No abstract

Twenty years ago, the landmark AM1 was introduced, and has since had an increasingly wide following among chemists due to its consistently good results and time-tested reliability--being presently available in countless computational quantum chemistry programs. However, semiempirical molecular orbital models still are of limited accuracy and need to be improved if the full potential of new linear scaling techniques, such as MOZYME and LocalSCF, is to be realized. Accordingly, in this article we present RM1 (Recife Model 1): a reparameterization of AM1. As before, the properties used in the parameterization procedure were: heats of formation, dipole moments, ionization potentials and geometric variables (bond lengths and angles). Considering that the vast majority of molecules of importance to life can be assembled by using only six elements: C, H, N, O, P, and S, and that by adding the halogens we can now build most molecules of importance to pharmaceutical research, our training set consisted of 1736 molecules, representative of organic and biochemistry, containing C, H, N, O, P, S, F, Cl, Br, and I atoms. Unlike AM1, and similar to PM3, all RM1 parameters have been optimized. For enthalpies of formation, dipole moments, ionization potentials, and interatomic distances, the average errors in RM1, for the 1736 molecules, are less than those for AM1, PM3, and PM5. Indeed, the average errors in kcal x mol(-1) of the enthalpies of formation for AM1, PM3, and PM5 are 11.15, 7.98, and 6.03, whereas for RM1 this value is 5.77. The errors, in Debye, of the dipole moments for AM1, PM3, PM5, and RM1 are, respectively, 0.37, 0.38, 0.50, and 0.34. Likewise, the respective errors for the ionization potentials, in eV, are 0.60, 0.55, 0.48, and 0.45, and the respective errors, in angstroms, for the interatomic distances are 0.036, 0.029, 0.037, and 0.027. The RM1 average error in bond angles of 6.82 degrees is only slightly higher than the AM1 figure of 5.88 degrees, and both are much smaller than the PM3 and PM5 figures of 6.98 degrees and 9.83 degrees, respectively. Moreover, a known error in PM3 nitrogen charges is corrected in RM1. Therefore, RM1 represents an improvement over AM1 and its similar successor PM3, and is probably very competitive with PM5, which is a somewhat different model, and not fully disclosed. RM1 possesses the same analytical construct and the same number of parameters for each atom as AM1, and, therefore, can be easily implemented in any software that already has AM1, not requiring any change in any line of code, with the sole exception of the values of the parameters themselves.

Our previously defined Sparkle model (Inorg. Chem. 2004, 43, 2346) has been reparameterized for Eu(III) as well as newly parameterized for Gd(III) and Tb(III). The parameterizations have been carried out in a much more extensive manner, aimed at producing a new, more accurate model called Sparkle/AM1, mainly for the vast majority of all Eu(III), Gd(III), and Tb(III) complexes, which possess oxygen or nitrogen as coordinating atoms. All such complexes, which comprise 80% of all geometries present in the Cambridge Structural Database for each of the three ions, were classified into seven groups. These were regarded as a "basis" of chemical ambiance around a lanthanide, which could span the various types of ligand environments the lanthanide ion could be subjected to in any arbitrary complex where the lanthanide ion is coordinated to nitrogen or oxygen atoms. From these seven groups, 15 complexes were selected, which were defined as the parameterization set and then were used with a numerical multidimensional nonlinear optimization to find the best parameter set for reproducing chemical properties. The new parameterizations yielded an unsigned mean error for all interatomic distances between the Eu(III) ion and the ligand atoms of the first sphere of coordination (for the 96 complexes considered in the present paper) of 0.09 A, an improvement over the value of 0.28 A for the previous model and the value of 0.68 A for the first model (Chem. Phys. Lett. 1994, 227, 349). Similar accuracies have been achieved for Gd(III) (0.07 A, 70 complexes) and Tb(III) (0.07 A, 42 complexes). Qualitative improvements have been obtained as well; nitrates now coordinate correctly as bidentate ligands. The results, therefore, indicate that Eu(III), Gd(III), and Tb(III) Sparkle/AM1 calculations possess geometry prediction accuracies for lanthanide complexes with oxygen or nitrogen atoms in the coordination polyhedron that are competitive with present day ab initio/effective core potential calculations, while being hundreds of times faster.

No abstract

The Laplacian of the spherically averaged charge density ∇2ρ̄(r) has been computed from nonrelativistic SCF wave functions for the neutral atoms from hydrogen to uranium, and the singly positive ions, from helium to barium and lutetium to radium, in order to examine the shell structure. ∇2ρ̄(r) exhibits a number of extremal points and zeros with the absolute value of the function becoming smaller at each successive extremal point. The zeros, in particular the odd numbered zeros, are shown to exhibit good correlation with the Bohr theory of an atom while the extremal points correlate to a lesser extent. At most five shells are seen in the studied atomic cases based on the fact that the odd numbered zeros are the topological feature of ∇2ρ̄(r) most indicative of a shell.