Comparison of NDDO and quasi‐ab initio approaches to compute semiempirical molecular electrostatic potentials

The suitability of the two most widely used strategies to compute semiempirical MEPs is examined. For this purpose, MEP minima, electrostatic charges, and dipoles for a large number of molecules were computed at the AM1, MNDO, and PM3 levels using both the NDDO strategy developed by Ferenczy, Reynolds, and Richards and our own quasi‐ab initio method. Results demonstrate that the quasi‐ab initio is preferred over the NDDO method for the computation of MEP minima. It is also found that the best set of semiempirical charges and dipoles are obtained using either the AM1 NDDO or the MNDO quasi‐ab initio methods. In these two cases, the quality of the results is fully comparable with 6‐31G* values. © 1994 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

[1]  Peter A. Kollman,et al.  Theoretical studies of hydrogen-bonded dimers. Complexes involving HF, H2O, NH3, CH1, H2S, PH3, HCN, HNC, HCP, CH2NH, H2CS, H2CO, CH4, CF3,H, C2H2, C2H4, C6H6, F- and H3O+ , 1975 .

[2]  F. J. Luque,et al.  An AM1-SCRF approach to the study of changes in molecular properties induced by solvent , 1993 .

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

[4]  J. Stewart.  Optimization of parameters for semiempirical methods I. Method , 1989 .

[5]  Carlos Aleman,et al.  Suitability of the PM3‐derived molecular electrostatic potentials , 1993, J. Comput. Chem..

[6]  P A Kollman,et al.  Electrostatic potentials of proteins. 1. Carboxypeptidase A. , 1976, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[7]  J. Tomasi,et al.  Electrostatic interaction of a solute with a continuum. A direct utilizaion of AB initio molecular potentials for the prevision of solvent effects , 1981 .

[8]  George P. Ford,et al.  Incorporation of hydration effects within the semiempirical molecular orbital framework. AM1 and MNDO results for neutral molecules, cations, anions, and reacting systems , 1992 .

[9]  Jacopo Tomasi,et al.  Electronic Molecular Structure, Reactivity and Intermolecular Forces: An Euristic Interpretation by Means of Electrostatic Molecular Potentials , 1978 .

[10]  Donald E. Williams,et al.  Representation of the molecular electrostatic potential by a net atomic charge model , 1981 .

[11]  Brian C. Webster,et al.  An analytic method for the calculation of electrostatic molecular potentials , 1983 .

[12]  Modesto Orozco,et al.  Effect of electron correlation on the electrostatic potential distribution of molecules , 1991 .

[13]  Peter Politzer,et al.  Proposed procedure for using electrostatic potentials to predict and interpret nucleophilic processes , 1982 .

[14]  P. Kollman,et al.  Atomic charges derived from semiempirical methods , 1990 .

[15]  Jacopo Tomasi,et al.  The protonation of organic molecules: electrostatic versus SCF CNDO calculations for three-membered ring molecules , 1973 .

[16]  J. Pople,et al.  Approximate Self‐Consistent Molecular‐Orbital Theory. V. Intermediate Neglect of Differential Overlap , 1967 .

[17]  F. J. Luque,et al.  Comparative study of the molecular electrostatic potential obtained from different wavefunctions. Reliability of the semiempirical MNDO wavefunction , 1990 .

[18]  Frank A. Momany,et al.  Determination of partial atomic charges from ab initio molecular electrostatic potentials. Application to formamide, methanol, and formic acid , 1978 .

[19]  M. Dewar,et al.  Ground States of Molecules. 38. The MNDO Method. Approximations and Parameters , 1977 .

[20]  F. Javier Luque,et al.  Molecular interaction potential: A new tool for the theoretical study of molecular reactivity , 1993, J. Comput. Chem..

[21]  C. Cramer,et al.  PM3‐SM3: A general parameterization for including aqueous solvation effects in the PM3 molecular orbital model , 1992 .

[22]  Peter Politzer,et al.  Use of the electrostatic potential at the molecular surface to interpret and predict nucleophilic processes , 1990 .

[23]  P. C. Hariharan,et al.  The influence of polarization functions on molecular orbital hydrogenation energies , 1973 .

[24]  F. J. Luque,et al.  Induced dipole moment and atomic charges based on average electrostatic potentials in aqueous solution , 1993 .

[25]  F. J. Luque,et al.  A new strategy for the representation of environment effects in semi-empirical calculations based on Dewar's Hamiltonians , 1992 .

[26]  Eamonn F. Healy,et al.  Development and use of quantum mechanical molecular models. 76. AM1: a new general purpose quantum mechanical molecular model , 1985 .

[27]  Harel Weinstein,et al.  Electrostatic Potentials as Descriptors of Molecular Reactivity: The Basis for Some Successful Predictions of Biological Activity , 1981 .

[28]  S Neidle,et al.  Molecular dynamics simulation of the DNA triplex d(TC)5.d(GA)5.d(C+T)5. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[29]  M. V. Basilevsky,et al.  Quantum-chemical calculations of the hydration energies of organic cations and anions in the framework of a continuum solvent approximation , 1992 .

[30]  György G. Ferenczy,et al.  Semiempirical AM1 electrostatic potentials and AM1 electrostatic potential derived charges: A comparison with ab initio values , 1989 .

[31]  Anthony J. Stone,et al.  Distributed multipole analysis, or how to describe a molecular charge distribution , 1981 .

[32]  Peter L. Cummins,et al.  Atomic charges derived from semiempirical electrostatic potentials; an interaction energy method , 1990 .

[33]  Peter Politzer,et al.  Electrostatic potential–electronic density relationships in atoms , 1980 .

[34]  L. E. Chirlian,et al.  Atomic charges derived from electrostatic potentials: A detailed study , 1987 .

[35]  Timothy Clark,et al.  Multicenter point charge model for high‐quality molecular electrostatic potentials from AM1 calculations , 1993, J. Comput. Chem..

[36]  Jacopo Tomasi,et al.  Use of the Electrostatic Potential as a Guide to Understanding Molecular Properties , 1981 .

[37]  George P. Ford,et al.  New approach to the rapid semiempirical calculation of molecular electrostatic potentials based on the am1 wave function: Comparison with ab initio hf/6‐31g* results , 1993, J. Comput. Chem..

[38]  F. J. Luque,et al.  Reliability of the AM1 wavefunction to compute molecular electrostatic potentials , 1990 .

[39]  Modesto Orozco,et al.  On the use of AM1 and MNDO wave functions to compute accurate electrostatic charges , 1990 .

[40]  Kenneth M. Merz,et al.  Force Field Design for Metalloproteins , 1991 .

[41]  Gyula Tasi,et al.  Representation of molecules by atomic charges: A new population analysis , 1992 .