Force field development phase II: Relaxation of physics-based criteria… or inclusion of more rigorous physics into the representation of molecular energetics

J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2019 Feb;33(2):205-264. doi: 10.1007/s10822-018-0134-x. Epub 2018 Nov 30.

Abstract

In the previous paper, we reviewed the origins of energy based calculations, and the early science of FF development. The initial efforts spanning the period from roughly the early 1970s to the mid to late 1990s saw the development of methodologies and philosophies of the derivation of FFs. The use of Cartesian coordinates, derivation of the H-bond potential, different functional forms including diagonal quadratic expressions, coupled valence FFs, functional form of combination rules, and out of plane angles, were all investigated in this period. The use of conformational energetics, vibrational frequencies, crystal structure and energetics, liquid properties, and ab initio data were all described to one degree or another in deriving and validating both the FF functional forms and force constants. Here we discuss the advances made since in improving the rigor and robustness of these initial FFs. The inability of the simple quadratic diagonal FF to accurately describe biomolecular energetics over a large domain of molecular structure, and intermolecular configurations, was pointed out in numerous studies. Two main approaches have been taken to overcome this problem. The first involves the introduction of error functions, either exploiting torsion terms or introducing explicit 2-D error correction grids. The results and remaining challenges of these functional forms is examined. The second approach has been to improve the representation of the physics of intra and intermolecular interactions. The latter involves including descriptions of polarizability, charge flux aka geometry dependent charges, more accurate representations of spatial electron density such as multipole moments, anisotropic nonbond potentials, nonbond and polarization flux, among others. These effects, though not as extensively studied, likely hold the key to achieving the rigorous reproduction of structural and energetic properties long sought in biomolecular simulations, and are surveyed here. In addition, the quality of training and validation observables are evaluated. The necessity of including an ample set of energetic and crystal observables is emphasized, and the inadequacy of free energy as a criterion for FF reliability discussed. Finally, in light of the results of applications of the two approaches to FF development, we propose a "recipe" of terms describing the physics of inter and intramolecular interactions whose inclusion in FFs would significantly improve our understanding of the energetics and dynamics of biomolecular systems resulting from molecular dynamics and other energy based simulations.

Keywords: AMBER; AMOEBA; Anisotropic nonbond potentials; CFF; CHARMM; Charge flux; Combination rules; Consistent force field; Coupling terms; Cross terms; Drug discovery; Electrostatics; Force field derivation; Force fields; Free energy; GAFF; Hydrogen bond; Molecular dynamics; Molecular mechanics; Molecular simulation; Multipole moments; Nonbond flux; Nonbond interactions; OPLS; Polarizability; Polarizability flux; Potential functions; Protein simulation; QDF; Quantum derivative fitting; SDFF; VFF; Van der Waals.

Publication types

  • Review

MeSH terms

  • Computer Simulation*
  • Crystallization
  • Electrons
  • Hydrogen Bonding
  • Models, Molecular*
  • Molecular Structure
  • Proteins / chemistry
  • Quantum Theory
  • Thermodynamics

Substances

  • Proteins