Quantum Chemical Calculations and a Geminal Auxiliary Basis Set. Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan 2019, 92 (4) , 748-753. https://doi.org/10.1246/bcsj.20180341
    40. Koen Visscher, William Swope, Daan Geerke. A QM/MM Derived Polarizable Water Model for Molecular Simulation. Molecules 2018, 23 (12) , 3131. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23123131
    41. Xibo Feng, Alberto Otero-de-la-Roza, Erin R. Johnson. The effect of electronic excitation on London dispersion. Canadian Journal of Chemistry 2018, 96 (7) , 730-737. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjc-2017-0726
    Download PDF
    Go to Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
    Get e-Alerts
    Get e-Alerts

    Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation

    Cite this: J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2017, 13, 12, 6146–6157
    Click to copy citationCitation copied!
    https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00522
    Published November 17, 2017
    Copyright © 2017 American Chemical Society
    Request reuse permissions

    Article Views

    1219

    Altmetric

    -

    Citations

    41
    Learn about these metrics

    Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

    Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

    The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.