Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 626

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Performance comparison of generalized born and Poisson methods in the calculation of electrostatic solvation energies for protein structures

Feig, Michael, Onufriev, Alexey, Lee, Michael S., Im, Wonpil, Case, David A., Brooks, Charles L.·2004·Journal of Computational Chemistry

Abstract

This study compares generalized Born (GB) and Poisson (PB) methods for calculating electrostatic solvation energies of proteins. A large set of GB and PB implementations from our own laboratories as well as others is applied to a series of protein structure test sets for evaluating the performance of these methods. The test sets cover a significant range of native protein structures of varying size, fold topology, and amino acid composition as well as nonnative extended and misfolded structures that may be found during structure prediction and folding/unfolding studies. We find that the methods tested here span a wide range from highly accurate and computationally demanding PB‐based methods to somewhat less accurate but more affordable GB‐based approaches and a few fast, approximate PB solvers. Compared with PB solvation energies, the latest, most accurate GB implementations were found to achieve errors of 1% for relative solvation energies between different proteins and 0.4% between different conformations of the same protein. This compares to accurate PB solvers that produce results with deviations of less than 0.25% between each other for both native and nonnative structures. The performance of the best GB methods is discussed in more detail for the application for force field‐based minimizations or molecular dynamics simulations. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem 25: 265–284, 2004

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jcc.10378

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 626

Metadata

Authors
Feig, M., Onufriev, A., Lee, M. S., Im, W., Case, D. A., & Brooks, C. L.
Venue
Journal of Computational Chemistry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-11-20
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
265-284
ISSN
  • 0192-8651 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-987X
OpenAlex
W2012551774
Cited by
626
References
1
FWCI
7.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Performance comparison of generalized born and Poisson methods in the calculation of electrostatic solvation energies for protein structures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jcc.10378
The paper
Feig, M., Onufriev, A., Lee, M. S., Im, W., Case, D. A., & Brooks, C. L. (2004). Performance comparison of generalized born and Poisson methods in the calculation of electrostatic solvation energies for protein structures. Journal of Computational Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.10378

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.