pdetail (c46b2)


Details about TSM Free Energy Calculations


* Introduction | What will be covered.
* Theory and Methodology | General discussion.
* Practice | How to do it.


Top


Introduction


For a good overview of free energy simulation methods, the follow-
ing references are suggested: M. Mezei and D. L. Beveridge, in Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences, chapter titled "Free Energy Simulations",
482 (1986) 1; T. P. Straatsma, PhD dissertation, "Free Energy Evaluation
by Molecular Dynamics Simulations", University of Groningen, Netherlands
(1987) and S. H. Fleischman and C. L. Brooks III, "Thermodynamics of
Aqueous Solvation: Solution Properties of Alchohols and Alkanes", J.
Chem. Phys., 87, (1987) p. 3029, D. J. Tobias and C. L. Brooks III,
J. Chem. Phys., 89, (1988) 5115-5127, and D.J. Tobias, "The Formation and
Stability of Protein Folding Initiation Structures", Ph.D. dissertation
Carnegie Mellon University (1991).

In the previous nodes we have generally referred to this area of
molecular simulation as a "perturbation" theory. Actually, none of the
techniques used are actually perturbation methods. The relationships
used for computing the relative free energy differences are all exact in
the statistical mechanical sense. The use of the term perturbation in
this context arises from the fact that in the pre-number crunching
supercomputer days, various series expansions were derived from these
equations and were in fact perturbation theories. The name thermodynamic
integration might be used, however common practice has been to apply it
to only one particular formulation (and furthermore not put that under
the rubric of thermodynamic perturbation). Finally, the use of the name
"free energy simulations" is another misonomer for two reasons: 1) we can
calculate the temperature derivative thermodynamic properties as well
(Delta E and Delta S) and the one thing we can't get is absolute free
energies (as van Gunsterin has pointed out , Mother Nature doesn't
integrate all over phase space either). In fact, we generally are limited
to calculating relative changes in free energies, i.e. Delta Delta A's.

In thermodynamic perturbation theory, a system with the potential
energy function U0 is perturbed to one with the potential function U1, and
the resulting free energy difference is calculated as

A1 - A0 = -kT ln < exp[ -(1/kT)*(U1 - U0)] >

where k is Boltzmann's constant, T is temperature (degrees K), and A0 and
A1 are the excess Helmholtz free energies of systems 0 and 1, respectively.
Two methods of thermodynamic perturbation are implemented in CHARMM:

1) Chemical perturbation, where the perturbation being considered is a
change in the system's potential function parameters and topology,
e.g., CH3OH is "mutated" to CH3CH3, and

2) Internal coordinate perturbation, where the perturbation represents
a variation in configuration, and the potential function remains the
same for the perturbed and unperturbed systems.

Each of these is discussed separately below.


Top


THEORY AND METHODOLOGY


* Chemical | Chemical Perturbation Theory and Methodology
* Internal | Internal Coordinate Perturbation Theory and Methodology
* References | Some References on Thermodynamic Perturbation


Top
Chemical Perturbation

If you have read either (Fleischman and Brooks, 1987) or
(Straatsma, 1987) or any of the McCammon or Kollman perturbation (oops!
that word again) papers, then you have seen the standard schpiel on why
getting Delta A's (or Delta G's) of solvation or drug/enzyme binding,
among other processes is so difficult and that if one is satisfied with
relative changes in free energies it is computationally more tractable to
"trans-mutate" various parts of a system in a way that is usually
physically unreasonable but computationally feasible and
thermodynamically equivalent to that obtained from the physical process.
Read some of the aforementioned references if this doesn't ring a bell.

So that's what we are doing - calculating relative changes in
free energies (Delta Delta A) for solvation and small molecule/enzyme
binding, among other things. In the rest of this node, we will discuss a
little bit of the theory (you're better off reading the papers) and lot
about the actual how-to-do-it in our implementation. Subsequent nodes
discuss the actual implementation and some issues to consider when
attempting this type of calculation.


The Hamiltonian

There are three basic techniques for calculating relative changes
in free energy and their temperature derivative properties: 1) the
so-called "perturbation" approach 2) "Thermodynamic Integration" (TI) 3)
and the somewhat dubious "slow-growth" technique (which is actually a
step-child of the TI method).

In all of the methods we use a hybrid hamiltonian,

N N
H(lambda) = H + (1 - lambda) H + lambda H .
o R P

where: H = "Environment" part of the Hamiltonian
o
H = "Reactant" part of the Hamiltonian
R
H = "Product" part of the Hamiltonian
P
lambda = coupling parameter (extent of
transformation)
N = integer exponent

The various terms will be explained shortly. First, a bit about
our Weltanshauung viz. free energy simulations. The system is divided
into four sets of atoms: 1) The reactant atoms 2) the product atoms 3)
the colo atoms and 4) the environment atoms. The reactant and product
atoms are those that are actually being changed. The colo atoms (short
for co-located charge) are those in which only the charge changes in
going from reactant to product. The environment atoms are the rest of
the system (e.g. solvent; parts of a molecule common to both reactant and
product). The reactant and product designations are arbitrary and are
used as a convention to denote the direction in which we are mutating
(i.e. start with reactant end up with product).

A simple example, taken from (Fleischman and Brooks, 1987) is the
calculation of the relative change in the solvation free energies of
methanol and ethane. This one has been done by virtually everybody that
has written a free energy simulation code. The system is represented by
the water molecules (we used a box of 125 in our study) and the hybrid
methanol/ethane system, with aliphatic methyl groups represented as
extended atoms.

O1--H1
/ H
/ /
H C1--C2 O
\ \
O H
/
H

Using the depiction above, for the tranformation of methanol -> ethane
the reactant atoms are the hybrid's O1 and H1; the product atom is the
hybrid's C2 methyl group. The hybrid molecule's C1 methyl group
changes charge as one goes from reactant to product. This is a colo
atom, in going from methanol -> ethane it starts with the methanol
methyl group charge and ends up (at lambda = 1.) with the ethyl methyl
group charge. Otherwise, C1 is considered an environment atom. The
atoms of the water molecules constitute the actual environment atoms
in this system. If the hybrid molecule was larger it too could
contain environment atoms.

All potential energy terms involving the reactant atoms, as well
as the electrostatic interactions involving colo atoms with their
reactant charges, go into H . The kinetic energies of the reactant atoms
R
also are included in this term. Similarly, the potential energy terms
involving product atoms and the colo product charge electrostatic
interactions along with the kinetic energies of the product atoms go into
H . The rest of the energy terms are incorporated into H .
P o
Note that for a potential energy term to be included in, say, H only one
R
atom in the given interaction has to be a reactant atom (or in the case
of a electrostatic interaction a colo atom). Similarly for product
terms.

For electrostatic terms involving colo atoms effectively what is
done is that electrostatic terms containing colo atoms are calculated
twice, once with the reactant charges and then again with the product
charges. Terms between colo reactant charges and reactant atoms are
avoided and similarly for product atoms. Actually, the programming
details are a bit more complicated than that and if interested see *NOTE
implementation: (pimplem). The outcome is the same as just described.

It is assumed that when the hybrid molecule is constructed in the
residue topology file, there are no internal coordinate energy terms
involving reactant and product atoms. As yet no checking is done in the
program. Similarly, it is assumed that non-bonded exclusions have been
specified between reactant and product atoms.

In our implementation, the Hamiltonian is constructed exactly as
specified in the equation above. In many papers, that particular form of
the Hamiltonian is given in the theoretical section (or more likely, the
form with N=1, i.e. linear) and in the actual implementation the lambda
dependence of the Hamiltonian is quite a bit more complex. This is done
in those implementations where the force constants and other parameters
in the energy terms are factored by lambda rather than calculating
various energy terms and factoring them.

In a statistical mechanical sense there is no particular reason
that forces one to factor the Hamiltonian consistently like we do. The
thermodynamics holds regardless of path and the equipartion theorem for
obtaining the kinetic energy works just as well (though in other
implementations it appears that the factoring of the kinetic energy is
ignored anyway). However, we feel that there are certain advantages to
doing it this way. First, there is a certain conceptual simplicity in
factoring the Hamiltonian consistently for reactant and product terms
enmass. Second, it makes obtaining the derivatives of the Hamiltonian
with respect to lambda, d E(lambda)/dlambda programmatically simple.
These derivatives are needed in the TI and, the related, slow growth
methods. Actually, the current algorithm for the slow growth method in
our implementation uses finite differences for the derivative as do
Kollman and van Gunsterin. This could easily be changed. Factoring the
energy terms rather than functional parameters permits a more modular
design and makes incorporating changes by others to energy functions
terms easier.

The Free Energy Equations

As we said there are two (maybe three, depending how you count
it) different ways that we obtain the free energy changes. For the
thermodynamic integration method (TI) the following expression is used:

_ 1
/
|
/\ A = | < d H(lambda)/d lambda > d lambda
-- | lambda
_/ 0

Expressions for energy and entropy changes can be derived for this
equation (Mezei and Beveridge, 1986) and have been incorporated into our
program. They suffer from very high uncertainties due to presence of
ensemble averages over the total energy which are then multiplied by
ensemble averages over d H/d lambda. One is apparently better off
getting average energies at the endpoints and subtracting.

The method we have used the most is the thermodynamic
perturbation technique. For this, the free energy change is given as
follows:

/\ A (lambda -> lambda') = - kT ln < exp - (V - V ) >
-- R P lambda

Notice that all of the averages are at lambda. To get the total delta A
___
\
/\ A = / /\ A (lambda -> lambda')
-- --- -- i i
i

the pieces are added up. The user must insure that the whole lambda
range is covered. For example, in the methanol -> ethane calculation, we
ran dynamics at 3 points: lambda = .125, .5 and .875. To cover the range
we calculated delta A's as follows:

lambda' lambda lambda'

0.000 0.125 0.250
0.250 0.500 0.750
0.750 0.875 1.000

I.e., for each lambda in which dynamics were run two delta A's were
calculated, one lower and one higher than the corresponding lambda. This
has been termed "double-wide" sampling. Note that the pieces all join
up.

