Advertisement

Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

, Volume 28, Issue 8, pp 825–829 | Cite as

Box size effects are negligible for solvation free energies of neutral solutes

  • Sreeja Parameswaran
  • David L. MobleyEmail author
Article

Abstract

Hydration free energy calculations in explicit solvent have become an integral part of binding free energy calculations and a valuable test of force fields. Most of these simulations follow the conventional norm of keeping edge length of the periodic solvent box larger than twice the Lennard-Jones (LJ) cutoff distance, with the rationale that this should be sufficient to keep the interactions between copies of the solute to a minimum. However, for charged solutes, hydration free energies can exhibit substantial box size-dependence even at typical box sizes. Here, we examine whether similar size-dependence affects hydration of neutral molecules. Thus, we focused on two strongly polar molecules with large dipole moments, where any size-dependence should be most pronounced, and determined how their hydration free energies vary as a function of simulation box size. In addition to testing a variety of simulation box sizes, we also tested two LJ cut-off distances, 0.65 and 1.0 nm. We show from these simulations that the calculated hydration free energy is independent of the box-size as well as the LJ cut-off distance, suggesting that typical hydration free energy calculations of neutral compounds indeed need not be particularly concerned with finite-size effects as long as standard good practices are followed.

Keywords

Hydration free energy Box size Free energy calculation 

Supplementary material

10822_2014_9766_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (46 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 46 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Bennett CH (1976) Efficient estimation of free energy differences from Monte Carlo data. J Comput Phys 22(2):245–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beutler TC, Mark AE, van Schaik RC, Gerber PR, van Gunsteren WF (1994) Avoiding singularities and numerical instabilities in free energy calculations based on molecular simulations. Chem Phys Lett 222(6):529–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hünenberger PH, Reif MM (2011) Single-ion solvation: experimental and theoretical approaches to elusive thermodynamic quantities, vol 3, 1st edn. Royal Society of Chemistry, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jakalian A, Bush BL, Jack DB, Bayly CI (2000) Fast, efficient generation of high-quality atomic charges. AM1-BCC model: I. Method. J Comput Chem 21(2):132–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jorgensen WL, Chandrasekhar J, Madura JD, Impey RW, Klein ML (1983) Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J Chem Phys 79(2):926–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kastenholz MA, Hünenberger PH (2006) Computation of methodology-independent ionic solvation free energies from molecular simulations. II. The hydration free energy of the sodium cation. J Chem Phys 124(22):224501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mobley DL, Dumont É, Chodera JD, Dill KA (2007) Comparison of charge models for fixed-charge force fields: small-molecule hydration free energies in explicit solvent. J Phys Chem B 111(9):2242–2254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mobley DL, Liu S, Cerutti DS, Swope WC, Rice JE (2011) Alchemical prediction of hydration free energies for SAMPL. J Comput Aided Mol Des 26(5):551–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reif MM, Oostenbrink C (2013) Net charge changes in the calculation of relative ligand-binding free energies via classical atomistic molecular dynamics simulation. J Comput Chem 35(3):227–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rocklin GJ, Mobley DL, Dill KA, Hünenberger PH (2013) Calculating the binding free energies of charged species based on explicit-solvent simulations employing lattice-sum methods: An accurate correction scheme for electrostatic finite-size effects. J Chem Phys 139(18):184103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shirts M, Mobley D (2013) An introduction to best practices in free energy calculations. In: Monticelli L, Salonen E (eds.) Biomolecular Simulations, Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 924, pp. 271–311. Humana PressGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shirts MR, Chodera JD (2008) Statistically optimal analysis of samples from multiple equilibrium states. J Chem Phys 129(12):124,105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shirts MR, Mobley DL, Chodera JD (2007) Alchemical Free Energy Calculations: Ready for Prime Time?, vol. 3, chap. 4, pp. 41–59. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shirts MR, Mobley DL, Chodera JD, Pande VS (2007) Accurate and efficient corrections for missing dispersion interactions in molecular simulations. J Phys Chem B 111(45):13,052–13,063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang J, Wang W, Kollman PA, Case DA (2006) Automatic atom type and bond type perception in molecular mechanical calculations. J Mol Graph Model 25(2):247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang J, Wolf RM, Caldwell JW, Kollman PA, Case DA (2004) Development and testing of a general AMBER force field. J Comput Chem 25(9):1157–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Department of ChemistryUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Department of ChemistryUniversity of New OrleansNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations