Biomolecular simulations: From dynamics and mechanisms to computational assays of biological activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biomolecular simulation is increasingly central to understanding and designing biological molecules and their interactions. Detailed, physics‐based simulation methods are demonstrating rapidly growing impact in areas as diverse as biocatalysis, drug delivery, biomaterials, biotechnology, and drug design. Simulations offer the potential of uniquely detailed, atomic‐level insight into mechanisms, dynamics, and processes, as well as increasingly accurate predictions of molecular properties. Simulations can now be used as computational assays of biological activity, for example, in predictions of drug resistance. Methodological and algorithmic developments, combined with advances in computational hardware, are transforming the scope and range of calculations. Different types of methods are required for different types of problem. Accurate methods and extensive simulations promise quantitative comparison with experiments across biochemistry. Atomistic simulations can now access experimentally relevant timescales for large systems, leading to a fertile interplay of experiment and theory and offering unprecedented opportunities for validating and developing models. Coarse‐grained methods allow studies on larger length‐ and timescales, and theoretical developments are bringing electronic structure calculations into new regimes. Multiscale methods are another key focus for development, combining different levels of theory to increase accuracy, aiming to connect chemical and molecular changes to macroscopic observables. In this review, we outline biomolecular simulation methods and highlight examples of its application to investigate questions in biology. This article is categorized under: Molecular and Statistical Mechanics > Molecular Dynamics and Monte‐Carlo Methods Structure and Mechanism > Computational Biochemistry and Biophysics Molecular and Statistical Mechanics > Free Energy Methods
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".