ViewVC Help
View File | Revision Log | Show Annotations | View Changeset | Root Listing
root/group/trunk/oopsePaper/DUFF.tex
(Generate patch)

Comparing trunk/oopsePaper/DUFF.tex (file contents):
Revision 716 by mmeineke, Sun Aug 24 04:00:44 2003 UTC vs.
Revision 737 by mmeineke, Mon Sep 1 19:50:07 2003 UTC

# Line 1 | Line 1
1  
2 < \section{\label{sec:DUFF}The DUFF Force Field}
2 > \section{\label{sec:DUFF}Dipolar Unified-Atom Force Field}
3  
4 < The DUFF (\underline{D}ipolar \underline{U}nified-atom
5 < \underline{F}orce \underline{F}ield) force field was developed to
6 < simulate lipid bilayer formation and equilibrium dynamics. We needed a
7 < model capable of forming bilaers, while still being sufficiently
8 < computationally efficient allowing simulations of large systems
9 < (\~100's of phospholipids, \~1000's of waters) for long times (\~10's
10 < of nanoseconds).
4 > The \underline{D}ipolar \underline{U}nified-Atom
5 > \underline{F}orce \underline{F}ield (DUFF) was developed to
6 > simulate lipid bilayers. We needed a model capable of forming
7 > bilayers, while still being sufficiently computationally efficient to
8 > allow simulations of large systems ($\approx$100's of phospholipids,
9 > $\approx$1000's of waters) for long times ($\approx$10's of
10 > nanoseconds).
11  
12 < With this goal in mind, we decided to eliminate all charged
13 < interactions within the force field. Charge distributions were
14 < replaced with dipolar entities, and charge neutral distributions were
15 < reduced to Lennard-Jones interaction sites. This simplification cuts
16 < the length scale of long range interactions from $\frac{1}{r}$ to
17 < $\frac{1}{r^3}$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:dipole} vs.~ Eq.~\ref{eq:coloumb}),
18 < allowing us to avoid the computationally expensive Ewald-Sum. Instead,
19 < we can use neighbor-lists and cutoff radii for the dipolar
20 < interactions.
12 > With this goal in mind, we have eliminated all point charges. Charge
13 > distributions were replaced with dipoles, and charge-neutral
14 > distributions were reduced to Lennard-Jones interaction sites. This
15 > simplification cuts the length scale of long range interactions from
16 > $\frac{1}{r}$ to $\frac{1}{r^3}$, allowing us to avoid the
17 > computationally expensive Ewald-Sum. Instead, we can use
18 > neighbor-lists and cutoff radii for the dipolar interactions.
19  
20 < \begin{align}
20 > \begin{equation}
21   V^{\text{dipole}}_{ij}(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},
22 <        \boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j}) &=
22 >        \boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j}) =
23          \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}} \biggl[
24          \frac{\boldsymbol{\mu}_{i} \cdot \boldsymbol{\mu}_{j}}{r^{3}_{ij}}
25          -
26          \frac{3(\boldsymbol{\mu}_i \cdot \mathbf{r}_{ij}) %
27                  (\boldsymbol{\mu}_j \cdot \mathbf{r}_{ij}) }
28 <                {r^{5}_{ij}} \biggr]\label{eq:dipole} \\
29 < V^{\text{ch}}_{ij}(\mathbf{r}_{ij}) &= \frac{q_{i}q_{j}}%
32 <        {4\pi\epsilon_{0} r_{ij}} \label{eq:coloumb}
33 < \end{align}
28 >                {r^{5}_{ij}} \biggr]\label{eq:dipole}
29 > \end{equation}
30  
31 < Applying this standard to the lipid model, we decided to represent the
32 < lipid model as a point dipole interaction site. Lipid head groups are
33 < typically zwitterionic in nature, with sometimes full integer charges
34 < seperated by only 5 to 6~$\mbox{\AA}$. By placing a dipole of
35 < 20.6~Debye at the head groups center of mass, our model mimics the
36 < dipole of DMPC.\cite{Cevc87} Then, to account for the steric henderanc
37 < of the head group, a Lennard-Jones interaction site is also oacted at
38 < the psuedoatom's center of mass. The model is illustrated in
43 < Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}.
31 > As an example, lipid head groups in DUFF are represented as point
32 > dipole interaction sites.PC and PE Lipid head groups are typically
33 > zwitterionic in nature, with charges separated by as much as
34 > 6~$\mbox{\AA}$. By placing a dipole of 20.6~Debye at the head group
35 > center of mass, our model mimics the head group of PC.\cite{Cevc87}
36 > Additionally, a Lennard-Jones site is located at the
37 > pseudoatom's center of mass. The model is illustrated by the dark grey
38 > atom in Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}.
39  
40   \begin{figure}
41   \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\linewidth]{lipidModel.epsi}
# Line 49 | Line 44 | is the bend angle, $\mu$ is the dipole moment of the h
44   \label{fig:lipidModel}
45   \end{figure}
46  
47 < Turning to the tail chains of the phospholipids, we needed a set of
48 < scalable parameters to model the alkyl groups as Lennard-Jones
49 < interaction sites. For this, we used the TraPPE force field of
50 < Siepmann \emph{et al}.\cite{Siepmann1998} The force field is a
51 < unified-atom representation of n-alkanes. It is parametrized against
52 < phase equilibria using Gibbs Monte Carlo simulation techniques. One of
53 < the advantages of TraPPE is that is generalizes the types of atoms in
54 < an alkyl chain to keep the number of pseudoatoms to a minimum.
55 < %( $ \mbox{CH_3} $ %-$\mathbf{\mbox{CH_2}}$-$\mbox{CH_3}$ is the same as
47 > Turning to the tails of the phospholipids, we have used a set of
48 > scalable parameters to model the alkyl groups with Lennard-Jones
49 > sites. For this, we have used the TraPPE force field of Siepmann
50 > \emph{et al}.\cite{Siepmann1998} TraPPE is a unified-atom
51 > representation of n-alkanes, which is parametrized against phase
52 > equilibria using Gibbs Monte Carlo simulation
53 > techniques.\cite{Siepmann1998} One of the advantages of TraPPE is that
54 > it generalizes the types of atoms in an alkyl chain to keep the number
55 > of pseudoatoms to a minimum; the parameters for an atom such as
56 > $\text{CH}_2$ do not change depending on what species are bonded to
57 > it.
58  
59 < Another advantage of using TraPPE is the constraining of all bonds to
60 < be of fixed length. Typically, bond vibrations are the motions in a
61 < molecular dynamic simulation. This neccesitates a small time step
62 < between force evaluations be used to ensure adequate sampling of the
63 < bond potential. Failure to do so will result in loss of energy
64 < conservation within the microcanonical ensemble. By constraining this
68 < degree of freedom, time steps larger than were previously allowable
69 < are able to be used when integrating the equations of motion.
59 > TraPPE also constrains of all bonds to be of fixed length. Typically,
60 > bond vibrations are the fastest motions in a molecular dynamic
61 > simulation. Small time steps between force evaluations must be used to
62 > ensure adequate sampling of the bond potential conservation of
63 > energy. By constraining the bond lengths, larger time steps may be
64 > used when integrating the equations of motion.
