Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 74 references

Quantum Mechanics of Proteins in Explicit Water: The Role of Plasmon-Like Solute-Solvent Interactions

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Many-body van der Waals dispersion forces change which protein states are stable in water, destabilizing the isolated native fold while collective protein-water interactions stabilize it.

desk verdict A clear, well-specified computational study showing that many-body dispersion shifts the balance of intra-protein and protein-water energetics; the qualitative claim is credible, but the gas-phase reference is computed on water-stripped solvated snapshots and should be treated as conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02181 v2 pith:WQKMBGIK submitted 2019-08-06 physics.chem-ph physics.bio-phphysics.comp-ph

Martin Stöhr , Alexandre Tkatchenko This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-phphysics.bio-phphysics.comp-ph
keywords many-bodydispersionvanderWaalsinteractionproteinfoldingprotein-waterinteractionsdensity-functionaltight-bindingcollectiveelectronicfluctuationssolvationenergyhydrophobiccollapse
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that van der Waals dispersion forces in proteins and their aqueous surroundings are quantum-mechanical and many-body in character, and that this character is strong enough to shift the balance of protein folding. Using density-functional tight-binding combined with the many-body dispersion formalism on three fast-folding proteins, it finds that beyond-pairwise dispersion effects destabilize the native state in the gas phase by about 4.5 to 6 kcal/mol relative to pairwise models, because pairwise treatments overcorrelate atoms in the protein core. In explicit water, however, collective protein-water dispersion interactions reverse the tendency and stabilize native conformations and transition states by a comparable amount. The reason is delocalized, plasmon-like electronic fluctuations that couple protein and solvent out to about 25 angstroms. If true, this means pairwise-additive force fields can be fundamentally unbalanced for solvated proteins, and dispersion must be treated explicitly to capture folding energetics.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Many-Body Dispersion (MBD) formalism, a model in which each atom's response is represented by a screened quantum harmonic oscillator and the coupled oscillators are diagonalized to give collective electronic eigenmodes. From the DFTB electron density, effective atomic polarizabilities are obtained, screened self-consistently, and used to build the dipole-coupled Hamiltonian of Equations (2)-(3); the zero-point energy of the coupled oscillators, Equation (5), is the dispersion energy, and a unitary transform generates plasmon-like collective fluctuations. This setup lets the authors decompose the vdW solvation energy into contributions from individual collective modes and compute the radial range of protein-water correlation, which is what reveals the 25 angstrom persistence and the stabilizing role of delocalized electronic motion.

What would settle it

Recompute the isolated-protein energetics on structures that are genuinely equilibrated in the gas phase, rather than solvent-stripped snapshots from explicit-water trajectories; the claim predicts the MBD-versus-pairwise destabilization of the native state should persist at about 4 to 6 kcal/mol on that ensemble as well. If the sign or magnitude changes materially, the compensation argument in water loses its foundation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that many-body van der Waals dispersion interactions, not just pairwise additive potentials, play a central role in protein folding energetics in water. Using the MBD formalism, which models electronic fluctuations as coupled quantum harmonic oscillators, the authors find that pairwise treatments such as vdW(TS), D2, and D3 overestimate the stability of the native state of an isolated protein by roughly 4.5 to 6 kcal/mol; about half of this excess comes from neglecting the self-consistent screening of atomic polarizabilities and half from neglecting many-body interactions beyond pairwise terms. When the protein is placed in explicit water, the same many-body treatment shows that the protein-water dispersion interaction acquires a collective, delocalized character that acts oppositely, stabilizing native conformations and transition states by 5 to 7 kcal/mol relative to the unfolded ensemble. The authors trace this stabilization to low-frequency, plasmon-like electronic fluctuations around 450 THz, and show that correlation between protein and solvent remains significant at distances up to 25 angstroms, far beyond the range of pairwise dispersion models.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that taking solvated molecular dynamics snapshots and removing the water yields a valid representation of the isolated protein's gas-phase ensemble; if those conformations are not representative, the reported 4.5 to 6 kcal/mol many-body destabilization of the native state could shrink or even reverse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pairwise-additive dispersion models systematically overstabilize the gas-phase native state by about 4.5 to 6 kcal/mol, so gas-phase protein structure and stability predictions require a many-body correction.
  • Many-body protein-water dispersion stabilizes folded conformations by a comparable amount, so solvation models that treat dispersion pairwise may be missing a folding driving force.
  • The vdW contribution to the solvation energy drops by 20 to 30 kcal/mol at the hydrophobic collapse, making it a usable folding descriptor even though the total electronic solvation energy is not.
  • Electronic correlation between protein and solvent is significant up to 25 angstroms, implying that long-range dispersion forces in aqueous biomolecular systems cannot be treated as local.
  • For the three proteins studied, the effect is independent of secondary structure (beta-sheet, hairpin, and helix), so the conclusion is not specific to one fold type.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If correlation persists through water at the computed range, the same mechanism should mediate solvent-assisted dispersion interactions between two solutes or between distant parts of a large biomolecule; this is an extension the paper raises but does not compute.
  • The 450 THz collective modes suggest a concrete spectroscopic test: terahertz-domain probes of solvated proteins should show collective electronic response that tracks folding state, beyond the local water dynamics.
  • Because MBD softens low-frequency vibrational modes in molecular crystals, the same many-body effects may contribute to folding entropy and free energy, not just internal energy; quantifying entropy is a natural next step.
  • A testable extension would be to compare MBD-based vdW solvation energies between proteins of different sizes to see whether the pairwise-additivity failure grows with system size, as the 25 angstrom range suggests.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript uses density-functional tight-binding combined with the many-body dispersion (MBD) formalism and with pairwise vdW models (vdW(TS), D2, D3) to evaluate van der Waals energies along pre-existing explicit-water MD folding trajectories of three small proteins (Fip35-WW, cln025, HP35-NleNle). The authors report that beyond-pairwise dispersion reduces the relative stability of the native state of the isolated protein by roughly 4–6 kcal/mol, while the many-body character of protein–water interactions increases the relative stability of native conformations in solution, with low-frequency collective electronic eigenmodes contributing substantially to solvation and correlation ranging to ~25 Å from the protein surface. The paper interprets these modes as plasmon-like solute–solvent interactions and argues that pairwise force fields miss a compensating balance between intra-protein and protein–water vdW effects.

Significance. The result, if reliable, is significant: it identifies a concrete, computationally testable failure mode of pairwise-additive dispersion in biomolecular modeling and suggests a physical mechanism (collective electronic fluctuations) that could be probed by THz spectroscopy. The study has notable strengths: the qualitative trend is reproduced for three proteins with different secondary structures and across three pairwise baselines; the MBD parameters and DFTB parameter sets are inherited from previous benchmarks rather than fitted to the proteins studied; and the mode-resolved decomposition (Eqs. 6–7) gives a mechanistic picture rather than a purely energetic correction. The main risk is that the central gas-phase comparison is performed at water-stripped solvated geometries, so the headline numbers may depend on conformational relaxation that the paper does not consider.

