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 3310 by gezelter, Fri Jan 11 22:08:57 2008 UTC vs.
Revision 3391 by gezelter, Wed Apr 30 16:16:25 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}
5 < \usepackage{amsmath,bm}
4 > \usepackage{amsmath}
5   \usepackage{amssymb}
6   \usepackage{times}
7   \usepackage{mathptmx}
8   \usepackage{setspace}
9 < \usepackage{tabularx}
9 > \usepackage{endfloat}
10 > \usepackage{caption}
11 > %\usepackage{tabularx}
12   \usepackage{graphicx}
13 < \usepackage{booktabs}
14 < \usepackage{bibentry}
15 < \usepackage{mathrsfs}
13 > %\usepackage{booktabs}
14 > %\usepackage{bibentry}
15 > %\usepackage{mathrsfs}
16   \usepackage[ref]{overcite}
17   \pagestyle{plain} \pagenumbering{arabic} \oddsidemargin 0.0cm
18   \evensidemargin 0.0cm \topmargin -21pt \headsep 10pt \textheight
19   9.0in \textwidth 6.5in \brokenpenalty=10000
20 < \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
20 >
21 > % double space list of tables and figures
22 > \AtBeginDelayedFloats{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.66}}
23 > \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{20 pt}
24 > \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{30 pt}
25 >
26   \renewcommand\citemid{\ } % no comma in optional referenc note
27  
28   \begin{document}
29  
30 < \title{An algorithm for performing Langevin dynamics on rigid bodies of arbitrary shape }
30 > \title{Langevin dynamics for rigid bodies of arbitrary shape}
31  
32 < \author{Xiuquan Sun, Teng Lin and J. Daniel Gezelter\footnote{Corresponding author. \ Electronic mail:
33 < gezelter@nd.edu} \\
34 < Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry\\
32 > \author{Xiuquan Sun, Teng Lin and J. Daniel
33 > Gezelter\footnote{Corresponding author. \ Electronic mail: gezelter@nd.edu} \\
34 > Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry,\\
35   University of Notre Dame\\
36   Notre Dame, Indiana 46556}
37  
38   \date{\today}
39  
34 \maketitle \doublespacing
40  
41 < \begin{abstract}
41 > \maketitle
42  
43 +
44 + \begin{doublespace}
45 +
46 + \begin{abstract}
47 + We present an algorithm for carrying out Langevin dynamics simulations
48 + on complex rigid bodies by incorporating the hydrodynamic resistance
49 + tensors for arbitrary shapes into an advanced rotational integration
50 + scheme.  The integrator gives quantitative agreement with both
51 + analytic and approximate hydrodynamic theories for a number of model
52 + rigid bodies, and works well at reproducing the solute dynamical
53 + properties (diffusion constants, and orientational relaxation times)
54 + obtained from explicitly-solvated simulations.
55   \end{abstract}
56  
57   \newpage
# Line 45 | Line 62 | Notre Dame, Indiana 46556}
62   %                          BODY OF TEXT
63   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
64  
65 +
66   \section{Introduction}
67  
68   %applications of langevin dynamics
69 < As alternative to Newtonian dynamics, Langevin dynamics, which
70 < mimics a simple heat bath with stochastic and dissipative forces,
71 < has been applied in a variety of studies. The stochastic treatment
72 < of the solvent enables us to carry out substantially longer time
73 < simulations. Implicit solvent Langevin dynamics simulations of
74 < met-enkephalin not only outperform explicit solvent simulations for
75 < computational efficiency, but also agrees very well with explicit
76 < solvent simulations for dynamical properties.\cite{Shen2002}
59 < Recently, applying Langevin dynamics with the UNRES model, Liow and
60 < his coworkers suggest that protein folding pathways can be possibly
61 < explored within a reasonable amount of time.\cite{Liwo2005} The
62 < stochastic nature of the Langevin dynamics also enhances the
63 < sampling of the system and increases the probability of crossing
64 < energy barriers.\cite{Banerjee2004, Cui2003} Combining Langevin
65 < dynamics with Kramers's theory, Klimov and Thirumalai identified
66 < free-energy barriers by studying the viscosity dependence of the
67 < protein folding rates.\cite{Klimov1997} In order to account for
68 < solvent induced interactions missing from implicit solvent model,
69 < Kaya incorporated desolvation free energy barrier into implicit
70 < coarse-grained solvent model in protein folding/unfolding studies
71 < and discovered a higher free energy barrier between the native and
72 < denatured states. Because of its stability against noise, Langevin
73 < dynamics is very suitable for studying remagnetization processes in
74 < various systems.\cite{Palacios1998,Berkov2002,Denisov2003} For
75 < instance, the oscillation power spectrum of nanoparticles from
76 < Langevin dynamics simulation has the same peak frequencies for
77 < different wave vectors, which recovers the property of magnetic
78 < excitations in small finite structures.\cite{Berkov2005a}
69 > Langevin dynamics, which mimics a heat bath using both stochastic and
70 > dissipative forces, has been applied in a variety of situations as an
71 > alternative to molecular dynamics with explicit solvent molecules.
72 > The stochastic treatment of the solvent allows the use of simulations
73 > with substantially longer time and length scales. In general, the
74 > dynamic and structural properties obtained from Langevin simulations
75 > agree quite well with similar properties obtained from explicit
76 > solvent simulations.
77  
78 < %review rigid body dynamics
79 < Rigid bodies are frequently involved in the modeling of different
80 < areas, from engineering, physics, to chemistry. For example,
81 < missiles and vehicle are usually modeled by rigid bodies.  The
82 < movement of the objects in 3D gaming engine or other physics
83 < simulator is governed by the rigid body dynamics. In molecular
84 < simulation, rigid body is used to simplify the model in
87 < protein-protein docking study{\cite{Gray2003}}.
78 > Recent examples of the usefulness of Langevin simulations include a
79 > study of met-enkephalin in which Langevin simulations predicted
80 > dynamical properties that were largely in agreement with explicit
81 > solvent simulations.\cite{Shen2002} By applying Langevin dynamics with
82 > the UNRES model, Liwo and his coworkers suggest that protein folding
83 > pathways can be explored within a reasonable amount of
84 > time.\cite{Liwo2005}
85  
86 < It is very important to develop stable and efficient methods to
87 < integrate the equations of motion for orientational degrees of
88 < freedom. Euler angles are the natural choice to describe the
89 < rotational degrees of freedom. However, due to $\frac {1}{sin
90 < \theta}$ singularities, the numerical integration of corresponding
91 < equations of these motion is very inefficient and inaccurate.
92 < Although an alternative integrator using multiple sets of Euler
93 < angles can overcome this difficulty\cite{Barojas1973}, the
94 < computational penalty and the loss of angular momentum conservation
95 < still remain. A singularity-free representation utilizing
99 < quaternions was developed by Evans in 1977.\cite{Evans1977}
100 < Unfortunately, this approach used a nonseparable Hamiltonian
101 < resulting from the quaternion representation, which prevented the
102 < symplectic algorithm from being utilized. Another different approach
103 < is to apply holonomic constraints to the atoms belonging to the
104 < rigid body. Each atom moves independently under the normal forces
105 < deriving from potential energy and constraint forces which are used
106 < to guarantee the rigidness. However, due to their iterative nature,
107 < the SHAKE and Rattle algorithms also converge very slowly when the
108 < number of constraints increases.\cite{Ryckaert1977, Andersen1983}
86 > The stochastic nature of Langevin dynamics also enhances the sampling
87 > of the system and increases the probability of crossing energy
88 > barriers.\cite{Cui2003,Banerjee2004} Combining Langevin dynamics with
89 > Kramers' theory, Klimov and Thirumalai identified free-energy
90 > barriers by studying the viscosity dependence of the protein folding
91 > rates.\cite{Klimov1997} In order to account for solvent induced
92 > interactions missing from the implicit solvent model, Kaya
93 > incorporated a desolvation free energy barrier into protein
94 > folding/unfolding studies and discovered a higher free energy barrier
95 > between the native and denatured states.\cite{HuseyinKaya07012005}
96  
97 < A break-through in geometric literature suggests that, in order to
98 < develop a long-term integration scheme, one should preserve the
99 < symplectic structure of the propagator. By introducing a conjugate
100 < momentum to the rotation matrix $Q$ and re-formulating Hamiltonian's
101 < equation, a symplectic integrator, RSHAKE\cite{Kol1997}, was
102 < proposed to evolve the Hamiltonian system in a constraint manifold
103 < by iteratively satisfying the orthogonality constraint $Q^T Q = 1$.
