Fachbereich Ingenieurwissenschaften und Kommunikation
Refine
H-BRS Bibliography
- yes (7)
Departments, institutes and facilities
- Fachbereich Informatik (7) (remove)
Document Type
- Conference Object (5)
- Article (1)
- Preprint (1)
Year of publication
- 2019 (7) (remove)
Language
- English (7)
Keywords
- ACPYPE (1)
- Carbohydrate (1)
- Exergame (1)
- Force field (1)
- Glycam06 (1)
- Gromacs (1)
- MOOC (1)
- Nonbonded scaling factor (1)
- collaborative learning (1)
- cross-disciplinary (1)
Herein we report an update to ACPYPE, a Python3 tool that now properly converts AMBER to GROMACS topologies for force fields that utilize nondefault and nonuniform 1–4 electrostatic and nonbonded scaling factors or negative dihedral force constants. Prior to this work, ACPYPE only converted AMBER topologies that used uniform, default 1–4 scaling factors and positive dihedral force constants. We demonstrate that the updated ACPYPE accurately transfers the GLYCAM06 force field from AMBER to GROMACS topology files, which employs non-uniform 1–4 scaling factors as well as negative dihedral force constants. Validation was performed using β-d-GlcNAc through gas-phase analysis of dihedral energy curves and probability density functions. The updated ACPYPE retains all of its original functionality, but now allows the simulation of complex glycomolecular systems in GROMACS using AMBER-originated force fields. ACPYPE is available for download at https://github.com/alanwilter/acpype.
In an effort to assist researchers in choosing basis sets for quantum mechanical modeling of molecules (i.e. balancing calculation cost versus desired accuracy), we present a systematic study on the accuracy of computed conformational relative energies and their geometries in comparison to MP2/CBS and MP2/AV5Z data, respectively. In order to do so, we introduce a new nomenclature to unambiguously indicate how a CBS extrapolation was computed. Nineteen minima and transition states of buta-1,3-diene, propan-2-ol and the water dimer were optimized using forty-five different basis sets. Specifically, this includes one Pople (i.e. 6-31G(d)), eight Dunning (i.e. VXZ and AVXZ, X=2-5), twenty-five Jensen (i.e. pc-n, pcseg-n, aug-pcseg-n, pcSseg-n and aug-pcSseg-n, n=0-4) and nine Karlsruhe (e.g. def2-SV(P), def2-QZVPPD) basis sets. The molecules were chosen to represent both common and electronically diverse molecular systems. In comparison to MP2/CBS relative energies computed using the largest Jensen basis sets (i.e. n=2,3,4), the use of smaller sizes (n=0,1,2 and n=1,2,3) provides results that are within 0.11--0.24 and 0.09-0.16 kcal/mol. To practically guide researchers in their basis set choice, an equation is introduced that ranks basis sets based on a user-defined balance between their accuracy and calculation cost. Furthermore, we explain why the aug-pcseg-2, def2-TZVPPD and def2-TZVP basis sets are very suitable choices to balance speed and accuracy.