Understanding the structure-function relationship in polypeptides and proteins is a crucial step in the elucidation of biochemical processes. In this regard, constantly improving hardware architectures and program codes have allowed the in silico treatment of proteins to become an important partner in related investigations. Due to the immense size of proteins, their computational study has generally been carried out with molecular mechanics (MM) force-field methods, such as CHARMM or GROMOS. 1 At the other extreme, high-level quantum mechanical (QM) methods, such as coupled-cluster with perturbative triples 2 [CCSD(T)] or composite methods like Gn 3 or Wn, 4 provide results with much higher accuracy. However, due to their computational cost, their applicability has been restricted to smaller systems such as amino acids, and di-and tripeptides. 5,6 Tetrapeptides are the smallest model systems that are able to mimic the typical hydrogen-bond pattern in a-helices. They are therefore of particular biological interest, and QM treatments of them have been reported since the late 1990s. 7 The highest levels of theory used in such studies were often conventional or local second-order Møller-Plesset perturbation theory (MP2) with a triple-z basis set. These levels are still popular in recent similar investigations. 8 Of particular relevance to the present work is the extensive study of 100 tetrapeptides by Jiang et al., 9 who evaluated the performance of a large number of QM and MM methods based on MP2/cc-pVTZ reference values.In the present article, we will demonstrate where potential problems of the MP2 approach combined with finite basis sets might lie when applied to conformers of polypeptides. For this purpose, we selected two systems from the study by Jiang et al. 9 that have the sequence ACE-ALA-X-ALA-NME. ALA is alanine, X is either glycine (GLY) or serine (SER), and ACE and NME stand for acetyl and methylamide groups, respectively (see Fig. 1a). For each peptide, five conformers have been examined, whose backbone dihedral angles (see ESI †) have been fixed such that they resemble those typically found in parallel (b) and antiparallel (b a ) b-sheets, in right-handed (a R ) and left-handed (a L ) a-helices, and in the common polyproline-II (PP-II) helix. We note that while the two a-helical conformers are stabilised by hydrogen bonds, the backbones of the other three conformers are not (see for example Fig. 1).