Grid-Based Backbone Correction to the ff12SB Protein Force Field for Implicit-Solvent Simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Force fields, such as Amber's ff12SB, can be fairly accurate models of the physical forces in proteins and other biomolecules. When coupled with accurate solvation models, force fields are able to bring insight into the conformational preferences, transitions, pathways, and free energies for these biomolecules. When computational speed/cost matters, implicit solvent is often used but at the cost of accuracy. We present an empirical grid-like correction term, in the spirit of cMAPs, to the combination of the ff12SB protein force field and the GBneck2 implicit-solvent model. Ff12SB-cMAP is parametrized on experimental helicity data. We provide validation on a set of peptides and proteins. Ff12SB-cMAP successfully improves the secondary structure biases observed in ff12SB + Gbneck2. Ff12SB-cMAP can be downloaded ( https://github.com/laufercenter/Amap.git ) and used within the Amber package. It can improve the agreement of force fields + implicit solvent with experiments.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.007 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".