In our implementation we have the capability of calculating the
temperature derivative related thermodynamic properties, delta E and
delta S. This is effected by the use of equations derived by Brooks.

See Fleischman and Brooks, 1987 for the corrected set of equations. They
use a finite difference approximation to the derivatives that avoids then
necessity of taking the differences of large averages that would result
from using the explicit temperture derivatives.

With both of the aformentioned methods the technique for
accomplishing the simulations is called the "window" procedure. In these
methods simulations are run at a discrete number of lambda points (we
generally use 3 - 6 and long trajectories; other workers use up to 100
lambda points and very short trajectories). In the case of thermodynamic
perturbation the total free energy change is pieced together from
perturbations done with each "window". In the case of thermodynamic
integration the integration is done by a quadrature method. In our
implementation, we fit the ensemble average as a function of lambda to a
cubic spline polynomial and then integrate the polynomial analytically.
No extrapolation to endpoints is done. So if you start at lambda = .125
and end at lambda = .875 (like we do) you can use thermodynamic
perturbation to get the end points (.125 -> 0 and .875 -> 1.) and TI for
the middle.

An alternative sampling method is termed "slow growth".
It is more or less an approximation to the thermodynamic integration
method. In this case instead of lambda being a constant for a given
trajectory (as in the window method), instead the parameter varies
monotonically with each time step.


n steps
----
\
/\ A = / H(lambda + delta lambda) - H(lambda )
-- ---- i i
i
and
lambda = lambda + delta lambda
i i-1

Where H is the Hamiltonian and delta lambda = 1/nstep.


Top
Internal Coordinate Perturbation


According to the thermodynamic perturbation (TP) theory, the Helmholtz
free energy difference, A1 - A0, between system 0, in which the
conformational coordinate of interest (e.g. an internal coordinate) is equal
to x, and another system, in which the coordinate has been "perturbed" by
the amount dx, is given by the equation

A1 - A0 = A(x + dx) - A(x)

= kT ln < exp [-kT (U(x + dx) - U(x)) ] > (1)
x

where U is the potential energy k is Boltzmann's constant and T is
temperature (degrees K). The <...>x notation denotes a canonical ensemble
average over the "reference" ensemble in which the coordinate is equal to x.
Although the potential energy may depend on many degrees of freedom, for the
sake of simplicity we have only explicitly indicated its dependence on x.
If we assume that the ergodic hypothesis holds, we can equate the ensemble
average appearing in equation (1) to the time average computed from an MD
simulation, e.g.

<exp [ -(1/kT) (U(x + dx)) ]> =

(1/N) * Sum { exp [ -(1/kT)*(Ui(x+dx) - Ui(x)) ] } (2)
1->N

where Ui is the value of the potential energy at the ith timestep and N is
the number of timesteps in the simulation. Since the average is over the
reference ensemble, we must constrain the system so the value of the
coordinate of interest is x at each step of the simulation. In other words,
we must impose the holonomic constraint

sigma = x(t) - x(0) = 0 (3)

during the integration of the equations of motion. The conformational
coordinate may correspond to a set of internal coordinates. In that case,
equation (3) implies a set of holonomic constraints. In addition to
enforcing the conformational constraint, we need to carry out the
perturbation (x -> x + dx), calculate the potential energy difference, U(x +
dx) - U(x), and restore the constraint at each step of the simulation.

With the above considerations, the following pseudo-computer code
illustrates schematically the implementation of the TP method into an MD
simulation:

set up dynamics; specify constraint and perturbation
do i = 1,N
compute potential energy and forces
take unconstrained dynamics step
satisfy constraints
perform perturbation
compute potential energy
restore constraints
end do
compute averages and thermodynamics

A detailed description of an algorithm for satisfying internal coordinate
constraints is given in (Tobias, 1991). We concentrate here on the tasks of
specifying and performing the perturbation, and computing the difference in
the potential energy of the perturbed and reference systems.

The specification of the perturbation consists of identifying the
degree(s) of freedom to be perturbed and the atoms whose positions change as
a result of the perturbation. Our implementation allows for perturbations
of distances, angles, and torsions between groups of atoms. For example, we
may use a distance perturbation to study the breakup of a salt-bridge (ion
pair) formed by the sidechains of lysine and glutamic acid, where x might be
the distance between the N atom in the lysine sidechain and the carboxyl C
atom in the glutamic acid sidechain, and the perturbation would consist of
moving the entire glutamic acid residue. Alternatively, we could use an
angle perturbation to study the angular dependence of the strength of a
hydrogen bond between two amides, where x is the O...H-N angle, and the
perturbation moves the entire hydrogen bond donor molecule. Or, we could
use a torsional perturbation to study the trans-gauche isomerization in
butane, where x is the dihedral angle for methyl group rotation about the
central C-C bond, and the perturbation moves a terminal methyl group and the
hydrogen atoms on the adjacent methylene group. In addition to simple
perturbations of a single internal coordinate, we can define more
complicated perturbations involving more than one internal coordinate in
order to study correlated conformational transitions. For example, we could
combine perturbations of the phi and psi dihedral angles to study backbone
conformational equilibria in peptides (s implementation:
(pimplem).).

The procedure for carrying out internal coordinate perturbations
during molecular dynamics simulations may be summarized as follows: after
choosing an internal coordinate to perturb, and deciding which atoms will be
moved by the perturbation, we compute a Cartesian displacement vector which
changes the internal coordinate by a specified amount, and add the displace-
ment vector to the positions of the atoms to be moved. Thus, in our imple-
mentation, the perturbation can be described as a rigid body movement of the
perturbed atoms relative to the unperturbed atoms.

Once we have moved all of the atoms involved in the perturbation, we
need to compute the potential energy difference, delta U = U1 - U0 = U(x +
dx) - U(x). To do this, we could compute U(x), carry out the perturbation
and compute U(x + dx), and simply take the difference. However, this direct
route is computationally inefficient, because interaction energies between
atoms which are not moved by the perturbation are unnecessarily recomputed.
To minimize the computational effort required to compute delta U, we only
consider the interactions which change as a result of the perturbation. For
this purpose, we partition the system into two parts: the atoms which are
moved by the perturbation (denoted by "s" for "solute"), and those which are
not (denoted by "b" for "bath"). With this partitioning, we can write the
potential energy as a sum of three contributions:

U(x) = Uss(x) + Usb(x) + Ubb(x), (4)

where Uss, Usb, and Ubb are the solute-solute, solute-bath, and bath-bath
interaction energies, respectively. Clearly, Ubb(x + dx) - Ubb(x) = 0 since
the positions of the bath atoms are not changed by the perturbation. Thus,

U1 - U0 = Uss(x + dx) - Uss(x) + Usb(x+dx) - Usb(x). (5)

Since, in typical applications, the number of solute atoms is much
smaller than the number of bath atoms, equation (5) represents a large
reduction in computational effort over the direct route. Before we proceed,
we point out that when we need U(x + dx) in addition to delta U (e.g. for
computation of conformational entropies using finite difference temperature
derivatives of the TP free energy (» perturb). we
can use the following expression:

U(x + dx) = Uss(x + dx) + Usb(x + dx) + Ubb(x)

= Uss(x + dx) + Usb(x + dx) + U(x) - Uss(x) - Usb(x), (6)

since Ubb(x + dx) = Ubb(x). We assume that U(x) is computed when the forces
required for the propagation of the dynamics are computed. Thus, we still
only need to compute the changes in the solute-solute and solute-bath
interaction energies which result from the perturbation.

In general, when we have a choice, we partition the system so that the
solute consists of the smallest possible number of atoms. There are two
good reasons for this. First, smaller solute partitions require less effort
to compute the interaction energies. Second, with smaller solute
partitions, there is less of a chance that the solute atoms will "run into"
bath atoms as a result of the perturbation. When solute and bath atoms run
into one another, there is a large, positive van der Waals contribution to
deltaU. This is undesireable because large delta U values lead to poorer
convergence of the average in equation (2). The partitioning of the system
is especially important when the perturbations are carried out in "crowded"
environments, such as in solution or in the interior of a protein.

In some cases it is useful to divide the solute partition into two
sections, and accomplish the desired perturbation by moving each section by
half the perturbation. For example, to perturb the dihedral angle in butane
by dx, we could include both methyl carbons and all of the hydrogens in the
solute partition, with the C1 methyl group and C2 methylene hydrogens in one
section, and the C4 methyl group and C3 hydrogens in the other section, and
move each section by dx/2. This "double move" strategy is useful when the
perturbation is carried out on a small molecule in a crowded environment
where the movement of n atoms by dx/2 is more favorable than the movement of
approximately n/2 atoms by dx. The option to perform perturbations in this
fashion is available in our implementation.

In principle, we could get the free energy difference between any two
conformations, x0 and x1, in a single simulation using the TP theory
expression:

delta A = A1 - A0 = A(x1) - A(x0)

= - kT ln < exp [ -(1/kT)*(U(x1) - U(x0)) ] > . (7)
x0

However, in practice, for typical simulation lengths, the average in
equation (7) exhibits acceptable convergence only when deltaA <= 2kT
(Beveridge & DiCapua, 1989). Thus, if the free energy difference between
the conformations x0 and x1 or the free energy barrier separating them, is
more than about 2kT, then a single simulation is not sufficient to determine
accurately the free energy difference. This problem is circumvented by
breaking up the range of the coordinate, x1 - x0 into n segments or
"windows", y(i),

dy = (x1 - x0)/(n + 1); y(i) = x0 + (i - 1) dy; i = 1,...,n, (8)

and running a series of n simulations where the free energy differences,

delta A(i) = A(y(i+1)) - A(y(i)

= -kT ln < exp [ -(1/kT)*(U(y(i+1)) - U(y(i))) ] > (9)
y(i)

are computed. Then the free energy difference between x1 and x0 is obtained
by summing the results from the n windows, e.g.

x1
delta A = Integral (p(deltaA(y))/py) dy
x0

= Sum delta A(i), (10)
1->n

where p(z) denotes the partial derivative of z. Aside from yielding more
accurate free energy differences, the window method is attractive because it
allows us to map out the free energy surface as a function of the
conformational coordinate.

