Tuned and Balanced Redistributed Charge Scheme for Combined Quantum Mechanical and Molecular Mechanical (QM/MM) Methods and Fragment Methods: Tuning Based on the CM5 Charge Model.

Tuned and balanced redistributed charge schemes have been developed for modeling the electrostatic fields of bonds that are cut by a quantum mechanical-molecular mechanical boundary in combined quantum mechanical and molecular mechanical (QM/MM) methods. First, the charge is balanced by adjusting the charge on the MM boundary atom to conserve the total charge of the entire QM/MM system. In the balanced smeared redistributed charge (BSRC) scheme, the adjusted MM boundary charge is smeared with a smearing width of 1.0 Å and is distributed in equal portions to the midpoints of the bonds between the MM boundary atom and the MM atoms bonded to it; in the balanced redistributed charge-2 (BRC2) scheme, the adjusted MM boundary charge is distributed as point charges in equal portions to the MM atoms that are bonded to the MM boundary atom. The QM subsystem is capped by a fluorine atom that is tuned to reproduce the sum of partial atomic charges of the uncapped portion of the QM subsystem. The new aspect of the present study is a new way to carry out the tuning process; in particular, the CM5 charge model, rather than the Mulliken population analysis applied in previous studies, is used for tuning the capping atom that terminates the dangling bond of the QM region. The mean unsigned error (MUE) of the QM/MM deprotonation energy for a 15-system test suite of deprotonation reactions is 2.3 kcal/mol for the tuned BSRC scheme (TBSRC) and 2.4 kcal/mol for the tuned BRC2 scheme (TBRC2). As was the case for the original tuning method based on Mulliken charges, the new tuning method performs much better than using conventional hydrogen link atoms, which have an MUE on this test set of about 7 kcal/mol. However, the new scheme eliminates the need to use small basis sets, which can be problematic, and it allows one to be more consistent by tuning the parameters with whatever basis set is appropriate for applications. (Alternatively, since the tuning parameters and partial charges obtained by the new method do not depend strongly on basis set, one can continue to use available CM5-tuned parameters even when one changes the basis set.) Furthermore, we found that, as compared to Mulliken charges, the CM5 charges describe the charge distributions in test molecules better, and they reproduce the dipole moments of full quantum mechanical calculations better; therefore the new tuning procedure is more physical and should be more reliable and robust.

[1]  Donald G Truhlar,et al.  Charge Model 5: An Extension of Hirshfeld Population Analysis for the Accurate Description of Molecular Interactions in Gaseous and Condensed Phases. , 2012, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[2]  Elizabeth A. Amin,et al.  Electrostatically Embedded Many-Body Expansion for Neutral and Charged Metalloenzyme Model Systems. , 2012, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[3]  D. Truhlar,et al.  Geometry optimization using tuned and balanced redistributed charge schemes for combined quantum mechanical and molecular mechanical calculations. , 2011, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[4]  Nicholas J Mayhall,et al.  Molecules-in-Molecules: An Extrapolated Fragment-Based Approach for Accurate Calculations on Large Molecules and Materials. , 2011, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[5]  Elizabeth A. Amin,et al.  Assessment and Validation of the Electrostatically Embedded Many-Body Expansion for Metal-Ligand Bonding. , 2011, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation.

[6]  G Narahari Sastry,et al.  Ab initio investigation of benzene clusters: molecular tailoring approach. , 2010, The Journal of chemical physics.

[7]  Shridhar R. Gadre,et al.  Molecular tailoring approach in conjunction with MP2 and Ri‐MP2 codes: A comparison with fragment molecular orbital method , 2010, J. Comput. Chem..

[8]  Shuhua Li,et al.  An efficient implementation of the generalized energy-based fragmentation approach for general large molecules. , 2010, The journal of physical chemistry. A.

[9]  D. Truhlar,et al.  Combined Quantum Mechanical and Molecular Mechanical Methods for Calculating Potential Energy Surfaces: Tuned and Balanced Redistributed-Charge Algorithm. , 2010, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[10]  Jan Řezáč,et al.  Multilevel Fragment-Based Approach (MFBA): A Novel Hybrid Computational Method for the Study of Large Molecules. , 2010, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[11]  Michael A. Collins,et al.  Accurate treatment of nonbonded interactions within systematic molecular fragmentation , 2009 .

[12]  Walter Thiel,et al.  QM/MM methods for biomolecular systems. , 2009, Angewandte Chemie.

[13]  Noam Bernstein,et al.  Hybrid atomistic simulation methods for materials systems , 2009 .

[14]  C. Cramer,et al.  Modified carbon pseudopotential for use in ONIOM calculations of alkyl-substituted metallocenes. , 2008, The journal of physical chemistry. A.

