ViewVC Help
View File | Revision Log | Show Annotations | View Changeset | Root Listing
root/group/trunk/langevin/langevin.tex
(Generate patch)

Comparing trunk/langevin/langevin.tex (file contents):
Revision 3340 by gezelter, Thu Jan 31 22:13:55 2008 UTC vs.
Revision 3352 by gezelter, Fri Feb 29 22:02:46 2008 UTC

# Line 1 | Line 1
1   %\documentclass[prb,aps,twocolumn,tabularx]{revtex4}
2 < %\documentclass[aps,prb,preprint]{revtex4}
2 > %\documentclass[aps,prb,preprint,amsmath,amssymb,endfloats]{revtex4}
3   \documentclass[11pt]{article}
4 \usepackage{endfloat}
4   \usepackage{amsmath}
5   \usepackage{amssymb}
6   \usepackage{times}
7   \usepackage{mathptmx}
8   \usepackage{setspace}
9 < \usepackage{tabularx}
9 > \usepackage{endfloat}
10 > %\usepackage{tabularx}
11   \usepackage{graphicx}
12 < \usepackage{booktabs}
13 < \usepackage{bibentry}
14 < \usepackage{mathrsfs}
12 > %\usepackage{booktabs}
13 > %\usepackage{bibentry}
14 > %\usepackage{mathrsfs}
15   \usepackage[ref]{overcite}
16   \pagestyle{plain} \pagenumbering{arabic} \oddsidemargin 0.0cm
17   \evensidemargin 0.0cm \topmargin -21pt \headsep 10pt \textheight
18   9.0in \textwidth 6.5in \brokenpenalty=10000
19 < \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
19 >
20   \renewcommand\citemid{\ } % no comma in optional referenc note
21  
22   \begin{document}
23  
24 < \title{An algorithm for performing Langevin dynamics on rigid bodies of arbitrary shape }
24 > \title{Langevin dynamics for rigid bodies of arbitrary shape}
25  
26 < \author{Xiuquan Sun, Teng Lin and J. Daniel Gezelter\footnote{Corresponding author. \ Electronic mail:
27 < gezelter@nd.edu} \\
28 < Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry\\
26 > \author{Xiuquan Sun, Teng Lin and J. Daniel
27 > Gezelter\footnote{Corresponding author. \ Electronic mail: gezelter@nd.edu} \\
28 > Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry,\\
29   University of Notre Dame\\
30   Notre Dame, Indiana 46556}
31  
32   \date{\today}
33  
34 \maketitle \doublespacing
34  
35 < \begin{abstract}
35 > \maketitle
36  
37 +
38 +
39 + \begin{abstract}
40 + We present an algorithm for carrying out Langevin dynamics simulations
41 + on complex rigid bodies by incorporating the hydrodynamic resistance
42 + tensors for arbitrary shapes into an advanced symplectic integration
43 + scheme.  The integrator gives quantitative agreement with both
44 + analytic and approximate hydrodynamic theories for a number of model
45 + rigid bodies, and works well at reproducing the solute dynamical
46 + properties (diffusion constants, and orientational relaxation times)
47 + obtained from explicitly-solvated simulations.
48   \end{abstract}
49  
50   \newpage
51  
52 +
53 +
54   %\narrowtext
55  
56   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
57   %                          BODY OF TEXT
58   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
59  
60 + \begin{doublespace}
61 +
62   \section{Introduction}
63  
64   %applications of langevin dynamics
65 < Langevin dynamics, which mimics a simple heat bath with stochastic and
65 > Langevin dynamics, which mimics a heat bath using both stochastic and
66   dissipative forces, has been applied in a variety of situations as an
67   alternative to molecular dynamics with explicit solvent molecules.
68   The stochastic treatment of the solvent allows the use of simulations
69 < with substantially longer time and length scales.  In general, the
69 > with substantially longer time and length scales. In general, the
70   dynamic and structural properties obtained from Langevin simulations
71   agree quite well with similar properties obtained from explicit
72   solvent simulations.
# Line 61 | Line 75 | the UNRES model, Liow and his coworkers suggest that p
75   study of met-enkephalin in which Langevin simulations predicted
76   dynamical properties that were largely in agreement with explicit
77   solvent simulations.\cite{Shen2002} By applying Langevin dynamics with
78 < the UNRES model, Liow and his coworkers suggest that protein folding
78 > the UNRES model, Liwo and his coworkers suggest that protein folding
79   pathways can be explored within a reasonable amount of
80   time.\cite{Liwo2005}
81  
# Line 76 | Line 90 | Because of its stability against noise, Langevin dynam
90   folding/unfolding studies and discovered a higher free energy barrier
91   between the native and denatured states.\cite{HuseyinKaya07012005}
92  
93 < Because of its stability against noise, Langevin dynamics has also
80 < proven useful for studying remagnetization processes in various
81 < systems.\cite{Palacios1998,Berkov2002,Denisov2003} [Check: For
82 < instance, the oscillation power spectrum of nanoparticles from
83 < Langevin dynamics has the same peak frequencies for different wave
84 < vectors, which recovers the property of magnetic excitations in small
85 < finite structures.\cite{Berkov2005a}]
86 <
87 < In typical LD simulations, the friction and random forces on
93 > In typical LD simulations, the friction and random ($f_r$) forces on
94   individual atoms are taken from Stokes' law,
95   \begin{eqnarray}
96 < m \dot{v}(t) & = & -\nabla U(x) - \xi m v(t) + R(t) \\
97 < \langle R(t) \rangle & = & 0 \\
98 < \langle R(t) R(t') \rangle & = & 2 k_B T \xi m \delta(t - t')
96 > m \dot{v}(t) & = & -\nabla U(x) - \xi m v(t) + f_r(t) \notag \\
97 > \langle f_r(t) \rangle & = & 0 \\
98 > \langle f_r(t) f_r(t') \rangle & = & 2 k_B T \xi m \delta(t - t') \notag
99   \end{eqnarray}
100 < where $\xi \approx 6 \pi \eta a$.  Here $\eta$ is the viscosity of the
101 < implicit solvent, and $a$ is the hydrodynamic radius of the atom.
100 > where $\xi \approx 6 \pi \eta \rho$.  Here $\eta$ is the viscosity of the
101 > implicit solvent, and $\rho$ is the hydrodynamic radius of the atom.
102  
103   The use of rigid substructures,\cite{Chun:2000fj}
104 < coarse-graining,\cite{Ayton01,Golubkov06,Orlandi:2006fk,SunGezelter08}
105 < and ellipsoidal representations of protein side chains~\cite{Fogolari:1996lr}
106 < has made the use of the Stokes-Einstein approximation problematic.  A
107 < rigid substructure moves as a single unit with orientational as well
108 < as translational degrees of freedom.  This requires a more general
109 < treatment of the hydrodynamics than the spherical approximation
110 < provides.  The atoms involved in a rigid or coarse-grained structure
111 < should properly have solvent-mediated interactions with each
112 < other. The theory of interactions {\it between} bodies moving through
113 < a fluid has been developed over the past century and has been applied
114 < to simulations of Brownian
115 < motion.\cite{FIXMAN:1986lr,Ramachandran1996}
104 > coarse-graining,\cite{Ayton01,Golubkov06,Orlandi:2006fk,SunX._jp0762020}
105 > and ellipsoidal representations of protein side
106 > chains~\cite{Fogolari:1996lr} has made the use of the Stokes-Einstein
107 > approximation problematic.  A rigid substructure moves as a single
108 > unit with orientational as well as translational degrees of freedom.
109 > This requires a more general treatment of the hydrodynamics than the
110 > spherical approximation provides.  Also, the atoms involved in a rigid
111 > or coarse-grained structure have solvent-mediated interactions with
112 > each other, and these interactions are ignored if all atoms are
113 > treated as separate spherical particles.  The theory of interactions
114 > {\it between} bodies moving through a fluid has been developed over
115 > the past century and has been applied to simulations of Brownian
116 > motion.\cite{FIXMAN:1986lr,Ramachandran1996}
117  
118 < In order to account for the diffusion anisotropy of arbitrarily-shaped
119 < particles, Fernandes and Garc\'{i}a de la Torre improved the original
120 < Brownian dynamics simulation algorithm~\cite{Ermak1978,Allison1991} by
118 > In order to account for the diffusion anisotropy of complex shapes,
119 > Fernandes and Garc\'{i}a de la Torre improved an earlier Brownian
120 > dynamics simulation algorithm~\cite{Ermak1978,Allison1991} by
121   incorporating a generalized $6\times6$ diffusion tensor and
122   introducing a rotational evolution scheme consisting of three
123   consecutive rotations.\cite{Fernandes2002} Unfortunately, biases are
# Line 121 | Line 128 | inertial correction term.\cite{Beard2000} As a complem
128   assumption of zero average acceleration is not always true for
129   cooperative motion which is common in proteins. An inertial Brownian
130   dynamics (IBD) was proposed to address this issue by adding an
131 < inertial correction term.\cite{Beard2000} As a complement to IBD which
132 < has a lower bound in time step because of the inertial relaxation
133 < time, long-time-step inertial dynamics (LTID) can be used to
134 < investigate the inertial behavior of linked polymer segments in a low
135 < friction regime.\cite{Beard2000} LTID can also deal with the
131 > inertial correction term.\cite{Beard2000} As a complement to IBD,
132 > which has a lower bound in time step because of the inertial
133 > relaxation time, long-time-step inertial dynamics (LTID) can be used
134 > to investigate the inertial behavior of linked polymer segments in a
135 > low friction regime.\cite{Beard2000} LTID can also deal with the
136   rotational dynamics for nonskew bodies without translation-rotation
137   coupling by separating the translation and rotation motion and taking
138 < advantage of the analytical solution of hydrodynamics
138 > advantage of the analytical solution of hydrodynamic
139   properties. However, typical nonskew bodies like cylinders and
140   ellipsoids are inadequate to represent most complex macromolecular
141 < assemblies.  There is therefore a need for incorporating the
142 < hydrodynamics of complex (and potentially skew) rigid bodies in the
143 < library of methods available for performing Langevin simulations.
141 > assemblies. Therefore, the goal of this work is to adapt some of the
142 > hydrodynamic methodologies developed to treat Brownian motion of
143 > complex assemblies into a Langevin integrator for rigid bodies with
144 > arbitrary shapes.
145  
146   \subsection{Rigid Body Dynamics}
147   Rigid bodies are frequently involved in the modeling of large
148   collections of particles that move as a single unit.  In molecular
149   simulations, rigid bodies have been used to simplify protein-protein
150   docking,\cite{Gray2003} and lipid bilayer
151 < simulations.\cite{SunGezelter08} Many of the water models in common
151 > simulations.\cite{SunX._jp0762020} Many of the water models in common
152   use are also rigid-body
153   models,\cite{Jorgensen83,Berendsen81,Berendsen87} although they are
154 < typically evolved using constraints rather than rigid body equations
155 < of motion.
154 > typically evolved in molecular dynamics simulations using constraints
155 > rather than rigid body equations of motion.
156  
157   Euler angles are a natural choice to describe the rotational degrees
158   of freedom.  However, due to $\frac{1}{\sin \theta}$ singularities, the
# Line 169 | Line 177 | $Q$ and re-formulating Hamilton's equations, a symplec
177   In order to develop a stable and efficient integration scheme that
178   preserves most constants of the motion, symplectic propagators are
179   necessary.  By introducing a conjugate momentum to the rotation matrix
180 < $Q$ and re-formulating Hamilton's equations, a symplectic
180 > ${\bf Q}$ and re-formulating Hamilton's equations, a symplectic
181   orientational integrator, RSHAKE,\cite{Kol1997} was proposed to evolve
182   rigid bodies on a constraint manifold by iteratively satisfying the
183 < orthogonality constraint $Q^T Q = 1$.  An alternative method using the
184 < quaternion representation was developed by Omelyan.\cite{Omelyan1998}
185 < However, both of these methods are iterative and suffer from some
186 < related inefficiencies. A symplectic Lie-Poisson integrator for rigid
187 < bodies developed by Dullweber {\it et al.}\cite{Dullweber1997} removes
188 < most of the limitations mentioned above and is therefore the basis for
189 < our Langevin integrator.
183 > orthogonality constraint ${\bf Q}^T {\bf Q} = 1$.  An alternative
184 > method using the quaternion representation was developed by
185 > Omelyan.\cite{Omelyan1998} However, both of these methods are
186 > iterative and suffer from some related inefficiencies. A symplectic
187 > Lie-Poisson integrator for rigid bodies developed by Dullweber {\it et
188 > al.}\cite{Dullweber1997} removes most of the limitations mentioned
189 > above and is therefore the basis for our Langevin integrator.
190  
191   The goal of the present work is to develop a Langevin dynamics
192 < algorithm for arbitrary-shaped rigid particles by integrating the
193 < accurate estimation of friction tensor from hydrodynamics theory into
194 < a symplectic rigid body dynamics propagator.  In the sections below,
195 < we review some of the theory of hydrodynamic tensors developed
192 > algorithm for arbitrary-shaped rigid particles by integrating an
193 > accurate estimate of the friction tensor from hydrodynamics theory
194 > into a symplectic rigid body dynamics propagator.  In the sections
195 > below, we review some of the theory of hydrodynamic tensors developed
196   primarily for Brownian simulations of multi-particle systems, we then
197   present our integration method for a set of generalized Langevin
198   equations of motion, and we compare the behavior of the new Langevin
# Line 192 | Line 200 | Theoretically, a complete friction kernel can be deter
200   molecular dynamics.
201  
202   \subsection{\label{introSection:frictionTensor}The Friction Tensor}
203 < Theoretically, a complete friction kernel can be determined using the
204 < velocity autocorrelation function. However, this approach becomes
205 < impractical when the solute becomes complex. Instead, various
206 < approaches based on hydrodynamics have been developed to calculate the
207 < friction coefficients. In general, the friction tensor $\Xi$ is a
208 < $6\times 6$ matrix given by
203 > Theoretically, a complete friction kernel for a solute particle can be
204 > determined using the velocity autocorrelation function from a
205 > simulation with explicit solvent molecules. However, this approach
206 > becomes impractical when the solute becomes complex.  Instead, various
207 > approaches based on hydrodynamics have been developed to calculate
208 > static friction coefficients. In general, the friction tensor $\Xi$ is
209 > a $6\times 6$ matrix given by
210   \begin{equation}
211   \Xi  = \left( \begin{array}{*{20}c}
212     \Xi^{tt} & \Xi^{rt}  \\
# Line 208 | Line 217 | fluid, it may experience friction force ($\mathbf{f}_f
217   rotational resistance (friction) tensors respectively, while
218   $\Xi^{tr}$ is translation-rotation coupling tensor and $\Xi^{rt}$ is
219   rotation-translation coupling tensor. When a particle moves in a
220 < fluid, it may experience friction force ($\mathbf{f}_f$) and torque
221 < ($\mathbf{\tau}_f$) in opposition to the directions of the velocity
222 < ($\mathbf{v}$) and body-fixed angular velocity ($\mathbf{\omega}$),
220 > fluid, it may experience a friction force ($\mathbf{f}_f$) and torque
221 > ($\mathbf{\tau}_f$) in opposition to the velocity ($\mathbf{v}$) and
222 > body-fixed angular velocity ($\mathbf{\omega}$),
223   \begin{equation}
224   \left( \begin{array}{l}
225   \mathbf{f}_f  \\
# Line 225 | Line 234 | For a spherical particle under ``stick'' boundary cond
234   \end{equation}
235  
236   \subsubsection{\label{introSection:resistanceTensorRegular}\textbf{The Resistance Tensor for Regular Shapes}}
237 < For a spherical particle under ``stick'' boundary conditions, the
238 < translational and rotational friction tensors can be calculated from
239 < Stokes' law,
237 > For a  spherical body under ``stick'' boundary conditions,
238 > the translational and rotational friction tensors can be calculated
239 > from Stokes' law,
240   \begin{equation}
241 + \label{eq:StokesTranslation}
242   \Xi^{tt}  = \left( \begin{array}{*{20}c}
243 <   {6\pi \eta R} & 0 & 0  \\
244 <   0 & {6\pi \eta R} & 0  \\
245 <   0 & 0 & {6\pi \eta R}  \\
243 >   {6\pi \eta \rho} & 0 & 0  \\
244 >   0 & {6\pi \eta \rho} & 0  \\
245 >   0 & 0 & {6\pi \eta \rho}  \\
246   \end{array} \right)
247   \end{equation}
248   and
249   \begin{equation}
250 + \label{eq:StokesRotation}
251   \Xi^{rr}  = \left( \begin{array}{*{20}c}
252 <   {8\pi \eta R^3 } & 0 & 0  \\
253 <   0 & {8\pi \eta R^3 } & 0  \\
254 <   0 & 0 & {8\pi \eta R^3 }  \\
252 >   {8\pi \eta \rho^3 } & 0 & 0  \\
253 >   0 & {8\pi \eta \rho^3 } & 0  \\
254 >   0 & 0 & {8\pi \eta \rho^3 }  \\
255   \end{array} \right)
256   \end{equation}
257 < where $\eta$ is the viscosity of the solvent and $R$ is the
258 < hydrodynamic radius.
257 > where $\eta$ is the viscosity of the solvent and $\rho$ is the
258 > hydrodynamic radius.  The presence of the rotational resistance tensor
259 > implies that the spherical body has internal structure and
260 > orientational degrees of freedom that must be propagated in time.  For
261 > non-structured spherical bodies (i.e. the atoms in a traditional
262 > molecular dynamics simulation) these degrees of freedom do not exist.
263  
264   Other non-spherical shapes, such as cylinders and ellipsoids, are
265 < widely used as references for developing new hydrodynamics theories,
265 > widely used as references for developing new hydrodynamic theories,
266   because their properties can be calculated exactly. In 1936, Perrin
267 < extended Stokes' law to general ellipsoids which are given in
268 < Cartesian coordinates by~\cite{Perrin1934,Perrin1936}
267 > extended Stokes' law to general
268 > ellipsoids,\cite{Perrin1934,Perrin1936} described in Cartesian
269 > coordinates as
270   \begin{equation}
271   \frac{x^2 }{a^2} + \frac{y^2}{b^2} + \frac{z^2 }{c^2} = 1.
272   \end{equation}
273   Here, the semi-axes are of lengths $a$, $b$, and $c$. Due to the
274   complexity of the elliptic integral, only uniaxial ellipsoids, either
275 < prolate ($a \ge b = c$) or oblate ($a < b = c$), can be solved
275 > prolate ($a \ge b = c$) or oblate ($a < b = c$), were solved
276   exactly. Introducing an elliptic integral parameter $S$ for prolate,
277   \begin{equation}
278   S = \frac{2}{\sqrt{a^2  - b^2}} \ln \frac{a + \sqrt{a^2  - b^2}}{b},
# Line 265 | Line 281 | ellipsoids, one can write down the translational and r
281   \begin{equation}
282   S = \frac{2}{\sqrt {b^2  - a^2 }} \arctan \frac{\sqrt {b^2  - a^2}}{a},
283   \end{equation}
284 < ellipsoids, one can write down the translational and rotational
285 < resistance tensors:
286 < \begin{eqnarray*}
284 > ellipsoids, it is possible to write down exact solutions for the
285 > resistance tensors.  As is the case for spherical bodies, the translational,
286 > \begin{eqnarray}
287   \Xi_a^{tt}  & = & 16\pi \eta \frac{a^2  - b^2}{(2a^2  - b^2 )S - 2a}. \\
288   \Xi_b^{tt} =  \Xi_c^{tt} & = & 32\pi \eta \frac{a^2  - b^2 }{(2a^2 - 3b^2 )S + 2a},
289 < \end{eqnarray*}
290 < for oblate, and
291 < \begin{eqnarray*}
289 > \end{eqnarray}
290 > and rotational,
291 > \begin{eqnarray}
292   \Xi_a^{rr} & = & \frac{32\pi}{3} \eta \frac{(a^2  - b^2 )b^2}{2a - b^2 S}, \\
293   \Xi_b^{rr} = \Xi_c^{rr} & = & \frac{32\pi}{3} \eta \frac{(a^4  - b^4)}{(2a^2  - b^2 )S - 2a}
294 < \end{eqnarray*}
295 < for prolate ellipsoids. For both spherical and ellipsoidal particles,
296 < the translation-rotation and rotation-translation coupling tensors are
297 < zero.
294 > \end{eqnarray}
295 > resistance tensors are diagonal $3 \times 3$ matrices. For both
296 > spherical and ellipsoidal particles, the translation-rotation and
297 > rotation-translation coupling tensors are zero.
298  
299   \subsubsection{\label{introSection:resistanceTensorRegularArbitrary}\textbf{The Resistance Tensor for Arbitrary Shapes}}
300 < Unlike spherical and other simply shaped molecules, there is no
301 < analytical solution for the friction tensor for arbitrarily shaped
302 < rigid molecules. The ellipsoid of revolution model and general
287 < triaxial ellipsoid model have been used to approximate the
300 > There is no analytical solution for the friction tensor for rigid
301 > molecules of arbitrary shape. The ellipsoid of revolution and general
302 > triaxial ellipsoid models have been widely used to approximate the
303   hydrodynamic properties of rigid bodies. However, the mapping from all
304 < possible ellipsoidal spaces, $r$-space, to all possible combination of
305 < rotational diffusion coefficients, $D$-space, is not
304 > possible ellipsoidal spaces ($r$-space) to all possible combinations
305 > of rotational diffusion coefficients ($D$-space) is not
306   unique.\cite{Wegener1979} Additionally, because there is intrinsic
307 < coupling between translational and rotational motion of rigid bodies,
308 < general ellipsoids are not always suitable for modeling arbitrarily
309 < shaped rigid molecules.  A number of studies have been devoted to
310 < determining the friction tensor for irregularly shaped rigid bodies
311 < using more advanced methods where the molecule of interest was modeled
312 < by a combinations of spheres\cite{Carrasco1999} and the hydrodynamics
313 < properties of the molecule can be calculated using the hydrodynamic
314 < interaction tensor.
