The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Force Field Benchmark of Organic Liquids: Density, Enthalpy of Vaporization, Heat Capacities, Surface Tension, Isothermal Compressibility, Volumetric Expansion Coefficient, and Dielectric Constant
Open accessAbstract
The chemical composition of small organic molecules is often very similar to amino acid side chains or the bases in nucleic acids, and hence there is no a priori reason why a molecular mechanics force field could not describe both organic liquids and biomolecules with a single parameter set. Here, we devise a benchmark for force fields in order to test the ability of existing force fields to reproduce some key properties of organic liquids, namely, the density, enthalpy of vaporization, the surface tension, the heat capacity at constant volume and pressure, the isothermal compressibility, the volumetric expansion coefficient, and the static dielectric constant. Well over 1200 experimental measurements were used for comparison to the simulations of 146 organic liquids. Novel polynomial interpolations of the dielectric constant (32 molecules), heat capacity at constant pressure (three molecules), and the isothermal compressibility (53 molecules) as a function of the temperature have been made, based on experimental data, in order to be able to compare simulation results to them. To compute the heat capacities, we applied the two phase thermodynamics method (Lin et al. J. Chem. Phys.2003, 119, 11792), which allows one to compute thermodynamic properties on the basis of the density of states as derived from the velocity autocorrelation function. The method is implemented in a new utility within the GROMACS molecular simulation package, named g_dos, and a detailed exposé of the underlying equations is presented. The purpose of this work is to establish the state of the art of two popular force fields, OPLS/AA (all-atom optimized potential for liquid simulation) and GAFF (generalized Amber force field), to find common bottlenecks, i.e., particularly difficult molecules, and to serve as a reference point for future force field development. To make for a fair playing field, all molecules were evaluated with the same parameter settings, such as thermostats and barostats, treatment of electrostatic interactions, and system size (1000 molecules). The densities and enthalpy of vaporization from an independent data set based on simulations using the CHARMM General Force Field (CGenFF) presented by Vanommeslaeghe et al. (J. Comput. Chem.2010, 31, 671) are included for comparison. We find that, overall, the OPLS/AA force field performs somewhat better than GAFF, but there are significant issues with reproduction of the surface tension and dielectric constants for both force fields.
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
CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics
(2014) · doi:10.1201/b17118 · Cited by 57,706
Computer Simulation of Liquids
Allen, M. P., & Tildesley, D. J. (2017) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198803195.001.0001 · Cited by 20,945
Self-consistent molecular orbital methods. XX. A basis set for correlated wave functions
Krishnan, R., Binkley, J. S., Seeger, R., & Pople, J. A. (1980) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.438955 · Cited by 17,772
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
Current Status of the AMOEBA Polarizable Force Field
Ponder, J. W., Wu, C., Ren, P., Pande, V. S., Chodera, J. D., Schnieders, M. J., Haque, I., Mobley, D. L., Lambrecht, D. S., DiStasio, R. A., et al. (2010) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry B · doi:10.1021/jp910674d · Cited by 1,440
Mobley, D. L., Chodera, J. D., & Dill, K. A. (2006) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.2221683 · Cited by 316
Cited by
Abraham, M. J., Murtola, T., Schulz, R., Páll, S., Smith, J. C., Hess, B., & Lindahl, E. (2015) · SoftwareX · doi:10.1016/j.softx.2015.06.001 · Cited by 27,190
Revisiting OPLS Force Field Parameters for Ionic Liquid Simulations
Doherty, B., Zhong, X., Gathiaka, S., Li, B., & Acevedo, O. (2017) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00520 · Cited by 594
Extreme electric fields power catalysis in the active site of ketosteroid isomerase
Fried, S. D., Bagchi, S., & Boxer, S. G. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1259802 · Cited by 554
Martini coarse-grained force field: Extension to RNA
Uusitalo, J. J., Ingólfsson, H. I., Marrink, S. J., & Faustino, I. (2017) · Biophysical Journal · doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2017.05.043 · Cited by 259
Jämbeck, J. P. M., & Lyubartsev, A. P. (2014) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry B · doi:10.1021/jp4111234 · Cited by 73
Metadata
- Authors
- Caleman, C., van Maaren, P. J., Hong, M., Hub, J. S., Costa, L. T., & van der Spoel, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2011-12-20
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 61-74
- ISSN
- 1549-9618 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-9626
- OpenAlex
- W2058938611
- Cited by
- 743
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 15.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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.