Calculation of Local Water Densities in Biological Systems: A Comparison of Molecular Dynamics Simulations and the 3D-RISM-KH Molecular Theory of Solvation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water plays a unique role in all living organisms. Not only is it nature's ubiquitous solvent, but it also actively takes part in many cellular processes. In particular, the structure and properties of interfacial water near biomolecules such as proteins are often related to the function of the respective molecule. It can therefore be highly instructive to study the local water density around solutes in cellular systems, particularly when solvent-mediated forces such as the hydrophobic effect are relevant. Computational methods such as molecular dynamics (MD) simulations seem well suited to study these systems at the atomic level. However, due to sampling requirements, it is not clear that MD simulations are, indeed, the method of choice to obtain converged densities at a given level of precision. We here compare the calculation of local water densities with two different methods: MD simulations and the three-dimensional reference interaction site model with the Kovalenko-Hirata closure (3D-RISM-KH). In particular, we investigate the convergence of the local water density to assess the required simulation times for different levels of resolution. Moreover, we provide a quantitative comparison of the densities calculated with MD and with 3D-RISM-KH and investigate the effect of the choice of the water model for both methods. Our results show that 3D-RISM-KH yields density distributions that are very similar to those from MD up to a 0.5 Å resolution, but for significantly reduced computational cost. The combined use of MD and 3D-RISM-KH emerges as an auspicious perspective for efficient solvent sampling in dynamical systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".