307 > coupling between translational and rotational motion of {\it skew}
308 > rigid bodies, general ellipsoids are not always suitable for modeling
309 > rigid molecules.  A number of studies have been devoted to determining
310 > the friction tensor for irregular shapes using methods in which the
311 > molecule of interest is modeled with a combination of
312 > spheres\cite{Carrasco1999} and the hydrodynamic properties of the
313 > molecule are then calculated using a set of two-point interaction
314 > tensors.  We have found the {\it bead} and {\it rough shell} models of
315 > Carrasco and Garc\'{i}a de la Torre to be the most useful of these
316 > methods,\cite{Carrasco1999} and we review the basic outline of the
317 > rough shell approach here.  A more thorough explanation can be found
318 > in Ref. \citen{Carrasco1999}.
319  
320 < Consider a rigid assembly of $N$ beads immersed in a continuous
321 < medium. Due to hydrodynamic interaction, the ``net'' velocity of $i$th
322 < bead, $v'_i$ is different than its unperturbed velocity $v_i$,
320 > Consider a rigid assembly of $N$ small beads moving through a
321 > continuous medium.  Due to hydrodynamic interactions between the
322 > beads, the net velocity of the $i^\mathrm{th}$ bead relative to the
323 > medium, ${\bf v}'_i$, is different than its unperturbed velocity ${\bf
324 > v}_i$,
325   \begin{equation}
326 < v'_i  = v_i  - \sum\limits_{j \ne i} {T_{ij} F_j }
326 > {\bf v}'_i  = {\bf v}_i  - \sum\limits_{j \ne i} {{\bf T}_{ij} {\bf F}_j }
327   \end{equation}
328 < where $F_i$ is the frictional force, and $T_{ij}$ is the hydrodynamic
329 < interaction tensor. The frictional force on the $i^\mathrm{th}$ bead
330 < is proportional to its ``net'' velocity
328 > where ${\bf F}_j$ is the frictional force on the medium due to bead $j$, and
329 > ${\bf T}_{ij}$ is the hydrodynamic interaction tensor between the two beads.
330 > The frictional force felt by the $i^\mathrm{th}$ bead is proportional to
331 > its net velocity
332   \begin{equation}
333 < F_i  = \zeta _i v_i  - \zeta _i \sum\limits_{j \ne i} {T_{ij} F_j }.
333 > {\bf F}_i  = \xi_i {\bf v}_i  - \xi_i \sum\limits_{j \ne i} {{\bf T}_{ij} {\bf F}_j }.
334   \label{introEquation:tensorExpression}
335   \end{equation}
336 < This equation is the basis for deriving the hydrodynamic tensor. In
337 < 1930, Oseen and Burgers gave a simple solution to
338 < Eq.~\ref{introEquation:tensorExpression}
339 < \begin{equation}
340 < T_{ij}  = \frac{1}{{8\pi \eta r_{ij} }}\left( {I + \frac{{R_{ij}
341 < R_{ij}^T }}{{R_{ij}^2 }}} \right). \label{introEquation:oseenTensor}
320 < \end{equation}
321 < Here $R_{ij}$ is the distance vector between bead $i$ and bead $j$.
322 < A second order expression for element of different size was
323 < introduced by Rotne and Prager\cite{Rotne1969} and improved by
336 > Eq. (\ref{introEquation:tensorExpression}) defines the two-point
337 > hydrodynamic tensor, ${\bf T}_{ij}$.  There have been many proposed
338 > solutions to this equation, including the simple solution given by
339 > Oseen and Burgers in 1930 for two beads of identical radius.  A second
340 > order expression for beads of different hydrodynamic radii was
341 > introduced by Rotne and Prager,\cite{Rotne1969} and improved by
342   Garc\'{i}a de la Torre and Bloomfield,\cite{Torre1977}
343   \begin{equation}
344 < T_{ij}  = \frac{1}{{8\pi \eta R_{ij} }}\left[ {\left( {I +
345 < \frac{{R_{ij} R_{ij}^T }}{{R_{ij}^2 }}} \right) + R\frac{{\sigma
346 < _i^2  + \sigma _j^2 }}{{r_{ij}^2 }}\left( {\frac{I}{3} -
347 < \frac{{R_{ij} R_{ij}^T }}{{R_{ij}^2 }}} \right)} \right].
344 > {\bf T}_{ij}  = \frac{1}{{8\pi \eta R_{ij} }}\left[ {\left( {{\bf I} +
345 > \frac{{{\bf R}_{ij} {\bf R}_{ij}^T }}{{R_{ij}^2 }}} \right) + \frac{{\rho
346 > _i^2  + \rho_j^2 }}{{R_{ij}^2 }}\left( {\frac{{\bf I}}{3} -
347 > \frac{{{\bf R}_{ij} {\bf R}_{ij}^T }}{{R_{ij}^2 }}} \right)} \right].
348   \label{introEquation:RPTensorNonOverlapped}
349   \end{equation}
350 < Both of the Eq.~\ref{introEquation:oseenTensor} and
351 < Eq.~\ref{introEquation:RPTensorNonOverlapped} have an assumption
352 < $R_{ij} \ge \sigma _i  + \sigma _j$. An alternative expression for
353 < overlapping beads with the same radius, $\sigma$, is given by
350 > Here ${\bf R}_{ij}$ is the distance vector between beads $i$ and $j$.  Both
351 > the Oseen-Burgers tensor and
352 > Eq.~\ref{introEquation:RPTensorNonOverlapped} have an assumption that
353 > the beads do not overlap ($R_{ij} \ge \rho_i + \rho_j$).
354 >
355 > To calculate the resistance tensor for a body represented as the union
356 > of many non-overlapping beads, we first pick an arbitrary origin $O$
357 > and then construct a $3N \times 3N$ supermatrix consisting of $N
358 > \times N$ ${\bf B}_{ij}$ blocks
359   \begin{equation}
360 < T_{ij}  = \frac{1}{{6\pi \eta R_{ij} }}\left[ {\left( {1 -
361 < \frac{2}{{32}}\frac{{R_{ij} }}{\sigma }} \right)I +
362 < \frac{2}{{32}}\frac{{R_{ij} R_{ij}^T }}{{R_{ij} \sigma }}} \right]
363 < \label{introEquation:RPTensorOverlapped}
360 > {\bf B} = \left( \begin{array}{*{20}c}
361 > {\bf B}_{11} &  \ldots  & {\bf B}_{1N}   \\
362 > \vdots  &  \ddots  &  \vdots   \\
363 > {\bf B}_{N1} &  \cdots  & {\bf B}_{NN}
364 > \end{array} \right)
365   \end{equation}
366 < To calculate the resistance tensor at an arbitrary origin $O$, we
367 < construct a $3N \times 3N$ matrix consisting of $N \times N$
344 < $B_{ij}$ blocks
366 > ${\bf B}_{ij}$ is a version of the hydrodynamic tensor which includes the
367 > self-contributions for spheres,
368   \begin{equation}
369 < B = \left( \begin{array}{*{20}c}
370 <   B_{11} &  \ldots  & B_{1N}   \\
371 <    \vdots  &  \ddots  &  \vdots   \\
372 <   B_{N1} &  \cdots  & B_{NN} \\
369 > {\bf B}_{ij}  = \delta _{ij} \frac{{\bf I}}{{6\pi \eta R_{ij}}} + (1 - \delta_{ij}
370 > ){\bf T}_{ij}
371 > \end{equation}
372 > where $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta function. Inverting the
373 > ${\bf B}$ matrix, we obtain
374 > \begin{equation}
375 > {\bf C} = {\bf B}^{ - 1}  = \left(\begin{array}{*{20}c}
376 >  {\bf C}_{11} &  \ldots  & {\bf C}_{1N} \\
377 > \vdots  &  \ddots  &  \vdots   \\
378 >  {\bf C}_{N1} &  \cdots  & {\bf C}_{NN}
379   \end{array} \right),
380   \end{equation}
381 < where $B_{ij}$ is given by
381 > which can be partitioned into $N \times N$ blocks labeled ${\bf C}_{ij}$.
382 > (Each of the ${\bf C}_{ij}$ blocks is a $3 \times 3$ matrix.)  Using the
383 > skew matrix,
384   \begin{equation}
385 < B_{ij}  = \delta _{ij} \frac{I}{{6\pi \eta R}} + (1 - \delta _{ij}
386 < )T_{ij}
385 > {\bf U}_i  = \left(\begin{array}{*{20}c}
386 >  0 & -z_i & y_i \\
387 > z_i &  0   & - x_i \\
388 > -y_i & x_i & 0
389 > \end{array}\right)
390 > \label{eq:skewMatrix}
391   \end{equation}
357 where $\delta _{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta function. Inverting the
358 $B$ matrix, we obtain
359 \[
360 C = B^{ - 1}  = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
361   {C_{11} } &  \ldots  & {C_{1N} }  \\
362    \vdots  &  \ddots  &  \vdots   \\
363   {C_{N1} } &  \cdots  & {C_{NN} }  \\
364 \end{array}} \right),
365 \]
366 which can be partitioned into $N \times N$ $3 \times 3$ block
367 $C_{ij}$. With the help of $C_{ij}$ and the skew matrix $U_i$
368 \[
369 U_i  = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
370   0 & { - z_i } & {y_i }  \\
371   {z_i } & 0 & { - x_i }  \\
372   { - y_i } & {x_i } & 0  \\
373 \end{array}} \right)
374 \]
392   where $x_i$, $y_i$, $z_i$ are the components of the vector joining
393 < bead $i$ and origin $O$, the elements of resistance tensor at
394 < arbitrary origin $O$ can be written as
393 > bead $i$ and origin $O$, the elements of the resistance tensor (at the
394 > arbitrary origin $O$) can be written as
395   \begin{eqnarray}
396   \label{introEquation:ResistanceTensorArbitraryOrigin}
397 < \Xi _{}^{tt}  & = & \sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_j {C_{ij} } } \notag , \\
398 < \Xi _{}^{tr}  & = & \Xi _{}^{rt}  = \sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_j {U_i C_{ij} } } , \\
399 < \Xi _{}^{rr}  & = &  - \sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_j {U_i C_{ij} } }
383 < U_j  + 6 \eta V {\bf I}. \notag
397 > \Xi^{tt}  & = & \sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_j {{\bf C}_{ij} } } \notag , \\
398 > \Xi^{tr}  = \Xi _{}^{rt}  & = & \sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_j {{\bf U}_i {\bf C}_{ij} } } , \\
399 > \Xi^{rr}  & = &  -\sum\limits_i \sum\limits_j {\bf U}_i {\bf C}_{ij} {\bf U}_j + 6 \eta V {\bf I}. \notag
400   \end{eqnarray}
401 < The final term in the expression for $\Xi^{rr}$ is correction that
402 < accounts for errors in the rotational motion of certain kinds of bead
403 < models. The additive correction uses the solvent viscosity ($\eta$)
404 < as well as the total volume of the beads that contribute to the
389 < hydrodynamic model,
401 > The final term in the expression for $\Xi^{rr}$ is a correction that
402 > accounts for errors in the rotational motion of the bead models. The
403 > additive correction uses the solvent viscosity ($\eta$) as well as the
404 > total volume of the beads that contribute to the hydrodynamic model,
405   \begin{equation}
406 < V = \frac{4 \pi}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sigma_i^3,
406 > V = \frac{4 \pi}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \rho_i^3,
407   \end{equation}
408 < where $\sigma_i$ is the radius of bead $i$.  This correction term was
408 > where $\rho_i$ is the radius of bead $i$.  This correction term was
409   rigorously tested and compared with the analytical results for
410 < two-sphere and ellipsoidal systems by Garcia de la Torre and
410 > two-sphere and ellipsoidal systems by Garc\'{i}a de la Torre and
411   Rodes.\cite{Torre:1983lr}
412  
413 <
414 < The resistance tensor depends on the origin to which they refer. The
415 < proper location for applying the friction force is the center of
416 < resistance (or center of reaction), at which the trace of rotational
417 < resistance tensor, $ \Xi ^{rr}$ reaches a minimum value.
418 < Mathematically, the center of resistance is defined as an unique
419 < point of the rigid body at which the translation-rotation coupling
405 < tensors are symmetric,
413 > In general, resistance tensors depend on the origin at which they were
414 > computed.  However, the proper location for applying the friction
415 > force is the center of resistance, the special point at which the
416 > trace of rotational resistance tensor, $\Xi^{rr}$ reaches a minimum
417 > value.  Mathematically, the center of resistance can also be defined
418 > as the unique point for a rigid body at which the translation-rotation
419 > coupling tensors are symmetric,
420   \begin{equation}
421 < \Xi^{tr}  = \left( {\Xi^{tr} } \right)^T
421 > \Xi^{tr}  = \left(\Xi^{tr}\right)^T
422   \label{introEquation:definitionCR}
423   \end{equation}
424 < From Equation \ref{introEquation:ResistanceTensorArbitraryOrigin},
425 < we can easily derive that the translational resistance tensor is
426 < origin independent, while the rotational resistance tensor and
424 > From Eq. \ref{introEquation:ResistanceTensorArbitraryOrigin}, we can
425 > easily derive that the {\it translational} resistance tensor is origin
426 > independent, while the rotational resistance tensor and
427   translation-rotation coupling resistance tensor depend on the
428 < origin. Given the resistance tensor at an arbitrary origin $O$, and
429 < a vector ,$r_{OP}(x_{OP}, y_{OP}, z_{OP})$, from $O$ to $P$, we can
430 < obtain the resistance tensor at $P$ by
431 < \begin{equation}
432 < \begin{array}{l}
433 < \Xi _P^{tt}  = \Xi _O^{tt}  \\
434 < \Xi _P^{tr}  = \Xi _P^{rt}  = \Xi _O^{tr}  - U_{OP} \Xi _O^{tt}  \\
435 < \Xi _P^{rr}  = \Xi _O^{rr}  - U_{OP} \Xi _O^{tt} U_{OP}  + \Xi _O^{tr} U_{OP}  - U_{OP} \Xi _O^{{tr} ^{^T }}  \\
436 < \end{array}
437 < \label{introEquation:resistanceTensorTransformation}
438 < \end{equation}
439 < where
440 < \[
441 < U_{OP}  = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
442 <   0 & { - z_{OP} } & {y_{OP} }  \\
443 <   {z_{OP} } & 0 & { - x_{OP} }  \\
444 <   { - y_{OP} } & {x_{OP} } & 0  \\
445 < \end{array}} \right)
446 < \]
447 < Using Eq.~\ref{introEquation:definitionCR} and
448 < Eq.~\ref{introEquation:resistanceTensorTransformation}, one can
449 < locate the position of center of resistance,
450 < \begin{eqnarray*}
451 < \left( \begin{array}{l}
452 < x_{OR}  \\
453 < y_{OR}  \\
454 < z_{OR}  \\
455 < \end{array} \right) & = &\left( \begin{array}{*{20}c}
456 <   {(\Xi _O^{rr} )_{yy}  + (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{zz} } & { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xy} } & { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xz} }  \\
457 <   { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xy} } & {(\Xi _O^{rr} )_{zz}  + (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xx} } & { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{yz} }  \\
458 <   { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xz} } & { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{yz} } & {(\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xx}  + (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{yy} }  \\
459 < \end{array} \right)^{ - 1}  \\
446 <  & & \left( \begin{array}{l}
447 < (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{yz}  - (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{zy}  \\
448 < (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{zx}  - (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{xz}  \\
449 < (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{xy}  - (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{yx}  \\
450 < \end{array} \right) \\
451 < \end{eqnarray*}
428 > origin. Given the resistance tensor at an arbitrary origin $O$, and a
429 > vector ,${\bf r}_{OP} = (x_{OP}, y_{OP}, z_{OP})$, from $O$ to $P$, we
430 > can obtain the resistance tensor at $P$ by
431 > \begin{eqnarray}
432 > \label{introEquation:resistanceTensorTransformation}
433 > \Xi_P^{tt}  & = & \Xi_O^{tt}  \notag \\
434 > \Xi_P^{tr}  = \Xi_P^{rt}  & = & \Xi_O^{tr}  - {\bf U}_{OP} \Xi _O^{tt}  \\
435 > \Xi_P^{rr}  & = &\Xi_O^{rr}  - {\bf U}_{OP} \Xi_O^{tt} {\bf U}_{OP}
436 > + \Xi_O^{tr} {\bf U}_{OP}  - {\bf U}_{OP} \left( \Xi_O^{tr}
437 > \right)^{^T} \notag
438 > \end{eqnarray}
439 > where ${\bf U}_{OP}$ is the skew matrix (Eq. (\ref{eq:skewMatrix}))
440 > for the vector between the origin $O$ and the point $P$. Using
441 > Eqs.~\ref{introEquation:definitionCR}~and~\ref{introEquation:resistanceTensorTransformation},
442 > one can locate the position of center of resistance,
443 > \begin{equation*}
444 > \left(\begin{array}{l}
445 > x_{OR} \\
446 > y_{OR} \\
447 > z_{OR}
448 > \end{array}\right) =
449 > \left(\begin{array}{*{20}c}
450 > (\Xi_O^{rr})_{yy} + (\Xi_O^{rr})_{zz} & -(\Xi_O^{rr})_{xy} & -(\Xi_O^{rr})_{xz} \\
451 > -(\Xi_O^{rr})_{xy} & (\Xi_O^{rr})_{zz} + (\Xi_O^{rr})_{xx} & -(\Xi_O^{rr})_{yz} \\
452 > -(\Xi_O^{rr})_{xz} & -(\Xi_O^{rr})_{yz} & (\Xi_O^{rr})_{xx} + (\Xi_O^{rr})_{yy} \\
453 > \end{array}\right)^{-1}
454 > \left(\begin{array}{l}
455 > (\Xi_O^{tr})_{yz} - (\Xi_O^{tr})_{zy} \\
456 > (\Xi_O^{tr})_{zx} - (\Xi_O^{tr})_{xz} \\
457 > (\Xi_O^{tr})_{xy} - (\Xi_O^{tr})_{yx}
458 > \end{array}\right)
459 > \end{equation*}
460   where $x_{OR}$, $y_{OR}$, $z_{OR}$ are the components of the vector
461   joining center of resistance $R$ and origin $O$.
462  
463 + For a general rigid molecular substructure, finding the $6 \times 6$
464 + resistance tensor can be a computationally demanding task.  First, a
465 + lattice of small beads that extends well beyond the boundaries of the
466 + rigid substructure is created.  The lattice is typically composed of
467 + 0.25 \AA\ beads on a dense FCC lattice.  The lattice constant is taken
468 + to be the bead diameter, so that adjacent beads are touching, but do
469 + not overlap. To make a shape corresponding to the rigid structure,
470 + beads that sit on lattice sites that are outside the van der Waals
471 + radii of all of the atoms comprising the rigid body are excluded from
472 + the calculation.
473  
474 + For large structures, most of the beads will be deep within the rigid
475 + body and will not contribute to the hydrodynamic tensor.  In the {\it
476 + rough shell} approach, beads which have all of their lattice neighbors
477 + inside the structure are considered interior beads, and are removed
478 + from the calculation.  After following this procedure, only those
479 + beads in direct contact with the van der Waals surface of the rigid
480 + body are retained.  For reasonably large molecular structures, this
481 + truncation can still produce bead assemblies with thousands of
482 + members.
483 +
484 + If all of the {\it atoms} comprising the rigid substructure are
485 + spherical and non-overlapping, the tensor in
486 + Eq.~(\ref{introEquation:RPTensorNonOverlapped}) may be used directly
487 + using the atoms themselves as the hydrodynamic beads.  This is a
488 + variant of the {\it bead model} approach of Carrasco and Garc\'{i}a de
489 + la Torre.\cite{Carrasco1999} In this case, the size of the ${\bf B}$
490 + matrix can be quite small, and the calculation of the hydrodynamic
491 + tensor is straightforward.
492 +
493 + In general, the inversion of the ${\bf B}$ matrix is the most
494 + computationally demanding task.  This inversion is done only once for
495 + each type of rigid structure.  We have used straightforward
496 + LU-decomposition to solve the linear system and to obtain the elements
497 + of ${\bf C}$. Once ${\bf C}$ has been obtained, the location of the
498 + center of resistance ($R$) is found and the resistance tensor at this
499 + point is calculated.  The $3 \times 1$ vector giving the location of
500 + the rigid body's center of resistance and the $6 \times 6$ resistance
501 + tensor are then stored for use in the Langevin dynamics calculation.
502 + These quantities depend on solvent viscosity and temperature and must
503 + be recomputed if different simulation conditions are required.
504 +
505   \section{Langevin Dynamics for Rigid Particles of Arbitrary Shape\label{LDRB}}
506  
507   Consider the Langevin equations of motion in generalized coordinates
508   \begin{equation}
509 < \mathbf{M} \dot{\mathbf{V}}(t) = \mathbf{F}_{s}(t) +
510 < \mathbf{F}_{f}(t)  + \mathbf{F}_{r}(t)
509 > {\bf M} \dot{{\bf V}}(t) = {\bf F}_{s}(t) +
510 > {\bf F}_{f}(t)  + {\bf F}_{r}(t)
511   \label{LDGeneralizedForm}
512   \end{equation}
513 < where $\mathbf{M}$ is a $6 \times 6$ diagonal mass matrix (which
513 > where ${\bf M}$ is a $6 \times 6$ diagonal mass matrix (which
514   includes the mass of the rigid body as well as the moments of inertia
515 < in the body-fixed frame) and $\mathbf{V}$ is a generalized velocity,
516 < $\mathbf{V} =
517 < \left\{\mathbf{v},\mathbf{\omega}\right\}$. The right side of
515 > in the body-fixed frame) and ${\bf V}$ is a generalized velocity,
516 > ${\bf V} =
517 > \left\{{\bf v},{\bf \omega}\right\}$. The right side of
518   Eq.~\ref{LDGeneralizedForm} consists of three generalized forces: a
519 < system force $\mathbf{F}_{s}$, a frictional or dissipative force
520 < $\mathbf{F}_{f}$ and stochastic force $\mathbf{F}_{r}$. While the
521 < evolution of the system in Newtonian mechanics is typically done in
522 < the lab-fixed frame, it is convenient to handle the dynamics of rigid
523 < bodies in the body-fixed frame. Thus the friction and random forces
524 < are calculated in body-fixed frame and may be converted back to
525 < lab-fixed frame using the rigid body's rotation matrix ($Q$):
519 > system force (${\bf F}_{s}$), a frictional or dissipative force (${\bf
520 > F}_{f}$) and a stochastic force (${\bf F}_{r}$). While the evolution
521 > of the system in Newtonian mechanics is typically done in the lab
522 > frame, it is convenient to handle the dynamics of rigid bodies in
523 > body-fixed frames. Thus the friction and random forces on each
524 > substructure are calculated in a body-fixed frame and may converted
525 > back to the lab frame using that substructure's rotation matrix (${\bf
526 > Q}$):
527   \begin{equation}
528 < \mathbf{F}_{f,r} =
528 > {\bf F}_{f,r} =
529   \left( \begin{array}{c}
530 < \mathbf{f}_{f,r} \\
531 < \mathbf{\tau}_{f,r}
530 > {\bf f}_{f,r} \\
531 > {\bf \tau}_{f,r}
532   \end{array} \right)
533   =
534   \left( \begin{array}{c}
535 < Q^{T} \mathbf{f}^{b}_{f,r} \\
536 < Q^{T} \mathbf{\tau}^{b}_{f,r}
535 > {\bf Q}^{T} {\bf f}^{~b}_{f,r} \\
536 > {\bf Q}^{T} {\bf \tau}^{~b}_{f,r}
537   \end{array} \right)
538   \end{equation}
539 < The body-fixed friction force, $\mathbf{F}_{f}^b$, is proportional to
540 < the velocity at the center of resistance $\mathbf{v}_{R}^b$ (in the
541 < body-fixed frame) and the angular velocity $\mathbf{\omega}$
539 > The body-fixed friction force, ${\bf F}_{f}^{~b}$, is proportional to
540 > the (body-fixed) velocity at the center of resistance
541 > ${\bf v}_{R}^{~b}$ and the angular velocity ${\bf \omega}$
542   \begin{equation}
543 < \mathbf{F}_{f}^b (t) = \left( \begin{array}{l}
544 < \mathbf{f}_{f}^b (t) \\
545 < \mathbf{\tau}_{f}^b (t) \\
543 > {\bf F}_{f}^{~b}(t) = \left( \begin{array}{l}
544 > {\bf f}_{f}^{~b}(t) \\
545 > {\bf \tau}_{f}^{~b}(t) \\
546   \end{array} \right) =  - \left( \begin{array}{*{20}c}
547 <   \Xi_{R,t} & \Xi_{R,c}^T  \\
548 <   \Xi_{R,c} & \Xi_{R,r}    \\
547 >   \Xi_{R}^{tt} & \Xi_{R}^{rt} \\
548 >   \Xi_{R}^{tr} & \Xi_{R}^{rr}    \\
549   \end{array} \right)\left( \begin{array}{l}
550 < \mathbf{v}_{R}^b (t) \\
551 < \mathbf{\omega} (t) \\
550 > {\bf v}_{R}^{~b}(t) \\
551 > {\bf \omega}(t) \\
552   \end{array} \right),
553   \end{equation}
554 < while the random force, $\mathbf{F}_{r}$, is a Gaussian stochastic
555 < variable with zero mean and variance
554 > while the random force, ${\bf F}_{r}$, is a Gaussian stochastic
555 > variable with zero mean and variance,
556   \begin{equation}
557 < \left\langle {\mathbf{F}_{r}(t) (\mathbf{F}_{r}(t'))^T } \right\rangle  =
558 < \left\langle {\mathbf{F}_{r}^b (t) (\mathbf{F}_{r}^b (t'))^T } \right\rangle  =
559 < 2 k_B T \Xi_R \delta(t - t'). \label{randomForce}
557 > \left\langle {{\bf F}_{r}(t) ({\bf F}_{r}(t'))^T } \right\rangle  =
558 > \left\langle {{\bf F}_{r}^{~b} (t) ({\bf F}_{r}^{~b} (t'))^T } \right\rangle  =
559 > 2 k_B T \Xi_R \delta(t - t'). \label{eq:randomForce}
560   \end{equation}
561   $\Xi_R$ is the $6\times6$ resistance tensor at the center of
562 < resistance.  Once this tensor is known for a given rigid body,
563 < obtaining a stochastic vector that has the properties in
564 < Eq. (\ref{eq:randomForce}) can be done efficiently by carrying out a
565 < one-time Cholesky decomposition to obtain the square root matrix of
566 < the resistance tensor $\Xi_R = \mathbf{S} \mathbf{S}^{T}$, where
567 < $\mathbf{S}$ is a lower triangular matrix.\cite{SchlickBook} A vector
568 < with the statistics required for the random force can then be obtained
569 < by multiplying $\mathbf{S}$ onto a 6-vector $Z$ which has elements
570 < chosen from a Gaussian distribution, such that:
562 > resistance.  Once this tensor is known for a given rigid body (as
563 > described in the previous section) obtaining a stochastic vector that
564 > has the properties in Eq. (\ref{eq:randomForce}) can be done
565 > efficiently by carrying out a one-time Cholesky decomposition to
566 > obtain the square root matrix of the resistance tensor,
567 > \begin{equation}
568 > \Xi_R = {\bf S} {\bf S}^{T},
569 > \label{eq:Cholesky}
570 > \end{equation}
571 > where ${\bf S}$ is a lower triangular matrix.\cite{Schlick2002} A
572 > vector with the statistics required for the random force can then be
573 > obtained by multiplying ${\bf S}$ onto a random 6-vector ${\bf Z}$ which
574 > has elements chosen from a Gaussian distribution, such that:
575   \begin{equation}
576 < \langle Z_i \rangle = 0, \hspace{1in} \langle Z_i \cdot Z_j \rangle = \frac{2 k_B
577 < T}{\delta t} \delta_{ij}.
576 > \langle {\bf Z}_i \rangle = 0, \hspace{1in} \langle {\bf Z}_i \cdot
577 > {\bf Z}_j \rangle = \frac{2 k_B T}{\delta t} \delta_{ij},
578   \end{equation}
579 < The random force, $F_{r}^{b} = \mathbf{S} Z$, can be shown to have the
580 < correct ohmic
579 > where $\delta t$ is the timestep in use during the simulation. The
580 > random force, ${\bf F}_{r}^{~b} = {\bf S} {\bf Z}$, can be shown to have the
581 > correct properties required by Eq. (\ref{eq:randomForce}).
582  
583 <
584 < Each
530 < time a random force vector is needed, a gaussian random vector is
531 < generated and then the square root matrix is multiplied onto this
532 < vector.
533 <
534 < The equation of motion for $\mathbf{v}$ can be written as
583 > The equation of motion for the translational velocity of the center of
584 > mass (${\bf v}$) can be written as
585   \begin{equation}
586 < m \dot{\mathbf{v}} (t) =  \mathbf{f}_{s}^l (t) + \mathbf{f}_{f}^l (t) +
587 < \mathbf{f}_{r}^l (t)
586 > m \dot{{\bf v}} (t) =  {\bf f}_{s}(t) + {\bf f}_{f}(t) +
587 > {\bf f}_{r}(t)
588   \end{equation}
589 < Since the frictional force is applied at the center of resistance
590 < which generally does not coincide with the center of mass, an extra
591 < torque is exerted at the center of mass. Thus, the net body-fixed
592 < frictional torque at the center of mass, $\tau_{f}^b (t)$, is
593 < given by
589 > Since the frictional and random forces are applied at the center of
590 > resistance, which generally does not coincide with the center of mass,
591 > extra torques are exerted at the center of mass. Thus, the net
592 > body-fixed torque at the center of mass, $\tau^{~b}(t)$,
593 > is given by
594   \begin{equation}
595 < \tau_{f}^b \leftarrow \tau_{f}^b + \mathbf{r}_{MR} \times \mathbf{f}_{f}^b
595 > \tau^{~b} \leftarrow \tau_{s}^{~b} + \tau_{f}^{~b} + \tau_{r}^{~b} + {\bf r}_{MR} \times \left( {\bf f}_{f}^{~b} + {\bf f}_{r}^{~b} \right)
596   \end{equation}
597 < where $r_{MR}$ is the vector from the center of mass to the center
598 < of the resistance. Instead of integrating the angular velocity in
599 < lab-fixed frame, we consider the equation of angular momentum in
600 < body-fixed frame
597 > where ${\bf r}_{MR}$ is the vector from the center of mass to the center of
598 > resistance. Instead of integrating the angular velocity in lab-fixed
599 > frame, we consider the equation of motion for the angular momentum
600 > (${\bf j}$) in the body-fixed frame
601   \begin{equation}
602 < \dot j(t) = \tau_{s}^b (t) + \tau_{f}^b (t) + \tau_{r}^b(t)
602 > \frac{\partial}{\partial t}{\bf j}(t) = \tau^{~b}(t)
603   \end{equation}
604 < Embedding the friction terms into force and torque, one can integrate
605 < the Langevin equations of motion for rigid body of arbitrary shape in
606 < a velocity-Verlet style 2-part algorithm, where $h= \delta t$:
604 > Embedding the friction and random forces into the the total force and
605 > torque, one can integrate the Langevin equations of motion for a rigid
606 > body of arbitrary shape in a velocity-Verlet style 2-part algorithm,
607 > where $h = \delta t$:
608  
609 < {\tt moveA:}
609 > {\tt move A:}
610   \begin{align*}
611   {\bf v}\left(t + h / 2\right)  &\leftarrow  {\bf v}(t)
612      + \frac{h}{2} \left( {\bf f}(t) / m \right), \\
# Line 564 | Line 615 | a velocity-Verlet style 2-part algorithm, where $h= \d
615      + h  {\bf v}\left(t + h / 2 \right), \\
616   %
617   {\bf j}\left(t + h / 2 \right)  &\leftarrow {\bf j}(t)
618 <    + \frac{h}{2} {\bf \tau}^b(t), \\
618 >    + \frac{h}{2} {\bf \tau}^{~b}(t), \\
619   %
620 < \mathsf{Q}(t + h) &\leftarrow \mathrm{rotate}\left( h {\bf j}
620 > {\bf Q}(t + h) &\leftarrow \mathrm{rotate}\left( h {\bf j}
621      (t + h / 2) \cdot \overleftrightarrow{\mathsf{I}}^{-1} \right).
622   \end{align*}
623 < In this context, the $\mathrm{rotate}$ function is the reversible
624 < product of the three body-fixed rotations,
623 > In this context, $\overleftrightarrow{\mathsf{I}}$ is the diagonal
624 > moment of inertia tensor, and the $\mathrm{rotate}$ function is the
625 > reversible product of the three body-fixed rotations,
626   \begin{equation}
627   \mathrm{rotate}({\bf a}) = \mathsf{G}_x(a_x / 2) \cdot
628   \mathsf{G}_y(a_y / 2) \cdot \mathsf{G}_z(a_z) \cdot \mathsf{G}_y(a_y
629   / 2) \cdot \mathsf{G}_x(a_x /2),
630   \end{equation}
631   where each rotational propagator, $\mathsf{G}_\alpha(\theta)$,
632 < rotates both the rotation matrix ($\mathsf{Q}$) and the body-fixed
632 > rotates both the rotation matrix ($\mathbf{Q}$) and the body-fixed
633   angular momentum (${\bf j}$) by an angle $\theta$ around body-fixed
634   axis $\alpha$,
635   \begin{equation}
636   \mathsf{G}_\alpha( \theta ) = \left\{
637   \begin{array}{lcl}
638 < \mathsf{Q}(t) & \leftarrow & \mathsf{Q}(0) \cdot \mathsf{R}_\alpha(\theta)^T, \\
638 > \mathbf{Q}(t) & \leftarrow & \mathbf{Q}(0) \cdot \mathsf{R}_\alpha(\theta)^T, \\
639   {\bf j}(t) & \leftarrow & \mathsf{R}_\alpha(\theta) \cdot {\bf
640   j}(0).
641   \end{array}
# Line 605 | Line 657 | calculated at the new positions and orientations
657   \end{equation}
658   All other rotations follow in a straightforward manner. After the
659   first part of the propagation, the forces and body-fixed torques are
660 < calculated at the new positions and orientations
660 > calculated at the new positions and orientations.  The system forces
661 > and torques are derivatives of the total potential energy function
662 > ($U$) with respect to the rigid body positions (${\bf r}$) and the
663 > columns of the transposed rotation matrix ${\bf Q}^T = \left({\bf
664 > u}_x, {\bf u}_y, {\bf u}_z \right)$:
665  
666 < {\tt doForces:}
666 > {\tt Forces:}
667   \begin{align*}
668 < {\bf f}(t + h) &\leftarrow
669 <    - \left(\frac{\partial V}{\partial {\bf r}}\right)_{{\bf r}(t + h)}, \\
668 > {\bf f}_{s}(t + h) & \leftarrow
669 >    - \left(\frac{\partial U}{\partial {\bf r}}\right)_{{\bf r}(t + h)} \\
670   %
671 < {\bf \tau}^{s}(t + h) &\leftarrow {\bf u}(t + h)
672 <    \times \frac{\partial V}{\partial {\bf u}}, \\
671 > {\bf \tau}_{s}(t + h) &\leftarrow {\bf u}(t + h)
672 >    \times \frac{\partial U}{\partial {\bf u}} \\
673   %
674 < {\bf \tau}^{b}(t + h) &\leftarrow \mathsf{Q}(t + h)
675 <    \cdot {\bf \tau}^s(t + h).
674 > {\bf v}^{b}_{R}(t+h) & \leftarrow \mathbf{Q}(t+h) \cdot \left({\bf v}(t+h) + {\bf \omega}(t+h) \times {\bf r}_{MR} \right) \\
675 > %
676 > {\bf f}_{R,f}^{b}(t+h) & \leftarrow - \Xi_{R}^{tt} \cdot
677 > {\bf v}^{b}_{R}(t+h) - \Xi_{R}^{rt} \cdot {\bf \omega}(t+h) \\
678 > %
679 > {\bf \tau}_{R,f}^{b}(t+h) & \leftarrow - \Xi_{R}^{tr} \cdot
680 > {\bf v}^{b}_{R}(t+h) - \Xi_{R}^{rr} \cdot {\bf \omega}(t+h) \\
681 > %
682 > Z & \leftarrow  {\tt GaussianNormal}(2 k_B T / h, 6) \\
683 > {\bf F}_{R,r}^{b}(t+h) & \leftarrow {\bf S} \cdot Z \\
684 > %
685 > {\bf f}(t+h) & \leftarrow {\bf f}_{s}(t+h) + \mathbf{Q}^{T}(t+h)
686 > \cdot \left({\bf f}_{R,f}^{~b} + {\bf f}_{R,r}^{~b} \right) \\
687 > %
688 > \tau(t+h) & \leftarrow \tau_{s}(t+h) + \mathbf{Q}^{T}(t+h) \cdot \left(\tau_{R,f}^{~b} + \tau_{R,r}^{~b} \right) + {\bf r}_{MR} \times \left({\bf f}_{f}(t+h) + {\bf f}_{r}(t+h) \right) \\
689 > \tau^{~b}(t+h) & \leftarrow \mathbf{Q}(t+h) \cdot \tau(t+h) \\
690   \end{align*}
691 + Frictional (and random) forces and torques must be computed at the
692 + center of resistance, so there are additional steps required to find
693 + the body-fixed velocity (${\bf v}_{R}^{~b}$) at this location.  Mapping
694 + the frictional and random forces at the center of resistance back to
695 + the center of mass also introduces an additional term in the torque
696 + one obtains at the center of mass.
697 +
698   Once the forces and torques have been obtained at the new time step,
699   the velocities can be advanced to the same time value.
700  
701 < {\tt moveB:}
701 > {\tt move B:}
702   \begin{align*}
703   {\bf v}\left(t + h \right)  &\leftarrow  {\bf v}\left(t + h / 2
704   \right)
# Line 629 | Line 706 | the velocities can be advanced to the same time value.
706   %
707   {\bf j}\left(t + h \right)  &\leftarrow {\bf j}\left(t + h / 2
708   \right)
709 <    + \frac{h}{2} {\bf \tau}^b(t + h) .
709 >    + \frac{h}{2} {\bf \tau}^{~b}(t + h) .
710   \end{align*}
711  
712   \section{Validating the Method\label{sec:validating}}
# Line 692 | Line 769 | simulation box.  All simulations were equilibrated usi
769   We performed reference microcanonical simulations with explicit
770   solvents for each of the different model system.  In each case there
771   was one solute model and 1929 solvent molecules present in the
772 < simulation box.  All simulations were equilibrated using a
772 > simulation box.  All simulations were equilibrated for 5 ns using a
773   constant-pressure and temperature integrator with target values of 300
774   K for the temperature and 1 atm for pressure.  Following this stage,
775 < further equilibration and sampling was done in a microcanonical
776 < ensemble.  Since the model bodies are typically quite massive, we were
777 < able to use a time step of 25 fs.
775 > further equilibration (5 ns) and sampling (10 ns) was done in a
776 > microcanonical ensemble.  Since the model bodies are typically quite
777 > massive, we were able to use a time step of 25 fs.
778  
779   The model systems studied used both Lennard-Jones spheres as well as
780   uniaxial Gay-Berne ellipoids. In its original form, the Gay-Berne
781   potential was a single site model for the interactions of rigid
782 < ellipsoidal molecules.\cite{Gay81} It can be thought of as a
782 > ellipsoidal molecules.\cite{Gay1981} It can be thought of as a
783   modification of the Gaussian overlap model originally described by
784   Berne and Pechukas.\cite{Berne72} The potential is constructed in the
785   familiar form of the Lennard-Jones function using
786   orientation-dependent $\sigma$ and $\epsilon$ parameters,
787   \begin{equation*}
788 < V_{ij}({\mathbf{\hat u}_i}, {\mathbf{\hat u}_j}, {\mathbf{\hat
789 < r}_{ij}}) = 4\epsilon ({\mathbf{\hat u}_i}, {\mathbf{\hat u}_j},
790 < {\mathbf{\hat r}_{ij}})\left[\left(\frac{\sigma_0}{r_{ij}-\sigma({\mathbf{\hat u
788 > V_{ij}({{\bf \hat u}_i}, {{\bf \hat u}_j}, {{\bf \hat
789 > r}_{ij}}) = 4\epsilon ({{\bf \hat u}_i}, {{\bf \hat u}_j},
790 > {{\bf \hat r}_{ij}})\left[\left(\frac{\sigma_0}{r_{ij}-\sigma({{\bf \hat u
791   }_i},
792 < {\mathbf{\hat u}_j}, {\mathbf{\hat r}_{ij}})+\sigma_0}\right)^{12}
793 < -\left(\frac{\sigma_0}{r_{ij}-\sigma({\mathbf{\hat u}_i}, {\mathbf{\hat u}_j},
794 < {\mathbf{\hat r}_{ij}})+\sigma_0}\right)^6\right]
792 > {{\bf \hat u}_j}, {{\bf \hat r}_{ij}})+\sigma_0}\right)^{12}
793 > -\left(\frac{\sigma_0}{r_{ij}-\sigma({{\bf \hat u}_i}, {{\bf \hat u}_j},
794 > {{\bf \hat r}_{ij}})+\sigma_0}\right)^6\right]
795   \label{eq:gb}
796   \end{equation*}
797  
# Line 731 | Line 808 | are given elsewhere,\cite{Luckhurst90,Golubkov06,SunGe
808   Additionally, a well depth aspect ratio, $\epsilon^r = \epsilon^e /
809   \epsilon^s$, describes the ratio between the well depths in the {\it
810   end-to-end} and side-by-side configurations.  Details of the potential
811 < are given elsewhere,\cite{Luckhurst90,Golubkov06,SunGezelter08} and an
811 > are given elsewhere,\cite{Luckhurst90,Golubkov06,SunX._jp0762020} and an
812   excellent overview of the computational methods that can be used to
813   efficiently compute forces and torques for this potential can be found
814   in Ref. \citen{Golubkov06}
# Line 766 | Line 843 | A similar form exists for the bulk viscosity
843   \int_{t_0}^{t_0 + t} P_{xz}(t') dt' \right)^2 \right\rangle_{t_0}.
844   \label{eq:shear}
845   \end{equation}
846 < A similar form exists for the bulk viscosity
847 < \begin{equation}
771 < \kappa = \lim_{t->\infty} \frac{V}{2 k_B T} \frac{d}{dt} \left\langle \left(
772 < \int_{t_0}^{t_0 + t}
773 < \left(P\left(t'\right)-\left\langle P \right\rangle \right)dt'
774 < \right)^2 \right\rangle_{t_0}.
775 < \end{equation}
776 < Alternatively, the shear viscosity can also be calculated using a
777 < Green-Kubo formula with the off-diagonal pressure tensor correlation function,
778 < \begin{equation}
779 < \eta = \frac{V}{k_B T} \int_0^{\infty} \left\langle P_{xz}(t_0) P_{xz}(t_0
780 < + t) \right\rangle_{t_0} dt,
781 < \end{equation}
782 < although this method converges extremely slowly and is not practical
783 < for obtaining viscosities from molecular dynamics simulations.
846 > which converges much more rapidly in molecular dynamics simulations
847 > than the traditional Green-Kubo formula.
848  
849   The Langevin dynamics for the different model systems were performed
850   at the same temperature as the average temperature of the
# Line 806 | Line 870 | have used in this study, there are differences between
870   compute the diffusive behavior for motion parallel to each body-fixed
871   axis by projecting the displacement of the particle onto the
872   body-fixed reference frame at $t=0$.  With an isotropic solvent, as we
873 < have used in this study, there are differences between the three
874 < diffusion constants, but these must converge to the same value at
875 < longer times.  Translational diffusion constants for the different
876 < shaped models are shown in table \ref{tab:translation}.
873 > have used in this study, there may be differences between the three
874 > diffusion constants at short times, but these must converge to the
875 > same value at longer times.  Translational diffusion constants for the
876 > different shaped models are shown in table \ref{tab:translation}.
877  
878   In general, the three eigenvalues ($D_1, D_2, D_3$) of the rotational
879   diffusion tensor (${\bf D}_{rr}$) measure the diffusion of an object
# Line 889 | Line 953 | hydrodynamic flows is well known, giving translational
953   an arbitrary value of 0.8 kcal/mol.  
954  
955   The Stokes-Einstein behavior of large spherical particles in
956 < hydrodynamic flows is well known, giving translational friction
957 < coefficients of $6 \pi \eta R$ (stick boundary conditions) and
958 < rotational friction coefficients of $8 \pi \eta R^3$.  Recently,
959 < Schmidt and Skinner have computed the behavior of spherical tag
960 < particles in molecular dynamics simulations, and have shown that {\it
961 < slip} boundary conditions ($\Xi_{tt} = 4 \pi \eta R$) may be more
962 < appropriate for molecule-sized spheres embedded in a sea of spherical
963 < solvent particles.\cite{Schmidt:2004fj,Schmidt:2003kx}
956 > hydrodynamic flows with ``stick'' boundary conditions is well known,
957 > and is given in Eqs. (\ref{eq:StokesTranslation}) and
958 > (\ref{eq:StokesRotation}).  Recently, Schmidt and Skinner have
959 > computed the behavior of spherical tag particles in molecular dynamics
960 > simulations, and have shown that {\it slip} boundary conditions
961 > ($\Xi_{tt} = 4 \pi \eta \rho$) may be more appropriate for
962 > molecule-sized spheres embedded in a sea of spherical solvent
963 > particles.\cite{Schmidt:2004fj,Schmidt:2003kx}
964  
965   Our simulation results show similar behavior to the behavior observed
966   by Schmidt and Skinner.  The diffusion constant obtained from our
# Line 921 | Line 985 | D = \frac{k_B T}{6 \pi \eta a} G(\rho),
985   can be combined to give a single translational diffusion
986   constant,\cite{Berne90}
987   \begin{equation}
988 < D = \frac{k_B T}{6 \pi \eta a} G(\rho),
988 > D = \frac{k_B T}{6 \pi \eta a} G(s),
989   \label{Dperrin}
990   \end{equation}
991   as well as a single rotational diffusion coefficient,
992   \begin{equation}
993 < \Theta = \frac{3 k_B T}{16 \pi \eta a^3} \left\{ \frac{(2 - \rho^2)
994 < G(\rho) - 1}{1 - \rho^4} \right\}.
993 > \Theta = \frac{3 k_B T}{16 \pi \eta a^3} \left\{ \frac{(2 - s^2)
994 > G(s) - 1}{1 - s^4} \right\}.
995   \label{ThetaPerrin}
996   \end{equation}
997 < In these expressions, $G(\rho)$ is a function of the axial ratio
998 < ($\rho = b / a$), which for prolate ellipsoids, is
997 > In these expressions, $G(s)$ is a function of the axial ratio
998 > ($s = b / a$), which for prolate ellipsoids, is
999   \begin{equation}
1000 < G(\rho) = (1- \rho^2)^{-1/2} \ln \left\{ \frac{1 + (1 -
937 < \rho^2)^{1/2}}{\rho} \right\}
1000 > G(s) = (1- s^2)^{-1/2} \ln \left\{ \frac{1 + (1 - s^2)^{1/2}}{s} \right\}
1001   \label{GPerrin}
1002   \end{equation}
1003   Again, there is some uncertainty about the correct boundary conditions
# Line 959 | Line 1022 | The translational diffusion constants from the microca
1022   exact treatment of the diffusion tensor as well as the rough-shell
1023   model for the ellipsoid.
1024  
1025 < The translational diffusion constants from the microcanonical simulations
1026 < agree well with the predictions of the Perrin model, although the rotational
1027 < correlation times are a factor of 2 shorter than expected from hydrodynamic
1028 < theory.  One explanation for the slower rotation
1029 < of explicitly-solvated ellipsoids is the possibility that solute-solvent
1030 < collisions happen at both ends of the solute whenever the principal
1031 < axis of the ellipsoid is turning. In the upper portion of figure
1032 < \ref{fig:explanation} we sketch a physical picture of this explanation.
1033 < Since our Langevin integrator is providing nearly quantitative agreement with
1034 < the Perrin model, it also predicts orientational diffusion for ellipsoids that
1035 < exceed explicitly solvated correlation times by a factor of two.
1025 > The translational diffusion constants from the microcanonical
1026 > simulations agree well with the predictions of the Perrin model,
1027 > although the {\it rotational} correlation times are a factor of 2
1028 > shorter than expected from hydrodynamic theory.  One explanation for
1029 > the slower rotation of explicitly-solvated ellipsoids is the
1030 > possibility that solute-solvent collisions happen at both ends of the
1031 > solute whenever the principal axis of the ellipsoid is turning. In the
1032 > upper portion of figure \ref{fig:explanation} we sketch a physical
1033 > picture of this explanation.  Since our Langevin integrator is
1034 > providing nearly quantitative agreement with the Perrin model, it also
1035 > predicts orientational diffusion for ellipsoids that exceed explicitly
1036 > solvated correlation times by a factor of two.
1037  
1038   \subsection{Rigid dumbbells}
1039   Perhaps the only {\it composite} rigid body for which analytic
# Line 977 | Line 1041 | model. Equation (\ref{introEquation:oseenTensor}) abov
1041   two-sphere dumbbell model.  This model consists of two non-overlapping
1042   spheres held by a rigid bond connecting their centers. There are
1043   competing expressions for the 6x6 resistance tensor for this
1044 < model. Equation (\ref{introEquation:oseenTensor}) above gives the
1045 < original Oseen tensor, while the second order expression introduced by
1046 < Rotne and Prager,\cite{Rotne1969} and improved by Garc\'{i}a de la
983 < Torre and Bloomfield,\cite{Torre1977} is given above as
1044 > model. The second order expression introduced by Rotne and
1045 > Prager,\cite{Rotne1969} and improved by Garc\'{i}a de la Torre and
1046 > Bloomfield,\cite{Torre1977} is given above as
1047   Eq. (\ref{introEquation:RPTensorNonOverlapped}).  In our case, we use
1048   a model dumbbell in which the two spheres are identical Lennard-Jones
1049   particles ($\sigma$ = 6.5 \AA\ , $\epsilon$ = 0.8 kcal / mol) held at
# Line 993 | Line 1056 | those derived from the 6 x 6 tensors mentioned above).
1056   motion in a flow {\it perpendicular} to the inter-sphere
1057   axis.\cite{Davis:1969uq} We know of no analytic solutions for the {\it
1058   orientational} correlation times for this model system (other than
1059 < those derived from the 6 x 6 tensors mentioned above).
1059 > those derived from the 6 x 6 tensor mentioned above).
1060  
1061   The bead model for this model system comprises the two large spheres
1062   by themselves, while the rough shell approximation used 3368 separate
# Line 1061 | Line 1124 | rotational diffusion.
1124   } \label{fig:explanation}
1125   \end{figure}
1126  
1064
1065
1127   \subsection{Composite banana-shaped molecules}
1128   Banana-shaped rigid bodies composed of three Gay-Berne ellipsoids have
1129   been used by Orlandi {\it et al.} to observe mesophases in
# Line 1074 | Line 1135 | A reference system composed of a single banana rigid b
1135   behavior of this model, we have left out the dipolar interactions of
1136   the original Orlandi model.
1137  
1138 < A reference system composed of a single banana rigid body embedded in a
1139 < sea of 1929 solvent particles was created and run under standard
1140 < (microcanonical) molecular dynamics.  The resulting viscosity of this
1141 < mixture was 0.298 centipoise (as estimated using Eq. (\ref{eq:shear})).
1142 < To calculate the hydrodynamic properties of the banana rigid body model,
1143 < we created a rough shell (see Fig.~\ref{fig:roughShell}), in which
1144 < the banana is represented as a ``shell'' made of 3321 identical beads
1145 < (0.25 \AA\  in diameter) distributed on the surface.  Applying the
1146 < procedure described in Sec.~\ref{introEquation:ResistanceTensorArbitraryOrigin}, we
1147 < identified the center of resistance, ${\bf r} = $(0 \AA, 0.81 \AA, 0 \AA), as
1148 < well as the resistance tensor,
1149 < \begin{equation*}
1089 < \Xi =
1090 < \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
1091 < 0.9261 & 0 & 0&0&0.08585&0.2057\\
1092 < 0& 0.9270&-0.007063& 0.08585&0&0\\
1093 < 0&-0.007063&0.7494&0.2057&0&0\\
1094 < 0&0.0858&0.2057& 58.64& 0&0\\0.08585&0&0&0&48.30&3.219&\\0.2057&0&0&0&3.219&10.7373\\\end{array}} \right),
1095 < \end{equation*}
1096 < where the units for translational, translation-rotation coupling and
1097 < rotational tensors are (kcal fs / mol \AA$^2$), (kcal fs / mol \AA\ rad),
1098 < and (kcal fs / mol rad$^2$), respectively.
1138 > A reference system composed of a single banana rigid body embedded in
1139 > a sea of 1929 solvent particles was created and run under standard
1140 > (microcanonical) molecular dynamics.  The resulting viscosity of this
1141 > mixture was 0.298 centipoise (as estimated using
1142 > Eq. (\ref{eq:shear})).  To calculate the hydrodynamic properties of
1143 > the banana rigid body model, we created a rough shell (see
1144 > Fig.~\ref{fig:roughShell}), in which the banana is represented as a
1145 > ``shell'' made of 3321 identical beads (0.25 \AA\ in diameter)
1146 > distributed on the surface.  Applying the procedure described in
1147 > Sec.~\ref{introEquation:ResistanceTensorArbitraryOrigin}, we
1148 > identified the center of resistance, ${\bf r} = $(0 \AA, 0.81 \AA, 0
1149 > \AA).  
1150  
1151 < The Langevin rigid-body integrator (and the hydrodynamic diffusion tensor)
1152 < are essentially quantitative for translational diffusion of this model.  
1153 < Orientational correlation times under the Langevin rigid-body integrator
1154 < are within 11\% of the values obtained from explicit solvent, but these
1155 < models also exhibit some solvent inaccessible surface area in the
1156 < explicitly-solvated case.  
1151 > The Langevin rigid-body integrator (and the hydrodynamic diffusion
1152 > tensor) are essentially quantitative for translational diffusion of
1153 > this model.  Orientational correlation times under the Langevin
1154 > rigid-body integrator are within 11\% of the values obtained from
1155 > explicit solvent, but these models also exhibit some solvent
1156 > inaccessible surface area in the explicitly-solvated case.
1157  
1158   \subsection{Composite sphero-ellipsoids}
1159 +
1160   Spherical heads perched on the ends of Gay-Berne ellipsoids have been
1161   used recently as models for lipid
1162 < molecules.\cite{SunGezelter08,Ayton01}
1163 < MORE DETAILS
1164 <
1165 < A reference system composed of a single lipid rigid body embedded in a
1114 < sea of 1929 solvent particles was created and run under standard
1115 < (microcanonical) molecular dynamics.  The resulting viscosity of this
1116 < mixture was 0.349 centipoise (as estimated using
1162 > molecules.\cite{SunX._jp0762020,Ayton01} A reference system composed of
1163 > a single lipid rigid body embedded in a sea of 1929 solvent particles
1164 > was created and run under a microcanonical ensemble.  The resulting
1165 > viscosity of this mixture was 0.349 centipoise (as estimated using
1166   Eq. (\ref{eq:shear})).  To calculate the hydrodynamic properties of
1167   the lipid rigid body model, we created a rough shell (see
1168   Fig.~\ref{fig:roughShell}), in which the lipid is represented as a
# Line 1123 | Line 1172 | identified the center of resistance, ${\bf r} = $(0 \A
1172   identified the center of resistance, ${\bf r} = $(0 \AA, 0 \AA, 1.46
1173   \AA).
1174  
1175 + The translational diffusion constants and rotational correlation times
1176 + obtained using the Langevin rigid-body integrator (and the
1177 + hydrodynamic tensor) are essentially quantitative when compared with
1178 + the explicit solvent simulations for this model system.  
1179  
1180 < \subsection{Summary}
1181 < According to our simulations, the langevin dynamics is a reliable
1182 < theory to apply to replace the explicit solvents, especially for the
1183 < translation properties. For large molecules, the rotation properties
1184 < are also mimiced reasonablly well.
1180 > \subsection{Summary of comparisons with explicit solvent simulations}
1181 > The Langevin rigid-body integrator we have developed is a reliable way
1182 > to replace explicit solvent simulations in cases where the detailed
1183 > solute-solvent interactions do not greatly impact the behavior of the
1184 > solute.  As such, it has the potential to greatly increase the length
1185 > and time scales of coarse grained simulations of large solvated
1186 > molecules.  In cases where the dielectric screening of the solvent, or
1187 > specific solute-solvent interactions become important for structural
1188 > or dynamic features of the solute molecule, this integrator may be
1189 > less useful.  However, for the kinds of coarse-grained modeling that
1190 > have become popular in recent years (ellipsoidal side chains, rigid
1191 > bodies, and molecular-scale models), this integrator may prove itself
1192 > to be quite valuable.
1193  
1194   \begin{figure}
1195   \centering
# Line 1154 | Line 1215 | Analytical solutions for the exactly-solved hydrodynam
1215   \caption{Translational diffusion constants (D) for the model systems
1216   calculated using microcanonical simulations (with explicit solvent),
1217   theoretical predictions, and Langevin simulations (with implicit solvent).
1218 < Analytical solutions for the exactly-solved hydrodynamics models are
1219 < from Refs. \citen{Einstein05} (sphere), \citen{Perrin1934} and \citen{Perrin1936}
1218 > Analytical solutions for the exactly-solved hydrodynamics models are obtained
1219 > from: Stokes' law (sphere), and Refs. \citen{Perrin1934} and \citen{Perrin1936}
1220   (ellipsoid), \citen{Stimson:1926qy} and \citen{Davis:1969uq}
1221   (dumbbell). The other model systems have no known analytic solution.
1222 < All  diffusion constants are reported in units of $10^{-3}$ cm$^2$ / ps (=
1222 > All diffusion constants are reported in units of $10^{-3}$ cm$^2$ / ps (=
1223   $10^{-4}$ \AA$^2$  / fs). }
1224   \begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
1225   \hline
# Line 1172 | Line 1233 | lipid     & 0.349  & 0.96 & &      & rough shell & 1.3
1233   dumbbell  & 0.308  & 2.06 & & 1.64 & bead model  & 1.65 & 1.62 \\
1234            & 0.308  & 2.06 & & 1.64 & rough shell & 1.59 & 1.62 \\
1235   banana    & 0.298  & 1.53 & &      & rough shell & 1.56 & 1.55 \\
1236 < lipid     & 0.349  & 0.96 & &      & rough shell & 1.33 & 1.32 \\
1236 > lipid     & 0.349  & 1.41 & &      & rough shell & 1.33 & 1.32 \\
1237   \end{tabular}
1238   \label{tab:translation}
1239   \end{center}
# Line 1211 | Line 1272 | The Langevin dynamics integrator was applied to study
1272  
1273   \section{Application: A rigid-body lipid bilayer}
1274  
1275 < The Langevin dynamics integrator was applied to study the formation of
1276 < corrugated structures emerging from simulations of the coarse grained
1277 < lipid molecular models presented above.  The initial configuration is
1278 < taken from our molecular dynamics studies on lipid bilayers with
1279 < lennard-Jones sphere solvents. The solvent molecules were excluded
1280 < from the system, and the experimental value for the viscosity of water
1281 < at 20C ($\eta = 1.00$ cp) was used to mimic the hydrodynamic effects
1282 < of the solvent.  The absence of explicit solvent molecules and the
1283 < stability of the integrator allowed us to take timesteps of 50 fs.  A
1284 < total simulation run time of 100 ns was sampled.
1285 < Fig. \ref{fig:bilayer} shows the configuration of the system after 100
1286 < ns, and the ripple structure remains stable during the entire
1287 < trajectory.  Compared with using explicit bead-model solvent
1288 < molecules, the efficiency of the simulation has increased by an order
1289 < of magnitude.
1275 > To test the accuracy and efficiency of the new integrator, we applied
1276 > it to study the formation of corrugated structures emerging from
1277 > simulations of the coarse grained lipid molecular models presented
1278 > above.  The initial configuration is taken from earlier molecular
1279 > dynamics studies on lipid bilayers which had used spherical
1280 > (Lennard-Jones) solvent particles and moderate (480 solvated lipid
1281 > molecules) system sizes.\cite{SunX._jp0762020} the solvent molecules
1282 > were excluded from the system and the box was replicated three times
1283 > in the x- and y- axes (giving a single simulation cell containing 4320
1284 > lipids).  The experimental value for the viscosity of water at 20C
1285 > ($\eta = 1.00$ cp) was used with the Langevin integrator to mimic the
1286 > hydrodynamic effects of the solvent.  The absence of explicit solvent
1287 > molecules and the stability of the integrator allowed us to take
1288 > timesteps of 50 fs. A simulation run time of 30 ns was sampled to
1289 > calculate structural properties.  Fig. \ref{fig:bilayer} shows the
1290 > configuration of the system after 30 ns.  Structural properties of the
1291 > bilayer (e.g. the head and body $P_2$ order parameters) are nearly
1292 > identical to those obtained via solvated molecular dynamics. The
1293 > ripple structure remained stable during the entire trajectory.
1294 > Compared with using explicit bead-model solvent molecules, the 30 ns
1295 > trajectory for 4320 lipids with the Langevin integrator is now {\it
1296 > faster} on the same hardware than the same length trajectory was for
1297 > the 480-lipid system previously studied.
1298  
1299   \begin{figure}
1300   \centering
1301   \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{bilayer}
1302   \caption[Snapshot of a bilayer of rigid-body models for lipids]{A
1303 < snapshot of a bilayer composed of rigid-body models for lipid
1303 > snapshot of a bilayer composed of 4320 rigid-body models for lipid
1304   molecules evolving using the Langevin integrator described in this
1305   work.} \label{fig:bilayer}
1306   \end{figure}
1307  
1308   \section{Conclusions}
1309  
1310 < We have presented a new Langevin algorithm by incorporating the
1311 < hydrodynamics properties of arbitrary shaped molecules into an
1312 < advanced symplectic integration scheme. Further studies in systems
1313 < involving banana shaped molecules illustrated that the dynamic
1314 < properties could be preserved by using this new algorithm as an
1315 < implicit solvent model.
1310 > We have presented a new algorithm for carrying out Langevin dynamics
1311 > simulations on complex rigid bodies by incorporating the hydrodynamic
1312 > resistance tensors for arbitrary shapes into an advanced symplectic
1313 > integration scheme.  The integrator gives quantitative agreement with
1314 > both analytic and approximate hydrodynamic theories, and works
1315 > reasonably well at reproducing the solute dynamical properties
1316 > (diffusion constants, and orientational relaxation times) from
1317 > explicitly-solvated simulations.  For the cases where there are
1318 > discrepancies between our Langevin integrator and the explicit solvent
1319 > simulations, two features of molecular simulations help explain the
1320 > differences.
1321  
1322 + First, the use of ``stick'' boundary conditions for molecular-sized
1323 + solutes in a sea of similarly-sized solvent particles may be
1324 + problematic.  We are certainly not the first group to notice this
1325 + difference between hydrodynamic theories and explicitly-solvated
1326 + molecular
1327 + simulations.\cite{Schmidt:2004fj,Schmidt:2003kx,Ravichandran:1999fk,TANG:1993lr}
1328 + The problem becomes particularly noticable in both the translational
1329 + diffusion of the spherical particles and the rotational diffusion of
1330 + the ellipsoids.  In both of these cases it is clear that the
1331 + approximations that go into hydrodynamics are the source of the error,
1332 + and not the integrator itself.
1333  
1334 + Second, in the case of structures which have substantial surface area
1335 + that is inaccessible to solvent particles, the hydrodynamic theories
1336 + (and the Langevin integrator) may overestimate the effects of solvent
1337 + friction because they overestimate the exposed surface area of the
1338 + rigid body.  This is particularly noticable in the rotational
1339 + diffusion of the dumbbell model.  We believe that given a solvent of
1340 + known radius, it may be possible to modify the rough shell approach to
1341 + place beads on solvent-accessible surface, instead of on the geometric
1342 + surface defined by the van der Waals radii of the components of the
1343 + rigid body.  Further work to confirm the behavior of this new
1344 + approximation is ongoing.
1345 +
1346   \section{Acknowledgments}
1347   Support for this project was provided by the National Science
1348   Foundation under grant CHE-0134881. T.L. also acknowledges the
1349 < financial support from center of applied mathematics at University
1350 < of Notre Dame.
1349 > financial support from Center of Applied Mathematics at University of
1350 > Notre Dame.
1351 >
1352 > \end{doublespace}
1353   \newpage
1354  
1355 < \bibliographystyle{jcp}
1355 > \bibliographystyle{jcp2}
1356   \bibliography{langevin}
1258
1357   \end{document}

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines