Benchmarking polarizable and non-polarizable force fields for Ca2+–peptides against a comprehensive QM dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Explicit description of atomic polarizability is critical for the accurate treatment of inter-molecular interactions by force fields (FFs) in molecular dynamics (MD) simulations aiming to investigate complex electrostatic environments such as metal-binding sites of metalloproteins. Several models exist to describe key monovalent and divalent cations interacting with proteins. Many of these models have been developed from ion–amino-acid interactions and/or aqueous-phase data on cation solvation. The transferability of these models to cation–protein interactions remains uncertain. Herein, we assess the accuracy of existing FFs by their abilities to reproduce hierarchies of thousands of Ca2+–dipeptide interaction energies based on density-functional theory calculations. We find that the Drude polarizable FF, prior to any parameterization, better approximates the QM interaction energies than any of the non-polarizable FFs. Nevertheless, it required improvement in order to address polarization catastrophes where, at short Ca2+–carboxylate distances, the Drude particle of oxygen overlaps with the divalent cation. To ameliorate this, we identified those conformational properties that produced the poorest prediction of interaction energies to reduce the parameter space for optimization. We then optimized the selected cation–peptide parameters using Boltzmann-weighted fitting and evaluated the resulting parameters in MD simulations of the N-lobe of calmodulin. We also parameterized and evaluated the CTPOL FF, which incorporates charge-transfer and polarization effects in additive FFs. This work shows how QM-driven parameter development, followed by testing in condensed-phase simulations, may yield FFs that can accurately capture the structure and dynamics of ion–protein interactions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".