65  
66 < The main energy function in OOPSE is DUFF (the Dipolar Unified-atom
67 < Force Field). DUFF is a collection of parameters taken from Seipmann
68 < and Ichiye \emph{et
69 < al.}\cite{liu96:new_model} The total energy of interaction is given by
70 < Eq.~\ref{eq:totalPotential}:
66 > The water model we use to complement this the dipoles of the lipids is
67 > the soft sticky dipole (SSD) model of Ichiye \emph{et
68 > al.}\cite{liu96:new_model} This model is discussed in greater detail
69 > in Sec.~\ref{sec:SSD}. In all cases we reduce water to a single
70 > Lennard-Jones interaction site. The site also contains a dipole to
71 > mimic the partial charges on the hydrogens and the oxygen. However,
72 > what makes the SSD model unique is the inclusion of a tetrahedral
73 > short range potential to recover the hydrogen bonding of water, an
74 > important factor when modeling bilayers, as it has been shown that
75 > hydrogen bond network formation is a leading contribution to the
76 > entropic driving force towards lipid bilayer formation.\cite{Cevc87}
77 >
78 > \subsection{\label{subSec:energyFunctions}Energy Functions}
79 >
80   \begin{equation}
81 < V_{\text{Total}} =
82 <        \overbrace{V_{\theta} + V_{\phi}}^{\text{bonded}} +
83 <        \underbrace{V_{\text{LJ}} + V_{\text{Dp}} + %
80 <        V_{\text{SSD}}}_{\text{non-bonded}} \label{eq:totalPotential}
81 > V_{\text{Total}} = \sum^{N}_{I=1} V^{I}_{\text{Internal}}
82 >        + \sum^{N}_{I=1} \sum^{N}_{J=1} V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}}
83 > \label{eq:totalPotential}
84   \end{equation}
85  
86 < \subsection{Bonded Interactions}
87 < \label{subSec:bondedInteractions}
86 > \begin{equation}
87 > V^{I}_{\text{Internal}} =
88 >        \sum_{\theta_{ijk} \in I} V_{\text{bend}}(\theta_{ijk})
89 >        + \sum_{\phi_{ijkl} \in I} V_{\text{torsion}}(\theta_{ijkl})
90 >        + \sum_{i \in I} \sum_{(j>i+4) \in I}
91 >        \biggl[ V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) +  V_{\text{dipole}}
92 >        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j})
93 >        \biggr]
94 > \label{eq:internalPotential}
95 > \end{equation}
96  
97 + \begin{equation}
98 + V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}} =
99 +        \sum_{i \in I} \sum_{j \in J}
100 +        \biggl[ V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) +  V_{\text{dipole}}
101 +        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j})
102 +        + V_{\text{sticky}}
103 +        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j})
104 +        \biggr]
105 + \label{eq:crossPotentail}
106 + \end{equation}
107 +
108 + \begin{equation}
109 + V_{\theta_{ijk}} = k_{\theta}( \theta_{ijk} - \theta_0 )^2 \label{eq:bendPot}
110 + \end{equation}
111 +
112 + \begin{equation}
113 + V_{\phi_{ijkl}} =  ( k_3 \cos^3 \phi + k_2 \cos^2 \phi + k_1 \cos \phi + k_0)
114 + \label{eq:torsionPot}
115 + \end{equation}
116 +
117 +
118   The bonded interactions in the DUFF functional set are limited to the
119   bend potential and the torsional potential. Bond potentials are not
120   calculated, instead all bond lengths are fixed to allow for large time
121   steps to be taken between force evaluations.
122  
123   The bend functional is of the form:
124 < \begin{equation}
93 < V_{\theta} = \sum k_{\theta}( \theta - \theta_0 )^2 \label{eq:bendPot}
94 < \end{equation}
124 >
125   $k_{\theta}$, the force constant, and $\theta_0$, the equilibrium bend
126   angle, were taken from the TraPPE forcefield of Siepmann.
127  
128   The torsion functional has the form:
129 < \begin{equation}
100 < V_{\phi} =  \sum ( k_3 \cos^3 \phi + k_2 \cos^2 \phi + k_1 \cos \phi + k_0)
101 < \label{eq:torsionPot}
102 < \end{equation}
129 >
130   Here, the authors decided to use a potential in terms of a power
131   expansion in $\cos \phi$ rather than the typical expansion in
132 < $\phi$. This prevents the need for repeated trigonemtric
132 > $\phi$. This prevents the need for repeated trigonometric
133   evaluations. Again, all $k_n$ constants were based on those in TraPPE.
134  
135   \subsection{Non-Bonded Interactions}

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines