The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Umbrella sampling
Abstract
The calculation of free‐energy differences is one of the main challenges in computational biology and biochemistry. Umbrella sampling, biased molecular dynamics (MD), is one of the methods that provide free energy along a reaction coordinate. Here, the method is derived in a historic overview and is compared with related methods like thermodynamic integration, slow growth, steered MD, or the Jarzynski‐based fast‐growth technique. In umbrella sampling, bias potentials along a (one‐ or more‐dimensional) reaction coordinate drive a system from one thermodynamic state to another (e.g., reactant and product). The intermediate steps are covered by a series of windows, at each of which an MD simulation is performed. The bias potentials can have any functional form. Often, harmonic potentials are used for their simplicity. From the sampled distribution of the system along the reaction coordinate, the change in free energy in each window can be calculated. The windows are then combined by methods like the weighted histogram analysis method or umbrella integration. If the bias potential is adapted to result in an even distribution between the end states, then this whole range can be spanned by one window (adaptive‐bias umbrella sampling). In this case, the free‐energy change is directly obtained from the bias. The sampling in each window can be improved by replica exchange methods; either by exchange between successive windows or by running additional simulations at higher temperatures. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. WIREs Comput Mol Sci 2011 1 932–942 DOI: 10.1002/wcms.66 This article is categorized under: Molecular and Statistical Mechanics > Molecular Dynamics and Monte-Carlo Methods
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
Laio, A., & Parrinello, M. (2002) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.202427399 · Cited by 5,626
Cited by
Jinnouchi, R., Lahnsteiner, J., Karsai, F., Kresse, G., & Bokdam, M. (2019) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.225701 · Cited by 635
Bates, J. S., Bukowski, B. C., Greeley, J., & Gounder, R. (2020) · Chemical Science · doi:10.1039/d0sc02589e · Cited by 117
Ion Distribution and Hydration Structure in the Stern Layer on Muscovite Surface
Kobayashi, K., Liang, Y., Murata, S., Matsuoka, T., Takahashi, S., Nishi, N., & Sakka, T. (2017) · Langmuir · doi:10.1021/acs.langmuir.7b00436 · Cited by 57
Mechanistic insights into G-protein coupling with an agonist-bound G-protein-coupled receptor
Batebi, H., Pérez-Hernández, G., Rahman, S. N., Lan, B., Kamprad, A., Shi, M., Speck, D., Tiemann, J. K. S., Guixà-González, R., Reinhardt, F., et al. (2024) · Nature Structural & Molecular Biology · doi:10.1038/s41594-024-01334-2 · Cited by 38
Tang, Z., Chen, S.-H., & Chang, C.-E. A. (2020) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.9b01153 · Cited by 28
Lenk, T., Rabet, S., Sprick, M., Raabe, G., & Schröder, U. (2023) · ChemPhysChem · doi:10.1002/cphc.202200614 · Cited by 26
DynaMate: Leveraging AI-agents for customized research workflows
Mendible-Barreto, O. A., Díaz-Maldonado, M., Carmona Esteva, F. J., Torres, J. E., Córdova-Figueroa, U. M., & Colón, Y. J. (2025) · Molecular Systems Design & Engineering · doi:10.1039/d5me00062a · Cited by 12
Borgmans, S., Rogge, S. M. J., Vanduyfhuys, L., & Van Speybroeck, V. (2023) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.3c01028 · Cited by 8
Bera, P., & Mondal, J. (2025) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/5.0279756 · Cited by 7
Thermal Fluctuations of Singular Bar-Joint Mechanisms
Mannattil, M., Schwarz, J. M., & Santangelo, C. D. (2022) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.208005 · Cited by 7
Computational design of Bax-inhibiting peptides
Vlaar, T., Mayer, B., van der Heide, L., & Ilie, I. M. (2025) · Materials Advances · doi:10.1039/d4ma01142b · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Kästner, J.
- Venue
- WIREs Computational Molecular Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-05-26
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 932-942
- ISSN
- 1759-0876 (ISSN-L)
- 1759-0884
- OpenAlex
- W2792143480
- Cited by
- 1,283
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.11
- 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.