These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparing hypothetical structures generated in the third Cambridge blind test of crystal structure prediction.
    Author: van Eijck BP.
    Journal: Acta Crystallogr B; 2005 Oct; 61(Pt 5):528-35. PubMed ID: 16186653.
    Abstract:
    In the third Cambridge blind test of crystal structure prediction, participants submitted extended lists of up to 100 hypothetical structures. In this paper these lists are analyzed for the two small semi-rigid molecules, hydantoin and azetidine, by performing a new energy minimization using an accurate force field, and grouping these newly minimized structures into clusters of equivalent structures. Many participants found the same low-energy structures, but no list appeared to be complete even for the structures with one independent molecule in the asymmetric unit. This may well be due to the fact that a cutoff at even 100 structures cannot ensure the presence of a structure that has a relatively high ranking in another force field. Moreover, some structures should have possibly been discarded because they correspond to transition states rather than true energy minima. The r.m.s. deviation between energies in corresponding clusters was calculated to compare the reported relative crystal energies for each pair of participants. Some groups of force fields show a reasonably good correspondence, yet the order of magnitude of their discrepancies is comparable to the energy differences between, say, the first ten structures of lowest energy. Therefore, even if we assume that energy is a sufficient criterion, it is not surprising that crystal structure predictions are still inconsistent and unreliable.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]