From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Thu Dec 11 02:19:01 2008 From: "Neha Gandhi n.gandhiau+/-gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Running md using glycam in AMBER Message-Id: <-38277-081211021608-24281-D8BDHbpVel+OanK1CUvgGg===server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Neha Gandhi" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_580_19225872.1228979754329" Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:15:54 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: "Neha Gandhi" [n.gandhiau|gmail.com] ------=_Part_580_19225872.1228979754329 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi, I am trying to reproduce Cremer-pople parameters for iduronic acid. I am using glycam biomolecular builder to prepare input files ie. pdb, coordinates and topology files for alpha-L-IdoA-OH. The same tool assigns TIP3P and metal ions to neutralize the charge. I followed energy minimization followed by heating and NPT for 500 ps equlibriation. NPT was used to parameterize Glycam06 forcefields and I am using the same protocol. But during MD very frequent conformational transitions are observed for iduronic acid starting from 1C4 conformation. I expected that for the first 100 or 200 ps theta angle angle would be around 180 degrees followed by a transition to 2S0 but my results are random. Could anybody help me if the coupling parameters for heat bath (0.1, 0.25,1 or 2) and pressure coupling (0.5 to 2) will change this conformational equlibria? It would be great if somebody can provide the sander mdin files to validate the parameters. Regards, Neha Gandhi, School of Biomedical Sciences, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U1987 Perth, Western Australia 6845 ------=_Part_580_19225872.1228979754329 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi,

I am trying to reproduce Cremer-pople parameters for iduronic acid. I am using glycam biomolecular builder to prepare input files ie. pdb, coordinates and topology files for alpha-L-IdoA-OH. The same tool assigns TIP3P and metal ions to neutralize the charge.  I followed energy minimization followed by heating and NPT for 500 ps equlibriation. NPT was used to parameterize Glycam06 forcefields and I am using the same protocol. But during MD very frequent conformational transitions are observed for iduronic acid starting from 1C4 conformation. I expected that for the first 100 or 200 ps theta angle angle would be around 180 degrees followed by a transition to 2S0 but my results are random.

Could anybody help me if the coupling parameters for heat bath (0.1, 0.25,1 or 2) and pressure coupling (0.5 to 2) will change this conformational equlibria? It would be great if somebody can provide the sander mdin files to validate the parameters.


Regards,
Neha Gandhi,
School of Biomedical Sciences,
Curtin University of Technology,
GPO Box U1987 Perth,
Western Australia 6845
------=_Part_580_19225872.1228979754329-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Thu Dec 11 02:54:01 2008 From: "Radoslaw Kaminski rkaminski.rk : gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL:G: Deformation maps Message-Id: <-38278-081211022810-28267-giQin7GEz65XNRzxVM89Pg%%server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Radoslaw Kaminski" Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 02:28:07 -0500 Sent to CCL by: "Radoslaw Kaminski" [rkaminski.rk#,#gmail.com] Hi everyone, Is there any program which can do 2D plots of electron density or deformation density and related properties calculated with Gaussian 03? All the best and thanks for help Radek Kaminski From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Thu Dec 11 03:41:01 2008 From: "Anselm Horn Anselm.Horn]_[chemie.uni-erlangen.de" To: CCL Subject: CCL: PM3 on pure boron clusters Message-Id: <-38279-081210154900-16688-7jq+J5JjBhj9qQY+IcucEw]=[server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Anselm Horn Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:06:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Anselm Horn [Anselm.Horn{=}chemie.uni-erlangen.de] Hi, concerning the boron parameters, have a look at this publication: J.J.P. Stewart J. Mol. Model. 2004, 10(2):155-64. "Optimization of parametes for semiempirical methods IV: extension of MNDO, AM1, and PM3 to more main group elements." Best regards, Anselm Bioinformatik Emil-Fischer-Zentrum Institut f. Biochemie Friedrich-Alexander-Universitaet Erlangen-Nuernberg Fahrstr. 17 91054 Erlangen Germany From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Thu Dec 11 04:15:02 2008 From: "Alfred Gil Arranz agil _ cesca.es" To: CCL Subject: CCL:G: Deformation maps Message-Id: <-38280-081211040217-26774-hK4wKlAncmPkAV803M7JKA[#]server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Alfred Gil Arranz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010301020804010706050903" Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:14:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Alfred Gil Arranz [agil(0)cesca.es] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010301020804010706050903 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Radoslaw, You can find FLOPO at http://www.quimica.urv.es/XAIM/ It's a module of the XAIM application, developed at the University Rovira i Virgili in Tarragona, which is a GUI to several programs based on some aspects of the Theory of Atoms in Molecules developed by Prof. Bader. Oh, and it's for free! Best regards, Alfred Gil. En/na Radoslaw Kaminski rkaminski.rk : gmail.com ha escrit: > Sent to CCL by: "Radoslaw Kaminski" [rkaminski.rk#,#gmail.com] > Hi everyone, > > Is there any program which can do 2D plots of electron density or deformation density and related properties calculated with Gaussian 03? > > All the best and thanks for help > > Radek Kaminski> > > > > -- ...................................................................... __ / / Alfred Gil i Arranz C E / S / C A Departament de Sistemes /_/ Centre de Supercomputació de Catalunya Gran Capitą, 2-4 (Edifici Nexus) · 08034 Barcelona T. 93 205 6464 · F. 93 205 6979 · agil]~[cesca.es ...................................................................... --------------010301020804010706050903 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Radoslaw,

You can find FLOPO at http://www.quimica.urv.es/XAIM/

It's a module of the XAIM application, developed at the University Rovira i Virgili in Tarragona, which is a GUI to several programs based on some aspects of the Theory of Atoms in Molecules developed by Prof. Bader.

Oh, and it's for free!

Best regards,

Alfred Gil.


En/na Radoslaw Kaminski rkaminski.rk : gmail.com ha escrit:
Sent to CCL by: "Radoslaw  Kaminski" [rkaminski.rk#,#gmail.com]
Hi everyone,

Is there any program which can do 2D plots of electron density or deformation density and related properties calculated with Gaussian 03?

All the best and thanks for help

Radek KaminskiE-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY]~[ccl.net or use:
      http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message

E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST]~[ccl.net or use
      http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml

Before posting, check wait time at: http://www.ccl.net

Job: http://www.ccl.net/jobs 
Conferences: http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/

Search Messages: http://www.ccl.net/htdig  (login: ccl, Password: search)http://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt

RTFI: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/




  

-- 
......................................................................
       __
      / /           Alfred Gil i Arranz
C E / S / C A       Departament de Sistemes
    /_/             Centre de Supercomputació de Catalunya

Gran Capità, 2-4 (Edifici Nexus) · 08034 Barcelona
T. 93 205 6464 · F.  93 205 6979 · agil]~[cesca.es
...................................................................... 
--------------010301020804010706050903-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Thu Dec 11 06:35:00 2008 From: "alexandra.marques|fc.up.pt" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Problem with Oniom electronic embedding option Message-Id: <-38281-081211062526-19744-GYHusExZavBa6ZJ3UjxeaA(~)server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: alexandra.marques.(~).fc.up.pt Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:31:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: alexandra.marques(_)fc.up.pt Dear CCLers, I am facing problems with running ONIOM with electronic embedding =20 option. Here is part of my input file: %NProc=3D 8 %Mem=3D 900Mb %chk=3Dscan.chk #p oniom(B3LYP/GENECP:amber=3Dsoftfirst)=3Dembed =20 geom(connectivity,nodistance,noangle) gfinput gfprint test =20 opt(modredundant) scan -13 1 -3 1 -3 1 N-N--0.5163 0 6.569780 -3.053763 10.452135 L C-CT-0.3875 0 5.130203 -3.311052 10.310494 L H-HC 9194 C-C-0.5366 0 4.829513 -4.745643 9.822905 L O-O--0.5819 0 5.568119 -5.315224 9.013375 L C-CT-0.0339 0 4.576825 -2.320328 9.266873 H C-C-0.6032 0 3.060751 -2.135097 8.943513 H O-OZ--0.6620 0 2.296649 -3.180376 8.815171 H O-O2--0.6711 0 2.728441 -0.973110 8.682221 H (Blank line) Connectivity (Blank line) B 10821 10822 S 5 0.120000 (Blank line) HrmStr1 Zn OZ 88.3 1.999 (Blank line) Zn 0 SDD **** O N C H S O 0 6-31G* **** P 0 6-31G(d) **** (Blank line) Zn 0 SDD (Blank line) The error in the output file is: Number 687 695 997 998 Base 18015216 16894386 17635204 5012548 End 20121450 17253890 18015216 5012648 End1 20121450 17253890 18015216 5012648 Wr Pntr 18015216 16894386 17635204 5012548 Rd Pntr 18015216 16894386 17635204 5012548 Length 2106234 359504 380012 100 dumping /fiocom/, unit =3D 3 NFiles =3D 1 SizExt =3D 524288 WInBlk = =20 =3D 512 defal =3D T LstWrd =3D 65536 FType=3D2 FMxFil=3D10= 000 Number 0 Base 40448 End 65536 End1 65536 Wr Pntr 40448 Rd Pntr 40448 Length 25088 Error termination in NtrErr: NtrErr Called from FileIO. The strange is that when I don?t include the embed option, the =20 calculation runs ok. Could you please tell me if I missed something in =20 the input file? Is there any special procedure to use electronic =20 embedding option? Thanks a lot. Alexandra ------------------------------------------------------------------------- A FCUP utiliza o sistema open source de webmail Horde/IMP (www.horde.org) Visite: http://www.fc.up.pt/ http://info.fc.up.pt/ From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Thu Dec 11 08:33:01 2008 From: "Yong Wang anhui.wangyong . gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: charmm FF patameters for oxygen in endoperoxide (..C-O-O-C..) Message-Id: <-38282-081211023122-29602-6KbbKG065RsW1lMxhy2UxQ- -server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Yong Wang" Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 02:31:18 -0500 Sent to CCL by: "Yong Wang" [anhui.wangyong-x-gmail.com] Dear all, I am dealing with a compound containing an endoperoxide moiety, that holds the structure like "...C-O-O-C...". Could anybody kindly tell me how can I get the charmm parameters for the oxygen atom(atom name, charge,...)? Any response will be greatly appreciated! Yong ---------------------------------------- Dr. Yong Wang Department of Organic Chemistry Hebrew University of Jerusalem The Hebrew University, Givat Ram Campus Jerusalem, 91904,Israel Email: wangy**yfaat.ch.huji.ac.il phone: +972-2-6585069(O);6424728(H) fax: +972-2-6584033 ---------------------------------------- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Thu Dec 11 09:07:01 2008 From: "Giulio Vistoli giulio.vistoli.:.unimi.it" To: CCL Subject: CCL:G: VEGA ZZ 2.3.0 Message-Id: <-38283-081211052600-9964-QtKyvBRBcANIkg63+rkrjA:_:server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Giulio Vistoli Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0014_01C95B7C.4AA1CD80" Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:36:14 +0100 MIME-version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Giulio Vistoli [giulio.vistoli+*+unimi.it] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C95B7C.4AA1CD80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The new VEGA ZZ 2.3.0 is now available: http://www.ddl.unimi.it/vega/download.htm **** New features **** - Full support for NAMD 2 MD software with integrated graphic interface. - InChI loader and saver. Loading an InChI structure without the = auxiliary data, it's automatically converted to 3D (VEGA ZZ only). Chirality and = E/Z geometry is automatically checked and fixed if wrong. - AutoDock 4 PDBQT loader and saver. - AutoDock 4 DLG trajectory loader. - Mopac loader for geometry in Gaussian Z-matrix format. - Command line version: extraction of a molecule from a database (SDF = and ZIP). - Chiral atom labels. - E/Z bond geometry monitors. - The PDB loader is now compatible with the alternate locations. - Remove apolar hydrogen. - Molar refractivity calculation (Ghose & Crippen method). - ChemSol plug-in for the calculations of solvation free energies. - Improved performances of the Molecule -> Fix menu function. Now it = uses a graph-based routine to find the molecules. - PowerNet plug-in: added some on-line service (ChEBI, DrugBank, = eMolecules, ERRAT 2.0, Google, KEGG Compound, KEGG Drug, MMsINC, NIST Chemistry WebBook, ProCheck, Prove, PubChem, Super Drug, VADAR, Verify3D and WHAT_CHECK). - New values in InfoXML format: chiralatms (list of the chiral atoms), chiralnum (number of chiral atoms), ezbonds (list of the bonds with = E/Z geometry), gcmr (Ghose & Crippen molecular refractivity), eznum = (number of bonds with E/Z geometry), hbondacc (number of H-bond acceptor atoms), hbonddon (number of H-bond donor atoms), realmols (real number of molecules), rings (number of rings), torflexnum (number of flexible torsions) and tornum (number of torsions). - PropKa: updated to the 2.0 release and the Windows x64 version built = by gfortran. - New icons in the graphic interface. - New InChI copy special data types. - Fix: peptide builder window cut when the desktop dpi are more than 96. - Fix: Mopac loader and saver when the number of atoms is less than = three. - Fix: recognition of the Mopac Cartesian .arc files. - Fix: PDB saver writing the TER record with residue name length less = than three characters. - Fix: tube rendering with big molecules and high spline resolution and hardware/software picture rendering. - Fix: measure selection in the trajectory analysis tool. - Added the chirality information in the IFF/RIFF file format. - New system variable: InChI, InChIAux, HbAcc, HbDon, Sequence, = TotChiral, TotEZ, TotHeavyAtm, TotHydrog, TotRealMol, TotRing, VlogP. - New extended commands: CopyText. - New scripts: AutoDock\Ligand.c (prepare the current molecule to be = docked by AutoDock 4), AutoDock\Receptor.c (prepare the current molecule to = be the receptor usable by AutoDock 4), Calculation\Copy properties.c = (copy some molecular properties to the clipboard), = Claculation\Druglikeness.c (check the druglikeness of a molecule), Database\DrugBank SDF fix.c = (fix the not standard SDF files from DrugBank), Trajectory\Anim maker.c (generate trajectories that can be rendered in video files), Trajectory\Automatic quenching.c (perform the automatic quenching of a = MD trajectory. New version) and Trajectory\Dump energy.c (dump the energy = of each frame in a trajectory file).=20 **** Update procedure **** Start the setup and the previous release will be automatically updated. **** Other updated packages **** VEGA ZZ Live CD Creator 2.3.0 for Windows VEGA 2.3.0 for Linux x86 32 bit VEGA 2.3.0 for Linux x86 64 bit VEGA 2.3.0 for AmigaOS VEGA 2.3.0 Localization Pack **** Possible graphic cards problems **** Some Intel integrated adapters (e.g. GMA 900) don't support the the = V-sync in window mode and don't have the hardware anti-aliasing feature. Another = problem was found when the vertex buffer is enabled to trace the solid surfaces: = some tringles has a wrong vertex coordinates and after few time VEGA crashes. Disable the vertex buffer in the surface property to fix the problem. Best regards VEGA Developer Team ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C95B7C.4AA1CD80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The new VEGA ZZ=20 2.3.0 is now available:
http://www.ddl.unimi.it/vega/download.htm


= **** New features ****

- Full = support for=20 NAMD 2 MD software with integrated graphic interface.
- InChI loader = and=20 saver. Loading an InChI structure without the auxiliary
  data, = it's=20 automatically converted to 3D (VEGA ZZ only). Chirality and = E/Z
 =20 geometry is automatically checked and fixed if wrong.
- AutoDock 4 = PDBQT=20 loader and saver.
- AutoDock 4 DLG trajectory loader.
- Mopac = loader for=20 geometry in Gaussian Z-matrix format.
- Command line version: = extraction of a=20 molecule from a database (SDF and
  ZIP).
- Chiral atom = labels.
-=20 E/Z bond geometry monitors.
- The PDB loader is now compatible with = the=20 alternate locations.
- Remove apolar hydrogen.
- Molar = refractivity=20 calculation (Ghose & Crippen method).
- ChemSol plug-in for the=20 calculations of solvation free energies.
- Improved performances of = the=20 Molecule -> Fix menu function. Now it uses a
  graph-based = routine to=20 find the molecules.
- PowerNet plug-in: added some on-line service = (ChEBI,=20 DrugBank, eMolecules,
  ERRAT 2.0, Google, KEGG Compound, KEGG = Drug,=20 MMsINC, NIST Chemistry
  WebBook, ProCheck, Prove, PubChem, = Super Drug,=20 VADAR, Verify3D and
  WHAT_CHECK).
- New values in InfoXML = format:=20 chiralatms (list of the chiral atoms),
  chiralnum (number of = chiral=20 atoms), ezbonds (list of the bonds with E/Z
  geometry), gcmr = (Ghose=20 & Crippen molecular refractivity), eznum (number of
  bonds = with E/Z=20 geometry), hbondacc (number of H-bond acceptor atoms),
  = hbonddon=20 (number of H-bond donor atoms), realmols (real number of
  = molecules),=20 rings (number of rings), torflexnum (number of flexible
  = torsions) and=20 tornum (number of torsions).
- PropKa: updated to the 2.0 release and = the=20 Windows x64 version built by
  gfortran.
- New icons in the = graphic=20 interface.
- New InChI copy special data types.
- Fix: peptide = builder=20 window cut when the desktop dpi are more than 96.
- Fix: Mopac loader = and=20 saver when the number of atoms is less than three.
- Fix: recognition = of the=20 Mopac Cartesian .arc files.
- Fix: PDB saver writing the TER record = with=20 residue name length less than
  three characters.
- Fix: tube = rendering with big molecules and high spline resolution and
 =20 hardware/software picture rendering.
- Fix: measure selection in the=20 trajectory analysis tool.
- Added the chirality information in the = IFF/RIFF=20 file format.
- New system variable: InChI, InChIAux, HbAcc, HbDon, = Sequence,=20 TotChiral,
  TotEZ, TotHeavyAtm, TotHydrog, TotRealMol, TotRing, = VlogP.
- New extended commands: CopyText.
- New scripts: = AutoDock\Ligand.c=20 (prepare the current molecule to be docked
  by AutoDock 4),=20 AutoDock\Receptor.c (prepare the current molecule to be
  the = receptor=20 usable by AutoDock 4), Calculation\Copy properties.c (copy
  = some=20 molecular properties to the clipboard), = Claculation\Druglikeness.c
 =20 (check the druglikeness of a molecule), Database\DrugBank SDF fix.c=20 (fix
  the not standard SDF files from DrugBank), = Trajectory\Anim=20 maker.c
  (generate trajectories that can be rendered in video=20 files),
  Trajectory\Automatic quenching.c (perform the = automatic=20 quenching of a MD
  trajectory. New version) and Trajectory\Dump = energy.c (dump the energy of
  each frame in a trajectory file). =


**** Update procedure ****

Start the setup and the = previous=20 release will be automatically updated.


**** Other updated = packages=20 ****

VEGA ZZ Live CD Creator 2.3.0 for Windows
VEGA 2.3.0 for = Linux=20 x86 32 bit
VEGA 2.3.0 for Linux x86 64 bit
VEGA 2.3.0 for = AmigaOS
VEGA=20 2.3.0 Localization Pack


**** Possible graphic cards problems=20 ****

Some Intel integrated adapters (e.g. GMA 900) don't support = the the=20 V-sync in
window mode and don't have the hardware anti-aliasing = feature.=20 Another problem
was found when the vertex buffer is enabled to trace = the=20 solid surfaces: some
tringles has a wrong vertex coordinates and = after few=20 time VEGA crashes.
Disable the vertex buffer in the surface property = to fix=20 the problem.


Best=20 regards



        &n= bsp;    =20 VEGA Developer Team

------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C95B7C.4AA1CD80-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Thu Dec 11 09:54:01 2008 From: "Luis M Sim n ls428%cam.ac.uk" To: CCL Subject: CCL:G: translational entropy in solution Message-Id: <-38284-081211095317-16365-e5ohgswvS9bgfK0Plpc8jw a server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Luis M Sim n" Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:53:11 -0500 Sent to CCL by: "Luis M Sim n" [ls428]![cam.ac.uk] It might be unusual that the person starting with the post also respond to it, but I would like to thank everyone for contributing to clarify this problem. Additionally, it is very likely that I have not understand a word, but I will also try to summarize some of my conclusions. I am sure that if anything here is wrong, you might correct me. One of the problems that probably many of us have to take is the calculation of energy differences (or barriers) between two states with different molecularity (say: A + B --> AB, 2 molecules to give a single molecule). In the gas phase, we compute the energy + delta free corrections to this energy quite accurately using statistical mechanics. If we want to study this in solution and we do not want to parametrize our own solvation model, we would probably use anyone's else (I would also like to use COSMO-RS, but unfortunately it is no longer possible with Gaussian). This solvation model has been parametrized to compute the solvation energy, i.e., the energy needed to go from A(g)-- >A(s), or the difference in free energy between both states. The (absolute) free energy of A(g) contains an entropic term, including ideal gas approximation, ideal rotor model, harmonic vibrations, etc. The absolute free energy of A(s) has been parametrized to give accurate values for this process, so, therefore, implicitly contains entropic terms. Indeed, since I post my initial doubt I have found out that this term DEPENDS on the temperature (as free energy does), and in Gaussian there is a keyword to define at which temperature the cavitation energy will be formulated. I have not seen this dependence in Jaguar, but probably this is because I have not use the right combination of keywords. Probably, the dependence is even clearer in the case of COSMO-RS, since polarized charge-charge interactions are evaluated using a Maxwell-Boltzman distribution (sorry if I explained it in a too simplistic way, Andreas Klamt will probably correct me if I haven't understand how COSMO-RS works). If the parametrization is correct, then we can formulate a thermodynamic cycle and obtain that the energy of interest contains the differences in the free energy in solvent, including all non electrostatic terms (sorry for the Gaussian-like language) plus thermal corrections to free energy (including translation and rotation). So the key point is if that parametrization has been done to reproduce exactly that free energy of solvation, as intended. Some of those terms are temperature- dependent (as the cavitation energy), and maybe some others should have been included to model the translational and rotational degrees of freedom, because the expression to calculate the cavitation energy might not show the temperature dependence that a translational (or rotational) term would have. As long as we are using data obtained to a single temperature, the parametrization might be able to compensate the effect, but it might not necessarily be true at different temperatures (and sometimes we use the models at different temperatures!). Probably, the better solution would be that we were able to calibrate the models to our particular problems, specially dealing with process that were not carried out at room (parametrization) temperature. This is unpractical for most of us, but, at least, we might consider to calibrate the different approximations comparing, for example, calculations of association constants in the solvent of interest. This is what Sebastian has proposed. By the way, does anyone knows a database of association constants in organic solvents? :)) Thanks: Luis Simn From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Thu Dec 11 13:35:01 2008 From: "Andreas Klamt klamt:_:cosmologic.de" To: CCL Subject: CCL:G: translational entropy in solution Message-Id: <-38285-081211122817-30412-McAE+cC9uK+BECo5KzrWHQ#%#server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Andreas Klamt Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:27:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Andreas Klamt [klamt!^!cosmologic.de] Dear CCLers, I have been quiet for 2 days in order to sort out these complicated things, even getting aware and confused by the fact that the Sackur-Tetrode eq. for the entropy of a particle in the ideal gas in Wikipedia is wrong (it should be 3k/2, not 5k/2). Interestingly the 5/2 agree with the formula in Frank Jensen's book "Introduction to Comp.Chem.", but he has corrected it in his online errata listing to 3/2. As you can see from this even in the gas phase some contradicting eq. are around. Anyway, this is not the focus of this discussion. I guess the discussion here is not really about the translational entropy of solution, but the solvation free energy change going along with a reaction A + B --> AB Let us for a moment assume that A = B i.e. consider A +A --> AA and the interactions and surface of AA are just twice the interactions of A. We may consider the case of 2 cyclohexane molecules getting bound together by a virtual stiff bond which is long enough so that there are no relevant interactions between the 2 parts. In the gasphase this leads to a large loss of free energy due to the loss of the translational and rotational free energy (not just entropy) of one of the particles. What happens now if we solvate the educts and products, e.g. into hexane. All contributions to the solvation free energy which are proportional to the surface or to electrostatics will be identical on both sides and cancel out in the solvation free energy of reaction. All solvation models have a concentration part in the free energy i.e. RT ln(c) where c is the number density per volume. Let us assume that this is equal in the gasphase and in solution. Then this contribution, which arises for each particle and hence does not cancel, trivially is zero during the solvation process. Indeed, in the SMx and PCM models this seems to be the only contribution bound to each individual particle, and not to the surface or electrostatics. Hence in these solvation models there would be no change in the association free enrgy compared to the gasphase. COSMO-RS indeed has 2 contributions to the solvation free energy which are directly connected to the particle, one being entropic and proportial to ln(volume) and another one (called eta(T) in the chemical potential expression for the ideal gas, eq. 7.6 in my book) being independent of the molecule, but having a temperature dependence (i.e. entropic and enthalpic contributions). Altogether these contributions would sum up to about 3 kcal/mol reduction of the free energy of association, i.e. association would be preferred in solution compared to the gasphase. We have fitted these few parameters to a lot of temperature dependent solvation data, especially to vapor pressures for which best temperature dependencies are easily available (since COSMO-RS can handle vapor pressures in contrast to most other solvation models). I believe that the physics is correct here. The solvent definitely reduces the motional (kinetic) phase space. The molecules cannot move and rotate as freely as they can in the gasphase, and hence the part of the free energy arising from the integration over momentum and rotational momentum must be reduced in solution. Obviously, and here I agree with the other people in the discussion, the solute can take all positions and orientations, as in the gasphase, and hence the free energy arsing from these integrals are the same as in the gasphase. Obviously, in reality, if we generate real close contact associates or even product molecules, the loss of the external degrees of freedom will be partly compensated by additional internal vibrational modes. But it is unlikely that this exactly matches the loss of external degrees of freedom. Please note, that usually the change in the vibrational free energies upon solvation is parameterized int the surface proportinal part of solvation models, i.e. the non-electrostatic parts. Finally, again a few words on COSMO-RS (COSMO for realistic solvation, J. Phys. Chem. 1995): COSMO-RS is a statistical thermodynamics of interacting surfaces based on information arising from COSMO calculations at the reference state, which is the molecule in the conductor. For the best explaination please read my book "COSMO-RS: From quantum chemistry to fluid phase thermodynamics and drug design", Elsevier 2005. More references can be found under www.cosmologic.de/publications.html COSMO-RS is a fundamentally different theory and method than normal dielectric continuum solvation models. Solute and solvent are treated on the same footing, without the need for any solvent parameters, not even the dielectric constant. This allows for the treatment of phase diagrams, vapor pressures, .... the entire fluid phase equilibrium thermodynamics. And in difference to dielectric solavtion models COSMO-RS yields entropic and enthalpic contributions of the solvation energy (because it does a statistical thermodynamics!!!) For example, it correctly describes the solvation of alkanes n water as a mainly entropic effect, in best agreement with the experiment. Please note, that it was never possible to do COSMO-RS in Gaussian. Gaussian03 for a while had the keyword COSMO-RS, but this only triggered C-PCM calculations with the right settings so that the resulting COSMO files could be used for COSMO-RS postprocessing. COSMO-RS always is a postprocessing of COSMO calculations!!! Hence, please do not call such Gaussian calculation with COSMO_RS keyword COSMO-RS calculations!!! I hope this rather long entry helps a bit in the discussion. Regards Andreas (P.S.:If you are interested to learn COSMO-RS in detail, theCOSMO-RS symposium on March 31/april1 2009 will be a nique occasion to do this. There will be basic lectures and a training on Monday before the symposium, and there will be talks by users about applications , and by the developers on recent developments. For details see our home page.) Luis M Sim n ls428%cam.ac.uk schrieb: > Sent to CCL by: "Luis M Sim n" [ls428]![cam.ac.uk] > It might be unusual that the person starting with the post also respond to it, but I would like to > thank everyone for contributing to clarify this problem. Additionally, it is very likely that I have not > understand a word, but I will also try to summarize some of my conclusions. I am sure that if > anything here is wrong, you might correct me. > > One of the problems that probably many of us have to take is the calculation of energy differences > (or barriers) between two states with different molecularity (say: A + B --> AB, 2 molecules to give > a single molecule). In the gas phase, we compute the energy + delta free corrections to this energy > quite accurately using statistical mechanics. If we want to study this in solution and we do not want > to parametrize our own solvation model, we would probably use anyone's else (I would also like to > use COSMO-RS, but unfortunately it is no longer possible with Gaussian). This solvation model has > been parametrized to compute the solvation energy, i.e., the energy needed to go from A(g)-- > >> A(s), or the difference in free energy between both states. The (absolute) free energy of A(g) >> > contains an entropic term, including ideal gas approximation, ideal rotor model, harmonic > vibrations, etc. The absolute free energy of A(s) has been parametrized to give accurate values for > this process, so, therefore, implicitly contains entropic terms. Indeed, since I post my initial doubt I > have found out that this term DEPENDS on the temperature (as free energy does), and in Gaussian > there is a keyword to define at which temperature the cavitation energy will be formulated. I have > not seen this dependence in Jaguar, but probably this is because I have not use the right > combination of keywords. Probably, the dependence is even clearer in the case of COSMO-RS, since > polarized charge-charge interactions are evaluated using a Maxwell-Boltzman distribution (sorry if > I explained it in a too simplistic way, Andreas Klamt will probably correct me if I haven't > understand how COSMO-RS works). > > If the parametrization is correct, then we can formulate a thermodynamic cycle and obtain that the > energy of interest contains the differences in the free energy in solvent, including all non > electrostatic terms (sorry for the Gaussian-like language) plus thermal corrections to free energy > (including translation and rotation). So the key point is if that parametrization has been done to > reproduce exactly that free energy of solvation, as intended. Some of those terms are temperature- > dependent (as the cavitation energy), and maybe some others should have been included to model > the translational and rotational degrees of freedom, because the expression to calculate the > cavitation energy might not show the temperature dependence that a translational (or rotational) > term would have. As long as we are using data obtained to a single temperature, the > parametrization might be able to compensate the effect, but it might not necessarily be true at > different temperatures (and sometimes we use the models at different temperatures!). > > Probably, the better solution would be that we were able to calibrate the models to our particular > problems, specially dealing with process that were not carried out at room (parametrization) > temperature. This is unpractical for most of us, but, at least, we might consider to calibrate the > different approximations comparing, for example, calculations of association constants in the > solvent of interest. This is what Sebastian has proposed. By the way, does anyone knows a database > of association constants in organic solvents? :)) > > Thanks: > > Luis Simn > > > -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. habil. Andreas Klamt COSMOlogic GmbH&CoKG Burscheider Str. 515 51381 Leverkusen, Germany Tel.: +49-2171-73168-1 Fax: +49-2171-73168-9 e-mail: klamt,cosmologic.de web: www.cosmologic.de -------------------------------------------------------------------------- COSMOlogic Your Competent Partner for Computational Chemistry and Fluid Thermodynamics -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note our COSMO-RS Symposium in 2009 (For details see: http://www.cosmologic.de/Symposium/symposium.html) From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Thu Dec 11 14:51:01 2008 From: "Dave Rogers wantye*gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: ForceSolve 1.0 Release Available Message-Id: <-38286-081210194916-6986-4PzlZAuaHsQwQECSAKDaxA_+_server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Dave Rogers" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:48:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: "Dave Rogers" [wantye]-[gmail.com] ********************************************* ForceSolve 1.0 is now available! ********************************************* We are excited to announce the first release version of ForceSolve, a python code to infer coarse Hamiltonians from forces observed at any fine-grained level of detail. This software has been under development in the Dr. Beck Lab for the past two years and delivers robust state-of-the-art coarse-graining methods. It has been designed to be one of the easiest (possibly the only), most intuitive, coarse-graining programs currently available for small systems and validation of the force-matching method. Please visit http://forcesolve.sourceforge.net Tutorials are included for a quick introduction to its capabilities. Code is released under the GPL 3.0 copyright. == Feature List == Specification of Arbitrary Molecule Topologies * Bond specification is done in easily structure-able topology files -- once for each residue type. * Automatic listing of bond, angle, torsion, and pairwise distance interactions for any given PDB from this topology. * Automatic assignment of force field atom types using a simple PDB atom:residue name lookup scheme. * Included script for coarsening of atomic configurations with a site-specification file. Supported Calculations * Maximum Likelihood Hamiltonian Inference * Bayesian Minimum Mean-Squared Error (average) Hamiltonian Estimation * Coarse-Grained MD using Langevin Dynamics Molecular Mechanics * Each forcefield term can be specified by a B-spline of arbitrary range and degree using tabulated coefficients. * Pre-coded terms exist for pairwise distance, bond, angle, and dihedral interactions. * Adding novel terms (not in the above list) to the list of calculable interactions requires moderate effort and is well documented. Included APIs * Complete implementation of arbitrary polynomial order B-splines and first derivatives. * Included python library ucgrad handles array and pdb I/O, vector operations such as internal coordinate conversion and generation of rotation matrices, parameter file parsing, and multiple structural superposition. Unique Properties of our Method Generated Hamiltonians do not suffer from over-fitting at arbitrarily high number of spline knots, nor do they change with the energy or distance scales of the system under consideration. Requirements Runs on any system with Python 2.4 or greater and numpy (numerical python library) installed -- Linux or MS Windows. For questions or comments, contact the authors on sourceforge.net! David M. Rogers, PhD Candidate Dr. Thomas L. Beck Lab Department of Chemistry University of Cincinnati From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Thu Dec 11 22:18:00 2008 From: "Raphael Ribeiro raphaelri===hotmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: translational entropy in solution Message-Id: <-38287-081211221544-14692-wsqHhLf0JCwkeWHKwZ2CXQ : server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Raphael Ribeiro" Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:15:41 -0500 Sent to CCL by: "Raphael Ribeiro" [raphaelri^-^hotmail.com] Dear Andreas, > Let us for a moment assume that A = B i.e. consider > > A +A --> AA > > and the interactions and surface of AA are just twice the interactions > of A. We may consider the case of 2 cyclohexane molecules getting bound > together by a virtual stiff bond which is long enough so that there are > no relevant interactions between the 2 parts. In the gasphase this leads > to a large loss of free energy due to the loss of the translational and > rotational free energy (not just entropy) of one of the particles Actually if there is a loss in the entropy of the system its free energy increases: dG = dH - TdS dS < 0 , dG increases. Also, there is an increase in the enthalpy of the system(considering that no kind of interaction is going on between A and A,what is quite contradictory anyway) after the reaction. The new vibrational modes in AA are going to have a zero point energy that is bigger than the rotational and translational energies of the reagents, increasing the enthalpy of the system, which is another reason for an increase in G and for this reaction to be non-spontaneous > I believe that the physics is correct here. The solvent definitely > reduces the motional (kinetic) phase space. The molecules cannot move > and rotate as freely as they can in the gasphase, and hence the part of > the free energy arising from the integration over momentum and > rotational momentum must be reduced in solution. Obviously, and here I > agree with the other people in the discussion, the solute can take all > positions and orientations, as in the gasphase, and hence the free > energy arsing from these integrals are the same as in the gasphase. Actually, although the solute can take all positions and orientations, in solution some of these are going to be very disfavored energetically, while others are going to be more favored, and that is introduced by the term U (potential energy) in the integral used to calculate the molecular partition function. So the molecular partition function is not going to be the same as in the gas phase. > Obviously, in reality, if we generate real close contact associates or > even product molecules, the loss of the external degrees of freedom will > be partly compensated by additional internal vibrational modes. But it > is unlikely that this exactly matches the loss of external degrees of > freedom. Please note, that usually the change in the vibrational free > energies upon solvation is parameterized int the surface proportinal > part of solvation models, i.e. the non-electrostatic parts. Non-electrostactic contributions in most of the solvent models also(actually they should, but in most cases don't) account for the change in all of the other components of free energy. What about COSMO-RS? I don't have access to your book and I'm going to read a paper on COSMO-RS soon, but I'm very curious on the physical foundations of the 2 extra terms (the one proportional to lnV and the one that depends on the temperature) you've mentioned. Where does these terms come from? What is parametrized in the model? >This > allows for the treatment of phase diagrams, vapor pressures, .... the > entire fluid phase equilibrium thermodynamics. And in difference to > dielectric solavtion models COSMO-RS yields entropic and enthalpic > contributions of the solvation energy (because it does a statistical > thermodynamics!!!) For example, it correctly describes the solvation of > alkanes n water as a mainly entropic effect, in best agreement with the > experiment. Do you mean that COSMO-RS yields each component(translational/rotational/vibrational/electronic) of entropy and enthalpy or that it only separates the free energy of solvation in enthalpy and entropy contributions? Sorry for so many questions,maybe some of them are going to be be solved after reading papers on COSMO-RS, but I'm very interested on this model right now. Raphael Ribeiro From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Thu Dec 11 23:39:00 2008 From: "Michael K. Gilson gilson\a/umbi.umd.edu" To: CCL Subject: CCL: translational entropy and solvation Message-Id: <-38288-081211231518-9815-tDtoY66VnUOFbklu+PJdng/./server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Michael K. Gilson" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:15:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: "Michael K. Gilson" [gilson^umbi.umd.edu] Dear Raphael, Actually, the mathematical model I'm talking about is not based on the ideal gas model. Rather, it is based upon the lovely mathematical fact that one can write solution theory in a form that looks like ideal gas theory even though it accounts, at least formally, for all intermolecular interactions. This correspondence, which I believe was proven by McMillan and Mayer in the '40s, is connected with the fact that, just as PV=nRT in gas phase, so \Pi V =nRT in solution phase, where \Pi is the osmotic pressure and n is the number of solutes. However, this parallel between ideal gas theory and ideal solution theory does not imply that one can properly compute the quantum energy levels of a solution by treating the solute as a particle in a box with the dimensions of the container. Therefore, I agree with you that the quantum mechanical translational partition functions are not the same in the ideal gas phase and in the solvated phase, and that the quantum mechanical molecular partition functions we are accustomed to cannot be directly applied to a molecule in solution. In fact, I believe the solute has no well-defined translational partition function; its translational motions are strongly coupled with solvent motions, so there aren't any quantum numbers that correspond to purely translational states of the solute. Nonetheless, going to the classical approximation allows the integral over solute translation to be cleanly separated from the integrals over other spatial coordinates, so one obtains a well defined translational contribution to the molecular partition function of a solute. I am saying only that there is a definition of translational entropy with these properties, not that this is the only possible definition. Indeed, Siebert and Amzel, in the link you provided, appear to offer a different definition of translational entropy. Since they work in the paradigm of classical stat thermo, my feeling is that that their approach needlessly sacrifices the simplicity and elegance of the definition I have been espousing, but perhaps it has its own merits. Best regards, Mike