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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Handbook of Mathematical Functions
McQuarrie, D. A. (1966) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.1972842 · Cited by 40,433
Cited by
Computer Simulation of Liquids
Allen, M. P., & Tildesley, D. J. (2017) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198803195.001.0001 · Cited by 20,945
The Amber biomolecular simulation programs
Case, D. A., Cheatham, T. E., Darden, T., Gohlke, H., Luo, R., Merz, K. M., Onufriev, A., Simmerling, C., Wang, B., & Woods, R. J. (2005) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.20290 · Cited by 9,535
Self-citationHou, T., Wang, J., Li, Y., & Wang, W. (2011) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci100275a · Cited by 2,773
Onufriev, A., Bashford, D., & Case, D. A. (2004) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.20033 · Cited by 2,507
Self-citationHow Water’s Properties Are Encoded in Its Molecular Structure and Energies
Brini, E., Fennell, C. J., Fernandez-Serra, M., Hribar-Lee, B., Lukšič, M., & Dill, K. A. (2017) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00259 · Cited by 518
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.