Reoptimized interaction parameters for the peptide-backbone model compound N-methylacetamide in the GROMOS force field: Influence on the folding properties of two beta-peptides in methanol

Force fields optimized against experimental data for large compound families using CombiFF: Validation considering non-target properties and polyfunctional compounds

The CombiFF scheme is a workflow for the automated calibration of force-field parameters against condensed-phase experimental data considering simultaneously entire classes of organic molecules. The main steps of this scheme are: (i) selection of a molecule family; (ii) enumeration of all isomers; (iii) query for experimental data; (iv) automatic construction of the molecular topologies; (v) iterative refinement of the force-field parameters considering the entire family. In two recent articles, CombiFF was applied to the design of GROMOS-compatible united-atom force fields for the saturated acyclic haloalkanes and for saturated acyclic compounds involving eight common chemical functional groups of oxygen and nitrogen. This calibration and the subsequent initial validation involved two limitations: (i) the experimental data considered was restricted to values for the pure-liquid density ρ_liq and the vaporization enthalpy ΔH_vap of the compounds; (ii) beyond monofunctional compounds, the training set only involved homo-polyhaloalkanes (possibly mixing halogen types) in the first study, and homo-polyfunctional compounds of the considered oxygen or nitrogen functional groups (no mixing of different group types) in the second one. The goal of this article is to further test the accuracy of CombiFF-generated force fields by extending the validation to: (i) nine additional properties that were not used as optimization targets (pure-liquid thermodynamic, dielectric and transport properties, as well as solvation properties); (ii) hetero-polyfunctional molecules that were not included in the calibration and initial validation sets. The results for the nine additional properties show good agreement with experiment, except for the shear viscosity and the dielectric permittivity. There, larger discrepancies are observed, likely due to the united-atom representation adopted for the aliphatic groups and to the implicit treatment of electronic polarization effects. The results for the hetero-polyfunctional molecules also show reasonable agreement with experiment in terms of the monitored properties.

Evaluation of nine condensed-phase force fields of the GROMOS, CHARMM, OPLS, AMBER, and OpenFF families against experimental cross-solvation free energies

Experimental solvation free energies are nowadays commonly included as target properties in the validation of condensed-phase force fields, sometimes even in their calibration. In a previous article [Kashefolgheta et al., J. Chem. Theory. Comput., 2020, 16, 7556-7580], we showed how the involved comparison between experimental and simulation results could be made more systematic by considering a full matrix of cross-solvation free energies . For a set of N molecules that are all in the liquid state under ambient conditions, such a matrix encompasses N×N entries for considering each of the N molecules either as solute (A) or as solvent (B). In the quoted study, a cross-solvation matrix of 25 × 25 experimental value was introduced, considering 25 small molecules representative for alkanes, chloroalkanes, ethers, ketones, esters, alcohols, amines, and amides. This experimental data was used to compare the relative accuracies of four popular condensed-phase force fields, namely GROMOS-2016H66, OPLS-AA, AMBER-GAFF, and CHARMM-CGenFF. In the present work, the comparison is extended to five additional force fields, namely GROMOS-54A7, GROMOS-ATB, OPLS-LBCC, AMBER-GAFF2, and OpenFF. Considering these nine force fields, the correlation coefficients between experimental values and simulation results range from 0.76 to 0.88, the root-mean-square errors (RMSEs) from 2.9 to 4.8 kJ mol-1, and average errors (AVEEs) from -1.5 to +1.0 kJ mol-1. In terms of RMSEs, GROMOS-2016H66 and OPLS-AA present the best accuracy (2.9 kJ mol-1), followed by OPLS-LBCC, AMBER-GAFF2, AMBER-GAFF, and OpenFF (3.3 to 3.6 kJ mol-1), and then by GROMOS-54A7, CHARM-CGenFF, and GROMOS-ATB (4.0 to 4.8 kJ mol-1). These differences are statistically significant but not very pronounced, and are distributed rather heterogeneously over the set of compounds within the different force fields.

On the faithfulness of molecular mechanics representations of proteins towards quantum-mechanical energy surfaces

Force fields based on molecular mechanics (MM) are the main computational tool to study the relationship between protein structure and function at the molecular level. To validate the quality of such force fields, high-level quantum-mechanical (QM) data are employed to test their capability to reproduce the features of all major conformational substates of a series of blocked amino acids. The phase-space overlap between MM and QM is quantified in terms of the average structural reorganization energies over all energy minima. Here, the structural reorganization energy is the MM potential-energy difference between the structure of the respective QM energy minimum and the structure of the closest MM energy minimum. Thus, it serves as a measure for the relative probability of visiting the QM minimum during an MM simulation. We evaluate variants of the AMBER, CHARMM, GROMOS and OPLS biomolecular force fields. In addition, the two blocked amino acids alanine and serine are used to demonstrate the dependence of the measured agreement on the QM method, the phase, and the conformational preferences. Blocked serine serves as an example to discuss possible improvements of the force fields, such as including polarization with Drude particles, or using tailored force fields. The results show that none of the evaluated force fields satisfactorily reproduces all energy minima. By decomposing the average structural reorganization energies in terms of individual energy terms, we can further assess the individual weaknesses of the parametrization strategies of each force field. The dominant problem for most force fields appears to be the van der Waals parameters, followed to a lesser degree by dihedral and bonded terms. Our results show that performing a simple QM energy optimization from an MM-optimized structure can be a first test of the validity of a force field for a particular target molecule.