1: 

2: \documentstyle[aps,overcite,graphics,multicol,array,epic,eepic,amsmath]{revtex}

3: 

4: \setlength{\topmargin}{0.01in}

5: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2.0}

6: \begin{document}

7: 

8: \def\M{{\bf M}}

9: \def\A{{\bf A}}

10: \def\B{{\bf B}}

11: \def\F{{\bf F}}

12: \def\X{{\bf X}}

13: \def\H{{\bf H}}

14: \def\R{{\bf R}}

15: \def\S{{\bf S}}

16: \def\U{{\bf U}}

17: \def\u{{\bf u}}

18: \def\t{{\bf t}}

19: \def\x{{\bf x}}

20: \def\ab{{\bf a}}

21: \def\bb{{\bf b}}

22: \def\eb{{\bf e}}

23: \def\fb{{\bf f}}

24: \def\gb{{\bf g}}

25: \def\lb{{\bf l}}

26: \def\yb{{\bf y}}

27: \def\zb{{\bf z}}

28: \def\db{{\bf d}}

29: \def\zero{{\mbox{\bf $0$}}}

30: \def\kk{{\bf k}}

31: \def\vv{{\bf v}}

32: \def\qq{{\bf q}}

33: \def\rr{{\bf r}}

34: \def\pp{{\bf p}}          

35: \def\P{{\bf P}}

36: \def\E{{\bf E}}

37: \def\I{{\bf I}}

38: \def\J{{\bf J}}

39: \def\T{{\bf T}}

40: \def\Pt{{\tilde{P}}}

41: \def\Qt{{\tilde{Q}}}

42: \def\Li{{\cal{L}}}

43: \def\gradrn{{\nabla_{{\bf{R}}^{N}}}}

44: \def\gradrj{{\nabla_{{\bf{R}}_{j}}}}

45: \def\gradpn{{\nabla_{{\bf{P}}^{N}}}}

46: \def\gradpj{{\nabla_{{\bf{P}}_{j}}}}

47: \def\odagger{{\cal O}^{\dagger}}

48: \def\btau{\mathbf{\tau}}

49: \def\bphi{\mbox{\boldmath{$\phi$}}}

50: \def\btheta{ \mbox{\boldmath{$\theta$}}  } 

51: \def\hP{{\hat{P}}}

52: \def\hp{{\hat{p}}}

53: \def\hq{{\hat{q}}}

54: \def\hQ{{\hat{Q}}}

55: \def\hB{{\hat{B}}}

56: \def\hH{{\hat{H}}}

57: \def\Lo{{{\cal L}}}

58: \def\ap{{\alpha^{\prime}}}

59: \def\bp{{\beta^{\prime}}}

60: \def\a{{\alpha}}

61: \def\b{{\beta}}

62: \def\at{{\tilde{\alpha}}}

63: \def\atp{{\tilde{\alpha}^{\prime}}}

64: \def\bt{{\tilde{\beta}}}

65: \def\btp{{\tilde{\beta}^{\prime}}}

66: \def\mut{{\tilde{\mu}}}

67: \def\nut{{\tilde{\nu}}}

68: \def\hmu{{\hat{\mu}}}

69: \def\hnu{{\hat{\nu}}}

70: 

71: 

72: \def\M{{\bf M}}

73: \def\A{{\bf A}}

74: \def\B{{\bf B}}

75: \def\F{{\bf F}}

76: \def\X{{\bf X}}

77: \def\H{{\bf H}}

78: \def\R{{\bf R}}

79: \def\S{{\bf S}}

80: \def\U{{\bf U}}

81: \def\u{{\bf u}}

82: \def\t{{\bf t}}

83: \def\x{{\bf x}}

84: \def\ab{{\bf a}}

85: \def\bb{{\bf b}}

86: \def\eb{{\bf e}}

87: \def\fb{{\bf f}}

88: \def\gb{{\bf g}}

89: \def\lb{{\bf l}}

90: \def\yb{{\bf y}}

91: \def\zb{{\bf z}}

92: \def\db{{\bf d}}

93: \def\zero{{\mbox{\bf $0$}}}

94: \def\kk{{\bf k}}

95: \def\vv{{\bf v}}

96: \def\qq{{\bf q}}

97: \def\rr{{\bf r}}

98: \def\pp{{\bf p}}          

99: \def\P{{\bf P}}

100: \def\E{{\bf E}}

101: \def\I{{\bf I}}

102: \def\J{{\bf J}}

103: \def\T{{\bf T}}

104: \def\Pt{{\tilde{P}}}

105: \def\Qt{{\tilde{Q}}}

106: \def\Li{{\cal{L}}}

107: \def\gradrn{{\nabla_{{\bf{R}}^{N}}}}

108: \def\gradrj{{\nabla_{{\bf{R}}_{j}}}}

109: \def\gradpn{{\nabla_{{\bf{P}}^{N}}}}

110: \def\gradpj{{\nabla_{{\bf{P}}_{j}}}}

111: \def\odagger{{\cal O}^{\dagger}}

112: \def\btau{\mathbf{\tau}}

113: \def\bphi{\mbox{\boldmath{$\phi$}}}

114: \def\btheta{ \mbox{\boldmath{$\theta$}}  } 

115: \def\hP{{\hat{P}}}

116: \def\hp{{\hat{p}}}

117: \def\hq{{\hat{q}}}

118: \def\hQ{{\hat{Q}}}

119: \def\hB{{\hat{B}}}

120: \def\hH{{\hat{H}}}

121: \def\Lo{{{\cal L}}}

122: \def\ap{{\alpha^{\prime}}}

123: \def\bp{{\beta^{\prime}}}

124: \def\a{{\alpha}}

125: \def\b{{\beta}}

126: \def\at{{\tilde{\alpha}}}

127: \def\atp{{\tilde{\alpha}^{\prime}}}

128: \def\bt{{\tilde{\beta}}}

129: \def\btp{{\tilde{\beta}^{\prime}}}

130: \def\mut{{\tilde{\mu}}}

131: \def\nut{{\tilde{\nu}}}

132: \def\hmu{{\hat{\mu}}}

133: \def\hnu{{\hat{\nu}}}

134: 

135: 

136: 

137: 

138: \title{An efficient Monte Carlo method for calculating ab initio

139: transition state theory reaction rates in solution}

140: \author{Radu Iftimie${}^{1,3}$, Dennis Salahub${}^{2}$ and Jeremy Schofield${}^{1}$}

141: \address{1. Chemical Physics Theory Group,

142: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto,

143: Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3H6}

144: \address{2. University of Calgary,

145: 2500 University Drive N.W.,

146: Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4}

147: \address{3. New York University, Department of Chemistry,

148: 100 Washington Sq. E., New York, NY, 10003

149: }

150: 

151: \date{\today}

152: \maketitle

153: \begin{abstract}

154: In this article, we propose an efficient method for sampling the 

155: relevant state space in condensed phase reactions. In the present method,

156: the reaction is described by solving

157: the electronic Schr\"{o}dinger equation for the solute atoms in the presence 

158: of explicit solvent molecules. The sampling algorithm uses a molecular mechanics

159: guiding potential in combination with simulated tempering ideas and allows thorough

160: exploration of the solvent state space in the context of an ab initio

161: calculation even when the dielectric

162: relaxation time of the solvent is long. The method is applied to the study of 

163: the double proton transfer reaction that takes place between a molecule of acetic

164: acid and a molecule of methanol in tetrahydrofuran. 

165: It is demonstrated that calculations

166: of rates of chemical transformations occurring in solvents of medium

167: polarity can be performed with an increase in the cpu time of factors ranging from

168: 4 to 15 with respect to gas-phase calculations.

169: 

170: \end{abstract}

171: 

172: \section{Introduction}

173: 

174: 

175: The concept of reaction mechanism plays a major role in chemistry

176: and represents a synthesis of our understanding of the way in which

177: different topological changes in the bonding structure of a reactant

178: or product are correlated as the reaction proceeds. 

179: Recent advances in ultrafast lasers\cite{FlemingPhysToday90,ZewailExperimental},

180: X-ray\cite{PermanScience98} and other spectroscopies as well as in

181: computational chemistry\cite{RosskyNature94,ClaryTheoreticalGasPhase}

182: have made possible the study of most gas-phase and some condensed-phase

183: reactions in molecular detail. However, most experimental investigations

184: of complex reaction mechanisms taking place in liquid environments

185: are still inferred from isotope and solvent (medium) effects on the

186: reaction rate\cite{KlinmanBiophys.,PageWilliams}. Consequently, the

187: interpretation of the experimental results as well as the reaction

188: mechanisms inferred are more controversial than those of gas-phase

189: reactions. 

190: 

191: Computer studies can be useful as a complement to experimental data

192: in cases where experiments alone cannot provide a definitive picture

193: of the mechanism of the chemical process. It is therefore desirable to

194: develop systematic computational approaches to carefully examine the relation between

195: isotope effects and reaction mechanism in condensed phase systems.

196: However, computational calculations of kinetic isotope effects in

197: condensed-phase reactions can become expensive due to a number of

198: difficulties. Some of the practical challenges involving the calculation

199: of kinetic isotope effects and reaction rates in solution are

200: associated with the fact that accurate descriptions of transformations in which chemical

201: bonds are broken and formed require time-consuming \emph{ab initio}

202: electronic structure methods. Computer time limitations become particularly

203: relevant when investigating ``rare events'' such as

204: chemical reactions, especially when the reactions are accompanied

205: by substantial differences in the structure of the solvent. To further

206: complicate matters, quantum effects such as zero-point vibrations and tunneling

207: effects are important in some chemical processes, such as proton transfer reactions.

208: Another technical problem in the simulations of reactive systems is

209: that the statistical resolution 

210: of calculations of the reaction rate depends on how many statistically

211: independent configurations are obtained during the simulation:

212: Simulations in which a large number of successive configurations have

213: similar configurations of the reactive core or of the solvent

214: molecules suffer from large uncertainties in the

215: calculated reaction rates, precluding any definitive interpretation of

216: the reaction mechanism.

217: 

218: It is therefore critical to develop methods which sample statistically

219: independent configurations along the reaction path rapidly and correctly.

220: In the case where the reaction path can be characterized by means

221: of a small number of reaction coordinates,

222: accurate, statistically well-resolved calculations of reaction rates

223: can be performed by developing improved methods for computing reaction

224: free energy profiles along these reaction coordinates.

225: A number of techniques for computing free energy profiles along reaction

226: coordinates have been proposed in the literature, including umbrella

227: sampling\cite{UmbrellaSampling}, thermodynamic integration in conjunction

228: with the blue-moon ensemble method\cite{BlueMoonMethod}, projection

229: methods\cite{ProjectionMethods}, variable transformation approaches\cite{VariableTransform}

230: and guiding potentials\cite{Iftimie1,Rothlisberger2000}. The use

231: of molecular mechanics-based guiding potentials was proposed simultaneously

232: and independently by Iftimie et al.\cite{Iftimie1} and Vondele et

233: al.\cite{Rothlisberger2000} and implemented in a Monte Carlo and

234: a molecular dynamics framework, respectively. The basic idea of the

235: method consists of using a ``fast'' \emph{molecular

236: mechanics} potential to guide a computationally intensive \emph{ab

237: initio} simulation. 

238: 

239: The Monte Carlo version of the ``guiding'' approach

240: in reference {[}\citeonline{Iftimie1}{]} was called the molecular

241: mechanics based importance function method (MMBIF). It was demonstrated

242: that the utilization of a reasonably accurate molecular mechanics

243: potential as an importance function decreases the correlation of an

244: \emph{ab initio} Monte Carlo calculation by two orders of magnitude.

245: The method was illustrated on a gas-phase formic acid-water system

246: in which the activated processes involved breaking and forming hydrogen

247: bonds\cite{Iftimie1}, and was successfully applied to calculate the kinetic isotope

248: effects in a model gas-phase intramolecular proton transfer

249: reaction\cite{Iftimie2, Iftimie3, Iftimie4}.

250: 

251: One of the major challenges in \emph{ab initio} simulations of reactions in condensed

252: phase environments is to thoroughly sample configurations of the

253: system when changes in the solvent occur on long time scales.  For

254: instance, in molecular dynamics simulations of proton transfer reactions in which the 

255: collective behavior of the solvent can strongly influence the dynamics

256: of the reaction, the sampling efficiency can be limited by long

257: solvent dielectric relaxation time. In essence, an independent

258: configuration of the system requires that the equations of motion be

259: propagated for a time which is longer than the dielectric relaxation

260: time.  Even simple organic solvents such as tetrahydrofuran, the

261: relevant solvent in this study, have dielectric relaxation times on

262: the order of $4$ ps\cite{relaxationTHF}, so that independent solvent

263: configurations are only obtained after several thousand elementary

264: propagation steps.  More structured solvents such as water, with a

265: dielectric relaxation time of roughly $8.3$ ps\cite{relaxationWater},

266: require even longer propagation for proper sampling of solvent configurations.

267: The long time scale of structural rearrangements in solvents pose a

268: serious challenge to \emph{ab initio} calculations even when the solvent is modeled using molecular

269: mechanics since each propagation step in the dynamics involves a

270: time-consuming \emph{ab initio} calculation.  Ideally, successive

271: configurations in a simulation involve drastically different solvent

272: and solute configurations.  This is only possible using an artificial

273: dynamics to generate the sequence of configurations.  One way to generate

274: relatively uncorrelated successive configurations is to apply

275: importance sampling ideas.

276: 

277: In this paper, the molecular mechanics-based importance sampling

278: method is adapted to calculate reaction rates of chemical processes in

279: condensed phases where collective motions of the environment can 

280: influence the quantitative features of the chemical

281: process and, in some cases, play a critical role in determining the

282: mechanism of a reaction. The Monte Carlo procedure involves separating the task of

283: sampling the configurations of the condensed phase system into two

284: parts.  The first part involves an efficient scheme of 

285: updating the solvent configuration while the second focuses on the

286: relatively slow \emph{ab initio} calculation of the reactive core. This

287: approach allows extensive sampling of the molecular mechanical solvent

288: without a significant increase in the overall computational work over

289: a gas phase \emph{ab initio} simulation.  The method is applied

290: to study the double proton transfer reaction in an acetic

291: acid-methanol complex solvated by tetrahydrofuran.

292: 

293: \section{Methodology}

294: \subsection{Motivation for the Model System}

295: The computational study of proton-transfer

296: reactions can be used to understand the conditions for the validity of

297: a well-known conjecture proposed

298: in the physical organic chemistry literature, stating that the breakdown

299: of the rule of geometric mean for kinetic isotope effects, which is a relation\cite{KohenJACS2002} involving

300: ratios of kinetic isotope effects corresponding to different isotopic

301: substitutions at the primary and secondary atoms, is a signature

302: of tunneling for both primary and secondary atoms\cite{KlinmanBiophys.,LimbachBook}.

303: The consequences of applying the rule of geometric mean to interpret

304: experimentally determined isotope effects are of far-reaching importance:

305: The inferred relationship between the rule of geometric mean and reaction

306: mechanism forms the basis for the proposal that \emph{multiple} \emph{intramolecular}

307: proton transfer reactions are likely to proceed via a two-step mechanism,

308: in contrast to \emph{multiple intermolecular} proton transfers which

309: are believed to proceed via a synchronous pathway\cite{LimbachBook}.

310: The same relationship is at the heart of the recent suggestion that

311: tunneling effects have played an important role in the design of the

312: active sites of some proteins\cite{KlinmanBiophys.,KlinmanJACS2001}.

313: 

314: Some of the most striking consequences of the rule of geometric 

315: mean\cite{LimbachBook,KlinmanBiophys.}

316: appear when studying multiple proton transfer reactions in condensed

317: phases. The study of reactions involving

318: the exchange of a pair of protons between two molecules may provide

319: insight into the dynamics of certain types of enzymatic reactions

320: in which several functional groups in the active center are properly

321: aligned so that concerted catalysis can occur. This type of catalysis

322: mechanism is called \emph{bifunctional catalysis} and is the principal

323: mechanism responsible for the several orders of magnitude increase

324: in the reaction rate in several important biochemical transformations

325: \cite{Dugas}. 

326: 

327: The double proton transfer reaction between acetic

328: acid and methanol is one of the simplest examples of reactions involving

329: an intermolecular exchange of protons between two molecules and therefore

330: is a good candidate for computationally investigating general aspects

331: of bifunctional catalysis.  The chemical processes occurring in a

332: solution of acetic acid-methanol in tetrahydrofuran (THF) have been

333: studied experimentally by Gerritzen and Limbach\cite{Limbach84}. The majority species in the

334: system consist of complexes formed from either a single molecule of acetic acid

335: or a single molecule of methanol hydrogen-bonded with a single molecule of solvent.

336: The minority species in the system consist of linear and

337: cyclic clusters of acetic acid hydrogen-bonded with methanol

338: and solvated by tetrahydrofuran. The double-proton transfer reaction

339: takes place along the hydrogen bonds of the cyclic clusters. When

340: the concentrations of acetic acid and methanol are reduced, the only

341: cyclic cluster formed within which double-proton transfer is experimentally

342: observed is formed from one molecule of acetic acid and a single molecule of

343: methanol\cite{Limbach84} (see Fig. 1).

344: 

345: In this work, we will focus only on

346: the intermolecular double proton transfer

347: which takes place in the cyclic cluster formed from one molecule of

348: methanol and a single molecule of acetic acid in a solution of

349: tetrahydrofuran (THF). The quantum nuclear effects due to the small mass

350: of the hydrogen atoms will be neglected here, and we will concentrate only

351: on the sampling issues. Once the sampling method is tested for classical atoms,

352: the method will be developed in a later article to include nuclear quantum

353: effects via centroid transition state theory using sampling ideas similar to those

354: used in our previous studies of malonaldehyde\cite{Iftimie2, Iftimie3}. 

355: 

356: 

357: \subsection{The QM/MM/Implicit solvent approach}

358: Since it is impractical to treat large systems quantum mechanically,

359: one is inevitably faced with the decision of how to combine \emph{ab initio}

360: electronic structure methods with more empirical approaches.  One

361: alternative to full \emph{ab initio} calculations consists of using a mixed

362: quantum-mechanical/molecular-mechanical (QM/MM) description of the

363: system.  However, in

364: general it is problematic to clearly define the physics of the

365: interface region between the quantum and molecular mechanical subsystems. 

366: In the best of circumstances, the separation can be made without

367: ``cutting'' a covalent bond.  For reactive processes in which the

368: reaction occurs in a small solute which can be simulated in isolation using \emph{ab initio} methods, 

369: the logical separation between the quantum and molecular mechanical

370: regions is at the solute-solvent level.  That is, the energies of the solute in which

371: the reaction is occurring are calculated using electronic structure

372: methods for the solute in the presence of the solvent, while the solvent energies are

373: described by molecular mechanical potentials.  

374: 

375: Even after this separation has been defined, one is faced with another

376: technical issue of how an infinite condensed phase system can be represented in a

377: practical fashion.  One common approach utilized in simulations of

378: condensed phase systems is to simulate explicitly a system consisting

379: of a solute surrounded by a small number of solvent molecules

380: periodically replicated in an infinite fashion.  Unfortunately, such a

381: periodic replication of the system introduces artifacts.  One such artifact

382: is the existence of spurious long-ranged correlations due to the

383: periodicity of the system.  In principle, such correlations could have

384: a large impact on the reactive process.  The use of periodic boundary

385: conditions also introduces complexity in the electronic structure

386: calculation itself when localized basis sets are used.  An alternative

387: approach is to use toroidal boundary conditions in which part of the

388: solvent is explicitly represented while the influence of the solvent

389: from regions far from the solute is implicitly incorporated.

390: 

391: In the present study we have utilized a quantum mechanics/molecular

392: mechanics/implicit solvent (QM/MM/continuum) approach, in which the

393: bond breaking and forming processes taking place in the solute are described

394: by including all solute electron-electron, electron-nuclei and nuclei-nuclei

395: interactions in an electronic Hamiltonian. The interactions between

396: the solvent molecules which form the first few solvation shells (in

397: practice, $343$ THF molecules)  are

398: described using a molecular mechanics potential. The electrostatic

399: interactions between the solute and the solvent molecules in the first

400: few solvation shells are incorporated into this approach by solving

401: the \emph{ab initio} electronic structure equations for the solute

402: in the presence of the electric field generated by the molecular mechanics

403: solvent charges. The total energy of the system also includes the

404: Lennard-Jones interaction energy between solute and the solvent molecules

405: in the first solvation shells, and the reaction field energy which

406: accounts for the long-range electrostatic interactions between solute

407: and solvent molecules (see Fig. 2). 

408: 

409: The simulations were performed using the

410: toroidal boundary conditions approach\cite{Neumann}, in which

411: a cutoff distance is used that sets the boundaries of the region within which

412: intermolecular interactions are explicitly counted.

413: Therefore, the only quantum electron-electron,

414: electron-nuclei and nuclei-nuclei interactions which were 

415: explicitly counted in the present treatment were

416: those which correspond to atoms separated by less than the cutoff

417: distance, here chosen to be $14$ angstroms.

418: 

419: \newcommand{\D}{\displaystyle} \normalsize

420: 

421: The effects of the neglected interactions in the toroidal boundary

422: conditions approach have been approximately accounted for by

423: adding reaction field corrections\cite{Neumann} to the electronic

424: energy\cite{Watts}:

425: 

426: \begin{equation}

427: \label{ReactionFieldEnergy}

428: E_{RF}\approx -\sum _{i}\frac{\epsilon _{r}-1}{(2\epsilon _{r}+1)R_{c}^{3}}\mu _{i}M_{i},

429: \end{equation}

430: where the sum is over all molecules i inside the primitive cell ,

431: \( \epsilon _{r} \) is the dielectric constant of the solvent, \( R_{c} \)

432: is the radius of the spherical surface, \( \mu _{i} \) is the dipole

433: moment of molecule \( i \), and \( M_{i} \) is the total dipole

434: moment inside the spherical surface surrounding the molecule \( i \). 

435: 

436: The correct energetics in hydrogen-bonded systems and in systems

437: undergoing proton transfer reactions

438: is difficult to describe even with \emph{ab initio} methods. In particular,

439: DFT studies of weak hydrogen-bonding systems have proved to be particularly

440: difficult and only limited success has been achieved in predicting the geometries and energies

441: for reactant and transition state configurations on

442: the potential energy surface using most exchange-correlation

443: functionals \cite{Barone}. Care should therefore be exercised when choosing a particular

444: \emph{ab initio} method to calculate proton transfer reaction rates.

445: The non-local exchange-correlation schemes developed by Proynov, Vela and Salahub

446: \cite{Proynov} have shown particular promise for the description of hydrogen-bonded

447: systems. Sirois et al. \cite{Sirois} have demonstrated that their kinetic-energy dependent

448: exchange functionals (BLAP and PLAP) performed better than all GGA options (BP86,

449: PP86, PW91), BLYP, or other hybrid methods (B3LYP, B3PW91) on systems involving

450: intra-molecular hydrogen bonds. The predictions

451: for equilibrium and transition state geometries as well as the energetics was

452: in agreement with high-quality post-Hartree-Fock calculations {[}CCSD(T) and

453: G2{]}\cite{Sirois}.  Specifically, for the gas-phase cyclic cluster of

454: acetic acid and methanol in Fig. 1, the activation energy using the

455: PLAP exchange correlation functional was found to be approximately

456: $16.4$ kcal/mol, in excellent agreement with the QCISD value of

457: $16.14$ kcal/mol\cite{Smedarchina}.

458: 

459: For the simulations described in the present work, the energies of different configurations

460: were carried out using a modified version of the LCGTO-DFT program deMon-KS3.4

461: \cite{Proynov2,deMon} using the PLAP exchange-correlation functional.

462: The DFT electronic structure calculations were carried

463: out as in reference [\citeonline{Sirois}], where the application of

464: DFT electronic structure methods to hydrogen-bonding systems is

465: discussed in detail.  A double-\( \zeta  \) plus polarization (DZVP) orbital basis set was

466: used for all atoms and the convergence level for the SCF (self-consistent field)

467: energy using the auxiliary fitting basis sets \cite{Sirois} was $0.01$ kcal/mol.

468: 

469: \subsection{The molecular mechanics potential describing the interaction between

470: the solvent molecules}

471: 

472: In order to implement the QM/MM/continuum approach to compute reaction

473: rates for the double proton transfer reaction in the acetic acid-methanol

474: cluster solvated by tetrahydrofuran, a sufficiently accurate molecular

475: mechanics description of the interaction between the solvent molecules

476: is needed\cite{Iftimie1,Iftimie2}.  In this work, the OPLS all atom

477: (OPLS-AA) force field of Jorgensen et al.\cite{Jorgensen} with a modified

478: electrostatic interaction term has been

479: used to describe the interactions between THF solvent molecules.  The

480: modifications to the electrostatics were designed to 

481: improve the gas-phase distribution of the partial charges in a THF

482: molecule as well as to improve the description of polarization effects

483: in condensed phases.  Since the local electrostatic environment as

484: well as long ranged polarization effects can influence the

485: proton transfer process, it is important to properly account for the

486: permanent and induced charges in the solvent.  To describe all such

487: electrostatic phenomena, all solvent molecules have been assigned

488: permanent and induced charges.

489: It can be demonstrated\cite{Thesis} using second-order perturbation

490: theory that the electrostatic interaction energy between

491: two polarizable molecules \( A \) and \( B \), each of which carries

492: a set of atomic permanent and induced charges, \( Q^{I}_{\, \textrm{p}} \)

493: and \( Q^{I}_{\, \textrm{in}} \), with \( I=1,\cdots N \)

494: corresponding to the charges on molecule $A$, and \( q^{i}_{\, \textrm{p}} \)

495: and \( q^{i}_{\, \textrm{in}} \) , where \( i=1,\cdots n \) are the

496: site charges on molecule $B$, respectively,

497: can be written to a good approximation as :

498: 

499: \begin{equation}

500: \label{TotalInteractionEnergyPermanentPlusInducedText}

501: V(Q^{1}_{\, \textrm{p}},\cdots Q^{N}_{\, \textrm{p}},Q^{1}_{\, \textrm{in}},\cdots 

502: Q^{N}_{\, \textrm{in}},q^{1}_{\, \textrm{p}},\cdots q^{N}_{\, \textrm{p}},q^{1}_{\, \textrm{in}},

503: \cdots q^{N}_{\, \textrm{in}})

504: \approx 

505: \sum ^{N}_{I=1}\sum ^{n}_{i=1}

506: \frac{Q^{I}_{\, \textrm{p}}q^{i}_{\, \textrm{p}}}{4\pi \epsilon _{0}d_{iI}}+\frac{1}{2}

507: \sum ^{N}_{I=1}\sum ^{n}_{i=1}\left( \frac{Q^{I}_{\, \textrm{p}}q^{i}_{\, \textrm{in}}}{4\pi 

508: \epsilon _{0}d_{iI}}+\frac{Q^{I}_{\, \textrm{in}}q^{i}_{\,

509: \textrm{p}}}{4\pi \epsilon _{0}d_{iI}}\right) ,

510: \end{equation}

511: where $d_{iI}$ is the distance between sites $I$ and $i$ on molecules

512: $A$ and $B$.

513: In principle, the induced charge appearing on a given solvent molecule

514: is dependent on its local environment.  One simple way of

515: incorporating solvent polarization effects is to assign each solvent

516: molecule the same average induced charge in a ``mean-field''

517: fashion.  More sophisticated methods of including polarization effects

518: either assign site polarizabilities or use fluctuating charges

519: distributed at specific locations on each solvent molecule\cite{RickBerne}.  Such

520: methods when combined with \emph{ab initio} electronic structure methods 

521: either necessitate an iterative solution of the electronic structure

522: and fluctuating charge distributions or involve dynamical methods in

523: an extended Lagrangian system\cite{Roitberg}.  Unfortunately, each of these

524: approaches has shortcomings which make them impractical to implement

525: in conjunction with importance sampling Monte-Carlo methods.  

526: 

527: In principle, the iterative minimization of the Kohn-Sham and

528: fluctuating charge functionals can be implemented within a Monte-Carlo

529: sampling approach at the cost of additional computational effort.

530: However, provided the solvent is not very polarizable, the variation

531: of the induced charges on the solvent molecules from their mean due to

532: the presence of the solute is expected to be small.  For this reason,

533: we have utilized fixed induced charges for all solvent molecules.

534: This corresponds to computing ground state energies for the reactive

535: core $E(\rho_s ({\bf{x}}))$ based on a Kohn-Sham functional\cite{HohenbergKohn,KohnSham,Levy} 

536: $F[\rho_s ({\bf x})]$ which depends on the ground state electron distribution  $\rho_s({\bf x})$ 

537: of the solute in the presence of the fixed permanent and 

538: induced external solvent charges. Note that this functional includes 

539: the electrostatic energy of interaction between the quantum solute and

540: the charges on the molecular-mechanical solvent molecules.

541: 

542: In general, one complication must be considered when discussing

543: electrostatic interactions in mixed QM/MM systems that arises from the

544: fact that the quantum mechanical electron density can become

545: over-polarized by the molecular mechanical point charges due to the

546: absence of considerations of the Fermi repulsion between quantum and

547: molecular mechanical charges\cite{Rothlisberger}.  Such effects

548: are particularly severe when using delocalized basis sets to

549: represent the quantum subsystem, but are less significant when

550: Gaussian or other local basis sets are utilized.  In the present work,

551: the full Coulomb interaction potential has been used to describe

552: electrostatic interaction terms between the solute and the solvent

553: charges without any screening

554: modifications at short distances since all DFT calculations for the

555: quantum subsystem use localized basis sets.

556: 

557: In our study of the acetic acid-methanol system in a THF solution, 

558: the permanent charges have been assigned the value

559: \( Q^{I}_{\, \textrm{p}}=q^{I}_{\, \textrm{p}}=0.887q_{\,

560: \textrm{opls}} \), whereas the induced charges are set to a mean-field

561: value of \( Q^{I}_{\, \textrm{in}}=q^{i}_{\, \textrm{in}}=0.239q_{\textrm{opls}} \) 

562: for all indices \( i \) and \( I \), where $q_{\textrm{opls}}$ are the

563: standard charges in the OPLS force field. It can be verified that the electrostatic

564: interaction energy calculated using

565: Eq.~(\ref{TotalInteractionEnergyPermanentPlusInducedText}) 

566: with this set of permanent and average induced charges is precisely

567: the electrostatic energy calculated using the standard set of fixed

568: OPLS charges.  On the other hand, by assigning a mean induced charge

569: to each solvent molecule, the computed values for the gas-phase dipole

570: moment and condensed phase dielectric constant are in better agreement

571: with the corresponding experimental values (see Table 1).

572: 

573: It should be emphasized that a less satisfactory means of describing

574: electrostatic interactions between the solute and the solvent would

575: consist of calculating the electrostatic interactions between the gas

576: phase electron distribution with the solvent charges.  In such a

577: scenario, the ground state electron distribution for the solute

578: interacts with the solvent via a Coulomb interaction of the form

579: \begin{eqnarray}

580: V= -\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon _{0}} \sum

581: ^{n}_{i=1}

582: \int \frac{\rho _{0}({\mathbf{x}}) q^{i}}{l_i(x)}  d\mathbf{x},

583: \label{bareInteraction}

584: \end{eqnarray} 

585: where $\rho _{0}(\mathbf{x})$ is the gas-phase electron distribution

586: and $l_i(x)$ is defined to be the distance between the ith charge

587: $q^i$ in

588: the solvent and the point $x$.  This approximation corresponds to 

589: calculating the solute energy in the condensed phase by a zeroth order

590: approximation for the electronic distribution of the solute, that is,

591: \begin{equation}

592: \label{InteractionSoluteSolventCorrect}

593: F\left[ \rho _{s}(\mathbf{x})\right] \approx  F\left[ \rho

594: _{0}(\mathbf{x})\right] + V.

595: \end{equation}

596: Such a description neglects the fact

597: that the ground state solute electron distribution is influenced by

598: the presence of the solvent charges.  The influence of the solvent

599: charges on the ground state energy can be accounted for by

600: incorporating a polarization energy of the solute by the solvent.

601: 

602: Although such a crude level of description of the electrostatic

603: interactions may be incomplete, it is useful in developing importance

604: sampling Monte-Carlo schemes based on guiding potentials, such as the

605: molecular mechanics based importance function method (MMBIF) described

606: in the next section.

607: \subsection{\label{SamplingMethod}The sampling methods }

608: 

609: The MMBIF method\cite{Iftimie1} consists of utilizing an auxiliary Markov

610: chain with a known asymptotic molecular mechanical distribution to propose trial

611: configurations for an \emph{ab initio} based Monte Carlo simulation.

612: In the method, each trial configuration is obtained as the last state in a classical Markov

613: chain generated from the current configuration in the \emph{ab initio} simulation

614: using various updating schemes. The proposed configurations are then accepted or rejected in the \emph{ab initio}

615: chain according to the usual Metropolis-Hastings algorithm\cite{Iftimie1}.

616: If the previous and new trial configurations in the \emph{ab initio} MC chain are

617: denoted by $\x _{old}$ and $\x _{new}$ respectively, the proposed state

618: is accepted with the probability

619: $\min \{1,\exp (-\triangle \triangle E/k_{B}T)\}$, where

620: $\Delta \Delta E$ is defined to be

621: \begin{equation}

622: \label{acceptance}

623: \Delta \Delta E=(E^{DFT}(\x _{new})-

624: E^{cl}(\x _{new}))-(E^{DFT}(\x _{old})-E^{cl}(\x _{old})),

625: \end{equation}

626: where $E^{DFT}(\x )$ and $E^{cl}(\x )$ are the potential energies

627: of configuration $\x$ calculated by \emph{ab initio}

628: methods (here density functional theory, abbreviated DFT)

629: and the classical potential, respectively, and $k_{B}$ is Boltzmann's constant. 

630: It is straightforward to show that

631: this acceptance criterion guarantees that the \emph{ab initio} Markov chain

632: has the correct limiting Boltzmann distribution\cite{Iftimie1}, regardless of the number of

633: classical updates used to generate the proposed configuration.

634: 

635: The efficiency of the MMBIF approach relies on constructing a

636: molecular mechanics potential for the entire system which approximates

637: the true interactions of the system at a qualitative level.  At first

638: glance, the construction of a molecular mechanics potential for a

639: condensed phase system appears a daunting task given that the electron

640: distribution of the solute changes considerably during the reactive

641: process and is influenced in a complicated fashion by its local

642: environment.  However, it is relatively straightforward to construct a

643: molecular mechanics potential based on simple approximate forms of the

644: interaction potentials, such as that in

645: Eq.~(\ref{InteractionSoluteSolventCorrect}).  For such forms of the

646: potential, the construction of the potential is reduced to modeling

647: the reaction in gas phase and calculating effective charges on the

648: gas-phase solute which mimic the correct electron distribution.  The

649: approximate form for the potential can be corrected for using

650: importance sampling methods.  For example, a Monte-Carlo chain of

651: states generated using an approximate expression for the energy can be

652: manipulated by re-weighting the configurations appearing in the chain

653: by an appropriate factor\cite{Iftimie2}.  The efficiency of this approach is highly

654: dependent on the quality of the approximation for the true energy of

655: the system.  One might anticipate that the crude of level of

656: description of the electrostatic interactions in

657: Eq.~(\ref{InteractionSoluteSolventCorrect}) which neglects any

658: polarization effects of the solute by the solvent molecules would

659: introduce large statistical uncertainties at the re-weighting step.

660: However, the polarization of the solute by the solvent can be

661: approximated by adjusting the charge of the solvent molecules in the

662: expression for the interaction between the solute and the solvent.

663: As will be discussed, the effective charge on the solvent molecules can

664: be designed to approximate solute polarization effects and thereby

665: improve the statistical resolution of the re-weighting procedure. 

666: 

667: The task of constructing a molecular mechanics potential for the

668: gas-phase proton transfer reaction is facilitated by using bond

669: evolution theory considerations.  Following these lines, 

670: the molecular mechanics description of the acetic acid-methanol complex 

671: in the absence of the solvent was created as suggested in reference {[}\citeonline{Iftimie2}{]}.

672: The total molecular mechanics energy was decomposed into two components.

673: The first component of the total energy was written as a sum of harmonic

674: potentials representing the variation of the potential with bond length,

675: bond angle or bond dihedral displacements from their minimum energy

676: values at a fixed value of the control parameter \( b \), defined by

677: \begin{equation}

678: \label{a_b_1andb_2Definitions}

679: b=d_{\textrm{O}_{7}\textrm{H}_{4}}-d_{\textrm{O}_{7}\textrm{H}_{6}},

680: \end{equation}

681: where the numbering of the atoms is that from Fig. 3.

682: 

683: The second component of the total energy was written as a sum of four

684: Morse potentials depending on the four \( \textrm{O}-\textrm{H} \)

685: bond lengths, plus two effective potentials depending on two parameters,

686: \( a_{1} \) and \( a_{2} \) defined as

687: \begin{equation}

688: \label{DefinitionAs}

689: \textrm{ }a_{1}=d_{\textrm{O}_{3}\textrm{O}_{7}}\textrm{ and }a_{2}=d_{\textrm{O}_{5}\textrm{O}_{7}}.

690: \end{equation}

691: These effective potentials account for the flow of electronic charge during

692: the reaction, as well as for the Fermi repulsion between the oxygen

693: atoms \( \textrm{O}_{3} \) and \( \textrm{O}_{7} \) , and between

694: \( \textrm{O}_{5} \) and \( \textrm{O}_{7} \). This second component

695: of the total energy was implemented using the same functional forms

696: as in reference {[}\citeonline{Iftimie2}{]}. As in the case of the

697: malonaldehyde study, no potential which depends explicitly on the

698: angles \( \widehat{\textrm{O}_{3}\textrm{H}_{4}\textrm{O}_{7}} \)

699: or \( \widehat{\textrm{O}_{5}\textrm{H}_{6}\textrm{O}_{7}} \) was

700: utilized, although some dependence on the angle \( \widehat{\textrm{H}_{4}\textrm{O}_{7}\textrm{H}_{6}} \)

701: was explicitly introduced using a functional form which interpolates

702: between a harmonic potential for transition state values of the parameter

703: \( b \), and zero for values of \( b \) characteristic for the reactant

704: or product configurations. The complete details for the construction of

705: the guiding potential for the solute can be found in reference {[}\citeonline{Thesis}{]}.

706: 

707: The simplest practical means of incorporating the electrostatic interactions

708: between the solute and the solvent molecules in the molecular

709: mechanics potential is to fit partial charges to atomic sites in the

710: solute to reproduce the gas-phase electronic distribution.  However,

711: since the electron distribution of the solute varies appreciably with

712: the configuration of the solute, the guiding potential must incorporate

713: solute charges which vary as the reaction proceeds.

714: In their bond evolution theory analysis of the tautomerization of

715: malonaldehyde, Krokidis et al.\cite{Krokidis} found that the

716: total charge in the basins of attraction of the proton and oxygen

717: atoms varies approximately linearly with a control parameter similar

718: to the parameter \( b \). 

719: Therefore, it can reasonably be assumed that most of the variation of the

720: charges on atomic sites in the solute can be explained by a linear

721: variation with \( b \).  

722: 

723: An alternative approach to incorporate the solute-solvent interactions

724: can be constructed using simulated tempering

725: methods\cite{MarinariParisi,Geyer1995}.  The advantage of this procedure

726: is that it does not rely on any approximation for the

727: variation of the fitted charges on the solute during the reaction.

728: The method essentially consists of using an extended state space to 

729: gradually turn on electrostatic interactions between the solute and

730: the solvent.  This approach is represented schematically in Figure 4.

731: 

732: In the simulated tempering method, a Markov chain is constructed whose

733: states (\( i,\mathbf{r} \)) are defined on the space formed by the

734: direct product between a finite set of ``electrostatic'' indices, \(

735: i=1,2,\cdots , i_{max} \)

736: and the entire solvent plus the solute configurational space. In vector notation,

737: the states \( \mathbf{r} \) will be denoted \( \mathbf{r}=(\mathbf{r}^{s},\mathbf{r}^{S}) \),

738: where \( \mathbf{r}^{s} \) and \( \mathbf{r}^{S} \) represent the

739: solute and solvent degrees of freedom, respectively. This Markov chain,

740: whose generic state is denoted (\( i,\mathbf{r} \)), is constructed

741: to produce states asymptotically distributed according to the

742: probability density 

743: 

744: \begin{equation}

745: \label{p(i,x)}

746: p(i,{\mathbf{r}})=w_{i}p_{i}({\mathbf{r}}),

747: \end{equation}

748: where \( w_{i} \) are constants which will be referred to as the

749: weights for the unnormalized probability densities \( p_{i}({\mathbf{r}}) \) defined by

750: 

751: \begin{equation}

752: \label{p_i(x)}

753: p_{i}({\mathbf{r}}) = \exp \left( -\beta E_{i}({\mathbf{r}})\right) ,

754: \end{equation}

755: where $\beta=1/k_{B}T$.

756: The potentials \( E_{i}({\mathbf{r}}) \) contain five components: the

757: \emph{ab initio} potential \( E^{s}({\mathbf{r}}^{s}) \) calculated

758: for the gas-phase solute configuration, the molecular mechanics potential

759: \( E^{S}(\mathbf{r}^{S}) \) describing the interaction between the

760: explicit solvent atoms, the Lennard-Jones potential \( E_{LJ}^{sS}({\mathbf{r}}^{s},{\mathbf{r}}^{S}) \)

761: describing the dispersive and short-ranged interactions between solute

762: and solvent atoms, the Coulomb electrostatic interaction \( E_{i}^{sS}({\mathbf{r}}^{s},{\mathbf{r}}^{S}) \)

763: between some charges on the solute atoms and the permanent and induced

764: charges on the solvent atoms, and the reaction field energies

765: $E_{RF}({\mathbf{r}}^{s},{\mathbf{r}}^{S})$ describing

766: the long-range solute-solvent electrostatic interactions:

767: 

768: \begin{equation}

769: \label{E_i(x)}

770: E_{i}({\mathbf{r}}^{s},{\mathbf{r}}^{S})=E^{s}({\mathbf{r}}^{s})+E^{S}({\mathbf{r}}^{S})

771: +E_{LJ}^{sS}({\mathbf{r}}^{s},{\mathbf{r}}^{S})+

772: E_{i}^{sS}({\mathbf{r}}^{s},{\mathbf{r}}^{S})+E_{RF}({\mathbf{r}}^{s},{\mathbf{r}}^{S}).

773: \end{equation}

774: 

775: The Coulomb solute-solvent electrostatic interaction potential between

776: charges $q^s$ on the solute and $q^S$ on the solvent, given by

777: \begin{equation}

778: E_{i}^{sS}({\mathbf{r}}^{s},{\mathbf{r}}^{S}) = 

779: \lambda_i \sum^{N}_{J=1}\sum ^{n}_{j=1}

780: \frac{q_{J}^{S} q_{j}^{s}}{4\pi \epsilon _{0}d_{Jj}},

781: \label{electroSoluteSolvent}

782: \end{equation}

783: where $n$ and $N$ are the number of charge sites on the solute and

784: solvent molecules, respectively, and $\lambda_i$ is a scaling factor

785: henceforth called the charge fraction.  Note that this interaction potential

786: depends on the choice of charges assigned to the solvent and solute

787: molecules.  In our calculations, the charges on the solute were fitted using the

788: Kollman-Singh procedure\cite{KollmanSingh} from the gas-phase electron

789: distribution of the solute.  The use of charges fitted from the

790: gas-phase calculation of the electron distribution does not account

791: for the polarization of the solute by the solvent.  To partially compensate for the

792: neglect of this effect, the total charge on the solvent molecules used

793: in Eq.~(\ref{electroSoluteSolvent}) is set to the sum of the permanent

794: and induced charges on the solvent, $q=q_p+q_{in}$.  This is in contrast

795: to the calculation of the electrostatic interaction between solvent

796: molecules in which the effective charges are set to $q=q_p+q_{in} /2$.

