Halgren Thomas A
Molecular Systems Department, Merck Research Laboratories, P.O. Box 2000, Rahway, New Jersey 07065.
J Comput Chem. 1999 May;20(7):730-748. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(199905)20:7<730::AID-JCC8>3.0.CO;2-T.
This article provides extensive comparisons for the MMFF94, MMFF94s, CFF95, CVFF, MSI CHARMm, AMBER*, OPLS*, MM2*, and MM3* force fields to experimental and high-quality ab initio data for conformational energies and to scaled ab initio data for hydrogen-bonded complexes. Some comparisons are also presented for CHARMM 22. The tests of conformational energies consisted of two sets of comparisons to experiment and one more extensive set of comparisons to relatively high-quality ab initio data. As in the derivation of MMFF94, scaled HF/6-31G* energies and geometries were used to assess the reasonableness of the calculated intermolecular interaction energies and geometries. The comparisons for intermolecular interactions appear to be the first broadly based comparisons to appear in the chemical literature. Taken together, the comparisons reveal that most of the force fields make sizable errors and frequently produce qualitatively incorrect results for both conformational and intermolecular-interaction energies. For example, three of the force fields produce individual errors in conformational energy of more than 10 kcal/mol, and four rate thiophene as a stronger hydrogen-bond acceptor than ammonia. Only MMFF94 and MMFF94s perform consistently well. Some MMFF deficiencies are apparent, however, particularly for conformational energies of halocyclohexanes. These deficiencies, and others recently found for condensed-phase simulations, will need to be addressed in any future reparameterization of MMFF. The quantum-chemical data used in this work have been placed on the Computational Chemistry List web site. ©1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Comput Chem 20: 730-748, 1999.
本文对MMFF94、MMFF94s、CFF95、CVFF、MSI CHARMm、AMBER*、OPLS*、MM2和MM3等力场,就构象能量的实验数据和高质量从头算数据,以及氢键复合物的标度从头算数据进行了广泛比较。同时也给出了一些关于CHARMM 22的比较结果。构象能量测试包括两组与实验的比较,以及一组更广泛的与相对高质量从头算数据的比较。如同在MMFF94的推导过程中一样,使用标度的HF/6 - 31G*能量和几何结构来评估计算出的分子间相互作用能量和几何结构的合理性。分子间相互作用的比较似乎是化学文献中首次出现的广泛比较。综合来看,这些比较表明大多数力场都存在相当大的误差,并且在构象和分子间相互作用能量方面经常产生定性错误的结果。例如,其中三个力场在构象能量上产生的个别误差超过10千卡/摩尔,并且有四个将噻吩评定为比氨更强的氢键受体。只有MMFF94和MMFF94s表现一直良好。然而,MMFF也存在一些明显的不足,特别是对于卤代环己烷的构象能量。在未来MMFF的任何重新参数化过程中,都需要解决这些不足以及最近在凝聚相模拟中发现的其他问题。本工作中使用的量子化学数据已发布在计算化学列表网站上。©1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Comput Chem 20: 730 - 748, 1999。