[15]  S. Sakaki,et al.  Frontier orbital consistent quantum capping potential (FOC-QCP) for bulky ligand of transition metal complexes. , 2008, The journal of physical chemistry. A.

[16]  D. Truhlar,et al.  The M06 suite of density functionals for main group thermochemistry, thermochemical kinetics, noncovalent interactions, excited states, and transition elements: two new functionals and systematic testing of four M06-class functionals and 12 other functionals , 2008 .

[17]  Donald G Truhlar,et al.  Density functionals with broad applicability in chemistry. , 2008, Accounts of chemical research.

[18]  Donald G Truhlar,et al.  Charge Model 4 and Intramolecular Charge Polarization. , 2007, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[19]  Donald G Truhlar,et al.  Electrostatically Embedded Many-Body Correlation Energy, with Applications to the Calculation of Accurate Second-Order Møller-Plesset Perturbation Theory Energies for Large Water Clusters. , 2007, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[20]  Donald G Truhlar,et al.  Electrostatically Embedded Many-Body Expansion for Large Systems, with Applications to Water Clusters. , 2007, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[21]  D. Truhlar,et al.  QM/MM: what have we learned, where are we, and where do we go from here? , 2007 .

[22]  F. Weigend,et al.  Balanced basis sets of split valence, triple zeta valence and quadruple zeta valence quality for H to Rn: Design and assessment of accuracy. , 2005, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[23]  Donald G Truhlar,et al.  Redistributed charge and dipole schemes for combined quantum mechanical and molecular mechanical calculations. , 2005, The journal of physical chemistry. A.

[24]  Ivano Tavernelli,et al.  Variational optimization of effective atom centered potentials for molecular properties. , 2005, The Journal of chemical physics.

[25]  Donald G. Truhlar,et al.  Generalized Hybrid Orbital (GHO) Method for Combining Ab Initio Hartree-Fock Wave Functions with Molecular Mechanics , 2004 .

[26]  Donald G. Truhlar,et al.  Effectiveness of Diffuse Basis Functions for Calculating Relative Energies by Density Functional Theory , 2003 .

[27]  Margaret M. Hurley,et al.  Simple one-electron quantum capping potentials for use in hybrid QM/MM studies of biological molecules , 2002 .

[28]  Jean-Pierre Daudey,et al.  A new method for modelling spectator chemical groups in ab initio calculations: effective group potentials , 2000 .

[29]  Iris Antes,et al.  Adjusted Connection Atoms for Combined Quantum Mechanical and Molecular Mechanical Methods , 1999 .

[30]  Tai-Sung Lee,et al.  A pseudobond approach to combining quantum mechanical and molecular mechanical methods , 1999 .

[31]  M. Field,et al.  A Generalized Hybrid Orbital (GHO) Method for the Treatment of Boundary Atoms in Combined QM/MM Calculations , 1998 .

[32]  W. Thiel,et al.  Hybrid Models for Combined Quantum Mechanical and Molecular Mechanical Approaches , 1996 .

[33]  T. Halgren.  Merck molecular force field. I. Basis, form, scope, parameterization, and performance of MMFF94 , 1996, J. Comput. Chem..

[34]  György G. Ferenczy,et al.  Quantum mechanical computations on very large molecular systems: The local self‐consistent field method , 1994, J. Comput. Chem..

[35]  K. Morokuma,et al.  A simple scheme of estimating substitution or substituent effects in the ab initio MO method based on the shift operator , 1990 .

[36]  U. Singh,et al.  A combined ab initio quantum mechanical and molecular mechanical method for carrying out simulations on complex molecular systems: Applications to the CH3Cl + Cl− exchange reaction and gas phase protonation of polyethers , 1986 .

[37]  Frank Weinhold,et al.  Natural localized molecular orbitals , 1985 .

[38]  F. Weinhold,et al.  Natural population analysis , 1985 .

[39]  P. Kollman,et al.  An approach to computing electrostatic charges for molecules , 1984 .

[40]  Frank Weinhold,et al.  Natural bond orbital analysis of near‐Hartree–Fock water dimer , 1983 .

[41]  Mark S. Gordon,et al.  Self‐consistent molecular orbital methods. XXIII. A polarization‐type basis set for second‐row elements , 1982 .

[42]  Frank Weinhold,et al.  Natural hybrid orbitals , 1980 .

[43]  F. L. Hirshfeld.  Bonded-atom fragments for describing molecular charge densities , 1977 .

[44]  John A. Pople,et al.  Self‐consistent molecular orbital methods. XV. Extended Gaussian‐type basis sets for lithium, beryllium, and boron , 1975 .

[45]  J. Pople,et al.  Self—Consistent Molecular Orbital Methods. XII. Further Extensions of Gaussian—Type Basis Sets for Use in Molecular Orbital Studies of Organic Molecules , 1972 .