Frequently it is useful to compare experimental values of the hyperpolarizabilities β and γ with calculated values. It is also often helpful to compare experimental values of β obtained from dc-electric field induced second harmonic generation (dc-SHG) experiments, e.g., with values obtained using the solvatochromism method. In order to do this the hyperpolarizabilities must be defined using consistent conventions. In this paper, four commonly used conventions are discussed and simple factors for converting between them presented. In addition, the sum-over-states expression for the calculation of β and γ is described and its correct use in comparing with hyperpolarizabilities obtained using other experimental and theoretical techniques discussed. As an illustration of the consistent use of conventions, ab initio and semiempirical calculations on para-nitroaniline are compared with experimental dc-SHG values. This comparison highlights the difference between theoretical values of the hyperpolarizability with the molecule in a gas phase environment and experimental values obtained in polar solvents−a difference that has in the past been obscured by inconsistent choice of conventions.

The increasing availability of high-quality experimental data and first-principles calculations creates opportunities for developing more accurate empirical force fields for simulation of proteins. We developed the AMBER-FB15 protein force field by building a high-quality quantum chemical data set consisting of comprehensive potential energy scans and employing the ForceBalance software package for parameter optimization. The optimized potential surface allows for more significant thermodynamic fluctuations away from local minima. In validation studies where simulation results are compared to experimental measurements, AMBER-FB15 in combination with the updated TIP3P-FB water model predicts equilibrium properties with equivalent accuracy, and temperature dependent properties with significantly improved accuracy, in comparison with published models. We also discuss the effect of changing the protein force field and water model on the simulation results.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract