The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of Charge Models for Fixed-Charge Force Fields: Small-Molecule Hydration Free Energies in Explicit Solvent
Abstract
In molecular simulations with fixed-charge force fields, the choice of partial atomic charges influences numerous computed physical properties, including binding free energies. Many molecular mechanics force fields specify how nonbonded parameters should be determined, but various choices are often available for how these charges are to be determined for arbitrary small molecules. Here, we compute hydration free energies for a set of 44 small, neutral molecules in two different explicit water models (TIP3P and TIP4P-Ew) to examine the influence of charge model on agreement with experiment. Using the AMBER GAFF force field for nonbonded parameters, we test several different methods for obtaining partial atomic charges, including two fast methods exploiting semiempirical quantum calculations and methods deriving charges from the electrostatic potentials computed with several different levels of ab initio quantum calculations with and without a continuum reaction field treatment of solvent. We find that the best charge sets give a root-mean-square error from experiment of roughly 1 kcal/mol. Surprisingly, agreement with experimental hydration free energies does not increase substantially with increasing level of quantum theory, even when the quantum calculations are performed with a reaction field treatment to better model the aqueous phase. We also find that the semiempirical AM1-BCC method for computing charges works almost as well as any of the more computationally expensive ab initio methods and that the root-mean-square error reported here is similar to that for implicit solvent models reported in the literature. Further, we find that the discrepancy with experimental hydration free energies grows substantially with the polarity of the compound, as does its variation across theory levels.
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
Mobley, D. L., Chodera, J. D., & Dill, K. A. (2006) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.2221683 · Cited by 316
Self-citation
Cited by
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
Self-citationHickey, A. L., & Rowley, C. N. (2014) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry A · doi:10.1021/jp502475e · Cited by 319
Predicting Absolute Ligand Binding Free Energies to a Simple Model Site
Mobley, D. L., Graves, A. P., Chodera, J. D., McReynolds, A. C., Shoichet, B. K., & Dill, K. A. (2007) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2007.06.002 · Cited by 310
Self-citationJämbeck, J. P. M., & Lyubartsev, A. P. (2014) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry B · doi:10.1021/jp4111234 · Cited by 73
Metadata
- Authors
- Mobley, D. L., Dumont, É., Chodera, J. D., & Dill, K. A.
- Venue
- The Journal of Physical Chemistry B
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2007-02-10
- Volume
- 111
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 2242-2254
- ISSN
- 1520-5207 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6106
- OpenAlex
- W2048902575
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.24
- 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: Comparison of Charge Models for Fixed-Charge Force Fields: Small-Molecule Hydration Free Energies in Explicit Solvent. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/jp0667442
- The paper
- Mobley, D. L., Dumont, É., Chodera, J. D., & Dill, K. A. (2007). Comparison of Charge Models for Fixed-Charge Force Fields: Small-Molecule Hydration Free Energies in Explicit Solvent. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp0667442
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.