The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Lessons learned from comparing molecular dynamics engines on the SAMPL5 dataset
Open accessAbstract
We describe our efforts to prepare common starting structures and models for the SAMPL5 blind prediction challenge. We generated the starting input files and single configuration potential energies for the host-guest in the SAMPL5 blind prediction challenge for the GROMACS, AMBER, LAMMPS, DESMOND and CHARMM molecular simulation programs. All conversions were fully automated from the originally prepared AMBER input files using a combination of the ParmEd and InterMol conversion programs. We find that the energy calculations for all molecular dynamics engines for this molecular set agree to better than 0.1 % relative absolute energy for all energy components, and in most cases an order of magnitude better, when reasonable choices are made for different cutoff parameters. However, there are some surprising sources of statistically significant differences. Most importantly, different choices of Coulomb’s constant between programs are one of the largest sources of discrepancies in energies. We discuss the measures required to get good agreement in the energies for equivalent starting configurations between the simulation programs, and the energy differences that occur when simulations are run with program-specific default simulation parameter values. Finally, we discuss what was required to automate this conversion and comparison.
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
Fast Parallel Algorithms for Short-Range Molecular Dynamics
Plimpton, S. (1995) · Journal of Computational Physics · doi:10.1006/jcph.1995.1039 · Cited by 44,721
A smooth particle mesh Ewald method
Essmann, U., Perera, L., Berkowitz, M. L., Darden, T., Lee, H., & Pedersen, L. G. (1995) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.470117 · Cited by 22,514
Computer Simulation of Liquids
Allen, M. P., & Tildesley, D. J. (2017) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198803195.001.0001 · Cited by 20,945
GROMACS 4: Algorithms for Highly Efficient, Load-Balanced, and Scalable Molecular Simulation
Hess, B., Kutzner, C., van der Spoel, D., & Lindahl, E. (2008) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/ct700301q · Cited by 15,908
Computer Simulation of Liquids
P, S., & J, K. (1988) · Journal of Molecular Liquids · doi:10.1016/0167-7322(88)80022-9 · Cited by 15,812
Lee, J., Cheng, X., Swails, J. M., Yeom, M. S., Eastman, P. K., Lemkul, J. A., Wei, S., Buckner, J., Jeong, J. C., Qi, Y., et al. (2016) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00935 · Cited by 4,171
Self-citationACPYPE - AnteChamber PYthon Parser interfacE
Sousa da Silva, A. W., & Vranken, W. F. (2012) · BMC Research Notes · doi:10.1186/1756-0500-5-367 · Cited by 3,134
Molecular dynamics---Scalable algorithms for molecular dynamics simulations on commodity clusters
Bowers, K. J., Sacerdoti, F. D., Salmon, J. K., Shan, Y., Shaw, D. E., Chow, E., Xu, H., Dror, R. O., Eastwood, M. P., Gregersen, B. A., et al. (2006) · Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing - SC '06 · doi:10.1145/1188455.1188544 · Cited by 2,580
Scalable Algorithms for Molecular Dynamics Simulations on Commodity Clusters
Bowers, K. J., Chow, D. E., Xu, H., Dror, R. O., Eastwood, M. P., Gregersen, B. A., Klepeis, J. L., Kolossvary, I., Moraes, M. A., Sacerdoti, F. D., et al. (2006) · ACM/IEEE SC 2006 Conference (SC'06) · doi:10.1109/sc.2006.54 · Cited by 1,673
Computer Simulation of Liquids
Allen, M. P., Tildesley, D. J., & Banavar, J. R. (1989) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.2810937 · Cited by 637
Cited by
gmx_MMPBSA: A New Tool to Perform End-State Free Energy Calculations with GROMACS
Valdés-Tresanco, M. S., Valdés-Tresanco, M. E., Valiente, P. A., & Moreno, E. (2021) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00645 · Cited by 3,393
TorchMD: A Deep Learning Framework for Molecular Simulations
Doerr, S., Majewski, M., Pérez, A., Krämer, A., Clementi, C., Noe, F., Giorgino, T., & De Fabritiis, G. (2021) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.0c01343 · Cited by 230
“31 In addition to that, to allow for faster prototyping and development, it implements its own easy to read YAML-based force field format.”
MethodFacilitating CG Simulations with MAD: The MArtini Database Server
Hilpert, C., Beranger, L., Souza, P. C. T., Vainikka, P. A., Nieto, V., Marrink, S. J., Monticelli, L., & Launay, G. (2023) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.2c01375 · Cited by 51
Structural and thermodynamic framework for PIEZO1 modulation by small molecules
Jiang, W., Wijerathne, T. D., Zhang, H., Lin, Y.-C., Jo, S., Im, W., Lacroix, J. J., & Luo, Y. L. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2310933120 · Cited by 44
Structural Modeling of Nanobodies: A Benchmark of State-of-the-Art Artificial Intelligence Programs
(2023) · doi:10.3390/molecules28103991 · Cited by 39
Metadata
- Authors
- Shirts, M. R., Klein, C., Swails, J. M., Yin, J., Gilson, M. K., Mobley, D. L., Case, D. A., & Zhong, E. D.
- Venue
- Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design
- Published
- 2016-10-27
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 147-161
- ISSN
- 0920-654X (ISSN-L)
- 1573-4951
- OpenAlex
- W2540491215
- Cited by
- 373
- References
- 22
- FWCI
- 10.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Lessons learned from comparing molecular dynamics engines on the SAMPL5 dataset. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10822-016-9977-1
- The paper
- Shirts, M. R., Klein, C., Swails, J. M., Yin, J., Gilson, M. K., Mobley, D. L., Case, D. A., & Zhong, E. D. (2017). Lessons learned from comparing molecular dynamics engines on the SAMPL5 dataset. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-016-9977-1
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.