797: This approximation is consistent with first-order perturbation theory

798: in which the polarization energy of the solute by the solvent is

799: approximated by the polarization energy of the solvent by the

800: solute\cite{Thesis}.

801: 

802: Note that the only difference between the potentials \( E_{i}({\mathbf{r}}^{s},{\mathbf{r}}^{S}) \)

803: for different electrostatic indices \( i \) consists of the form of the electrostatic interaction

804: energy \( E_{i}^{sS}({\mathbf{r}}^{s},{\mathbf{r}}^{S}) \) between the

805: solute and the explicit solvent atoms. 

806: The energy \( E^{sS}_{1}({\mathbf{r}}) \) is chosen to be zero in this

807: work implying that $\lambda_1=0$, 

808: which amounts to turning off solute charges.  For this system all

809: electrostatic interactions between the solvent and the solute are

810: scaled to zero although the solvent and solute still interact through

811: Lennard-Jones potentials.  By design, the last electrostatic index

812: is set to unity, $\lambda_{i_{max}}=1$ so that

813: the energy \( E^{sS}_{i_{max}}({\mathbf{r}}) \) corresponds

814: to calculating the electrostatic interaction

815: between the solvent and solute atoms using the fitted configuration-dependent

816: solute charges obtained \emph{via} the Kollman-Singh method. The additional dimension

817: of the solute plus solvent state space represented by the

818: electrostatic index \( i=1,\cdots ,i_{max} \) 

819: ensures that the solvent configuration adapts smoothly to the solute

820: via a stepwise process in which the charges of the solute atoms

821: gradually interact with the other charges in the system.  It should be

822: noted that an equivalent result can be achieved by using a parallel

823: tempering scheme in which the label \( i=1,\cdots ,i_{max} \) corresponds

824: to a stepwise decrease of a ``sampling temperature''

825: associated with the solute-solvent electrostatic interaction.

826: 

827: In our implementation of the importance sampling, a Markov chain of

828: extended state space configurations was generated by two types of

829: transitions.  In transitions of the first type the electrostatic index

830: \( i \) was kept fixed while the configuration of the system 

831: \textbf{\( {\mathbf{r}}=({\mathbf{r}}^{s},{\mathbf{r}}^{S}) \)} was

832: updated using a transition matrix which leaves \( p_{i}({\mathbf{r}})

833: \) invariant.  The way in which the configurations were updated for

834: fixed electrostatic index was dependent on the electrostatic scaling

835: factor.  When the scaling factor was zero both the configuration of

836: the solute and the solvent were updated simultaneously using the MMBIF

837: approach.  The background molecular mechanics simulations used to

838: guide the updates were run so as to produce effectively independent

839: but energetically reasonable configurations of the entire system.

840: The simultaneous update of both solute and solvent configuration is

841: possible in the absence of electrostatic interactions between the

842: solute and solvent since the fitted charges are

843: not used in the molecular mechanics auxiliary chain.

844: However, after the calculation of the \emph{ab initio} DFT energy

845: in the acceptance-rejection step of the MMBIF method,

846: the fitted charges for the given solute configuration

847: can be calculated. When the electrostatic scaling factor is nonzero

848: and solute-solvent electrostatic interactions occur, the solvent was

849: allowed to adjust to the charge distribution on the solute by updating

850: the solvent configuration while maintaining the configuration of the

851: core reactive region unchanged.  

852: 

853: Transitions of the second type move the system through the auxiliary

854: parameter space by applying a transition matrix that changes the

855: electrostatic index while leaving the configuration of the solute and

856: solvent unchanged.  In this study, the method for

857: updating the electrostatic index \( i \) consisted

858: of using a Metropolis algorithm, with a proposal distribution in which

859: the proposed indices \( i_{\textrm{new}}=i_{\textrm{old}}+1 \) and \( i_{\textrm{new}}=i_{\textrm{old}}-1 \)

860: are equally probable. The proposed change of electrostatic index is rejected if \( i_{\textrm{new}} \)

861: is outside the valid range \( i=1,\cdots ,i_{max} \), otherwise it is accepted

862: with probability 

863: 

864: \begin{equation}

865: \label{AcceptanceCriterion}

866: \min \left[ 1,\frac{p\left( i_{\textrm{new}},{\mathbf{r}}\right) }{p\left( i_{\textrm{old}},{\mathbf{r}}\right) 

867: }\right] =\min \left[ 1,\frac{w_{i_{\textrm{new}}}}{\textrm{w}_{i_{\textrm{old}}}}

868: \exp \left( -\beta \left( E_{i_{\textrm{new}}}-E_{i_{\textrm{old}}}\right) \right) \right] .

869: \end{equation}

870: The marginal distribution of \( i \) with respect to the equilibrium

871: distribution is given by

872: 

873: \begin{equation}

874: \label{Choicew}

875: p(i)=\int p(i,{\mathbf{r}})d{\mathbf{r}} = \int w_{i}p_{i}({\mathbf{r}})d{\mathbf{r}}=w_{i}Z_{i},

876: \end{equation}

877: where the configuration partition function \( Z_{i} \) is defined

878: as

879: 

880: \begin{equation}

881: \label{Partition}

882: Z_{i}=\int \exp \left( -\beta E_{i}({\mathbf{r}})\right) d{\mathbf{r}}.

883: \end{equation}

884: If the distributions \( p(i,{\mathbf{r}}) \) are all to play a useful

885: role in sampling, the weights \( w_{i} \) should be chosen such that

886: a roughly uniform distribution over \( i \) is obtained. Since the

887: \( Z_{i} \) are initially unknown, suitable values for the weights

888: are found through a trial and error process using preliminary runs.

889: To do this, an iterative procedure can be used in which the Markov

890: chain is simulated using the current values for \( w_{i} \), and

891: the frequencies \( f_{i} \) with which each distribution is visited

892: are recorded. 

893: 

894: Next, new and improved weights \( w_{i'} \) are calculated as \( w_{i'}=w_{i}/f_{i} \)

895: for electrostatic index \( i \). If some of the frequencies

896: \( f_{i} \) are zero, various elaborations of the estimation procedure

897: can be used and some of them are summarized in reference {[}\citeonline{Geyer1995}{]}.

898: The number \( i_{max} \) of values of the electrostatic scaling

899: parameter $\lambda_i$ used and the actual values of \( w_{i} \),

900: \( i=1,\cdots ,i_{max} \) are chosen by minimizing the average computer

901: time necessary for a new solute configuration to appear with an

902: electrostatic scaling parameter $\lambda_{i_{max}}=1$.  A good

903: starting estimate for the numbers \( w_{i} \) and

904: \( i_{max} \) can be obtained by optimizing the weights and the number

905: of intermediate chains using only the molecular mechanics guiding

906: potential with a reasonable set of atomic charges on the solute atoms.

907: 

908: 

909: \section{Results }

910: 

911: To explore the issue of how importance sampling methods can

912: be effectively utilized in simulations of reactions in condensed

913: phases, two different implementations of the MMBIF sampling method

914: were analyzed.  In the first implementation, the dependence of the solute

915: charges on the reactive state of the system was taken to vary linearly

916: with the control parameter $b$ defined in

917: Eq.~(\ref{a_b_1andb_2Definitions}).  For this simulation, the

918: electrostatic interactions between the interpolated charges on the

919: solute and the charges in the solvent were taken to be Coulombic.  In

920: the second simulation, the simulated tempering method described above

921: was applied to the solvated acetic acid-methanol cluster.  Both

922: simulations generate chains of states asymptotically distributed

923: according to a Boltzmann distribution based on Eq.~(\ref{InteractionSoluteSolventCorrect}) in which

924: the solute-solvent electrostatic interactions are modeled by

925: calculating the Coulomb interaction between the gas phase electron

926: distribution with the charges in the solvent. In both simulations, the desired distribution

927: for the chain of states based on the universal Kohn-Sham functional

928: $F[\rho_s (x)]$ can be recovered at the end of the simulation by

929: re-weighting each of the $N_T$ total configurations by a configuration dependent factor

930: \begin{equation}

931: \label{reweight}

932: W (x_i) = \frac{ e^{-\beta \Delta E_{pol}(x_i)}}{\displaystyle{\sum_{i=1}^{N_T}e^{-\beta \Delta E_{pol}(x_i)}}},

933: \end{equation}

934: where

935: \begin{equation}

936: \label{DeltaEpol}

937: \Delta E_{pol} (x_i) = F[\rho_s(x_i)] - \left( F[\rho_0 (x_i)]+V

938: \right) = F[\rho_s(x_i)]-E^{s}(r_{i}^{s}) - E^{sS}(r_{i}^{s},r_{i}^{S})

939: \end{equation}

940: is the difference in the polarization energy of the solute by the

941: solvent estimated by calculating the energy of the ground state

942: electron distribution in the presence of the solvent charges and the

943: energy of a gas-phase electron distribution interacting with the

944: optimized solvent charges.  

945: 

946: In all simulations, the calculations for

947: the solvated cluster (shown in Fig. 3)

948: have been carried out by treating all nuclei as classical point particles. 

949: The calculations were conducted in the isobaric-isothermal ensemble at \( p=1 \) atm and \( T=298 \) K.

950: In order to improve the sampling along the reaction coordinate, an

951: umbrella potential\cite{UmbrellaSampling} was constructed for the

952: guiding potential using a self-adaptive scheme.  Simulations biased by

953: the converged umbrella potential yielded a uniform sampling of the

954: important regions of the reaction coordinate even though the

955: activation barriers for the proton transfer reaction was on the order

956: of $28$ $k_{B}T$.

957: 

958: Two thirds of the \emph{ab initio} Markov chain transition steps in

959: the simulation using the linearly-interpolated charges on the core were generated using the

960: MMBIF method. The same fraction of base transitions were generated

961: using the MMBIF updates when the electrostatic index is zero in the

962: simulated tempering simulation (see

963: Fig. 4). The rest of the \emph{ab initio} Markov chain transitions

964: were performed utilizing Metropolis single-variable updates using

965: the \emph{ab initio} DFT energy. As demonstrated in a previous study

966: {[}\citeonline{Iftimie1}{]}, the role of the Metropolis DFT updates

967: is to prevent the guiding molecular mechanics Markov chain of states

968: from spending a large number of successive steps in those regions

969: of the configuration space where the molecular mechanics density of

970: states in the solute configuration space substantially underestimates

971: the corresponding \emph{ab initio} DFT density of states.

972: 

973: In the previous studies of the formic acid-water\cite{Iftimie1} and

974: of the malonaldehyde\cite{Iftimie2} systems it was demonstrated that

975: a useful strategy for optimizing the MMBIF method was to separate

976: the variables to be updated in a classical MC step into several groups,

977: with strongly correlated variables grouped together. In the case of

978: the double proton transfer in the cyclic cluster formed by acetic

979: acid and methanol, the vibrations of the two methyl groups should

980: be relatively uncoupled from the motions of the other atoms in the

981: cluster. Applying this separation of which variables are updated in

982: the MMBIF method, the percent of rejections of proposed

983: configurations obtained with the MMBIF method was about \( 30\% \).

984: The percent of rejections of the transitions which employed single-variable

985: Metropolis updates using the \emph{ab initio} potential was \( 45\% \).

986: 

987: It is important to compare the computational effort of performing

988: liquid-phase versus gas-phase simulations of chemical reactions 

989: within the MMBIF approach.

990: The potentials of mean force obtained using the reaction coordinate 

991: 

992: \begin{equation}

993: \label{ReactionCoordinateMalonaldehyde2}

994: \xi =b=d_{\textrm{O}_{7}\textrm{H}_{4}}-d_{\textrm{O}_{7}\textrm{H}_{6}},

995: \end{equation}

996: describing the double proton-transfer in the acetic acid-methanol system

997: in tetrahydrofuran obtained in the first simulation and in a gas-phase

998: simulation are represented in Fig. 5. 

999: Although equal cpu times were spent in computing the two potentials

1000: of mean force depicted in Fig. 5,

1001: the statistical uncertainties for the activation energy calculated for the double

1002: proton reaction rate in the solvated system is approximately \( 2 \)

1003: times larger than the error bar for the activation energy calculated

1004: from the gas-phase simulation. This decrease in the statistical resolution

1005: of the computations in the solvated system with respect to the gas-phase

1006: system is due to a larger integrated correlation time of the overall

1007: Markov chain as well as to

1008: the fact that \( 50\% \) of the cpu time in the simulation of the

1009: solvated system is dedicated to calculating the molecular mechanics

1010: interactions between the \emph{solvent} molecules.  Although a single

1011: \emph{ab initio} calculation is roughly $4$ orders of magnitude slower than a

1012: single update of the configuration of the molecular mechanical

1013: solvent, the long dielectric relaxation of the solvent required that

1014: many updates be carried out on the solvent before an independent

1015: solvent configuration was generated.  This translated into an

1016: approximately equal amount of CPU time for the molecular mechanical

1017: and quantum mechanical components of the simulation.

1018: 

1019: The approximation of the variation of the charges fitted using the

1020: Kollman-Singh procedure with the solute configuration by a linear

1021: variation with the parameter \( b \) in Equation (\ref{a_b_1andb_2Definitions})

1022: proved quite accurate. The standard deviation of the differences between

1023: the electrostatic interaction energies calculated using these fitted

1024: charges obtained via the Kollman-Singh procedure and the same energies 

1025: calculated using solute charges which

1026: vary linearly with the parameter \( b \) defined in Equation (\ref{a_b_1andb_2Definitions})

1027: is \( 0.6 \) kcal/mol. This small deviation should be contrasted

1028: with the value of \( 4 \) kcal/mol representing the standard deviation

1029: of the values of the electrostatic interaction energy between the

1030: solute and solvent molecules (see Fig. 6).

1031: 

1032: The distribution of the values of the polarization

1033: energy difference \( \Delta E_{\textrm{pol}} \) defined in Eq.~(\ref{DeltaEpol})

1034: relevant for the final re-weighting of data points is plotted in Fig. 7.

1035: As expected, the values

1036: of \( \Delta E_{\textrm{pol}} \) are distributed over a small range

1037: of energy values of approximately $0.4$ kcal/mol. In fact, calculation

1038: of the activation energy in the double proton reaction rate in tetrahydrofuran

1039: without re-weighting yields an activation energy which differs from

1040: the activation energy in Fig. 5

1041: only by a statistically irrelevant value of $0.1$ kcal/mol.

1042: It should be emphasized that the small values of \( \Delta E_{\textrm{pol}} \)

1043: in Fig. 7 are in part a consequence of approximating the polarization energy

1044: of the solute by the solvent by the polarization energy of the solvent by the solute.

1045: We estimated that if the solvent charges used in Eq. (11) were set to $q^{S}=q^{S}_p+q^{S}_{in}/2$, 

1046: the standard deviation for \( \Delta E_{\textrm{pol}} \) would have been approximately $1.5$ kcal/mol.

1047: 

1048: The potentials of mean force for the double proton transfer reaction in

1049: tetrahydrofuran calculated using the linearly-interpolated charge approach

1050: and using the simulated tempering method are identical

1051: within error bars. However, if the error bars for the activation energy

1052: in the linearly-interpolated charge method is $0.4$ kcal/mol, they are roughly four times

1053: larger in the simulation using the parallel tempering algorithm for

1054: comparable cpu times. 

1055: 

1056: The optimal number of electrostatic indices in the simulated tempering

1057: approach was found to be $i_{max}=4$. In the optimized setting

1058: for the simulated tempering method in which equal amounts of time

1059: were spent at all values of the electrostatic index, 

1060: the Gibbs free energy differences $\Delta G_{i,i+1}$

1061: computed for consecutive values of the index were found to be approximately $0.7$

1062: kcal/mol. The Gibbs free energy $G(\lambda)$ of the electrostatic interaction between the 

1063: solute and solvent charges have been estimated using Equation(\ref{Partition})

1064: and are plotted in Fig. 8 as a function of the

1065: fraction of solute charge $\lambda_i$ being turned on. 

1066: 

1067: Several comments are worth making about the results in Fig. 8.

1068: First, the partition functions $Z_{i}$ for the umbrella potential-biased

1069: ensemble from which the free energies were computed correspond to a 

1070: particular value of the electrostatic fraction parameter

1071: $\lambda_i$.  It should also be noted that although a difference in free energy between

1072: adjacent values of the electrostatic index of the order of $k_{B}T$ seems to suggest a low probability

1073: of rejecting swaps between consecutive values of the index, the actual rejection rate 

1074: was found to be significantly higher.

1075: The relatively large rejection rate is due to the fact that differences in free energy reflect the

1076: \emph{average} energetic \emph{and} entropic differences

1077: between thermodynamic states with different $\lambda $,

1078: whereas the acceptance probability in Equation (\ref{AcceptanceCriterion}) 

1079: involves only the difference

1080: in the energies of the actual configurations to be swapped. In particular, it

1081: was observed that the enthalpic $H(\lambda)$ and entropic $-TS(\lambda)$ contributions 

1082: to the Gibbs free energy $G(\lambda)$

1083: vary in opposite directions as the fraction of the solute charge $\lambda$

1084: increases from zero to one.

1085: These variations of enthalpic and entropic terms with the charge fraction

1086: can be visualized by comparing the results plotted in 

1087: Fig. 8 and Fig. 9.

1088: From the two figures it appears that $H(\lambda)$ increases and $-TS(\lambda)$

1089: decreases with $\lambda$. The opposite directions in which enthalpic and entropic

1090: terms vary with $\lambda$ is reflected in the mobility of the state $(i,{\mathbf{r}})$ of the

1091: simulated tempering algorithm in the $i$ (or $\lambda$) subspace.

1092: Turning our attention to Equation (\ref{AcceptanceCriterion}), note that

1093: an increase of $-TS(\lambda)$ with $\lambda$ suggests that for a large fraction of 

1094: configurations (i,{\textbf{r}}) transitions in which $i$ is \emph{increased} are

1095: accepted only if the ratio

1096: \begin{equation}

1097: \label{r}

1098: w_{\uparrow}(i)=\frac{w_{i+1}}{w_{i}}

1099: \end{equation} 

1100: is approximately unity, $w_{\uparrow}(i) \approx 1$. Such is the case for an

1101: important number of transitions from electrostatic index $i=1$ to

1102: electrostatic index $i=2$, for example, for which an increase in $\lambda$ is accompanied

1103: only by a small decrease and occasionally even an increase in energy.

1104: On the other hand, for a $\lambda$ near unity, a decrease of $H(\lambda)$ with $\lambda$ suggests that

1105: a large fraction of transitions in which $i$ is \emph{decreased} are rejected

1106: unless $w_{\uparrow}(i) \ll 1$. Such is the case in a large number of transitions which are attempted from

1107: the final index $i_{max}$ to $i_{max}-1$ for example, which are accompanied by a significant 

1108: increase in energy.

1109: 

1110: The choice of the weights $w_{i}$ suggested in Equation (\ref{Choicew}) represents

1111: a good compromise in the sense that transitions which increase and which decrease

1112: $i$ have an equal probability of being accepted on average. Nevertheless, this

1113: analysis points to the fact that if one uses the simulated tempering approach for

1114: the study of chemical reactions in solution, one should

1115: try to avoid turning on the charges of the reactive core all the way

1116: from zero to their final values. As enthalpic and entropic terms will always vary in opposite directions

1117: during the charging process, the sampling could become quite inefficient, especially

1118: when studying reactions in which there is a difference in the net charge between

1119: reactants and transition states, and not just in their dipole moments as in the present

1120: case.

1121: 

1122: However, this conclusion does not mean that the MMBIF approach used in

1123: the simulation with linearly interpolated charges 

1124: will always be more efficient than the simulated tempering method. The efficiency

1125: of the MMBIF approach relies heavily on the appropriateness of the postulated variation of the

1126: charges in a reactive system with the reaction coordinate. In the present study,

1127: the approximation of the variation of the fitted Kollman-Singh charges

1128: with the solute configuration by a linear 

1129: variation with the parameter \( b \) in Equation (\ref{a_b_1andb_2Definitions})

1130: proved quite accurate. However, such a simple relation could break down, especially

1131: when studying reactions with a net transfer of charge. In this case, we suggest

1132: using an approach which combines the benefits of both methods illustrated

1133: in the present study: the use of a simulated tempering approach in which

1134: the solute charge is gradually modified from a linear variation with the reaction coordinate

1135: to their actual values obtained via the Kollman-Singh approach.

1136:  

1137: 

1138: 

1139: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}

1140: 

1141: In this article, two important issues on the applicability of the

1142: molecular mechanics based importance sampling method to the study of

1143: reactive events in condensed phase environments have been addressed.

1144: One major concern in developing a successful implementation of the

1145: MMBIF approach is the ease of development of a sufficiently accurate

1146: molecular mechanics potential to guide the sampling.  Although a fully

1147: automated approach to generating guiding potentials for general

1148: reactions is still not available, it is encouraging to note that the use of the same

1149: principles of bond-evolution theory\cite{Krokidis} as in our earlier study of the

1150: malonaldehyde system\cite{Iftimie2} were adequate for designing a molecular mechanics

1151: potential for the acetic acid-methanol system.  This success is

1152: particularly impressive in light of the fact that the malonaldehyde and acetic

1153: acid-methanol systems differ substantially not only in their barrier

1154: heights (by a factor of $4$), but also in the qualitative nature of

1155: the chemical event (one proton versus two protons transferred).

1156: It suggests that bond-evolution theory guidelines are likely to be practical in developing molecular

1157: mechanics potentials for other proton transfer reactions, and for possibly

1158: other types of chemical events.

1159: 

1160: The study of the double proton transfer reaction between acetic acid

1161: and methanol in tetrahydrofuran also demonstrates that the MMBIF

1162: method can be applied in reaction rate calculations

1163: of chemical transformations in solvents of medium polarity.  In

1164: particular, an increase in the CPU time of factors  of $4$ and $15$

1165: with respect to gas-phase calculations were obtained using two different

1166: sampling methods. Hence, we conclude that it should be possible in many instances

1167: to compute solvent mediated reaction rates with statistical accuracies

1168: comparable to those obtained in gas-phase calculations, even though the complexity

1169: of the calculation is increased enormously by the presence of the solvent.

1170: 

1171: It should be emphasized that the contribution of the solvent to the

1172: total activation energy in the present study is only on the order of a

1173: few factors of $k_{B}T$ at room temperature.  As a result, the actual

1174: mechanism of the proton transfer event is virtually unchanged from the

1175: process in gas phase.  This simplification allowed the separation of

1176: the reactive \emph{ab initio} core and the solvent degrees of freedom 

1177: into effectively disjoint sets which were updated in isolation in the

1178: parallel tempering implementation of the sampling.

1179: In many cases, the structure of the solvent plays a more substantial

1180: role in the reactive process.  Under such circumstances, care must be

1181: taken to devise methods in which the reactive core and the solvent

1182: structure are updated in a more correlated fashion.  For example, for

1183: a reaction in a solvent with a larger dielectric constant, the

1184: simulated tempering approach can be implemented by incorporating simultaneous

1185: MMBIF updates of the solute and solvent degrees of freedom at each

1186: electrostatic index.

1187: 

1188: It is informative to compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages

1189: of using the MMBIF method versus using present day molecular dynamics

1190: based methods for calculating reaction rates in solution using a hybrid

1191: QM/MM approach. The practical use of the simple molecular dynamics

1192: methods for sampling configurations of a system containing a reactive

1193: core which is described using \emph{ab initio} electronic structure

1194: methods and the solvent molecules which are described using a molecular

1195: mechanics potential is limited by the fact that calculating the time-evolution

1196: of the system necessitates the computation of the time-consuming

1197: \emph{ab initio} forces acting on the core atoms. These time-consuming

1198: calculations must be performed in traditional molecular dynamics calculations

1199: even when only the solvent degrees of freedom change significantly. 

1200: 

1201: Several methods have been proposed for circumventing the inefficiency

1202: of the traditional QM/MM molecular dynamics calculations which are

1203: based on an ``artificial'' separation of time scales

1204: associated with the solute and solvent atoms\cite{TuckermanJCP2002,RothlisbergerJPCB2001}.

1205: The central idea of these methods is to use a large mass in conjunction

1206: with a high temperature thermostat for the solute atoms, whereas the

1207: solvent atoms have usual masses and are in contact with a room temperature

1208: thermostat\cite{TuckermanJCP2002,RothlisbergerJPCB2001}. The large

1209: mass of the core atoms is chosen in such a way that the solvent degrees

1210: of freedom relax on a time scale which is much smaller than the time

1211: scale of the massive core atoms. Multiple-time scale arguments can

1212: be utilized to demonstrate that the integration of Hamilton's equations

1213: describing the evolution of the solute plus solvent system can be performed

1214: by computing the forces acting on the solvent degrees of freedom significantly

1215: more often than the \emph{ab initio} forces acting on the solute without

1216: altering the asymptotic Boltzmann distribution of the configurations

1217: of the system. In addition, the decoupling between the solute and

1218: solvent time scales enables the use of a large temperature thermostat

1219: coupled to the solute atoms without introducing an irreversible heat

1220: flow, thereby ensuring that the average kinetic energy of the core

1221: atoms is comparable with the magnitude of the reaction barrier which

1222: separates reactant and product configurations on the potential energy

1223: surface. Therefore, a relatively small number of \emph{ab initio}

1224: calculations must be performed before a reactive event occurs. 

1225: 

1226: Both the MMBIF and the modified molecular dynamics approach succinctly

1227: described above have a number of advantages and shortcomings when

1228: studying chemical reactions in solution which are essentially driven

1229: by fluctuations in the structure of the \emph{solute} using a QM/MM

1230: approach. The main disadvantage of the MMBIF method consists of the

1231: fact that a reasonable molecular mechanics description of the reactive

1232: event in the \emph{gas-phase} solute is required, and this molecular

1233: mechanics potential must usually be created from scratch. Nevertheless,

1234: once such molecular mechanics potential has been constructed, the

1235: cpu time necessary for calculating reaction rates in solution is essentially

1236: independent of the characteristics of the solvent such as its dielectric

1237: relaxation time. In contrast, the molecular dynamics approach does

1238: not necessitate prior information with respect to the potential energy

1239: surface of the cluster, although if such information exists, it can

1240: be used to improve the efficiency of the sampling\cite{TuckermanJCP2002,RothlisbergerJPCB2001}.

1241: However, the average time needed to observe a reaction event increases

1242: as the square root of the effective mass of the reactive degree of

1243: freedom. On the other hand, given the requirement

1244: of the separation of time scales between the solvent and solute degrees

1245: of freedom, the characteristic time scale of the solute atom motion

1246: and therefore the lower bound for the value of the mass needed for

1247: the core atoms is \emph{determined} by the duration of the solvent

1248: dielectric relaxation time. Therefore, it appears that the efficiency

1249: of the above mentioned molecular dynamics scheme decreases with the

1250: increase in the solvent dielectric relaxation time. 

1251: 

1252: The methodology proposed in the present work can be combined with the ideas

1253: presented in reference {[}\citeonline{Iftimie2}{]} to include nuclear quantum effects 

1254: via centroid transition state theory with a supplementary increase in the cpu time

1255: by a factor of $2$ times the number of path-integral beads. Such a

1256: combination of procedures provides a rigorous and practical platform

1257: for calculation of kinetic isotope effects. An important goal for future

1258: work is to clarify the mechanistic origin of the relation between the breakdown of the 

1259: rule of geometric mean in multiple proton transfer reactions and tunneling effects.

1260: 

1261: \acknowledgements

1262: This work was supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering

1263: Research Council of Canada.  R. Iftimie would also like to thank the Ontario

1264: Ministry of Education for financial support.

1265: 

1266: 

1267: 

1268: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

1269: \bibitem{FlemingPhysToday90}G. R. Fleming and P. G. Wolynes, Physics Today \textbf{43}, 36 (1990).

1270: \bibitem{ZewailExperimental}D. Zhong and A. H. Zewail, J. Phys. Chem. A, \textbf{102}, 4031 (1998).

1271: \bibitem{PermanScience98}B. Perman, V. Srajer, Z. Ren, T. Teng, C. Pradervand, T. Ursby, D.

1272: Bourgeois, F. Schotte, M. Wulff, R. Kort, K. Hellingwerf and K. Moffat,

1273: Science \textbf{279}, 1946 (1998).

1274: \bibitem{RosskyNature94}P. J. Rossky and J. D. Simon, Nature \textbf{370}, 263 (1994).

1275: \bibitem{ClaryTheoreticalGasPhase}D. C. Clary, Science \textbf{279}, 1879 (1998).

1276: \bibitem{KlinmanBiophys.}A. Kohen, R. Cannio, S. Bartolucci and J. P. Klinman, Nature \textbf{399},

1277: 496 (1999); B. J. Bahnson, T. D. Colby, J. K. Chin, B. M. Goldstein

1278: and J. P. Klinman, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. \textbf{94}, 12797

1279: (1997); Y. Cha, C. J. Murray and J. P. Klinman, Science \textbf{243},

1280: 1325 (1989).

1281: \bibitem{PageWilliams}M. Page and A. Williams, \emph{Organic and Bio-organic Mechanisms},

1282: (Addison Wesley Longman, Harlow, England, 1997).

1283: \bibitem{UmbrellaSampling}G. M. Torrie and J. P. Valleau, Chem. Phys. Lett. \textbf{28}, 578

1284: (1974).

1285: \bibitem{BlueMoonMethod}E. A. Carter, G. Ciccotti, J. T. Hynes and R. Kapral, Chem. Phys.

1286: Lett. \textbf{156}, 472 (1989).

1287: \bibitem{ProjectionMethods}S. Melchionna, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{62}, 8762 (2000).

1288: \bibitem{VariableTransform}Z. Zhu, M. E. Tuckerman and G. J. Martyna, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{88},

1289: 100201 (2002).

1290: \bibitem{Iftimie1}R. Iftimie, D. Salahub, D. Wei and J. Schofield, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{113},

1291: 4852 (2000).

1292: \bibitem{Rothlisberger2000}J. Van de Vondele and U. Rothlisberger, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{113},

1293: 4863 (2000).

1294: \bibitem{Iftimie2}R. Iftimie and J. Schofield, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{114}, 6763 (2001).

1295: \bibitem{Iftimie3}R. Iftimie and J. Schofield, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{115}, 5891 (2001).

1296: \bibitem{Iftimie4}R. Iftimie and J. Schofield, Int. J. Quant. Chem. \textbf{91}, 404 (2003).

1297: \bibitem{relaxationWater}N. Nandi, S. Roy and B. Bagchi, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{102}, 1390 (1995).

1298: \bibitem{relaxationTHF}A. Chaudhari, P. Khirade, R. Singh, S. N. Helambe, N. K. Narain and

1299: S. C. Mehrotra, J. Mol. Liq \textbf{82}, 245 (1999).

1300: \bibitem{KohenJACS2002}A. Kohen and J. H. Jensen, J. Am. Chem. Soc. \textbf{124}, 3858 (2002).

1301: \bibitem{LimbachBook}H. H. Limbach, in \emph{Electron and Proton Transfer in Chemistry

1302: and Biology}, (A. M\( \ddot{\textrm{u}} \)ler, H. Ratajczak, W. Junge

1303: and E. Diemann, eds., Elsevier, New York, 1992).

1304: \bibitem{KlinmanJACS2001}M. J. Knapp, K. Rickert and J. Klinman, J. Am. Chem. Soc. \textbf{124},

1305: 3865 (2002). For a simplified treatment of the problem of the rule

1306: of geometric mean see also reference {[}\citeonline{KohenJACS2002}{]}.

1307: \bibitem{Dugas}H. Dugas, \emph{Bioorganic Chemistry, a Chemical Approach to Enzyme

1308: Action}, (\( 3^{\textrm{rd}} \) edition, Springer-Verlag, New York,

1309: 1996). One of the textbook examples of bifunctional catalysis in solution

1310: chemistry is C. G. Swain and J. F. Brown, J. Am. Chem. Soc. \textbf{74},

1311: 2534 (1952).

1312: \bibitem{Limbach84}D. Gerritzen and H. H. Limbach, J. Am. Chem. Soc. \textbf{106}, 869

1313: (1984).

1314: \bibitem{Neumann}M. Neumann, Mol. Phys. \textbf{50}, 841 (1983).

1315: \bibitem{Watts}R. O. Watts, Mol. Phys. \textbf{28}, 1069 (1974).

1316: \bibitem{Barone}V. Barone and C. Adamo, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{105}, 11007, (1996).

1317: \bibitem{Proynov}E. I. Proynov, A. Vela and D. R. Salahub, Chem. Phys. Lett. \textbf{230}, 419,

1318: (1994); \textbf{234}, 462(E), (1995).

1319: \bibitem{Sirois}S. Sirois, E. I. Proynov, D. T. Nguyen and D. R. Salahub, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{107},

1320: 6770, (1997).

1321: \bibitem{Smedarchina}A. Fern\'{a}ndez-Ramos, Z. Smedarchina and

1322: J. Rodr\'{\i}guez-Otero, J. Chem. Phys \textbf{114}, 1567 (2001).

1323: \bibitem{Proynov2}E. I. Proynov, S. Sirois and D. R. Salahub, Int. J. Quantum Chem. \textbf{64},

1324: 427, (1997).

1325: \bibitem{deMon}

1326: For details on the deMon quantum chemistry package,

1327: see http://cvs.demon-software.com/public\_html/

1328: \bibitem{Jorgensen}W. L. Jorgensen, D. S. Maxwell and J. Tirado-Rives, J. Am. Chem. Soc.

1329: \textbf{118}, 11225 (1996).

1330: \bibitem{Thesis}R. Iftimie, Thesis, University of Toronto, (2001).

1331: \bibitem{RickBerne}S. W. Rick, S. J. Stuart and B. J. Berne, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{101},

1332: 6141, (1994).

1333: \bibitem{Roitberg}M.C. Gonz\'{a}lez Lebrero, D.E. Bikiel, M. Dolores

1334: Elola, D.A. Estrin and A.E. Roitberg, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{117},

1335: 2718 (2002).

1336: \bibitem{HohenbergKohn}P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. \textbf{136}, B864 (1964).

1337: \bibitem{KohnSham}W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. \textbf{140}, A1133 (1965).

1338: \bibitem{Levy}M. Levy, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA \textbf{76}, 6062

1339: (1979).

1340: \bibitem{Rothlisberger} A. Laio, J. VandeVondele, and

1341: U. Rothlisberger, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{116}, 6941 (2002).

1342: \bibitem{Reichardt}C. Reichardt, \emph{Solvents and Solvent Effects in Organic Chemistry},

1343: (VCH, New York, 1988, Appendix A, Table A-1).

1344: \bibitem{Krokidis}X. Krokidis, V. Goncalves, A. Savin, B. Silvi, J. Phys. Chem. A, \textbf{102},

1345: 5065 (1998); see in particular the discussion in page 5070 and Figure

1346: 8.; X. Krokidis, S. Nouri, B. Silvi, J. Phys. Chem. A, \textbf{101},

1347: 7277 (1997).

1348: \bibitem{MarinariParisi}E. Marinari and G. Parisi, Europhys. Lett. \textbf{19}, 451 (1992).

1349: \bibitem{Geyer1995}C. J. Geyer and E. A. Thompson, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. \textbf{90}, 909

1350: (1995).

1351: \bibitem{KollmanSingh}U. C. Singh and P. A. Kollman, J. Comp. Chem. \textbf{5}, 129 (1984).

1352: \bibitem{TuckermanJCP2002}L. Russo, P. Min\'{a}ry, Z. Zhu and M. E. Tuckerman, J. Chem. Phys.

1353: \textbf{116}, 4389 (2002).

1354: \bibitem{RothlisbergerJPCB2001}J. V. Vondele and U. Rothlisberger, J. Phys. Chem. B \textbf{106},

1355: 203 (2001).

1356: \bibitem{Atkins}P. W. Atkins, \emph{Molecular Quantum Mechanics}, (Chapter 8, Oxford

1357: University Press, New York, 1987).

1358: \bibitem{Polarization2002}G. Tabacchi, C. J. Mundy, J. H\( \ddot{\textrm{u}} \)tter and M.

1359: Parrinello, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{117}, 1416 (2002).

1360: \bibitem{Bottcher}C. J. F. B\( \ddot{\textrm{o}} \)ttcher, Theory of electric polarization,

1361: vol. I, ($2^{\text{nd}}$ edition,

1362: Elsevier, New York, 1973), especially Chapter 4.

1363: \end{thebibliography}

1364: 

1365: \newpage

1366: \begin{center}

1367: Figure Captions

1368: \end{center}

1369: Figure 1:  The formation of two cyclic clusters involving one or

1370: two acetic acid molecules and one molecule of methanol. The double-proton 

1371: transfer reaction studied here

1372: takes place along the hydrogen bonds of the cyclic cluster formed from 

1373: one molecule of acetic acid and one molecule of methanol.

1374: 

1375: \vspace{.1in}

1376: \noindent

1377: Figure 2:  A pictorial view of the QM/MM/continuum solvent

1378: method and of the reaction field approach. The ``reactive

1379: core'' region contains a quantum representation (i.e: nuclei

1380: + electrons) of the atoms which are involved in the actual covalent

1381: bond-breaking and bond-forming events. The ``explicit solvent''

1382: region contains an atomic representation of the first few shells of

1383: solvent molecules. The effects of the solvent molecules which are

1384: far from the reaction center are included in an implicit manner in

1385: the QM/MM/continuum approach using the reaction field method. In our

1386: implementation, the reaction field method consists of calculating

1387: an effective electrostatic interaction between the dipole moments

1388: of the molecules inside the first two regions (see Equation {[}\ref{ReactionFieldEnergy}{]}).

1389: 

1390: \vspace{.1in}

1391: \noindent

1392: Figure 3: The structures of the reactant, transition

1393: state and product in the gas-phase double-proton transfer reaction.

1394: 

1395: \vspace{.1in}

1396: \noindent

1397: Figure 4: A schematic representation of

1398: the simulated tempering method which uses the MMBIF approach to generate

1399: configurations of the system in a simulation where solute polarizability

1400: is neglected.  The values of the electrostatic scaling parameter $\lambda_i$ for electrostatic indices $i=1 \cdots

1401: i_{max}$ are gradually increased from zero to one.

1402: 

1403: \vspace{.1in}

1404: \noindent

1405: Figure 5:  The calculated potentials of

1406: mean force for the double-proton transfer reaction in the acetic acid-methanol

1407: cluster in gas-phase and in a solution of tetrahydrofuran using the

1408: reaction coordinate \protect\( \xi \protect \) defined in Equation

1409: (\ref{ReactionCoordinateMalonaldehyde2}). Note that the difference

1410: between the activation energies is approximately \protect\( 0.8\protect \)

1411: kcal/mol. This difference is larger than the width of the \protect\( 75\%\protect \)

1412: confidence intervals for the activation energies, which have been

1413: estimated to be \protect\( 0.2\protect \) kcal/mol for the gas-phase

1414: and \protect\( 0.4\protect \) kcal/mol for the liquid-phase

1415: simulations (inset).

1416: 

1417: \vspace{.1in}

1418: \noindent

1419: Figure 6:  The values of the

1420: electrostatic interaction energy between the solute and solvent molecules

1421: obtained for $\lambda=1$ in the simulated tempering method in which

1422: the solute charges are the gas-phase Kollman-Singh charges. Note that

1423: the values of the solute-solvent electrostatic interaction energies

1424: are scattered over an energy range of approximately \protect\( 4\protect \)

1425: kcal/mol. In contrast, the differences in the electrostatic interaction

1426: energies calculated using the Kollman-Singh charges and the same energies

1427: calculated using solute charges which vary linearly with the parameter

1428: \protect\( b\protect \) defined in Equation (\ref{a_b_1andb_2Definitions})

1429: are scattered over an interval of only \protect\( 0.6\protect \)

1430: kcal/mol (data not shown).

1431: 

1432: \vspace{.1in}

1433: \noindent

1434: Figure 7:  The values of the

1435: polarization energy difference \protect\( \Delta E_{\textrm{pol}}\protect \)

1436: defined in Equation (\ref{DeltaEpol}). Note

1437: that the distribution of values is centered roughly at \protect\( 0\protect \)

1438: kcal/mol and has a small standard deviation of \protect\( 0.4\protect \)

1439: kcal/mol.

1440: 

1441: \vspace{.1in}

1442: \noindent

1443: Figure 8:  The free electrostatic interaction energy

1444: between an acetic acid-methanol complex and molecules

1445: of tetrahydrofuran solvent as a function of the charge

1446: state of the complex. $\lambda=0$ and $\lambda=1$ correspond to

1447: fully uncharged and charged solute. The stars and diamonds represent

1448: the estimated values of the free energy obtained from the preliminary

1449: and from the optimized simulated tempering runs, respectively. The continous

1450: line represents a spline interpolation between the computed values.

1451: 

1452: \vspace{.1in}

1453: \noindent

1454: Figure 9:  The normalized probability density

1455: of the solvent-solute electrostatic interaction energy on for

1456: electrostatic indices $i=2$ (solid curve),

1457: $i=3$ (long dashed curve) and $i=4$ (dashed curve). Note that the enthalpies,

1458: calculated as the average solute-solvent electrostatic interaction energies,

1459: are approximately $-1.0$, $-2.4$ and

1460: $-3.5$ kcal/mol. Comparing these results with the corresponding free energies in 

1461: Fig. 8 one obtains the corresponding entropies as

1462: being $0.3$, $1.0$ and $1.4$ kcal/mol. The variations in the mechanical work

1463: $pV$ with the number of chain are negligible.

1464: 

1465: 

1466: \newpage

1467: \begin{table}

1468: 

1469: \caption{\label{OPLSAAExperimentalModOPLSAA}The values of the gas-phase dipole

1470: moment \protect\( \mu _{g}\protect \) expressed in Debyes, and of

1471: the static dielectric constant \protect\( \epsilon _{r}\protect \),

1472: obtained by considering the OPLS-AA charges as permanent charges,

1473: obtained from our modified version of the OPLS-AA force field (see

1474: text) which accounts approximately for electronic polarization effects,

1475: and from experimental data from reference {[}\citeonline{Reichardt}{]}.}

1476: 

1477: \vspace{0.3cm}

1478: 

1479: \begin{centering}

1480: 

1481: \setlength{\extrarowheight}{6pt}

1482: 

1483: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

1484: \hline 

1485: &

1486: OPLS-AA&

1487: Modified OPLS-AA&

1488: Experimental\\

1489: \hline

1490: \hline 

1491: \( \mu _{g}(D) \)&

1492: \( 1.97 \)&

1493: \( 1.76 \)&

1494: \( 1.75 \)\\

1495: \hline 

1496: \( \epsilon _{r} \)&

1497: \( 6.15\pm 0.3 \)&

1498: \( 7.61\pm 0.38 \)&

1499: \( 7.58 \)\\

1500: \hline

1501: \end{tabular}

1502: 

1503: \end{centering}

1504: \end{table}

1505: 

1506: 

1507: 

1508: \end{document}

1509: 

1510: