1990
DOI: 10.1002/jcc.540110304
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Derivation of net atomic charges from molecular electrostatic potentials

Abstract: The dependence of net atomic charges, as derived from least‐squares fitting to electrostatic potentials, on molecular orientation and potential site location is critically examined. A unique rotationally invariant algorithm, in which the charges may be constrained to reproduce the molecular dipole moment, is presented and the results for several basis sets compared to previous work. Significant improvements in dipole moments derived from the unconstrained charges are noted.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
93
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 153 publications
(96 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
3
93
0
Order By: Relevance
“…49 Although the atom-centered MEP-derived point charges provide a clear interpretation of the electrostatic properties and are computationally inexpensive, they can poorly reproduce the anisotropic electronic features (e.g., lone pairs, π-systems), 50,51 and also suffer from several technical difficulties. The optimized values of the point charges not only depend on the grid density and size, or the spatial orientation of the molecule relative to the Cartesian axes, 48,[52][53][54][55][56] they also can be inconsistent even across very similar molecules, at odds with the fundamental chemical concept of the transferability of atomic properties. Not only the MEP-fitted charges for atoms of a common functional group in chemically similar molecules may be very different, the charges obtained for the conformers of the same molecule often vary by more than one electron unit.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…49 Although the atom-centered MEP-derived point charges provide a clear interpretation of the electrostatic properties and are computationally inexpensive, they can poorly reproduce the anisotropic electronic features (e.g., lone pairs, π-systems), 50,51 and also suffer from several technical difficulties. The optimized values of the point charges not only depend on the grid density and size, or the spatial orientation of the molecule relative to the Cartesian axes, 48,[52][53][54][55][56] they also can be inconsistent even across very similar molecules, at odds with the fundamental chemical concept of the transferability of atomic properties. Not only the MEP-fitted charges for atoms of a common functional group in chemically similar molecules may be very different, the charges obtained for the conformers of the same molecule often vary by more than one electron unit.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The non-bonded parameters for Ag(I), namely the van der Waals radius and the well-depth have been assigned the values r vdw ¼ 1.72 Å and " vdw ¼ 0.050 kcal mol À1 , respectively 29 . Finally, the RESP atomic partial charges 30 for Ag complexes were derived with the ANTECHAMBER module, and the general AMBER GAFF force field was employed to obtain the force field parameters 31 . Equilibrium distances, angles and dihedrals in Ag complexes have been defined according to crystal structure parameters provided by Poyraz et al 16 .…”
Section: Simulationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The CHELPG method 16 includes points between 0 and 2.8 A plus the van der Waals radius. Several other schemes have been suggested, 12,17,19 but normally no points within the van der Waals radii or more than 3᎐7 A from all atoms are used in the fit. Naturally, this arbitrariness in the choice of the potential points will affect the resulting charges.…”
Section: Introduction Olecular Simulation Methods Have Becomementioning
confidence: 99%
“…A point density of 2,500 pointsratom was used, because the charges of all atoms have been shown to be converged at this density. 17,29 Points with a weight of less than y6 Ž .…”
Section: The Chelp-bow Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%