major comments (4)
  1. [Results, first paragraph; Eq. (1)] The isolated-protein energies E_vdW[p] are computed by 'artificially removing the surrounding solvent' from explicit-water MD snapshots, so the gas-phase leg of the central claim is a single-point energy difference at solvated geometries rather than an energy difference between equilibrium gas-phase conformers. The reported 4–6 kcal/mol many-body destabilization is comparable in size to expected conformational relaxation energies, so it could be altered or inverted by gas-phase relaxation; please re-optimize or shortly propagate the stripped structures in the gas phase, or otherwise demonstrate that the solvated geometries are representative of the gas-phase ensemble.
  2. [Supplementary §3.2 vs. Fig. 4] For cln025 the SI states that 'we still find a slight destabilization of native states via many-body dispersion effects (2 kcal/mol)' in solvation, while the main text and Fig. 4 present the many-body protein–water contribution as consistently stabilizing native states across all systems. Because the 'independent of secondary structure' claim depends on this uniformity, the sign and decomposition of the cln025 net effect must be reconciled and stated explicitly.
  3. [Fig. 3b and 'Plasmon-like character' section] The claim that electronic correlation 'is still relevant for the protein-water interaction' up to 25 Å from the interface is not quantifiable as stated. Long-range dipole-coupled models have nonzero contributions at all distances; without an explicit threshold, convergence criterion, or a defined fraction of the integrated G_int, the 25 Å value is not a falsifiable prediction. Please define 'relevant' quantitatively and report the integrated fraction as a function of cutoff.
  4. [Results and Supplementary Material] No statistical uncertainties or block-averaging estimates are reported for the 2–7 kcal/mol differences between MBD and pairwise models, and the trajectories are single runs per protein. As these differences are the basis for the qualitative conclusions, please provide at least an estimate of the noise from conformational subsampling or replicate trajectories.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction] The statement that vdW interactions 'can account for up to 30% of the total solvation energy' appears without a direct derivation in the Results; either locate the number in the figures or SI, or qualify it as an estimate.
  2. [Eq. (1)] Define explicitly that 'gas phase' means the protein geometry extracted from the solvated trajectory, and use a notation such as E_vdW[p(solv)] to avoid implying a gas-phase ensemble.
  3. [Supplementary Fig. S1 and main text] The 'average over-stabilization' values differ between the main text ('6 kcal/mol on average') and the SI (6 kcal/mol for vdW(TS), 4 kcal/mol for D2, and 3 kcal/mol for SCS and D3); clarify which average is meant.
  4. ['Plasmon-like character' section] The criteria for classifying modes as 'localized' versus 'delocalized' and for defining the low-frequency 450 THz band are not given; specify how the modes were selected for the 14–16% and >20% contribution estimates.
  5. [Methods and SI] The term 'plasmon-like' is used repeatedly without a precise definition of the analogy; a sentence defining the diagnostic (e.g., a participation ratio of the eigenmodes) would help.
  6. [Methods] Minor typographical and clarity issues include the garbled 'semp disp corr .F90' file name and the need to identify in the Fig. 1 caption which curve corresponds to vdW(TS)@SCS.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the paper applies a pre-parameterized many-body dispersion method to independent folding trajectories and does not reduce its central claims to fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are computed by applying the MBD formalism and pairwise dispersion models to atomic configurations taken from independent molecular dynamics simulations. No equation in the paper fits a parameter to the proteins studied; the DFTB-derived polarizabilities, MBD screening parameters, and pairwise C6 coefficients are fixed by previously published, parameter-free procedures. The gas-phase many-body destabilization is defined as the difference between MBD and pairwise van der Waals energies on the same stripped-protein snapshots, and the solvation energies are defined by Eq. (1). These are operational definitions and model outputs, not predictions that reduce to their inputs by construction. The mode-resolved decomposition in Eq. (6) is likewise an exact rearrangement of the MBD Hamiltonian and is not used to fit the reported stabilization energies. Some methodological references are self-citations, but the cited method is externally validated and is not invoked as a forced uniqueness argument. The use of solvated geometries with water removed for the 'gas-phase' leg is a structural limitation of the physical setup, not a circularity: the comparison is still a well-defined single-point energy difference and does not presuppose the claimed native-state destabilization. If gas-phase relaxation would change the result, that is a correctness risk, not an instance of circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces no new fitted constants for its target results; the numbers are computed. However, the central claim rests on semi-empirical DFTB parameters, fitted free-atom polarizabilities, the MBD damping parameters, and model assumptions about the MBD Hamiltonian, DFTB accuracy, and the reuse of classical MD trajectories. The frozen solvated-geometry protocol for gas-phase analysis is the most paper-specific assumption.

free parameters (3)
  • MBD Fermi damping parameters (beta and s_R) = Not stated; inherited from Refs. [13,46]
    The damped dipole coupling tensor in Eq. SI-4 is controlled by a Fermi-type short-range damping whose parameters were fitted to benchmark data in prior work. The paper reports no values, yet the MBD energy and the 25 angstrom interaction range depend on this coupling.
  • DFTB parameter sets (mio-1-1 and 3ob) = mio-1-1 for Fip35-WW and HP35; 3ob for cln025
    Semi-empirical tight-binding parameters fitted to reference electronic structure data. They determine the Mulliken populations and hence all effective polarizabilities entering vdW(TS) and MBD.
  • Free-atom polarizabilities and C6 coefficients = Tabulated reference values (not listed in manuscript)
    Eqs. SI-1 and SI-3 use free-atom polarizabilities and C6 coefficients to scale environment-dependent values. These are empirical atomic inputs from prior tabulations.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The MBD coupled quantum harmonic oscillator model (Eqs. 2-3) with atom-centered dipoles and dipole approximation faithfully captures many-body dispersion interactions in proteins and water.
    The central claim depends on MBD being a quantitatively accurate model of many-body vdW. The paper cites prior validation for molecular crystals and nanostructures, but not a direct benchmark for solvated proteins.
  • domain assumption SCC-DFTB with mio-1-1/3ob parameters yields sufficiently reliable ground-state populations and polarizabilities for protein-water systems.
    All vdW models are built on DFTB-derived polarizabilities; no higher-level reference calculations are provided for these systems.
  • domain assumption Classical MD trajectories from Shaw et al., Lindorff-Larsen et al., and Ensign et al. sample the relevant folding ensembles, and single-point DFTB+MBD energies on these snapshots are representative.
    The analysis re-uses trajectories generated with force fields, not with the DFTB+MBD Hamiltonian. Any mismatch between force-field and QM ensembles could bias the energy differences.
  • ad hoc to paper Gas-phase protein energetics can be computed on geometries taken from solvated MD trajectories after artificially removing water, without re-optimization or gas-phase sampling.
    Stated in Results ('artificially removing the surrounding solvent'). This is specific to this paper's protocol and is load-bearing for the gas-phase destabilization claim.
  • standard math The zero-point energy of the coupled oscillator model equals the dispersion energy (Eq. 5), as established in prior work.
    This relation is derived in Refs. [46,67] and used without re-derivation.
invented entities (1)
  • Plasmon-like collective electronic eigenmodes (xi_i)
    purpose: Used to explain the stabilization of native states in water and the long (25 angstrom) range of protein-water dispersion; they are eigenmodes of the MBD Hamiltonian.
    No direct experimental observation is provided. The paper suggests ultrafast THz spectroscopy could probe their dynamical signatures, but no specific quantitative prediction is made.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Mechanics of Proteins in Explicit Water: The Role of Plasmon-Like Solute-Solvent Interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WQKMBGIK

@misc{pith2026190802181,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Mechanics of Proteins in Explicit Water: The Role of Plasmon-Like Solute-Solvent Interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WQKMBGIK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02181}
}
abstract

Quantum-mechanical van der Waals dispersion interactions play an essential role for both intra-protein and protein-water interactions -- the two main driving forces for the structure and dynamics of proteins in aqueous solution. Typically, these interactions are only treated phenomenologically via pairwise potential terms in classical force fields. Here, we use an explicit quantum-mechanical approach based on density-functional tight-binding with the many-body dispersion formalism, which allows us to demonstrate the unexpected relevance of the many-body character of dispersion interactions for protein energetics and the protein-water interaction. In contrast to commonly employed pairwise approaches, many-body effects significantly decrease the relative stability of the native state in the absence of water. In an aqueous environment, the collective character of the protein-water van der Waals interaction counteracts this effect and stabilizes native conformations and transition states. This stabilization arises due to a high degree of delocalization and collectivity of protein-water dispersion interactions, suggesting a remarkable persistence of long-range electron correlation through aqueous environments. Our findings are exemplified on prototypical showcases of proteins forming $\beta$-sheets, hairpins, and helices, emphasizing the crucial role of plasmon-like solute-solvent interactions in biomolecular systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02181 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. top: van der Waals energy of Fip35 Hpin1 WW-domain in solvated geometry without solvent. bottom: Beyond￾pairwise contributions, as given by difference between the many-body formalism MBD and the pairwise treatments vdW(TS) and vdW(TS)@SCS, i.e. vdW(TS) with self-consistent screening. For a more comprehensive version, see Supplementary Materials. ready capture some part of the destabilization of native states amounti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Relative vdW solvation energy, E (sol) rel , during the folding process of the Fip35 Hpin1 WW domain. top: backbone root-mean-square deviation from final conformation illustrating the hydrophobic collapse around 35 μs (gray). The vdW contribution to the relative solvation energy is shown for the pairwise vdW(TS) model (red) and MBD (blue). bottom: Difference in the relative stabilization by the solvent between MBD a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a) Illustration of low-frequency plasmon-like fluctuations in solvated Fip35 Hpin1 WW domain, which show the largest contribution to the protein-water interaction. The arrows depict the direction of simultaneous electron density deformations (eigenmode of the electron density). b) Contributions to the vdW solvation energy within the pairwise vdW(TS) approach and the many-body dispersion formalism (MBD) as radial dis… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F. Xu, T. A. Cross, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96, 9057 (1999)

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    Patriksson, C

    A. Patriksson, C. M. Adams, F. Kjeldsen, R. A. Zubarev, D. van der Spoel, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 111, 13147 (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Bellissent-Funel, et al., Chemical Reviews 116, 7673 (2016)

    M.-C. Bellissent-Funel, et al., Chemical Reviews 116, 7673 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Kauzmann, Advances in Protein Chemistry(Elsevier, 1959), vol

    W. Kauzmann, Advances in Protein Chemistry(Elsevier, 1959), vol. 14, pp. 1–63

    work page 1959

  5. [5]

    Chandler, Nature 437, 640 (2005)

    D. Chandler, Nature 437, 640 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Honig, A.-S

    B. Honig, A.-S. Yang, Protein Stability (Academic Press, 1995), vol. 46 of Advances in Protein Chemistry, pp. 27–58

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    Fersht, Structure and Mechanism in Protein Science (World Scientific, 2017)

    A. Fersht, Structure and Mechanism in Protein Science (World Scientific, 2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Shvab, R

    I. Shvab, R. J. Sadus, The Journal of Chemical Physics 139, 194505 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    G. A. Cisneros, et al. , Chemical Reviews 116, 7501 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    J. J. Dannenberg, Peptide Solvation and H-Bonds (Aca- demic Press, 2005), vol. 72 of Advances in Protein Chemistry, pp. 227–273

    2005

  3. [11]

    Rossi, W

    M. Rossi, W. Fang, A. Michaelides, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 6, 4233 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Schubert, et al

    F. Schubert, et al. , Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 17, 7373 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Tkatchenko, R

    A. Tkatchenko, R. A. DiStasio, R. Car, M. Scheffler, Physical Review Letters 108, 236402 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    V . V . Gobre, A. Tkatchenko,Nature Communications 4, 2341 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Ambrosetti, D

    A. Ambrosetti, D. Alf `e, R. A. DiStasio, A. Tkatchenko, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 5, 849 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    A. M. Reilly, A. Tkatchenko, Physical Review Letters 113, 55701 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    A. M. Reilly, A. Tkatchenko, Chemical Science 6, 3289 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Hermann, D

    J. Hermann, D. Alf `e, A. Tkatchenko, Nature Communi- cations 8, 14052 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    J. Hoja, A. M. Reilly, A. Tkatchenko, Wiley Interdisci- plinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science 7, e1294 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    J. F. Dobson, T. Gould, G. Vignale, Physical Review X 4, 1 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Kronik, A

    L. Kronik, A. Tkatchenko, Accounts of Chemical Re- search 47, 3208 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    A. P. Jones, F. S. Cipcigan, V . P. Sokhan, J. Crain, G. J. Martyna, Physical Review Letters 110, 227801 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    V . P. Sokhan, A. P. Jones, F. S. Cipcigan, J. Crain, G. J. Martyna, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences of the United States of America 112, 6341 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    W. Gao, Y . Chen, Q. Jiang,Physical Review Letters117, 246101 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Ambrosetti, N

    A. Ambrosetti, N. Ferri, R. A. DiStasio, A. Tkatchenko, Science 351, 1171 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    H. Yada, M. Nagai, K. Tanaka,Chemical Physics Letters 473, 279 (2009)

    2009

  19. [27]

    Folpini, et al., Physical Review Letters 119, 097404 (2017)

    G. Folpini, et al., Physical Review Letters 119, 097404 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Fr ¨ohlich, International Journal of Quantum Chem- istry 2, 641 (1968)

    H. Fr ¨ohlich, International Journal of Quantum Chem- istry 2, 641 (1968)

    1968

  21. [29]

    Acbas, K

    G. Acbas, K. A. Niessen, E. H. Snell, A. G. Markelz, Nature Communications 5, 3076 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Preto, M

    J. Preto, M. Pettini, J. A. Tuszynski, Physical Review E 91, 52710 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Nardecchia, et al

    I. Nardecchia, et al. , Physical Review X 8, 031061 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Kurian, G

    P. Kurian, G. Dunston, J. Lindesay, Journal of Theoreti- cal Biology 391, 102 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Kurian, A

    P. Kurian, A. Capolupo, T. Craddock, G. Vitiello, Physics Letters A 382, 33 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    T. J. Craddock, et al., Scientific Reports 7, 9877 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Baldauf, M

    C. Baldauf, M. Rossi, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 27, 493002 (2015). 11

    2015

  28. [36]

    Knott, R

    M. Knott, R. B. Best, PLoS Computational Biology 8, e1002605 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    R. B. Best, W. Zheng, and J. Mittal,Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 10 5113 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    Piana, A

    S. Piana, A. G. Donchev, P. Robustelli, D. E. Shaw, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 119, 5113 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    St ¨ohr, G

    M. St ¨ohr, G. S. Michelitsch, J. C. Tully, K. Reuter, R. J. Maurer, The Journal of Chemical Physics 144, 151101 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Porezag, T

    D. Porezag, T. Frauenheim, T. K ¨ohler, G. Seifert, R. Kaschner, Physical Review B 51, 12947 (1995)

    1995

  33. [41]

    Elstner, et al., Physical Review B 58, 7260 (1998)

    M. Elstner, et al., Physical Review B 58, 7260 (1998)

    1998

  34. [42]

    Tkatchenko, M

    A. Tkatchenko, M. Scheffler, Physical Review Letters 102, 73005 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    Grimme, Journal of Computational Chemistry 27, 1787 (2006)

    S. Grimme, Journal of Computational Chemistry 27, 1787 (2006)

    2006

  36. [44]

    Grimme, J

    S. Grimme, J. Antony, S. Ehrlich, H. Krieg, The Journal of Chemical Physics 132, 154104 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    Grimme, S

    S. Grimme, S. Ehrlich, L. Goerigk, Journal of Compu- tational Chemistry 32, 1456 (2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    Tkatchenko, A

    A. Tkatchenko, A. Ambrosetti, R. A. DiStasio, The Journal of Chemical Physics 138, 074106 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    Liu, et al

    F. Liu, et al. , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105, 2369 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    Honda, et al., Journal of the American Chemical So- ciety 130, 15327 (2008)

    S. Honda, et al., Journal of the American Chemical So- ciety 130, 15327 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    Kubelka, T

    J. Kubelka, T. K. Chiu, D. R. Davies, W. A. Eaton, J. Hofrichter, Journal of Molecular Biology 359, 546 (2006)

    2006

  42. [50]

    D. E. Shaw, et al., Science 330, 341 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    Lindorff-Larsen, S

    K. Lindorff-Larsen, S. Piana, R. O. Dror, D. E. Shaw, Science 334, 517 (2011)

    2011

  44. [52]

    D. L. Ensign, P. M. Kasson, V . S. Pande, Journal of Molecular Biology 374, 806 (2007)

    2007

  45. [53]

    D. L. Ensign, P. M. Kasson, V . S. Pande, Molecular Sim- ulation Trajectories Archive of a Villin Variant (2007)

    2007

  46. [54]

    S. Yang, Y . Jiang, S. Li, W. Liu, Carbon 111, 513 (2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    Rossi, S

    M. Rossi, S. Chutia, M. Scheffler, V . Blum,The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 118, 7349 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    Persson, P

    F. Persson, P. S ¨oderhjelm, B. Halle, The Journal of Chemical Physics 148, 215104 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    Ebbinghaus, S

    S. Ebbinghaus, S. J. Kim, M. Heyden, X. Yu, U. Heugen, M. Gruebele, D. M. Leitner, M. Havenith, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104, 20749 (2007)

    2007

  50. [58]

    Meister, S

    K. Meister, S. Ebbinghaus, Y . Xu, J. G. Duman, A. De- Vries, M. Gruebele, D. M. Leitner, M. Havenith, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110, 1617 (2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    Y . Xu, M. Havenith, The Journal of Chemical Physics 143, 170901 (2015)

    2015

  52. [60]

    Tkatchenko, M

    A. Tkatchenko, M. Rossi, V . Blum, J. Ireta, M. Scheffler, Physical Review Letters 106, 118102 (2011)

    2011

  53. [61]

    Rossi, M

    M. Rossi, M. Scheffler, V . Blum, The Journal of Physi- cal Chemistry B 117, 5574 (2013)

    2013

  54. [62]

    A. V . Melkikh, D. K. Meijer,Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 132, 57 (2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    R. M. Levy, D. Perahia, M. Karplus, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 79, 1346 (1982)

    1982

  56. [64]

    Zheng, H

    W. Zheng, H. Wen, Current Opinion in Structural Biol- ogy 42, 24 (2017)

    2017

  57. [65]

    Aradi, B

    B. Aradi, B. Hourahine, T. Frauenheim, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 111, 5678 (2007)

    2007

  58. [66]

    The development version of the DFTB+ code, which has been used in the current work, is available at https://github.com/aradi/dftbplus.git (mbd branch)

  59. [67]

    J. F. Dobson, J. Wang, B. P. Dinte, K. McLennan, H. M. Le, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 101, 579 (2005)

    2005

  60. [68]

    M. Gaus, Q. Cui, M. Elstner, Journal of Chemical The- ory and Computation 7, 931 (2011)

    2011

  61. [69]

    M. Gaus, A. Goez, M. Elstner, Journal of Chemical The- ory and Computation 9, 338 (2013)

    2013

  62. [70]

    M. Gaus, X. Lu, M. Elstner, Q. Cui,Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 10, 1518 (2014)

    2014

  63. [71]

    Kubillus, T

    M. Kubillus, T. Kuba ˇr, M. Gaus, J. ˇRez´aˇc, M. Elstner, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 11, 332 (2015)

    2015

  64. [72]

    S. J. Clark, et al., Zeitschrift f¨ur Kristallographie - Crys- talline Materials 220 (2005)

    2005

  65. [73]

    S. Bahn, K. Jacobsen, Computing in Science & Engi- neering 4, 56 (2002)

    2002

  66. [74]

    vdW(TS)@SCS

    B. Aradi, GitHub - aradi/dftd3-lib: Library version of S. Grimme’s DFTD3 code. (2016). 12 Supplementary Material Quantum Mechanics of Proteins in Explicit Water: The Role of Plasmon-Like Solute-Solvent Interactions Martin St¨ohr and Alexandre Tkatchenko∗ Physics and Materials ...

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.