Cited by 123Advanced Chemical Physics StudiesCrystallography and molecular interactionsAdvanced Physical and Chemical Molecular Interactions

Further analysis and comparative study of intermolecular interactions using dimers from the S22 database

Open access
Molnar, Laszlo Fusti, He, Xiao, Wang, Bing, Merz, Kenneth M.·2009·The Journal of Chemical Physics

Abstract

Accurate MP2 and CCSD(T) complete basis set (CBS) interaction energy curves (14 points for each curve) have been obtained for 20 of the dimers reported in the S22 set and analytical Morse curves have been fitted that can be used in developing updated density functional theory (DFT) and force field models. The magnitude and the effect of the basis set superposition error (BSSE) were carefully investigated. We found that going up to aug-cc-pVDZ and aug-cc-pVTZ basis sets is enough to obtain accurate CBS MP2 energies when BSSE corrected values are used but aug-cc-pVTZ and aug-cc-pVQZ basis sets are needed when the BSSE uncorrected total energies are used in CBS extrapolations. MP2 interaction energies with smaller basis sets such as 6-31G∗ are found to have very little dispersion energy and that the true source of dispersion attributed attractive interactions is almost entirely due to BSSE. MP2 and CCSD(T) CBS interaction energies are found to be very close to one another if aromatic systems are not involved. Comparative analyses have been performed with semiempirical and ab initio methods utilizing the moderate in size but affordable 6-31G∗ basis set both of which can be readily applied to macromolecular systems. The new M06-2X and M06-L DFT functionals were found to be more accurate than all methods tested herein. Interaction energy curves using the SG1 grid showed discontinuities for several of the dimer systems but this problem disappeared when finer DFT numerical grids were used.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1063/1.3173809

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Molnar, L. F., He, X., Wang, B., & Merz, K. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Florida Department of Chemistry and the Quantum Theory Project, 2328 New Physics Building, P.O. Box 118435, , Gainesville, Florida 32611-8435, USA
  • University of Florida (US)
Venue
The Journal of Chemical Physics
Published
2009-08-10
Volume
131
Issue
6
Pages
065102-065102
ISSN
  • 0021-9606 (ISSN-L)
  • 1089-7690
OpenAlex
W2000416127
Cited by
123
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 15
FWCI
8.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Chemical Physics (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Florida
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM066859, GM 066859)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Chemical Physics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Physical and Theoretical Chemistry › Crystallography and molecular interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Physical and Theoretical Chemistry › Advanced Physical and Chemical Molecular Interactions
Keywords
intermolecular interactions, basis set superposition error, basis set extrapolation, dispersion energy, MP2, CCSD(T), M06-2X, M06-L, density functional accuracy, force field parameterization, 6-31G* basis set
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Peptides, Quantum Theory, Databases, Factual, Dimerization

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