Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,018

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

Application of the multimolecule and multiconformational RESP methodology to biopolymers: Charge derivation for DNA, RNA, and proteins

Cieplak, Piotr, Cornell, Wendy D., Bayly, Christopher, Kollman, Peter A.·1995·Journal of Computational Chemistry

Abstract

We present the derivation of charges of ribo‐ and deoxynucleosides, nucleotides, and peptide fragments using electrostatic potentials obtained from ab initio calculations with the 6‐31G* basis set. For the nucleic acid fragments, we used electrostatic potentials of the four deoxyribonucleosides (A, G, C, T) and four ribonucleosides (A, G, C, U) and dimethylphosphate. The charges for the deoxyribose nucleosides and nucleotides are derived using multiple‐molecule fitting and restrained electrostatic potential (RESP) fits,1,2 with Lagrangian multipliers ensuring a net charge of 0 or ± 1. We suggest that the preferred approach for deriving charges for nucleosides and nucleotides involves allowing only C1′ and H1′ of the sugar to vary as the nucleic acid base, with the remainder of sugar and backbone atoms forced to be equivalent. For peptide fragments, we have combined multiple conformation fitting, previously employed by Williams 3 and Reynolds et al.,4 with the RESP approach 1,2 to derive charges for blocked dipeptides appropriate for each of the 20 naturally occuring amino acids. Based on our results for propyl amine,1,2 we suggest that two conformations for each peptide suffice to give charges that represent well the conformationally dependent electrostatic properties of molecules, provided that these two conformations contain different values of the dihedral angles that terminate in heteroatoms or hydrogens attached to heteroatoms. In these blocked dipeptide models, it is useful to require equivalent N—H and CO charges for all amino acids with a given net charge (except proline), and this is accomplished in a straightforward fashion with multiple‐molecule fitting. Finally, the application of multiple Lagrangian constraints allows for the derivation of monomeric residues with the appropriate net charge from a chemically blocked version of the residue. The multiple Lagrange constraints also enable charges from two or more molecules to be spliced together in a well‐defined fashion. Thus, the combined use of multiple molecules, multiple conformations, multiple Lagrangian constraints, and RESP fitting is shown to be a powerful approach to deriving electrostatic charges for biopolymers. © 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

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.540161106

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

Cited by

See all 1,018

Metadata

Authors
Cieplak, P., Cornell, W. D., Bayly, C., & Kollman, P. A.
Venue
Journal of Computational Chemistry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1995-11
Volume
16
Issue
11
Pages
1357-1377
ISSN
  • 0192-8651 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-987X
OpenAlex
W2149263899
Cited by
1,018
References
1
FWCI
5.37
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

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.