By far the most time consuming task in a molecular dynamics simulation
is the evaluation of the forces necessary to propagate the equations of
motion. The additional work required for computing the interaction energies
needed for the TP free energy differences is relatively small. Thus, it is
advantageous to get more than one free energy difference from a single
simulation. This is the motivation for using the so-called "double-wide"
sampling method (Beveridge & DiCapua, 1989), where the free energy
differences A(y + dy) - A(y) and A(y - dy) - A(y) are obtained in one
simulation. Furthermore, we can divide dx into m subintervals, dy(m) =
dy/m, and compute 2m free energy differences,

+/-
delta A(i,k) = A(y(i) +/- dy(m)) - A(y(i))

= -kT ln < exp[ -(1/kT)*(U(y(i) +/- kdy(m)) - U(y(i))) ] >
y(i)

k = 1,...,m; (11)

over the range y(i) - dy <= y <= y(i) + dy from a single simulation with x =
y(i). Then we sum the free energy differences from the various subintervals
(in analogy with equation (10)) to get a free energy surface for each
window. This "double-wide, multiple-point" window method allows a higher
resolution mapping of the free energy surface with little additional
computational effort.

Let us now comment on how dy is chosen. As we have already said, dy
should be chosen so that the free energy change in a given window is not
more than a couple of kT. In addition, the shape of the free energy surface
in a given window can be used to determine a good choice for dy. A
reasonable choice for a given system can be made by considering results from
short simulations with a modest dy and several subintervals at a couple of
values of y in the range of interest. In general, for perturbations in
crowded environments (e.g. in solution or the interior of a protein),
excessively large values of dy always result in positive free energy
differences. This is because the perturbation results in repulsive van der
Waals interactions of the atoms in the solute partition with those in the
bath partition. The value of dy where the free energy difference begins to
sharply increase can then be regarded as the upper bound on acceptable dy
values. Of course, it is possible that the underlying free energy surface
really does rise sharply beyond the second subinterval in both directions.
That is why we suggest running another test at a different value of y. In
addition to running short test calculations, it is also useful to consult
previous work to get a preliminary estimate for an acceptable size of a
perturbation in a similar system (for several examples, see (Tobias, 1991)).

In our implementation, the information needed to calculate
conformational thermodynamics (free energies, internal energies, entropies,
average interaction energies), and their associated statistical
uncertainties, is written to a datafile during a simulation. The data file
is subsequently "post-processed" to yield the quantities of interest. The
alternative approach is to calculate the average properties of interest as
the simulation progresses, and simply write out the final results at the end
of the simulation. The latter approach has the advantage that large,
cumbersome data files do not need to be saved on a mass-storage device (e.g.
disk or tape). However, we prefer the post-processing approach because of
the flexibility it gives us in the analysis of the data. For example, we
can: examine the time evolution, and hence the "convergence", of the average
properties; carry out the averaging on an arbitrary amount of the data;
compare various protocols for computing the statistical uncertainties or
finite-difference temperature derivatives, etc.

We use the method of block averages (a.k.a. batch averages) to compute
the average properties and their uncertainties (Wood, 1968). In this
method, the total number of samples, N, is divided into m "batches" of n
samples (mn = N), and the average of the property of interest, <O>i, is
computed for each batch i:

<O>i = (1/n) Sum O(k,i), (12)
k=1->n

where O(k,i) is the kth observation of O in the ith batch. The average of
the N samples, <O>, is simply the average of the batch averages:

<O> = (1/m) Sum <O> ; (13)
i=1->m i


and the "uncertainty", std<O>, is estimated from the standard deviation in
the batch averages:

std<O> = ( Sum [ (<O> - <O>)**2 / m(m - 1)] )**1/2 (14)
i=1->n i


We use equation (14) to compute the uncertainty in the average of the
exponential in equation (1). Then we obtain the uncertainty in the free
energy (and other thermodynamic functions) by error propagation (Young,
1962), e.g.

std(delta A)**2 = (p(delta A)/p(z))**2 (std(z))**2

= (kT*std(z)/z)**2 (15)

where z is the average of the exponential in equation (1).

In order for the uncertainty given by equation (14) to be a good
estimate of the "true" uncertainty (e.g. in a large number of random
samples), the block size must be chosen so that the block averages are
uncorrelated (randomly distributed), and the number of blocks is not too
small for the evaluation of a meaningful standard deviation. The block size
n is typically chosen arbitrarily and possible correlations in the data are
ignored. More refined uncertainties can be obtained by considering the
actual correlation of the data determined explicitly from the
autocorrelation function (Straatsma, et al., 1986). However, we presently
have no facility for carrying out the correlation function analysis.


Top
References

Beveridge, D. L. & DiCapua, F. M. (1989), in "Computer Simulations of
Biomolecular Systems", eds. van Gunsteren, W. F. & Weiner, P. K. (Escom,
Leiden).

Straatsma, T. P. (1987). "Free Energy Evaluation by Molecular Dynamics
Simulations" (Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Physical Chemistry,
University of Groningen).

Tobias, D. J. (1991). "The Formation and Stability of Protein Folding
Initiation Structures" (Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Chemistry,
Carnegie Mellon University).

Wood, W. W. (1968), in "Physics of Simple Liquids", eds. Rowlinson, J.
S. & Rushbrooke, G. S. (North-Holland, Amsterdam).

Young, H. D. (1962). "Statistical Treatment of Experimental Data"
(McGraw-Hill, New York).


Top


Practice


In this node we tell you how to actually set up and run free
energy simulations.

The calculation is done in three steps. The first two steps
occur in the same input file - perturbation set up and running the
dynamics. The last step, the post-processing, is generally done with a
separate input file since the output of several trajectories are usually
used.

To set up the free energy simulation dynamics input file you start
with the usual set up for a dynamics run: psf, coordinates, image input or
stochastic boundary condition input etc.. In addition you have to issue
free energy simulation (FES) set up commands. Currently the set up input
is initiated by the TSM command (» perturb).
perturb). For chemical perturbations, these com-
mands define the reactant, product and colo lists; the type of simulation:
slow growth or window procedure (both the thermodynamic perturbation and
the thermodynamic integration methods can be done with the window proce-
dure). For internal coordinate perturbations, the setup commands define
the internal coordinate(s) to be perturbed, the set of atoms moved by the
perturbation, and how and where the thermodynamic results will be written.



* CPrac | Chemical Perturbation Practice
* IPrac | Internalal Coordinate Perturbation Practice


Top
CHEMICAL PERTURBATION - PRACTICE


As currently configured , most of the minimization routines will
work using the hybrid V(lambda) potential. We generally do any
minimization prior to dynamics with the hybrid molecule unperturbed since
we are really concerned with removing bad contacts. It is not guaranteed
in the future that the V(lambda) will be available to the minimization
routines.

After the FES set up has been entered flags have been set in the
program and data structures created and dynamics can be run with no
changes in the commands used in any other dynamics run. One will normally
run some thermalization runs with the data being discarded. For a
thermalization run the SAVE command in the FES set up is generally not
used. For production runs for TI or Thermodynamic Perturbation (TP)
the SAVE option must be issued in the FES set up input. This will result
in the output of V(R) and V(P), lambda among other things in a formatted
file. All this will be discussed below with examples.



* SetUp | Setting Up the FES Simulation and Running Dynamics
* PostD | Post-processing the Data
* Optional | Using Some Optional FES Set Up Commands


Top
Setting Up the FES Simulation and Running Dynamics

Below is a fragment of the input file for setting up the thermalization
of the ethanol -> propane hybrid. Windowing will be used and we can
decide at the end whether to post-process the output using TI or TP.
Using the representation below the system is partioned as follows:

O1--H1
/
/
C1--C2
\
\
C3

The reactant atoms are O1 and H1; the only product atom in this example
is C3 and there is one COLO atom, C2. The methyl group C1 is an
"environment" atom. It is present in both reactant and product and in
our model its charge does not change in going from reactant to product.

* Ethanol -> Propane


! Read topology file
READ RTF CARD
* TOPOLOGY FILE ethanol -> propane

20 1 ! Version number
MASS 1 H 1.00800 ! hydrogen which can h-bond to neutral atom
MASS 13 CH2E 14.02700 ! - " - two
MASS 14 CH3E 15.03500 ! - " - three
MASS 53 OH1 15.99940 ! hydroxy oxygen

! This is put in to force the necessity of using a GENERATE Noangles
! in the input file. The standard topology files use this statement.
AUTOGENERATE ANGLEs

RESI ETP 0.000
GROU
C1 CH3E 0. ! environment atom
C2 CH2E 0.265 ! COLO atom the charge is the reactant charge
O1 OH1 -0.7 ! reactant atom
H1 H 0.435 C3 ! reactant atom note the non-bonded exclusion with
GROU
C3 CH3E 0. ! product atom

BOND C1 C2 !environment term
BOND C2 O1 O1 H1 !reactant terms
BOND C2 C3 !product term

! the angles MUST be specified
! note the absence of O1 C2 C3 between reactant and product atoms
ANGLe C1 C2 C3 !product term
ANGLe C1 C2 O1 C2 O1 H1 !reactant terms

! this will be a V(R) term.
DIHED C1 C2 O1 H1

! don't really need it but what the heck.
DONO H1 O1
ACCE O1

IC C1 C2 O1 H1 1.54 111. 180. 109.5 0.96
IC C2 O1 H1 BLNK 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
IC C3 C2 C1 BLNK 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

PATCH FIRST NONE LAST NONE

END

! Read parameter file
READ PARAM CARD
* parameter file for ETP hybrid.


BOND
CH2E CH3E 225.0 1.54
CH2E OH1 400.0 1.42
OH1 H 450.0 0.96

THETA
CH3E CH2E CH3E 45.0 112.5
CH3E CH2E OH1 45.0 111.0
CH2E OH1 H 35.0 109.5

PHI
CH3E CH2E OH1 H 0.5 3 0.0

NONBONDED NBXMOD 5 ATOM CDIEL SHIFT VATOM VDISTANCE VSWIT -
CUTNB 8.0 CTOFNB 7.5 CTONNB 6.5 EPS 1.0 E14FAC 0.4 WMIN 1.5

! Emin Rmin
! (kcal/mol) (A)
H 0.0440 -0.0498 0.8000
CH2E 1.77 -0.1142 2.235 1.77 -0.1 1.9
CH3E 2.17 -0.1811 2.165 1.77 -0.1 1.9
OH1 0.8400 -0.1591 1.6000

HBOND AEXP 4 REXP 6 HAEX 0 AAEX 0 NOACCEPTORS HBNOEXCLUSIONS ALL -
CUTHB 0.5 CTOFHB 5.0 CTONHB 4.0 CUTHA 90.0 CTOFHA 90.0 CTONHA 90.0

H* N% -0.00 2.0 ! WER potential adjustment
H* O* -0.00 2.0

END

! read the sequence of one residue
read sequence card
* ETP


ETP

! Generate the hybrid molecule. Note that we use the NOANGLE command
! because of the AUTOGENERATE ANGLES command in the RTF file.
GENERATE ETP SETUP NOANGLE

! determine the geometry and coordinates
IC SEED 1 C1 1 C2 1 O1
IC PARAM
IC PURGE
IC BUILD

! The Hybrid molecule is built. Now set up the FES stuff.
TSM
! Assign reactant list:
REAC sele etp 1 O1 .or. etp 1 H1 end
! Assign product list:
PROD sele etp 1 C2 end
! Set lambda - we will use TI or TP.
! The lambda dependence of the Hamiltonian will be linear.
! This is the default and the POWEr 1 command is actually unecessary.
LAMBda .125 POWEr 1
! The common methyl group is a colo atom. Since the charge in the
! rtf was for the reactant the RCHArge command is actually unecessary.
COLO ETM 1 C2 PCHArge 0. RCHArge 0.265

! This is a thermalization run - so no save statement.
! Just terminate the FES setup with an END statement.
END

! Set up dynamics.
! Since we are interested in the thermodynamic properties and not
! the dynamics, we can use Langevin heat bath dynamics to maintain
! temperature equilibration. Lambda is .125.

title
* etp: Ethanol To Propane
* FES run

!a simple expedient
shake bond angle
! Set-up Langevin dynamics for temperature control
scalar fbeta set 50.0 sele .not. hydrogen end

! open restart file for output
open unit 3 write form name etp0.res

dynamics langevin timestep 0.001 nstep 10 nprint 2 iprfrq 2 -
firstt 298.0 finalt 298.0 twindl -5.0 twindh 5.0 -
ichecw 1 teminc 60 ihtfrq 20 ieqfrq 200 -
iasors 0 iasvel 1 iscvel 0 -
iunwri 3 nsavc 0 nsavv 0 iunvel 0 -
iunread -1 - !{* Nonbond options *}
inbfrq 10 imgfrq 10 ilbfrq 0 tbath 300.0 rbuffer 0.0 -
eps 1.0 cutnb 8.0 cutim 8.0 ctofnb 7.75
stop
*END of INPUT*

This file has everything you need to run the example. The
topology and parameter input are included. The FES set up was initiated
with the TSM command. The reactant and product lists were specified with
REAC and PROD commands that use the standard CHARMM atom selection
syntax. Had their been either no reactant atoms or product atoms then
the command would have been REAC NONE or PROD none as the case may be.
Note that specifying both would have resulted in an error condition being
flagged. Since we are using the window method we specified LAMBda as
being 0.125. We also explicitly specified the lambda dependence of the
Hamiltonian as being (1-lambda)**1 for the reactant part and lambda**1
for the product part. Since not entering the POWEr parameter causes a
default of 1 for the exponent in was unecessary to actually enter it.

There is one COLO atom in the system. The product charge of the
C2 methylene extended atom was 0. In the RTF the charge was .265 which
is the reactant (ethanol) charge. Since that's what we want for the
reactant charge there was actually no need to enter the RCHArge
parameter. Again, we put it there for illustrative purposes, the default
is to assume that for any COLO atom the charge in the RTF is the reactant
charge unless the RCHArge parameter is included in the COLO command.
Note that charges can also be changed with the SCALAR command.

We could have chosen a value of the POWEr parameter other than
one (i.e. non-linear lambda scaling). This is potentially useful when
using the TI method for the free energy change. Non-linear scaling has
one major advantage. At lambda = 0 the components of the derivatives
dH(lambda)/dlambda due to the product part of the Hamiltonian are
identically zero and similarly, at lambda = 1 the components due to the
reactant part are zero. This solves the "lambda goes to zero
catastrophe" problem. This is the problem that as lambda approaches zero
or one the positions of the atoms affected (mostly product or reactant,
respectively, and sometimes environment atoms bonded to them) feel forces
that approach a constant or zero value (zero potential energy) and can
thus have positions anywhere in phase space.

Since the approximations to the ensemble averages are obtained
from finite length trajectories, determining values of those quantities
becomes a computationally intractable proposition. The TI integral over
dlambda will tend to diverge when linear scaling is used. In both the
TI and TP methods actually calculating the dynamics trajectory generally
will be problematical, with large movements of the atoms resulting in bad
van der Waals contacts (the r**12 repulsion eventually is felt) and
fraying of bonds with lambda approaching zero or one. Another way of
viewing the situation is that at lambda = 0 or 1 the product or reactant
atoms, respectively, do not exist yet. Doing the perturbation to lambda'
(or equivalently viewing the derivative, dH/dlambda, as a perturbation to
lambda + dlambda) requires having the coordinates of atoms that do not
exist yet or any longer. Non-linear scaling and the TI method can be
used to avoid this difficulty for the reasons given in the previous
paragraph. Another way is to scale the TI integral by a function that
reduces the weight of the integrand as lambda -> 0 or 1. This is
discussed in Mezei and Beveridge.

For lambda = 0, if use of the TI method with non-linear lambda
scaling was planned we would issue a command, prior to the FES setup, to
delete the product atoms from the hybrid molecule rtf:

DELEte ATOMs SELEct etp 1 C2 END

This is a standard CHARMM PSF modification command and would be issued
after the segment generation. Alternatively, we could have just used
an RTF for ethanol.

The FES setup command sequence would be modified slightly from
the previous example:

TSM
REAC sele etp 1 O1 .or. etp 1 H1 end
! no product atom at lambda = 0
PROD NONE
! non-linear lambda scaling
LAMBda .125 POWEr 2
END

Note that since there are no product atoms at lambda = 0, the PROD NONE
command is issued. Also there is no need for the COLO command. For
lambda at 1 we can use an equivalent procedure (left as an assignment for
the reader).

In most of our work to date, we have used linear scaling and the
TP method. To get around the catastrophe problem, we do not run dynamics
at lambda = 0 or 1. Instead we run them at values of lambda a small
distance away from 0 or 1 and "perturb" down to the endpoints. One
potential problem may occur with this procedure. In cases, such as that
of the transformation hydrophobic -> hydrophobic solute in aqueous
solution, where water structure rearrangements around the solute are the
major contributing factor to the free energy change, not sampling at
lambda = 0 or 1 may mean that the significant part of phase space for the
rearrangement is not adequately sampled. If in going from reactant ->
product (or vice versa) a significant volume becomes newly accessible to
the solvent, the presence of the r**-12 repulsive forces from the "almost
but not completely disappeared" atoms may conceivably prevent the
necessary configurations of the water molecules from appearing in the
finite length trajectory. This problem has not been investigated yet.

Non-linear scaling may be preferred for sampling efficiency, a
debatable point that has been discussed by a number of researchers.
Problems can result since the monotonicity of the integrand in the TI
intregral is no longer assured. In the case of the TP method, the
non-linear scaling forces the use of very small "perturbations" lambda ->
lambda'. The non-linear exponent makes the delta V(lambda -> lambda')
very large. For example, if the exponent is 6 and lambda = .5 and
lambda' = .25, a not unreasonable "window", the potential energy term for
the product gets multiplied by .5**6 = 0.16 for lambda and .25**6 =
0.00024 for lambda'. So one has terms of exp(-beta(.15V - 0.00024V ) in
P P
the ensemble average for the TP method, causing extremely slow
convergence. For the temperature derivative related properties, one runs
into problems with floating point overflows. This is probably the reason
why Kollman uses his convoluted "charge decoupling" technique whereby the
van der Waals interaction contribution to the perturbation is calculated
with slow growth and the charge interaction contribution is calculated
with windows.

For the production runs we merely add a SAVE statement to the FES
set up commands, any place before the END statement. In it the FORTRAN
unit number for the output file that will contain the FES information and
an output frequency (we generally use 1).

SAVE UNIT 10 FREQ 1

The FES output file must be opened for formatted write access prior to
invoking the dynamics command. Use the unit number specified in the SAVE
statement.

OPEN UNIT 10 WRITE FORM NAME ETP1.PRT

Production dynamics are run in the usual way. To run the production
dynamics the the command used for the previous (thermalization) example
is slightly modified.

! open restart file for output
open unit 4 write form name etp1.res
! open restart file for input
open unit 3 write form name etp0.res

dynamics langevin rest timestep 0.001 nstep 10 nprint 2 iprfrq 2 -
firstt 298.0 finalt 298.0 twindl -5.0 twindh 5.0 -
ichecw 1 teminc 60 ihtfrq 20 ieqfrq 200 -
iasors 0 iasvel 1 iscvel 0 -
iunwri 4 nsavc 0 nsavv 0 iunvel 0 -
iunread 3 - !{* Nonbond options *}
inbfrq 10 imgfrq 10 ilbfrq 0 tbath 300.0 rbuffer 0.0 -
eps 1.0 cutnb 8.0 cutim 8.0 ctofnb 7.75

We opened the restart file from the thermalization for input on unit 3
and opened the a file for restart file output on unit 4. In the dynamics
command we modified iunread and iunwrite to deal with this. We also
specified that this is a dynamics restart. All this has nothing to do
specifically with FES simulations.

The above procedure is repeated for more lambda points. In our
study we used lambda = .5 and .875. At each value of lambda a
thermalization run is done followed by production runs. One advantage of
this implementation as compared to some others is that one can always run
additional trajectories at any given value of lambda and add tack the
output onto that of the previous runs. Similarly, we can insert
trajectories at other values of lambda and recalculate the thermodynamic
properties.


