计算化学公社

 找回密码 Forget password
 注册 Register
Views: 1302|回复 Reply: 6
打印 Print 上一主题 Last thread 下一主题 Next thread

[Gaussian/gview] Suggestion for gaussian calculation for phosphorylated asparte

[复制链接 Copy URL]

206

帖子

0

威望

2251

eV
积分
2457

Level 5 (御坂)

Hi
I want to get the RESP charges for a phosphorylated asparte to use this to get the parameters for this residue for a molecular dynamic simulation, I was thinking to use:
- For optimization: opt b3lyp/6-311+g(d) empiricaldispersion=gd3bj
- For charges: b3lyp/6-311+g(d,p) empiricaldispersion=gd3bj

But I'm not sure if this will be enoght or not, maybe PBE can be better?

Thanks in advance.


1万

帖子

0

威望

9900

eV
积分
22154

Level 6 (一方通行)

2#
发表于 Post on 2023-5-4 16:33:30 | 只看该作者 Only view this author
PBE is almost never better than B3LYP for organic molecules. In general, B3LYP is good for organic molecules, while PBE is good for periodic systems (especially metals and alloys). When self-interaction error is non-negligible (for example when there is a delocalized radical or an extremely large conjugating system), B3LYP may fail, but in this case PBE is even worse, since it has not HF exchange, and one should use e.g. M06-2X or wB97XD instead.
Your functional and basis set are fine, but you must include the solvent in the calculations, since this is a heavily charged molecule. In the gas phase, both the basicity of the phosphate and the acidity of the protonated amino group are greatly enhanced, so that the former will abstract a proton from the latter during geometry optimization, and the optimized molecule will no longer reflect the situation in aqueous phase. Another two minor things are: (1) you should do a frequency calculation after the geometry optimization converges, to ensure that there are no imaginary frequencies; (2) I would recommend using 6-311+g(d,p) for the optimization as well; this does not necessarily improve the results very much, but since your molecule is small, it does not slow down your calculation very much either.
Zikuan Wang
山东大学光学高等研究中心 研究员
BDF(https://bdf-manual.readthedocs.io/zh_CN/latest/Introduction.html)、ORCA(https://orcaforum.kofo.mpg.de/index.php)开发团队成员
Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=XW6C6eQAAAAJ
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4540-8734
主页:http://www.qitcs.qd.sdu.edu.cn/info/1133/1776.htm
GitHub:https://github.com/wzkchem5
本团队长期招收研究生,有意者可私信联系

6万

帖子

99

威望

6万

eV
积分
125208

管理员

公社社长

3#
发表于 Post on 2023-5-4 16:36:59 | 只看该作者 Only view this author
This combination is appropriate. Using PBE will worse the result.
If you hope to obtain a better result, you can use ma-def2-TZVP for single point calculation.
北京科音自然科学研究中心http://www.keinsci.com)致力于计算化学的发展和传播,长期开办极高质量的各种计算化学类培训:初级量子化学培训班中级量子化学培训班高级量子化学培训班量子化学波函数分析与Multiwfn程序培训班分子动力学与GROMACS培训班CP2K第一性原理计算培训班,内容介绍以及往届资料购买请点击相应链接查看。这些培训是计算化学从零快速入门以及进一步全面系统性提升研究水平的高速路!培训各种常见问题见《北京科音办的培训班FAQ》
欢迎加入北京科音微信公众号获取北京科音培训的最新消息,并避免错过网上有价值的计算化学文章!
欢迎加入人气极高、专业性特别强的理论与计算化学综合交流群思想家公社QQ群(群号见此链接),合计达一万多人。北京科音培训班的学员在群中可申请VIP头衔,提问将得到群主Sobereva的最优先解答。
思想家公社的门口Blog:http://sobereva.com(发布大量原创计算化学相关博文)
Multiwfn主页:http://sobereva.com/multiwfn(十分强大、极为流行的量子化学波函数分析程序)
Google Scholar:https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=tiKE0qkAAAAJ
ResearchGate:https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tian_Lu

206

帖子

0

威望

2251

eV
积分
2457

Level 5 (御坂)

4#
 楼主 Author| 发表于 Post on 2023-5-4 22:05:46 | 只看该作者 Only view this author
本帖最后由 rpestana94 于 2023-5-4 09:27 编辑
wzkchem5 Published on 2023-5-4 03:33
PBE is almost never better than B3LYP for organic molecules. In general, B3LYP is good for organic m ...

Thanks, about the implicit solvent model I don't know which I should choose, gaussian shows IEFPCM, SMD, SCI-PCM and CPCM, there is one that you recommend?

206

帖子

0

威望

2251

eV
积分
2457

Level 5 (御坂)

5#
 楼主 Author| 发表于 Post on 2023-5-4 22:05:54 | 只看该作者 Only view this author
sobereva 发表于 2023-5-4 03:36
This combination is appropriate. Using PBE will worse the result.
If you hope to obtain a better re ...

Thanks

1万

帖子

0

威望

9900

eV
积分
22154

Level 6 (一方通行)

6#
发表于 Post on 2023-5-5 14:18:48 | 只看该作者 Only view this author
rpestana94 发表于 2023-5-4 15:05
Thanks, about the implicit solvent model I don't know which I should choose, gaussian shows IEFPCM ...

SMD is the best one for single point energies. For geometry optimization, IEFPCM is normally used; although it is theoretically less accurate than SMD, the influence of the error on the geometries is small, and IEFPCM is more numerically stable, i.e. the geometry convergence is easier and the frequency calculation is less likely to give false imaginary frequencies. I don't know, though, whether this is due to the theories of IEFPCM and SMD, or due to their specific implementation in Gaussian.
Zikuan Wang
山东大学光学高等研究中心 研究员
BDF(https://bdf-manual.readthedocs.io/zh_CN/latest/Introduction.html)、ORCA(https://orcaforum.kofo.mpg.de/index.php)开发团队成员
Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=XW6C6eQAAAAJ
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4540-8734
主页:http://www.qitcs.qd.sdu.edu.cn/info/1133/1776.htm
GitHub:https://github.com/wzkchem5
本团队长期招收研究生,有意者可私信联系

206

帖子

0

威望

2251

eV
积分
2457

Level 5 (御坂)

7#
 楼主 Author| 发表于 Post on 2023-5-5 21:28:46 | 只看该作者 Only view this author
wzkchem5 发表于 2023-5-5 01:18
SMD is the best one for single point energies. For geometry optimization, IEFPCM is normally used; ...

Thanks

本版积分规则 Credits rule

手机版 Mobile version|北京科音自然科学研究中心 Beijing Kein Research Center for Natural Sciences|京公网安备 11010502035419号|计算化学公社 — 北京科音旗下高水平计算化学交流论坛 ( 京ICP备14038949号-1 )|网站地图

GMT+8, 2026-2-27 21:48 , Processed in 0.480844 second(s), 23 queries , Gzip On.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表 Return to list