论文信息 - Reply to “Comment on Aromatic‐Backbone Interactions in Model α‐Helical Peptides”

Reply to “Comment on Aromatic‐Backbone Interactions in Model α‐Helical Peptides”

In response to Van Mourik's comments on our paper (J Comput Chem 2007, 28, 1208.) we present an extended version of our rotation method. We also prove that intramolecular interaction energies as well the basis set superposition errors calculated with our rotation method are comparable with those obtained by the counterpoise method of Boys and Bernardi (Mol Phys 1970, 19, 533). In intramolecular interaction energy calculations, if the interacting groups are in proximity, our rotation method is recommended to avoid artificial interactions, which can be induced by fragmentation. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.J Comput Chem, 2008

[1] Frank Neese,et al. An improvement of the resolution of the identity approximation for the formation of the Coulomb matrix , 2003, J. Comput. Chem..

[2] Tanja van Mourik,et al. Comment on “Aromatic‐Backbone Interactions in Model α‐Helical Peptides” [Palermo et al., J Comput Chem 2007, 28, 1208] , 2008, J. Comput. Chem..

[3] S. F. Boys,et al. The calculation of small molecular interactions by the differences of separate total energies. Some procedures with reduced errors , 1970 .

[4] P. Karamertzanis,et al. Molecular conformations and relative stabilities can be as demanding of the electronic structure method as intermolecular calculations. , 2006, The journal of physical chemistry. A.

[5] J. V. Lenthe,et al. State of the Art in Counterpoise Theory , 1994 .

[6] Michael C. Owen,et al. Aromatic‐backbone interactions in model α‐helical peptides , 2007, J. Comput. Chem..