Top
Post-Processing the Data

Assume that we now have three FES output files: etp1.prt,
etp2.prt and etp3.prt for lambda = .125, .5 and .875, respectively. To
make things interesting let us assume that we went back and ran
additional trajectories at each value of lambda and these files are named
etp4.prt, etp5.prt and etp6.prt for lambda = .125, .5 and .875,
respectively. We used the window sampling method with linear lambda
scaling. The next step is to post-process the output so as to compute
the free energy changes. The following input file will do the job:

* Post-processing Example ETP: ethanol -> propane vacuum.
* TP method linear lambda scaling.

! open FES data files for input.
open unit 10 form read etp1.prt
open unit 11 form read etp2.prt
open unit 12 form read etp3.prt
open unit 13 form read etp4.prt
open unit 14 form read etp5.prt
open unit 15 form read etp6.prt

! now the post-processing input

TSM POST PSTAck 6 PLOT
! lambda = .125 -> lambda' = 0.
PROC FIRST 10 NUNIT 2 LAMB 0.0 TEMP 298.0 DELT 10. BINS 100 CTEM
! lambda = .125 -> lambda' = 0.25
PROC FIRST 10 NUNIT 2 LAMB 0.25 TEMP 298.0 DELT 10. BINS 100 CTEM
! lambda = .5 -> lambda' = 0.25
PROC FIRST 12 NUNIT 2 LAMB 0.0 TEMP 298.0 DELT 10. BINS 100 CTEM
! lambda = .5 -> lambda' = 0.75
PROC FIRST 12 NUNIT 2 LAMB 0.0 TEMP 298.0 DELT 10. BINS 100 CTEM
! lambda = .875 -> lambda' = 0.75
PROC FIRST 14 NUNIT 2 LAMB 0.0 TEMP 298.0 DELT 10. BINS 100 CTEM
! lambda = .875 -> lambda' = 1.0
PROC FIRST 14 NUNIT 2 LAMB 0.0 TEMP 298.0 DELT 10. BINS 100 CTEM

! the END command tells the post-processor to tally everything up.
END
STOP

This is an complete input file for post-processing using the TP
method. First, all of the data files that were needed were opened prior
to invoking the post-processor. The command to initiate post processing
was:

TSM POST <parameters>

For a full explanation of the parameters » perturb Note
that by not specifying the sub-command TI (for thermodynamic
integration), the TP (thermodynamic perturbation) method is selected.
The PSTAck command allocates space for various temporary arrays. PSTAck
should be equal to the number of PROCess commands. In the case of the TP
method they are used for holding plotting values until the final
processing is done. The PLOT parameter indicates that plotting output is
to be generated. This is written into the CHARMM output file (unit 6)
and can be extracted with an editor. The format will serve as data input
to the PLT2 program. For the TP method delta A, delta E and delta S as a
function of lambda are output with lambda points marked by X's and
lambda' points marked by O's.

The PROCess commands cover the complete range from 0 to 1. This
example shows how we can tack on trajectories. The post-processor will
read each file until it encounters and end of file (EOF) condition and
count the steps itself. The nstep parameter at the beginning of the file
is ignored. Often this value is not accurate since it is something that
is written out before the dynamics starts; not an actual count of records
written. The FIRSt parameter specifies the initial FORTRAN unit number
for the first file for a given PROCess command; NUNIt specifies the
number of files to be read. It is assumed that they were opened with
contiguous unit numbers. The NUNIt parameter includes the FIRSt unit
number in the count. If there is only one file, NUNIt can be left out.
The parameter LAMBDa indicates lambda prime; TEMP is the temperature to
be used in the calculations (all those 1/kT's). DELTat is the
temperature increment for the finite difference temperature derivatives.
We normally use 10 degrees. The parameter BINSize is used in the
estimation of the statistical uncertainty (error) of the a various
thermodynamic properties.

So here is a good point at which to discuss how the error
estimation is calculated (at least I think it's a good point). The major
problem is that the data is very highly correlated. To get around this,
in many implementation including ours, the data is divided into bins and
deviations of the bin averages from the total trajectory average are
calculated to get the variance. The idea is that the use of bin averages
will remove the correlated dependence of the variance. We always use a
bin size of 100. The estimated error will depend on the choice of bin
size. One would hope that it would converge as a function of bin size.
Our trajectory lengths are generally not long enough to ensure this.

A method for determining the variance of a property that uses
correlation functions has been developed by T. P. Straatsma, H. J. C.
Berendsen and A. J. Stam ( T. P. Straatsma, H. J. C. Berendsen and A. J.
Stam, Molecular Physics, 57 p89 (1986) also in T. P. Straatsma' PhD
dissertation referenced above). This method looks promising as long as
one visually monitors the correlation function behavior and extrapolates
at the longer lag times. The problem is that the error in the
approximation of the correlation function is introduced. The authors
used an exponential extrapolation to overcome this. This algorithm has
been implemented by a member of the research group in another context and
is being tested.

Once the variance of the ensemble averages are calculated, the
uncertainty in the thermodynamic properties are determined by propagation
of errors. For the TI method the necessary derivatives are determined by
numerical differentiation. Total uncertainties are determined from
summing the variances for each window (or lambda point in the TI method).

One final remark on about the PROCess command line. The CTEMp
parameter sets a flag to calculate the average temperature at each lambda
point. This can be done since the FES data file contains the kinetic
energy at each step. The calculated temperature is not used in
calculating any of the properties, however. To use it one would have to
reprocess the data with the average temperature determined from the
previous iteration entered manually in the TEMP command.

Note that the user does not specify the lambda scaling. This is
determined by reading a header lineas in the first file in the series.
Furthermore, the user is responsible for ensuring that this value does
not change among files in the series as well as in the different
processing commands (unless it is intentional for some reason).

As mentioned above the final command, END, causes the
post-processor to tally up the averages and calculated the final values
of the thermodynamic properties and to write out the plotting output.

We could have chosen to use the TI method. As an illustrative
example, let us assume that we used non-linear lambda scaling, say POWEr
2 and ran simulations at lambda = 0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8 and 1.0 and the
output files (one per lambda) are in etp1.prt, etp2.prt, etp3.prt and
etp4.prt and etp5.prt. The input file would a title and open statements
for each file as before. The post-processing commands would be as
follows:

* Post-processing Example ETP: ethanol -> propane vacuum.
* TI method with non-linear lambda scaling N = 2.

! open FES data files for input.
open unit 10 form read etp1.prt
open unit 11 form read etp2.prt
open unit 12 form read etp3.prt
open unit 13 form read etp4.prt
open unit 14 form read etp5.prt

TSM POST PSTAck 5 TI PLOT
! lambda = 0.0
PROC FIRST 10 NUNIT 2 ZERO TEMP 298.0 BINS 100 CTEM
! lambda = 0.2
PROC FIRST 11 NUNIT 2 TEMP 298.0 BINS 100 CTEM
! lambda = 0.4
PROC FIRST 12 NUNIT 2 TEMP 298.0 BINS 100 CTEM
! lambda = 0.8
PROC FIRST 13 NUNIT 2 TEMP 298.0 BINS 100 CTEM
! lambda = 1.0
PROC FIRST 14 NUNIT 2 ONE TEMP 298.0 DELT 10. BINS 100 CTEM
! the END command tells the post-processor to tally everything up.
! sorts the lists of ensemble averages and does the final integration.
END

Note that there is no LAMBdaprime parameter as there was for the TP
post-processing. Also since the temperature derivative properties are
calculated in a different fashion, there is no DELTatemp parameter,
either. Also, for the points at lambda = 0 and 1 the sub-commands ZERO
and ONE are introduced. These tell the program that the lambda value in
the data file is exactly zero or one. This is necessary to avoid
floating point errors at the endpoints.

When the END command is issued, the post-processor sorts the
ensemble averages as a function of lambda, fits the points to cubic
spline polynomials and integrates the resulting function. The
propagation of error is determined by numerical differentiation of the
integrals with respect to each ensemble average data point.

Instead of delta A, delta E and delta S as a function of lambda,
the integrands for the TI integrals are written out for plotting, namely,
<dH/dlamba> and d<H(lambda)>/dlambda.

If we wanted to use the same data as in the first post-processing
example, i.e., linear lambda scaling and no dynamics run at lambda = 0 or
1; post-processing would have had to be done in two steps if use of the
TI method was desired. First, the thermodynamic properties for the
interval between the lowest and highest values of lambda (.125 and .875)
would be calculated using the TI method. The endpoint pieces would have
to be computed in a separate invocation of the post-processor using the
TP method (i.e. .125 -> 0 and .875 -> 1). One would then manually add
up the pieces. It is not clear what the point would be to doing such a
calculation.



Top
Using Some of the Optional FES Set Up Commands

We will now discuss some of the set up options that make life
interesting here in Perturbationland. There are several commands that
are not used much, PIGGyback, GLUE and NOKE that are described in
» perturb They were put in for some specialized
purposes and may be useful for weird things.


* SLOWG | Slow Growth Method
* DONT | The DONT Command
* UmSam | Umbrella Sampling in TSM


Top
SLOW GROWTH

An alternative method for free energy simulations is the slow
growth technique. For a discussion of the method see
*Note Theory and Methodology::. The syntax of the command is given in
» Perturb There are some disadvantages to using
this technique. Since lambda is changed with every step, there is no
way to tack on additional trajectories. In general the paths are not
reversible (lambda 0 -> 1 vs. 1 -> 0) and the general, not totally
satisfactory, procedure has been to average the two directions. In
our implementation the the free energy change is calculated during the
dynamics run and so a temperature must be assumed a priori. Actually,
since the SAVE command still works with this method, an addition to
the post-processor could be made to allow the reprocessing of the
data. Currently the only property that is calculated is the free
energy change. Also currently, the derivative dH/dlambda is determined
by finite difference H(lambda')-H(lambda) ( a "perturbation" to lambda'
at each step. As mentioned in *Note Theory and Methodology::, analytical
differentiation could be easily implemented. The most egregious
shorcoming is that error analysis is not easily accomplished.

