The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The many faces of halogen bonding: a review of theoretical models and methods
Abstract
Halogen bonds, the formally noncovalent interactions where the halogen acts as a Lewis acid, have brought several controversies to the theoretical world regarding its nature and components, e.g., charge transfer (CT), electrostatics, dispersion, and polarization. The debate on whether all characteristics are accounted for by electrostatics is examined, highlighting the importance of the CT and repulsive interactions. A number of strongly halogen‐bonded complexes are as covalent as metal–ligand coordination bonds. Different levels of computational methods are reviewed with the objective of finding the best accuracy/cost ratios. The unusual electronic anisotropy of the halogen donor and its interaction with a Lewis base demand specific calculation schemes. From the wave‐function theory methods, only the ones with empirical corrections (spin‐component‐scaled MP2 or CCSD, and MP2.5) are suitable when CCSD(T) is unattainable. Density functional theory functionals with a high amount of exact exchange are fast and reliable methods for halogen bonds, but double hybrids are more robust if other types of interactions are involved. Molecular mechanics methods can be useful, but only when specific corrections are added to compensate for the inability of such methods to describe CT. The most common method introduces a virtual site with a partial positive charge to account for the quantum chemical effect of the halogen bond. This methodology has been successfully applied to study protein–ligand interactions for drug design. WIREs Comput Mol Sci 2014, 4:523–540. doi: 10.1002/wcms.1189 This article is categorized under: Structure and Mechanism > Molecular Structures Structure and Mechanism > Computational Biochemistry and Biophysics Theoretical and Physical Chemistry > Thermochemistry
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
Coupled-cluster theory in quantum chemistry
Bartlett, R. J., & Musiał, M. (2007) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.79.291 · Cited by 3,343
Density functional theory with London dispersion corrections
Grimme, S. (2011) · WIREs Computational Molecular Science · doi:10.1002/wcms.30 · Cited by 2,829
Huang, S.-Y., Grinter, S. Z., & Zou, X. (2010) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/c0cp00151a · Cited by 508
Cited by
The Bright Future of Unconventional σ/π‐Hole Interactions
Bauzá, A., Mooibroek, T. J., & Frontera, A. (2015) · ChemPhysChem · doi:10.1002/cphc.201500314 · Cited by 710
Halogen bonding anion recognition
Brown, A., & Beer, P. D. (2016) · Chemical Communications · doi:10.1039/c6cc03638d · Cited by 286
Berger, G., Soubhye, J., & Meyer, F. (2015) · Polymer Chemistry · doi:10.1039/c5py00354g · Cited by 260
Metadata
- Authors
- Wolters, L. P., Schyman, P., Pavan, M. J., Jorgensen, W. L., Bickelhaupt, F. M., & Kozuch, S.
- Venue
- WIREs Computational Molecular Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-06-09
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 523-540
- ISSN
- 1759-0876 (ISSN-L)
- 1759-0884
- OpenAlex
- W2121828318
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 13.07
- 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: The many faces of halogen bonding: a review of theoretical models and methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/wcms.1189
- The paper
- Wolters, L. P., Schyman, P., Pavan, M. J., Jorgensen, W. L., Bickelhaupt, F. M., & Kozuch, S. (2014). The many faces of halogen bonding: a review of theoretical models and methods. WIREs Computational Molecular Science. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1189
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.