Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 3,372

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Routine Microsecond Molecular Dynamics Simulations with AMBER on GPUs. 2. Explicit Solvent Particle Mesh Ewald

Salomon-Ferrer, Romelia, Götz, Andreas W., Poole, Duncan, Le Grand, Scott, Walker, Ross C.·2013·Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation

Abstract

We present an implementation of explicit solvent all atom classical molecular dynamics (MD) within the AMBER program package that runs entirely on CUDA-enabled GPUs. First released publicly in April 2010 as part of version 11 of the AMBER MD package and further improved and optimized over the last two years, this implementation supports the three most widely used statistical mechanical ensembles (NVE, NVT, and NPT), uses particle mesh Ewald (PME) for the long-range electrostatics, and runs entirely on CUDA-enabled NVIDIA graphics processing units (GPUs), providing results that are statistically indistinguishable from the traditional CPU version of the software and with performance that exceeds that achievable by the CPU version of AMBER software running on all conventional CPU-based clusters and supercomputers. We briefly discuss three different precision models developed specifically for this work (SPDP, SPFP, and DPDP) and highlight the technical details of the approach as it extends beyond previously reported work [Götz et al., J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2012, DOI: 10.1021/ct200909j; Le Grand et al., Comp. Phys. Comm. 2013, DOI: 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.022].We highlight the substantial improvements in performance that are seen over traditional CPU-only machines and provide validation of our implementation and precision models. We also provide evidence supporting our decision to deprecate the previously described fully single precision (SPSP) model from the latest release of the AMBER software package.

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 · 10.1021/ct400314y

Cites

3 of 3 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

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. Grossfield A., 2011, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1808, 1868, 10.1016/j.bbamem.2011.03.010 · DOI
  2. André S., 2006, Bioorg. Med. Chem., 14, 6314, 10.1016/j.bmc.2006.05.045 · DOI
  3. Harvey M. J., 2012, Drug Discovery Today, 17, 1059, 10.1016/j.drudis.2012.03.017 · DOI
  4. Zwier M. C., 2010, Curr. Opin. Pharmacol., 10, 745, 10.1016/j.coph.2010.09.008 · DOI
  5. Durrant J. D., 2011, BMC Biol., 71, 1
  6. Pérez A., 2011, Acc. Chem. Res., 45, 196, 10.1021/ar2001217 · DOI
  7. Wereszczynski J., 2012, Q. Rev. Biophys., 45, 1, 10.1017/S0033583511000096 · DOI
  8. Šponer J., 2012, Methods, 57, 25, 10.1016/j.ymeth.2012.04.005 · DOI
  9. Pierce L. C., 2012, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 8, 2997, 10.1021/ct300284c · DOI
  10. Skjevik r. A., 2012, J. Phys. Chem. B, 116, 11124, 10.1021/jp3059992 · DOI
  11. Dickson C. J., 2012, Soft Matter, 8, 9617, 10.1039/c2sm26007g · DOI
  12. Xu D., 2010, Annual Reports in Computational Chemistry, 6, 3
  13. Götz A. W., 2010, Annual Reports in Computational Chemistry, 6, 21
  14. Harvey M. J., 2012, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci., 2, 734, 10.1002/wcms.1101 · DOI
  15. Garland M., 2008, IEEE Micro., 28, 13, 10.1109/MM.2008.57 · DOI
  16. Preis T., 2011, Eur. Phys. J.: Spec. Top., 194, 87
  17. Pratx G., 2011, Med. Phys., 38, 2685, 10.1118/1.3578605 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Stone J. E., 2007, J. Comput. Chem., 28, 2618, 10.1002/jcc.20829 · DOI
  19. Case D., 2012, AMBER 12
  20. Salomon-Ferrer R., 2013, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci., 3, 198, 10.1002/wcms.1121 · DOI
  21. van der Spoel D., 2005, J. Comput. Chem., 26, 1701, 10.1002/jcc.20291 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Hess B., 2008, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 4, 435, 10.1021/ct700301q · DOI
  23. Brooks B. R., 2009, J. Comput. Chem., 30, 1545, 10.1002/jcc.21287 · DOI
  24. Harvey M. J., 2009, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 5, 1632, 10.1021/ct9000685 · DOI
  25. Eastman P., 2013, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 9, 461, 10.1021/ct300857j · DOI
  26. Götz A. W., 2012, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 8, 1542, 10.1021/ct200909j · DOI
  27. Tironi I. G., 1995, J. Chem. Phys., 102, 5451, 10.1063/1.469273 · DOI
  28. Wu X., 2005, J. Chem. Phys., 122, 044107, 10.1063/1.1836733 · DOI
  29. Darden T., 1993, Chem. Phys., 98, 10089
  30. Essmann U., 1995, J. Chem. Phys., 103, 8577, 10.1063/1.470117 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Hockney R., 1988, Computer Simulation Using Particles, 10.1887/0852743920 · DOI
  32. Le Grand S., 2013, Comput. Phys. Commun., 184, 374, 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.022 · DOI
  33. Cornell W. D., 1995, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 117, 5179, 10.1021/ja00124a002 · DOI
  34. Hornak V., 2006, Proteins, 65, 712, 10.1002/prot.21123 · DOI
  35. Harvey M. J., 2009, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 5, 2371, 10.1021/ct900275y · DOI
  36. Brown W. M., 2012, Comput. Phys. Commun., 183, 449, 10.1016/j.cpc.2011.10.012 · DOI
  37. Brown W. M., 2011, Comput. Phys. Commun., 182, 898, 10.1016/j.cpc.2010.12.021 · DOI
  38. Friedrichs M. S., 2009, J. Comput. Chem., 30, 864, 10.1002/jcc.21209 · DOI
  39. Eastman P., 2010, J. Comput. Chem., 31, 1268, 10.1002/jcc.21413 · DOI
  40. Hilbert D., 1891, Mathematische Annalen, 38, 459, 10.1007/BF01199431 · DOI
  41. Miyamoto S., 1992, J. Comput. Chem., 13, 952, 10.1002/jcc.540130805 · DOI
  42. 2009, A Message-Passing Interface Standard
  43. Case D. A., 2010, AMBER 11
  44. Bowers K. J., 2006, Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing
  45. Vijaykumar S., 1985, J. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 82, 3582, 10.1073/pnas.82.11.3582 · DOI
  46. Vijaykumar S., 1987, J. Mol. Bio., 194, 531, 10.1016/0022-2836(87)90679-6 · DOI
  47. Berendsen H. J. C., 1984, J. Chem. Phys., 81, 3684, 10.1063/1.448118 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 3,372

Metadata

Authors
Salomon-Ferrer, R., Götz, A. W., Poole, D., Le Grand, S., & Walker, R. C.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
Published
2013-08-20
Volume
9
Issue
9
Pages
3878-3888
ISSN
  • 1549-9618 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-9626
OpenAlex
W2313116527
Cited by
3,372
References
3
FWCI
229.55
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.