There are some advantages to the method. The actual input and
management of the problem is generally easier than with the window method
in that the free energy is determined in one trajectory. However, since
one generally has to run the transformation in both directions the
simplification is not all that great. One has only two thermalization
runs to do (at each end point). It is arguable that there are cases
where it is better to use slow growth and that the steady continuous
change in lambda is a more stable way to achieve the transformation than
the discrete jumps of the window method. When using non-linear scaling
the window technique is problematical if the TP method is used (see
*Note Theory and Methodology::) and it is not clear yet whether one can
get away with using a few lambda points and numberical quadrature in the
TI window method.

I will finish this discussion of the slow growth method with a
few pointers. One, the final free energy change is written at the end of
the dynamics run, buried in other output. Two, if there are both
reactant and products, set up the thermalization with the LAMBDA command
not the SLOWgrowth and use a lambda value a small bit away from 0 (for
the 0 -> 1 transformation) or 1 (for the 1 -> 0 case). Then run the slow
growth production dynamics. Three, there are two way in which you can
switch directions. The easiest way is to issue the SLOWgrowth command as
follows:

SLOW LFROM 1. LTO 0. TEMP 298.

However, this may offend your conseptual sensibilities since you are
transforming FROM the product TO the reactant in that case. The more
difficult alternative is to switch the reactant and product designations.
However, if you do that and have COLO atoms remember to switch the
PCHArge and RCHArge values. Note that in this case use of the RCHArge
parameter is mandatory since the default is to assume that the charge in
the RTF (or set by a SCALAR command) is the REACTANT charge. Do it the
first way. Fourth, and last, note that the command allows you to specify
non-linear lambda scaling with the POWEr parameter.



Top
The DONT command

Note that in the ethanol -> propane input file, we used the SHAKE
BOND ANGLE command. This effectively removes those degrees of freedom
from consideration in the perturbation. We assume that they would not
have significant effect on the solvation thermodynamics. We chose to use
the SHAKE constraints so that the calculation would be similar to the
Monte Carlo simulations run by Jorgensen (for methanol -> ethane, an
other part of our study). It most situations it is not desirable to use
SHAKE on bonds other than to hydrogen. However, if all of the internal
energy terms are scaled by lambda, at small lambda values large
fluctuations in the energy may result as bond stretching (especially) and
angle bending terms are weakened for interactions involving reactant and
product atoms. Therefore we have implemented an alternative means of
dealing with this situation: the DONT command (
Description(PERTURB).) For reactant and product separate commands are
issued that specify which internal energy terms are to be ignored for
purposes of the lambda scaling:

DONT REAC BOND THETA

DONT PROD BOND THETA

The full syntax and explanation of the parameters are described in the
node mentioned above. One can specify bond stretching (BOND); angle
bending (ANGLE or THETA); torsion (DIHEdral or PHI) or improper dihedral
(IMPHI or IMPRoper) terms. We generally specify only BOND and THETA.
Torsional motions do play significant role in the free energy changes we
are interested in.

When a DONT command is issued it means that during the FES
dynamics run the specified terms are calculated and included in the
environment part of the hamiltonian without lambda scaling. Thus we have
some overcounting of terms. I.e., carbon atoms can end up with more than
a valence of 4. However, we have found that this does not greatly change
the overall free energy changes (for a complete cycle).

Note that reissuing a given DONT command (REAC or PROD) clears
all of the flags first. This is a command that we use alot.



Top
Umbrella Sampling

When we wish to sample torsional minima separated by barriers
that make transitions infrequent (> 1 kT), we can resort to "umbrella"
or "importance" sampling. We adopt a modified potential with lower
barriers and then the correct the approximation to the ensemble average
with the "actual" potential energy at the end.

<A> = <A/w> /<1/w>
w w
where,
w = exp(-beta (V - V ))
actual surrogate

<A> on the lhs of the equation is the corrected ensemble average of
property A. The ensemble averages on the rhs of the equation are those
that result from having the surrogate potential energy term in the
Hamiltonian.

In the current implementation the umbrella correction is
available for the ensemble averages used to calculate delta A, delta E
and delta S in the free energy simulations. It is presently limited to
modifying the three-fold torsional term.

It is assumed that the surrogate potential is the one in the
parameter file. Hence, if you have dihedral angles of the same type as
the one that is to be subjected to umbrella sampling and you donot want
them treated the same way the atoms must be given different type names
and the parameter file modified (» perturb).

Given below is an example command. Assume that the problem is
the transformation of n-butane into propane in aqueous solution or vacuum
and the hybrid molecule has a segment name of btp (guess what that stands
for). The umbrella command might look like this:

UMBR btp 1 C1 btp 1 C2 btp 1 C3 btp 1 C4 VACT 1.6

The four atoms of the butane dihedral are specified and the 3-fold
term for the "actual" potential is given. The "surrogate" term is
present in the parameter file and might be something like .5. If the
molecule had more than one dihedral angle around the same central axis
all of them would be specified in separate UMBRella commands.

Invoking the UMBRella command causes the FES output to have an
additional field, the w term in equation above. The header line after
the title in the data file has a field that indicates that this
additional field is present.

In the post-processing, the flag parameter UMBR must be added
to each PROCess command to indicate that the umbrella correction is to be
applied.


Top
INTERNAL COORDINATE PERTURBATION - PRACTICE


Below we show a CHARMM22 input file which computes thermodynamic
surfaces as functions of a reaction coordinate connecting ideal right- and
left-handed alpha helical conformations (aR and aL, respectively) of the
alanine dipeptide in vacuum. The conformational transition involves
changes in both the backbone phi and psi dihedral angles. The ideal aR and
aL conformations have phi,psi = -60,-60 and 60,60 degrees, respectively.
We defined the reaction coordinate to lie on the line phi = psi. Thus, the
transition involves 120 degree changes in both the dihedral angles. We
have divided the overall transition into ten windows, with 12 degree
perturbations (6 degrees in both the positive and negative directions) of
phi and psi in each window. Furthermore, each window is divided into four
subintervals, yielding thermodynamic data at 3 degree intervals.

All ten simulations are performed with one input file using the
-54,-54 degrees so that the aR endpoint is reached by perturbation in the
negative direction. After each structure is built, it is minimized to
relieve any bad contacts that may have resulted from the building, while
keeping the dihedral angles in the vicinity of the desired values with
harmonic constraints. Then the dihedral angles are set back to the desired
values using IC EDIT and the structure is rebuilt using IC BUILD. Next,
the i.c. constraints are specified and the peptide is equilibrated.
Following equilibration, the perturbation is specified and the production
dynamics is run. Note that the BY values for the phi and psi perturbations
have opposite signs. This is because the atoms to be moved by the
perturbations (e.g. the atoms in the INTE selection) occur at one end of
the two central atoms in the phi dihedral angle and the other end in the
psi dihedral angle. Hence, the direction of rotation which corresponds to
an increase in phi corresponds to a decrease in psi (see the discussion of
the MOVE command at» pimplem). Therefore, since we
want phi and psi to increase and decrease together, we use BY values with
opposite signs. After each perturbation simulation, the constraints and
perturbations are cancelled using TSM CLEAR in preparation for the next
simulation. Finally, after all ten simulations have been carried out, the
data is post-processed. In this example, we have requested construction of
the thermodynamic surfaces (free energy, internal energy, and entropy) at
300 K using a temperature increment of 10 K in the finite-difference
derivatives. After the END command terminates the post-processing, the
thermodynamic surfaces are printed out, first as functions of phi (since it
was specified in the first MOVE command), and then as functions of psi.

* Input file for i.c. constraint and perturbation example.
* In this example, we compute the relative thermodynamics
* of the right- and left-handed alpha helical conformations
* of the alanine dipeptide in vacuum. The phi,psi values
* of the right- and left-handed conformations are -60,-60
* and 60,60 degrees, respectively. We compute the thermodynamic
* surfaces using 10 windows with perturbations dphi,dpsi = +/- 3,6
* degrees.


! Read topology and parameter files
open unit 1 read form name toph19.inp
read rtf card unit 1
close unit 1

open unit 1 read form name param19.inp
read param card unit 1
close unit 1

! Read the sequence and generate the psf
read sequence card
* alanine dipeptide (blocked alanine residue)


amn ala cbx

generate pept setup

! Set window counter to be used in loop
set 1 1

! Set phi and psi dihedral angles for first window (we'll perturb
! back to right-handed alpha)
set 2 -54.0 ! phi
set 3 -54.0 ! psi

! Do all of the windows in a loop
label LOOP

ic param

! Set phi and psi to the desired values and build
! the dipeptide
ic edit
dihe 1 c 2 n 2 ca 2 c @2 ! phi
dihe 2 n 2 ca 2 c 3 n @3 ! psi
end
ic seed 1 cl 1 c 2 n
ic build

! Minimize with harmonic dihedral constraints to relieve
! any bad contacts that might result from building
cons dihe pept 1 c pept 2 n pept 2 ca pept 2 c min @2 force 100.0
cons dihe pept 2 n pept 2 ca pept 2 c pept 3 n min @3 force 100.0
update atom cdie shif vdis vswi cutnb 10.0
minimization sd nstep 50 tolgrd 0.01 inbfrq 50
cons cldh

! Reset phi and psi to the desired values before setting the
! i.c. constraints
ic fill
ic print
ic edit
dihe 1 c 2 n 2 ca 2 c @2 ! phi
end
coor init sele ((atom pept 2 h) .or. (segi pept .and. resi 1)) end
ic build
ic edit
dihe 2 n 2 ca 2 c 3 n @3 ! psi
end
coor init sele ((atom pept 2 o) .or. (segi pept .and. resi 3)) end
ic build

! Set the i.c. constraints; maximum number of iterations = 100;
! tolerances = 1.0e-5 degrees
tsm
maxi 100
fix dihe pept 1 c pept 2 n pept 2 ca pept 2 c toli 1.0e-5 ! phi
fix dihe pept 2 n pept 2 ca pept 2 c pept 3 n toli 1.0e-5 ! psi
end

! Run 10 steps equilibration dynamics
dynamics verlet strt nstep 10 timestep 0.0005 firstt 300.0 -
inbfrq 10 nprint 1 iprfrq 10 iasors 1 ichecw 1 iasvel 1 -
atom cdie shif vdis vswi cutnb 10.0

! Open perturbation data file
open unit 10 write form name example_@1.icp

! Set up perturbations; save data on unit 10 every step; use
! 2 subintervals in each window (nwin 2), e.g., change dihedrals by
! +/- 3,6 degrees; note "by" values have opposite signs so the moves
! both go in the same direction
tsm
savi icun 10 icfr 1 nwin 2
move dihe pept 1 c pept 2 n pept 2 ca pept 2 c by 6.0 -
inte sele ((atom pept 2 h) .or. (atom pept 2 n) .or. -
(segi pept .and. resi 1)) end ! phi
move dihe pept 2 n pept 2 ca pept 2 c pept 3 n by -6.0 -
inte sele ((atom pept 2 o) .or. (atom pept 2 c) .or. -
(segi pept .and. resi 3)) end ! psi
end

! Run 20 steps perturbation dynamics
dynamics verlet strt nstep 20 timestep 0.0005 firstt 300.0 -
inbfrq 20 nprint 1 iprfrq 20 iasors 1 ichecw 1 iasvel 1 -
atom cdie shif vdis vswi cutnb 10.0

! Close data file and clear constraints and perturbations
close unit 10
tsm clear

! Get ready for next window
incr 1 by 1
incr 2 by 12.0
incr 3 by 12.0
coor init sele all end
if 1 le 10 goto LOOP

! At this point, all ten simulations have been carried out

! Open the data files for post-processing
open unit 10 read form name example_1.icp
open unit 11 read form name example_2.icp
open unit 12 read form name example_3.icp
open unit 13 read form name example_4.icp
open unit 14 read form name example_5.icp
open unit 15 read form name example_6.icp
open unit 16 read form name example_7.icp
open unit 17 read form name example_8.icp
open unit 18 read form name example_9.icp
open unit 19 read form name example_10.icp

! Post-process the data; use binsize of 5 datasets
! in error calculation; calculate avg. temp.; use
! T = 300 K and deltaT = 10 K in thermodynamics;
! construct thermodynamic surfaces
tsm post ic maxp 2 maxw 2 surf maxs 100
proc first 10 nunits 1 bins 5 ctem temp 300.0 delt 10.0 -
begin 1 stop 20
proc first 11 nunits 1 bins 5 ctem temp 300.0 delt 10.0 -
begin 1 stop 20
proc first 12 nunits 1 bins 5 ctem temp 300.0 delt 10.0 -
begin 1 stop 20
proc first 13 nunits 1 bins 5 ctem temp 300.0 delt 10.0 -
begin 1 stop 20
proc first 14 nunits 1 bins 5 ctem temp 300.0 delt 10.0 -
begin 1 stop 20
proc first 15 nunits 1 bins 5 ctem temp 300.0 delt 10.0 -
begin 1 stop 20
proc first 16 nunits 1 bins 5 ctem temp 300.0 delt 10.0 -
begin 1 stop 20
proc first 17 nunits 1 bins 5 ctem temp 300.0 delt 10.0 -
begin 1 stop 20
proc first 18 nunits 1 bins 5 ctem temp 300.0 delt 10.0 -
begin 1 stop 20
proc first 19 nunits 1 bins 5 ctem temp 300.0 delt 10.0 -
begin 1 stop 20
end

stop


Lambda-Dynamics approach to free energy calculations:


In this node, we will focus on aspects of the free energy
calculations which are not covered in TSM discussion. However, it is
recommended to go through details of TSM approach first since the new
dynamics is based on same underlying principles as TSM does and we
will use those basic concepts and terminologies without further
explanation.


(i) Potential of Mean Force

In addition to TI and thermodynamic perturbation method, an
alternative approach to the free energy calculations is to develop
the free energy A along a "reaction coordinate", zeta (to avoid
confusion, we will use "zeta" instead of "xi" used in the reference [1]).
Zeta is typically a configurational coordinate. Thus, the reactant
configuration and the product configuration are represented by
zeta = 0 and zeta = 1 respectively. For a continuous coordinate zeta,
the Helmholtz free energy difference, or the reversible work required to
carry the system from the reactant configuration to the product
configuration, is often referred to as the "potential of mean force" (PMF),
W(zeta). The exact connection between W(zeta) and the probability density
of the system rho(zeta) is expressed as

W(zeta) = -KT ln[rho(zeta)]

That leads to the free energy difference DeltaA(zeta) = W(zeta),
when rho(zeta) is normalized at a particular value of zeta, e.g.,
rho(zeta=0) = 1.

It is well known that conventional importance MD or MC sampling
techniques will be prone to produce an inadequate estimation of W(zeta)
in situations where the potential of mean force differs by more than
a few kcal/mol over the range of 0 <= zeta <= 1.0 . To expand the range
of DeltaA(zeta), the umbrella sampling method is frequently employed. Here
the basic idea is to introduce a biasing or umbrella potential U*(zeta),
thereby replacing the original potential energy V(x,y,z) by a modified
potential V(x,y,z) + U*(zeta). The ultimate goal is to use the auxiliary
potential U*(zeta) to "flatten" out the energy barriers along the coordinate
zeta. In so doing, a more uniformly distributed density function rho(zeta)
can be generated with a fixed amount of sampling because transitions
between the reactant and product configuration are now more facile.

From statistical mechanics, the explicit connection between the
biased probability density function rho*(zeta) and the true density
rho(zeta) of the system can be easily made. It is simply stated as

rho*(zeta)exp{U*(zeta)/kT}
rho(zeta) = --------------------------
<exp{U*(zeta)/kT}>*

where the notation " * " emphasizes that the ensemble average is being
taken over the modified potential function.

Owing to the complexity of many problems of interest, it is
apparent that a single biasing potential is usually not sufficient enough
to cover the whole range of the reaction coordinate zeta, and
simultaneously produce good sampling. Thus, a set of restraining
potentials, U*(zeta), is used to shift the local minima in the desired
direction. In this "window" approach, the potential of mean force,
W(zeta), in each window takes the form of

W (zeta) = -kT ln[rho*(zeta)] - U*(zeta) + C
i i i i

C = kTln <exp[U*(zeta)]>*
i i

The direct evaluation of the constants C's , being of exponential form,
is susceptible to large numerical fluctuations. These fluctuations in turn
make the accurate calculation of these constants very difficult. In order
to achieve an uniformly good potential of mean force, W(zeta), the different
constants, C's , from successive simulation windows have to be perfectly
matched so as to make W(zeta) agree in the overlapping regions. The
implementation of many conventional matching schemes such as the "splicing"
method is very difficult, if not impossible, when generating two or higher
dimensional potential of mean force surfaces.

(ii) Lambda Dynamics Methodology I

Thus far, two auxiliary quantities have been introduced to facilitate
free energy calculations: a coupling parameter lambda (extent of
transformation) in TSM; a "reaction coordinate" zeta in the PMF. On
the one hand, the coupling parameter approach takes advantage of the
fact that the free energy difference, DeltaA, is a function of the
state only. Thus, DeltaA can be computed along any reversible path
connecting the initial and final states. This added flexibility
certainly hold great potential for designing new approaches to free
energy calculations. On the other hand, the power of specific biasing
potentials used in the umbrella sampling method can be fully utilized
to combat the difficulties encountered in conventional free energy
calculations. To make full use of the coupling parameter lambda, two
crucial questions, among others, pertinent to the lambda will be focused
on: (1) What is the best way to deal with the lambda variable in
developing a new method? In other words, rather than being separated from
the configurational coordinate set {x,y,z}, is it more efficient to treat
the lambda variable on the same footing as an ordinary space coordinate?
(2) If so, what governs the dynamics of the lambda variable? Based on
the assumption that the lambda variable can be treated as an ordinary
coordinate, a natural connection to the umbrella sampling method may be made
immediately. Identifying the lambda variable as the "reaction coordinate"
zeta, the problem of calculating chemical free energy differences is
isomorphic with that of computing potentials of mean force in the lambda
variable. This transformation brings up a point we have discussed earlier,
namely, the matching problem of the constant C's associated with the
umbrella sampling has to be attended to. Therefore, another important
question: (3) What is the optimal way of processing the simulation data?
This question is of great importance for the generation of a multidimensional
free energy surface.

As noted before, any two equilibrium states can be generally
connected by reversible transition pathways. A typical approach is to
partition the system Hamiltonian as a linear function of a coupling
parameter lambda

H(lambda) = (1 - lambda) H + lambda H + H
R P Env

Instead of using a single variable, consider a general case where the
pathway itself is characterized by a set of coupling variables,
{lambda(i)}, i = 1,...,n. This represents the situation where
"alchemical" mapping of one molecule into another, for the purpose
of computing a free energy difference, changes different components of
the interaction terms with different scaling factors. We can control the
transition between the two molecules by partitioning a Hamiltonian of
the general form

H ({lambda(i); i=1,n}) = H ({lambda(i); i=1,n}) + H ({lambda(i); i=1,n})
R*n R P

+ H
Env

where H stands for the Hamiltonian of the atoms not being transformed
Env
while H ({lambda(i); i=1,n}) is the reactant (product) Hamiltonian.
R(P)
H ({lambda(i); i=1,n}) is a legitimate mapping provided that
R*n

H ({lambda(i) = 0; i=1,n}) and H ({lambda(i) = 1; i=1,n})
R*n R*n

correspond to the Hamiltonians for the reactant and product states
respectively. Because the two states, R and P, are separated by many
intermediate states with {0} < {lambda(i)} < {1}, and there exist generally
many conceivable potential pathways (and barriers) on the potential
energy surface, a natural question arises: what is the optimal transition
pathway? In the language of the perturbation calculations, how does one
select values of {lambda(i)}, i = 1,...,n, so that efficient ensemble
averaging can be performed?

We propose a new mapping scheme for performing free energy
calculations. We permit the control variables {lambda(i)} for the chemical
transformation to evolve as dynamic variables, under the influence of both
the hybrid Hamiltonian above, and added biasing potentials. The dynamic
treatment of the {lambda(i)} variables is directed at the first two
questions raised earlier. Since the biasing potentials are at our disposal,
the new method will allow us more control over the sampling space, thereby
enhancing our control over the convergence of ensemble sampling.

We formulate the lambda-dynamics by utilizing an extended
Hamiltonian. In this formalism, the {lambda(i)} are considered as a set
of fictitious "particle" coordinates,

H ({lambda(i)}) = H ({lambda(i)})
Extended R*n

n
____ __ __
+ \ M(i) | dlambda(i) |**2
/ ------ |--------- |
---- 2.0 | dt |
i = 1 |__ __|

+ U*({lambda(i)})

where the lambda-dependent potential term, U*({lambda(i)}), will serve as
an umbrella or a biasing potential to limit the range of {lambda(i)}.
Moreover, a kinetic energy term is associated with a set
of fictitious masses {M(i)}. The coupling between spatial coordinates
and energy parameters is through the lambda dependence of H ({lambda(i)}).
R*n

The introduction of the umbrella potential term U*({lambda(i)})
in H ({lambda(i)}) provides a great deal of freedom in improving
Extended

efficiency in sampling. By using a well designed U*({lambda(i)}), we can
achieve the following objectives: (1) limit the range of {lambda(i)}
sampled in independent simulations or windows to some particular set of
values; (2) supply the boundary conditions for the overall range of
{0} <= {lambda(i)} <= {1}; and more importantly, (3) increase transition
rates among potential wells separated by high energy barriers. By utilizing
the second set of adjustable parameters {M(i)}, we should be able to gain
more control over the evolution of the {lambda(i)} variables.

Generally speaking, the new method will generate a multidimensional
probability density distribution. This entails a multidimensional potential
of mean force surface in the {lambda(i)} variable space. This leads us to
another important aspect of our approach, namely to apply a more powerful
analysis technique to the resulting distributions. This is directed
towards the third question raised above. Optimal histogram analysis
method, developed by Ferrenberg and Swendsen for studying phase transitions,
and further extended to biological simulations by Kumar and the Swendsen
group, and by Boczko and Brooks, has proven to be very successful in
generating free energy surfaces for physical, chemical and biological
processes. In addition to producing the best possible estimation of free
energies and optimizing links (constant C's) between simulations, the
weighted histogram analysis method (WHAM) is a multidimensional method and
has a built-in estimate of sampling errors. These characteristics serve
well the needs of our new lambda-dynamics.


Our lambda dynamics approach also offers better control over a
couple of technical problems in FEP. The first is related to the
{lambda(i)} --> {0} or {lambda(i)} --> {1} limiting situation, often
referred to as the "close encounters" problem in the literature. In MC
simulations, this generally does not cause any real problem since random
numbers are used to sample the configurational variable and stability
is not an issue. However, in the case of MD simulations, large numerical
errors, often leading to instability of the numerical solution to
the dynamics equations, take place when either {lambda(i)} --> {0} or
{lambda(i)} --> {1} occur. Conventional perturbation calculations often
avoid the problem by running simulations at a small distance away from {0} or
{1}. Nonetheless, this approach is not appropriate for the formalism of
lambda-dynamics because the lambda variable itself evolves dynamically
during the course of the simulation. The umbrella potential of our
formulation offers a convenient solution to this problem. Simple biasing
potentials are generally sufficient to prevent the boundary crossing
{lambda(i)} < {0} or {lambda(i)} > {1}. To further restrain the range of
lambda variables, we have implemented a different partition scheme of the
system Hamiltonian in CHARMM, i.e. a linear lambda variable is replaced by
a quadratic form lambda**2, as will be seen shortly. This is an extremely
helpful technique at the {lambda(i)} --> {0} end. The second issue is
that the extra degrees of freedom associated with the fictitious masses
provide additional control over the dynamics of the lambda variables.


(A) Application for relative free energy calculations:

To avoid redundancy, we will only outline the partitioning schemes
of the system Hamiltonian for each application. Please refer to BLOCK.DOC
and DYNAMC.DOC for detailed CHARMM commands when performing lambda dynamics
simulation runs.

The lambda-dynamics formalism is applicable to typical free energy
calculation problems, e.g, a mutation of one molecule into another. This
is a prototype for the majority of free energy calculations carried out to
study relative solubility, relative binding affinity or protein stability.
We will outline our implementation using the same example as TSM does.

To calculate the relative solvation free energies of methanol and
ethane, we write the extended system Hamiltonian as


H ({lambda(i)}) = [lambda(2)**2] H + [lambda(3)**2] H + H
Extended R P Env

3
____ __ __
+ \ M(i) | dlambda(i) |**2
/ ------ |--------- |
---- 2.0 | dt |
i = 2 |__ __|

+ U*({lambda(i)})

subject to the condition

3
____
\
/ [lambda(i)**2] = 1.0
----
i = 2


This system has three distinguished blocks: a reactant (OH group of the
methanol), a product (CH3 of the ethane) and environment (unchanged CH3
group and solvent). By default, block one is assigned to the environment,
which leads to lambda(1) = 1.0 in our implementation. Please refer to
» block for detailed CHARMM commands.

(iii) Lambda Dynamics Methodology II

By using a different partitioning scheme in H ({lambda(i)})
Extended
N
____
\
V(x,{lambda(i)}) = / [lambda(i)**2] (V (x)-F ) + V
---- i i Env
i = 2

one can perform free energy calculations for multiple ligands simultaneously.
Here one lambda(i) is assigned to each potential, V (x), which represents a
i
distinct solute molecule (or ligand), F is the biasing potential for ligand i.
i
If the {lambda(i)} variables are subject to a holonomic condition

N
____
\
/ [lambda(i)**2] = 1.0
----
i = 2

the probability distributions of the system at given lambda(i) values are a
manifestation of the free energy differences between different solute
molecules. For example,


P[lambda(i) = 1, {lambda(m =/= i} = 0] D_Delta A
______________________________________ = Exp{- --------}
kT
P[lambda(j) = 1, {lambda(m =/= j} = 0]

where D_Delta A is the total free energy difference between molecules i and j.
Since the free energy difference between molecules for half of the
thermodynamic cycle (F , e.g. ligands in the unbound state) is incorporated
i
into the Hamiltonian of the system for the other half
of the cycle (e.g. protein-liand bound state), D_Delta is the relative binding
affinity of the ligands to the protein receptor.

With this formalism of Hamiltonian l-dynamics can evaluate relative binding
free energy of multiple ligands simultaneously, providing either qualitative
ranking within short simulation time or quatitative results with desired
precision. In the former case (or the screening calculation),
the ligands with favorable binding affinity
are identified and relative ordering of those ligands can be obtained from
the probability distribution of the ligands in the [lambda(i)**2]=1 state.
The running averages of each [lambda(i)**2] can also be used to provide the
ranking. In the latter case, the free energy difference between molecules
for half of the thermodynamic cycle will be evaluated. Here F acts as a
i
potential. It corresponds to the estimated free energy of the ligand from
previous calculations. Therefore the estimated free energy can be improved
iteratively. The WHAM method can be used to combine data from different
simulations to get optimal estimate of the free energy.

There exists an analogy between our screening calculations and competitive
binding experiments carried out in the laboratory. In fact, a competitive
binding experiment usually consists of different ligands and a single receptor
in solution. By determining the relative concentrations of constituent ligands
in solution, the relative binding affinity of ligands can be inferred.
Thus, a "best" ligand can be selected accordingly. Similarly, by determining
the running averages or the relative populations of each lambda(i), we can
distinguish favorable ligand molecules from unfavorable ones.

In hybrid MC/MD method, Metropolis Monte Carlo method is used to evolve the
lambda-space and molecular dynamics method is used for evolving the atomic
coordinates for generating the canonical ensemble of the ligands instead of
using molecular dynamics method with extended Hamiltonian in the
lambda-dynamics method. Both methods gave the same configurational partition
functions. The relative free energy can be calculated from the probability
distrubitions in MC/MD method. The MC/MD method was originally presented by
Bennett and Tidor, independently. The straightforward extension of this
method for multiple ligands, which was named CMC/MD, was achieved by
Pitera & Kollman.
One advantage of MC/MD is that sampling of {lambda} can be determined by the
user, while the proper choice of the biased potential is required in the
lambda-dynamics method.
For example, it is possible for MC/MD to sample only chemically important end
points. However, the acceptance ratio may be too small when the ligands have
the large and different parts.
The disadvantage of MC/MD is that the sudden change in chemical space evolved
by MC step produces a discontinuous effect in the atomic momentum space so
that the atoms of the newly selected ligand do not have velocities appropriate
for the environmental conditions.
The re-assignment of the velocities to the ligands is not carried out in this
version of CHARMM.

The holonomic constraint used above, which is necessary to ensure
the physical nature of the end points, is treated using the Lagrange
multiplier method. Moreover, a renormalization of the {lambda(i)} variables
at each MD step is performed to guarantee that the condition is satisfied.
The reason is that the equation is always solved approximately in any
simulation algorithm, and the renormalization prevents small errors from
propagating.


REFERENCES

X. Kong and C. L. Brooks III, J. Chem. Phys., 105, 2414 (1996).

C. L. Brooks III, M. Karplus, and B. M. Pettitt, In Advances in Chemical
Physics, Vol. LXXI, edited by I. Prigogine and S. A. Rice (Wiley, New York,
1988).

Z. Liu and B. J. Berne, J. Chem. Phys., 99, 6071 (1993).

A. M. Ferrenberg and R. H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. Lett., 63, 1195 (1989).

A. M. Ferrenberg, Ph.D Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 1989.

S. Kumar, D. Bouzida, R. H. Swendsen, P. A. Kollman, and J. Rosenberg, J.
Comput. Chem., 13, 1011 (1992).

E. M. Boczko and C. L. Brooks III, J. Phys. Chem., 97, 4509 (1993).

B. Tidor, J. Phys. Chem., 97, 1069 (1993).

B. R. Brooks, R. E. Bruccoleri, B. D. Olafson, D. J. States, S. Swaminathan,
and M. Karplus, J. Comput. Chem., 4, 187 (1983).