Comparison among Amber-ff14SB, Amber-ff19SB, and CHARMM36 Force Fields for Ionic and Electroosmotic Flows in Biological Nanopores

Molecular dynamics has been widely used in nanofluidics as it provides an atomistic description of fluid transport that cannot be achieved experimentally. The interactions among atoms are modeled by empirical force fields whose reliability for a specific problem must be tested against experimental evidence. Such validation is often difficult to obtain in nanofluidics due to the challenges associated with measuring nanoscale flows. Here, we systematically compare three popular force fields (CHARMM36, Amber-ff14SB, both with TIP3P water, and Amber-ff19SB with the OPC water) in terms of their electrohydrodynamical outputs. As test cases, we used CytK and MspA, two biological nanopores employed in sensing. For each nanopore, we simulated one cation-selective and one anion-selective mutant. Our results show that while, overall, the anion/cation selectivity and the direction of electroosmosis are coherent across the force fields, quantitative differences are observed. These differences cannot be simply explained by the transport properties of the solution, such as the ion conductivity and viscosity. For narrow pores such as MspA, these differences can become so significant as to yield qualitatively different outcomes; for example, one force field may predict no detectable electroosmosis while another shows a clear electroosmotic flow.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
Published
2025-11-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.5c01032
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Nanopore and Nanochannel Transport Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.35
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison among Amber-ff14SB, Amber-ff19SB, and CHARMM36 Force Fields for Ionic and Electroosmotic Flows in Biological Nanopores

Blasco Morozzo della Rocca, Mauro Chinappi, Federico Iacovelli, Simone Gargano et al.
2 citations
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
Nanopore and Nanochannel Transport Studies
1.35
article

Comparison among Amber-ff14SB, Amber-ff19SB, and CHARMM36 Force Fields for Ionic and Electroosmotic Flows in Biological Nanopores

Blasco Morozzo della Rocca, Mauro Chinappi, Federico Iacovelli, Simone Gargano, Domingo Francesco Iacoviello
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Molecular dynamics has been widely used in nanofluidics as it provides an atomistic description of fluid transport that cannot be achieved experimentally. The interactions among atoms are modeled by empirical force fields whose reliability for a specific problem must be tested against experimental evidence. Such validation is often difficult to obtain in nanofluidics due to the challenges associated with measuring nanoscale flows. Here, we systematically compare three popular force fields (CHARMM36, Amber-ff14SB, both with TIP3P water, and Amber-ff19SB with the OPC water) in terms of their electrohydrodynamical outputs. As test cases, we used CytK and MspA, two biological nanopores employed in sensing. For each nanopore, we simulated one cation-selective and one anion-selective mutant. Our results show that while, overall, the anion/cation selectivity and the direction of electroosmosis are coherent across the force fields, quantitative differences are observed. These differences cannot be simply explained by the transport properties of the solution, such as the ion conductivity and viscosity. For narrow pores such as MspA, these differences can become so significant as to yield qualitatively different outcomes; for example, one force field may predict no detectable electroosmosis while another shows a clear electroosmotic flow.

Journal of Chemical Theory and ComputationVol. 21(22)
University of Rome Tor Vergata (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Nanopore and Nanochannel Transport Studies
1.35
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Comparison among Amber-ff14SB, Amber-ff19SB, and CHARMM36 Force Fields for Ionic and Electroosmotic Flows in Biological Nanopores — Blasco Morozzo della Rocca, Mauro Chinappi, et al. · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS