Definition and testing of the GROMOS force-field versions 54A7 and 54B7

By Nathan Schmid, Andreas P. Eichenberger, A. Choutko, Sereina Riniker, Moritz Winger, Alan E. Mark, Wilfred F. van Gunsteren. European Biophysics Journal, 2011

2,340 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Materials Chemistry, Molecular Biology, Spectroscopy

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/548e2eb6a42d8badcbf2979be957955b67b63f95

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Materials Chemistry

1. Jeffrey J. Gray
2. Patrick J. Fleming
3. Justin A. Lemkul
4. Rebecca F. Alford
5. K. Fleming

In Molecular Biology

1. Rebecca F. Alford
2. Jeffrey J. Gray
3. Patrick J. Fleming
4. Justin A. Lemkul
5. K. Fleming
6. Brian G. Pierce
7. Brian D. Weitzner
8. Aroop Sircar

In Spectroscopy

1. Jeffrey J. Gray
2. Justin A. Lemkul

Citations in the corpus

• From Proteins to Perturbed Hamiltonians: A Suite of Tutorials for the GROMACS-2018 Molecular Simulation Package [Article v1.0] (2019, background): “In fact, the GROMOS96 53A6 force field has been shown to under-stabilize α-helices [25], and the Berger parameters are not necessarily the best representation of lipid properties, particularly for DPPC.”
• Protein Structure Prediction and Design in a Biologically Realistic Implicit Membrane. (2020, methodology): “In this conception, the lipid molecules are represented explicitly using force fields such as AMBER (11), CHARMM (12), or GROMOS (13), and the protein-lipid interactions are scored with a molecular mechanics energy function.”