Minimal basis sets in calculations of intermolecular interaction energies

1979 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wlodzimierz Kołos
Keyword(s):  
Intermolecular Interaction ◽  
Basis Sets ◽  
Interaction Energies ◽  
Minimal Basis

scholarly journals Quasi-Atomic Bond Analyses in the Sixth Period: I. Relativistic Accurate Atomic Minimal Basis Sets for the Elements Cesium to Radon

2019 ◽  
Vol 123 (25) ◽  
pp. 5242-5248 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Schoendorff ◽  
Aaron C. West ◽  
Michael W. Schmidt ◽  
Klaus Ruedenberg ◽  
Mark S. Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Basis Sets ◽  
Minimal Basis

scholarly journals Intermolecular interaction energies in transition metal coordination compounds

CrystEngComm ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (48) ◽  
pp. 9300-9310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew G. P. Maloney ◽  
Peter A. Wood ◽  
Simon Parsons
Keyword(s):  
Transition Metal ◽  
Transition Metals ◽  
Crystal Structures ◽  
Intermolecular Interaction ◽  
Coordination Compounds ◽  
Metal Coordination ◽  
Interaction Energies

The PIXEL method has been parameterised and validated for transition metals, extending its applicability from ~40% to ~85% of all published crystal structures.

The assessment of density functionals for DNA–protein stacked and T-shaped complexes

2010 ◽  
Vol 88 (8) ◽  
pp. 815-830 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lesley R. Rutledge ◽  
Stacey D. Wetmore
Keyword(s):  
Amino Acid ◽  
Potential Energy ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Enzymatic Reaction ◽  
Basis Sets ◽  
Density Functionals ◽  
Interaction Energies ◽  
Π Interactions ◽  
Hybrid Techniques ◽  
Semi Empirical

The present work uses 129 nucleobase – amino acid CCSD(T)/CBS stacking and T-shaped interaction energies as reference data to test the ability of various density functionals with double-zeta quality basis sets, as well as some semi-empirical and molecular mechanics methods, to accurately describe noncovalent DNA–protein π–π and π+–π interactions. The goal of this work is to identify methods that can be used in hybrid approaches (QM/MM, ONIOM) for large-scale modeling of enzymatic systems involving active-site (substrate) π–π contacts. Our results indicate that AMBER is a more appropriate choice for the lower-level method in hybrid techniques than popular semi-empirical methods (AM1, PM3), and suggest that AMBER accurately describes the π–π interactions found throughout DNA–protein complexes. The M06–2X and PBE-D density functionals were found to provide very promising descriptions of the 129 nucleobase – amino acid interaction energies, which suggests that these may be the most suitable methods for describing high-level regions. Therefore, M06–2X and PBE-D with both the 6–31G(d) and 6–31+G(d,p) basis sets were further examined through potential-energy surface scans to better understand how these techniques describe DNA–protein π–π interactions in both minimum and nonminimum regions of the potential-energy surfaces, which is critical information when modeling enzymatic reaction pathways. Our results suggest that studies of stacked nucleobase – amino acid systems should implement the PBE-D/6–31+G(d,p) method. However, if T-shaped contacts are involved and (or) smaller basis sets must be considered due to limitations in computational resources, then M06–2X/6–31G(d) provides an overall excellent description of both nucleobase – amino acid stacking and T-shaped interactions for a range of DNA–protein π–π and π+–π interactions.

Stacked and H-Bonded Cytosine Dimers. Analysis of the Intermolecular Interaction Energies by Parallel Quantum Chemistry and Polarizable Molecular Mechanics.

2015 ◽  
Vol 119 (30) ◽  
pp. 9477-9495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nohad Gresh ◽  
Judit E. Sponer ◽  
Mike Devereux ◽  
Konstantinos Gkionis ◽  
Benoit de Courcy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Chemistry ◽  
Molecular Mechanics ◽  
Intermolecular Interaction ◽  
Interaction Energies
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document