143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27392746)
1. Examination of the quality of various force fields and solvation models for the equilibrium simulations of GA88 and GB88.
Zeng J; Li Y; Zhang JZ; Mei Y
J Mol Model; 2016 Aug; 22(8):177. PubMed ID: 27392746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluating the strengths of salt bridges in the CutA1 protein using molecular dynamic simulations: a comparison of different force fields.
Matsuura Y; Joti Y; Bagautdinov B; Yutani K
FEBS Open Bio; 2019 Nov; 9(11):1939-1956. PubMed ID: 31509647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Are AMBER Force Fields and Implicit Solvation Models Additive? A Folding Study with a Balanced Peptide Test Set.
Robinson MK; Monroe JI; Shell MS
J Chem Theory Comput; 2016 Nov; 12(11):5631-5642. PubMed ID: 27731628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Experimental verification of force fields for molecular dynamics simulations using Gly-Pro-Gly-Gly.
Aliev AE; Courtier-Murias D
J Phys Chem B; 2010 Sep; 114(38):12358-75. PubMed ID: 20825228
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Free energy landscape of protein folding in water: explicit vs. implicit solvent.
Zhou R
Proteins; 2003 Nov; 53(2):148-61. PubMed ID: 14517967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Assessment of AMBER Force Fields for Simulations of ssDNA.
Oweida TJ; Kim HS; Donald JM; Singh A; Yingling YG
J Chem Theory Comput; 2021 Feb; 17(2):1208-1217. PubMed ID: 33434436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Observations on AMBER Force Field Performance under the Conditions of Low pH and High Salt Concentrations.
Liu H; Tan Q; Han L; Huo S
J Phys Chem B; 2017 Oct; 121(42):9838-9847. PubMed ID: 28962533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Membrane Protein Simulations Using AMBER Force Field and Berger Lipid Parameters.
Cordomí A; Caltabiano G; Pardo L
J Chem Theory Comput; 2012 Mar; 8(3):948-58. PubMed ID: 26593357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Classical and quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical molecular dynamics simulations of alanine dipeptide in water: comparisons with IR and vibrational circular dichroism spectra.
Kwac K; Lee KK; Han JB; Oh KI; Cho M
J Chem Phys; 2008 Mar; 128(10):105106. PubMed ID: 18345930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Force-Field Induced Bias in the Structure of Aβ21-30: A Comparison of OPLS, AMBER, CHARMM, and GROMOS Force Fields.
Smith MD; Rao JS; Segelken E; Cruz L
J Chem Inf Model; 2015 Dec; 55(12):2587-95. PubMed ID: 26629886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Conformational Dynamics of Two Natively Unfolded Fragment Peptides: Comparison of the AMBER and CHARMM Force Fields.
Chen W; Shi C; MacKerell AD; Shen J
J Phys Chem B; 2015 Jun; 119(25):7902-10. PubMed ID: 26020564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. How well do force fields capture the strength of salt bridges in proteins?
Ahmed MC; Papaleo E; Lindorff-Larsen K
PeerJ; 2018; 6():e4967. PubMed ID: 29910983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. An efficient mean solvation force model for use in molecular dynamics simulations of proteins in aqueous solution.
Fraternali F; Van Gunsteren WF
J Mol Biol; 1996 Mar; 256(5):939-48. PubMed ID: 8601844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Explicit Water Models Affect the Specific Solvation and Dynamics of Unfolded Peptides While the Conformational Behavior and Flexibility of Folded Peptides Remain Intact.
Florová P; Sklenovský P; Banáš P; Otyepka M
J Chem Theory Comput; 2010 Nov; 6(11):3569-79. PubMed ID: 26617103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Quantitative analysis of Poisson-Boltzmann implicit solvent in molecular dynamics.
Wang J; Tan C; Chanco E; Luo R
Phys Chem Chem Phys; 2010 Feb; 12(5):1194-202. PubMed ID: 20094685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Computations of Absolute Solvation Free Energies of Small Molecules Using Explicit and Implicit Solvent Model.
Shivakumar D; Deng Y; Roux B
J Chem Theory Comput; 2009 Apr; 5(4):919-30. PubMed ID: 26609601
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. RNA stability under different combinations of amber force fields and solvation models.
Gong Z; Xiao Y; Xiao Y
J Biomol Struct Dyn; 2010 Dec; 28(3):431-41. PubMed ID: 20919758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. CHARMM fluctuating charge force field for proteins: II protein/solvent properties from molecular dynamics simulations using a nonadditive electrostatic model.
Patel S; Mackerell AD; Brooks CL
J Comput Chem; 2004 Sep; 25(12):1504-14. PubMed ID: 15224394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Assessment of biomolecular force fields for molecular dynamics simulations in a protein crystal.
Hu Z; Jiang J
J Comput Chem; 2010 Jan; 31(2):371-80. PubMed ID: 19479737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Characterization of the structural ensembles of p53 TAD2 by molecular dynamics simulations with different force fields.
Ouyang Y; Zhao L; Zhang Z
Phys Chem Chem Phys; 2018 Mar; 20(13):8676-8684. PubMed ID: 29537020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