104 < An alternative method using the quaternion representation was
105 < developed by Omelyan.\cite{Omelyan1998} However, both of these
119 < methods are iterative and inefficient. In this section, we descibe a
120 < symplectic Lie-Poisson integrator for rigid bodies developed by
121 < Dullweber and his coworkers\cite{Dullweber1997} in depth.
97 > In typical LD simulations, the friction and random ($f_r$) forces on
98 > individual atoms are taken from Stokes' law,
99 > \begin{eqnarray}
100 > m \dot{v}(t) & = & -\nabla U(x) - \xi m v(t) + f_r(t) \notag \\
101 > \langle f_r(t) \rangle & = & 0 \\
102 > \langle f_r(t) f_r(t') \rangle & = & 2 k_B T \xi m \delta(t - t') \notag
103 > \end{eqnarray}
104 > where $\xi \approx 6 \pi \eta \rho$.  Here $\eta$ is the viscosity of the
105 > implicit solvent, and $\rho$ is the hydrodynamic radius of the atom.
106  
107 < %review langevin/browninan dynamics for arbitrarily shaped rigid body
108 < Combining Langevin or Brownian dynamics with rigid body dynamics,
109 < one can study slow processes in biomolecular systems. Modeling DNA
110 < as a chain of rigid beads, which are subject to harmonic potentials
111 < as well as excluded volume potentials, Mielke and his coworkers
112 < discovered rapid superhelical stress generations from the stochastic
113 < simulation of twin supercoiling DNA with response to induced
114 < torques.\cite{Mielke2004} Membrane fusion is another key biological
115 < process which controls a variety of physiological functions, such as
116 < release of neurotransmitters \textit{etc}. A typical fusion event
117 < happens on the time scale of a millisecond, which is impractical to
118 < study using atomistic models with newtonian mechanics. With the help
119 < of coarse-grained rigid body model and stochastic dynamics, the
120 < fusion pathways were explored by many
121 < researchers.\cite{Noguchi2001,Noguchi2002,Shillcock2005} Due to the
122 < difficulty of numerical integration of anisotropic rotation, most of
123 < the rigid body models are simply modeled using spheres, cylinders,
124 < ellipsoids or other regular shapes in stochastic simulations. In an
141 < effort to account for the diffusion anisotropy of arbitrary
142 < particles, Fernandes and de la Torre improved the original Brownian
143 < dynamics simulation algorithm\cite{Ermak1978,Allison1991} by
107 > The use of rigid substructures,\cite{Chun:2000fj}
108 > coarse-graining,\cite{Ayton01,Golubkov06,Orlandi:2006fk,SunX._jp0762020}
109 > and ellipsoidal representations of protein side
110 > chains~\cite{Fogolari:1996lr} has made the use of the Stokes-Einstein
111 > approximation problematic.  A rigid substructure moves as a single
112 > unit with orientational as well as translational degrees of freedom.
113 > This requires a more general treatment of the hydrodynamics than the
114 > spherical approximation provides.  Also, the atoms involved in a rigid
115 > or coarse-grained structure have solvent-mediated interactions with
116 > each other, and these interactions are ignored if all atoms are
117 > treated as separate spherical particles.  The theory of interactions
118 > {\it between} bodies moving through a fluid has been developed over
119 > the past century and has been applied to simulations of Brownian
120 > motion.\cite{FIXMAN:1986lr,Ramachandran1996}
121 >
122 > In order to account for the diffusion anisotropy of complex shapes,
123 > Fernandes and Garc\'{i}a de la Torre improved an earlier Brownian
124 > dynamics simulation algorithm~\cite{Ermak1978,Allison1991} by
125   incorporating a generalized $6\times6$ diffusion tensor and
126 < introducing a simple rotation evolution scheme consisting of three
127 < consecutive rotations.\cite{Fernandes2002} Unfortunately, unexpected
128 < errors and biases are introduced into the system due to the
129 < arbitrary order of applying the noncommuting rotation
130 < operators.\cite{Beard2003} Based on the observation the momentum
131 < relaxation time is much less than the time step, one may ignore the
132 < inertia in Brownian dynamics. However, the assumption of zero
133 < average acceleration is not always true for cooperative motion which
134 < is common in protein motion. An inertial Brownian dynamics (IBD) was
135 < proposed to address this issue by adding an inertial correction
136 < term.\cite{Beard2000} As a complement to IBD which has a lower bound
137 < in time step because of the inertial relaxation time, long-time-step
138 < inertial dynamics (LTID) can be used to investigate the inertial
139 < behavior of the polymer segments in low friction
140 < regime.\cite{Beard2000} LTID can also deal with the rotational
141 < dynamics for nonskew bodies without translation-rotation coupling by
142 < separating the translation and rotation motion and taking advantage
143 < of the analytical solution of hydrodynamics properties. However,
144 < typical nonskew bodies like cylinders and ellipsoids are inadequate
145 < to represent most complex macromolecule assemblies. These intricate
146 < molecules have been represented by a set of beads and their
147 < hydrodynamic properties can be calculated using variants on the
148 < standard hydrodynamic interaction tensors.
126 > introducing a rotational evolution scheme consisting of three
127 > consecutive rotations.\cite{Fernandes2002} Unfortunately, biases are
128 > introduced into the system due to the arbitrary order of applying the
129 > noncommuting rotation operators.\cite{Beard2003} The effects of these
130 > biases can be reduced by decreasing the size of the time step. Based
131 > on the observation the momentum relaxation time is much less than the
132 > time step, one may ignore the inertia in Brownian dynamics.  However,
133 > the assumption of zero average acceleration is not always true for
134 > cooperative motion which is common in proteins. An inertial Brownian
135 > dynamics (IBD) was proposed to address this issue by adding an
136 > inertial correction term.\cite{Beard2000} As a complement to IBD,
137 > which has a lower bound in time step because of the inertial
138 > relaxation time, long-time-step inertial dynamics (LTID) can be used
139 > to investigate the inertial behavior of linked polymer segments in a
140 > low friction regime.\cite{Beard2000} LTID can also deal with the
141 > rotational dynamics for nonskew bodies without translation-rotation
142 > coupling by separating the translation and rotation motion and taking
143 > advantage of the analytical solution of hydrodynamic
144 > properties. However, typical nonskew bodies like cylinders and
145 > ellipsoids are inadequate to represent most complex macromolecular
146 > assemblies. Therefore, the goal of this work is to adapt some of the
147 > hydrodynamic methodologies developed to treat Brownian motion of
148 > complex assemblies into a Langevin integrator for rigid bodies with
149 > arbitrary shapes.
150  
151 + \subsection{Rigid Body Dynamics}
152 + Rigid bodies are frequently involved in the modeling of large
153 + collections of particles that move as a single unit.  In molecular
154 + simulations, rigid bodies have been used to simplify protein-protein
155 + docking,\cite{Gray2003} and lipid bilayer
156 + simulations.\cite{SunX._jp0762020} Many of the water models in common
157 + use are also rigid-body
158 + models,\cite{Jorgensen83,Berendsen81,Berendsen87} although they are
159 + typically evolved in molecular dynamics simulations using constraints
160 + rather than rigid body equations of motion.
161 +
162 + Euler angles are a natural choice to describe the rotational degrees
163 + of freedom.  However, due to $\frac{1}{\sin \theta}$ singularities, the
164 + numerical integration of corresponding equations of these motion can
165 + become inaccurate (and inefficient).  Although the use of multiple
166 + sets of Euler angles can overcome this problem,\cite{Barojas1973} the
167 + computational penalty and the loss of angular momentum conservation
168 + remain.  A singularity-free representation utilizing quaternions was
169 + developed by Evans in 1977.\cite{Evans1977} The Evans quaternion
170 + approach uses a nonseparable Hamiltonian, and this has prevented
171 + symplectic algorithms from being utilized until very
172 + recently.\cite{Miller2002}
173 +
174 + Another approach is the application of holonomic constraints to the
175 + atoms belonging to the rigid body.  Each atom moves independently
176 + under the normal forces deriving from potential energy and constraints
177 + are used to guarantee rigidity. However, due to their iterative
178 + nature, the SHAKE and RATTLE algorithms converge very slowly when the
179 + number of constraints (and the number of particles that belong to the
180 + rigid body) increases.\cite{Ryckaert1977,Andersen1983}
181 +
182 + In order to develop a stable and efficient integration scheme that
183 + preserves most constants of the motion in microcanonical simulations,
184 + symplectic propagators are necessary.  By introducing a conjugate
185 + momentum to the rotation matrix ${\bf Q}$ and re-formulating
186 + Hamilton's equations, a symplectic orientational integrator,
187 + RSHAKE,\cite{Kol1997} was proposed to evolve rigid bodies on a
188 + constraint manifold by iteratively satisfying the orthogonality
189 + constraint ${\bf Q}^T {\bf Q} = 1$.  An alternative method using the
190 + quaternion representation was developed by Omelyan.\cite{Omelyan1998}
191 + However, both of these methods are iterative and suffer from some
192 + related inefficiencies. A symplectic Lie-Poisson integrator for rigid
193 + bodies developed by Dullweber {\it et al.}\cite{Dullweber1997} removes
194 + most of the limitations mentioned above and is therefore the basis for
195 + our Langevin integrator.
196 +
197   The goal of the present work is to develop a Langevin dynamics
198 < algorithm for arbitrary-shaped rigid particles by integrating the
199 < accurate estimation of friction tensor from hydrodynamics theory
200 < into the sophisticated rigid body dynamics algorithms.
198 > algorithm for arbitrary-shaped rigid particles by integrating accurate
199 > estimates of the friction tensor that can be obtaind from classical
200 > hydrodynamics theory (or other recently-developed hydrodynamic
201 > procedures) into a stable and efficient rigid body dynamics
202 > propagator.  In the sections below, we review some of the theory of
203 > hydrodynamic tensors developed primarily for Brownian simulations of
204 > multi-particle systems, we then present our integration method for a
205 > set of generalized Langevin equations of motion, and we compare the
206 > behavior of the new Langevin integrator to dynamical quantities
207 > obtained via explicit solvent molecular dynamics.
208  
209 < \subsection{\label{introSection:frictionTensor}Friction Tensor}
210 < Theoretically, the friction kernel can be determined using the
211 < velocity autocorrelation function. However, this approach becomes
212 < impractical when the system becomes more and more complicated.
213 < Instead, various approaches based on hydrodynamics have been
214 < developed to calculate the friction coefficients. In general, the
215 < friction tensor $\Xi$ is a $6\times 6$ matrix given by
216 < \[
217 < \Xi  = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
218 <   {\Xi _{}^{tt} } & {\Xi _{}^{rt} }  \\
219 <   {\Xi _{}^{tr} } & {\Xi _{}^{rr} }  \\
220 < \end{array}} \right).
221 < \]
222 < Here, $ {\Xi^{tt} }$ and $ {\Xi^{rr} }$ are $3 \times 3$
223 < translational friction tensor and rotational resistance (friction)
224 < tensor respectively, while ${\Xi^{tr} }$ is translation-rotation
225 < coupling tensor and $ {\Xi^{rt} }$ is rotation-translation coupling
226 < tensor. When a particle moves in a fluid, it may experience friction
227 < force or torque along the opposite direction of the velocity or
228 < angular velocity,
229 < \[
209 > \subsection{\label{introSection:frictionTensor}The Friction Tensor}
210 > Theoretically, a complete friction kernel for a solute particle can be
211 > determined using the velocity autocorrelation function from a
212 > simulation with explicit solvent molecules. However, this approach
213 > becomes impractical when the solute becomes complex.  Instead, various
214 > approaches based on hydrodynamics have been developed to calculate
215 > static friction coefficients. In general, the friction tensor $\Xi$ is
216 > a $6\times 6$ matrix given by
217 > \begin{equation}
218 > \Xi  = \left( \begin{array}{*{20}c}
219 >   \Xi^{tt} & \Xi^{rt}  \\
220 >   \Xi^{tr} & \Xi^{rr}  \\
221 > \end{array} \right).
222 > \end{equation}
223 > Here, $\Xi^{tt}$ and $\Xi^{rr}$ are $3 \times 3$ translational and
224 > rotational resistance (friction) tensors respectively, while
225 > $\Xi^{tr}$ is translation-rotation coupling tensor and $\Xi^{rt}$ is
226 > rotation-translation coupling tensor. When a particle moves in a
227 > fluid, it may experience a friction force ($\mathbf{f}_f$) and torque
228 > ($\mathbf{\tau}_f$) in opposition to the velocity ($\mathbf{v}$) and
229 > body-fixed angular velocity ($\mathbf{\omega}$),
230 > \begin{equation}
231   \left( \begin{array}{l}
232 < F_R  \\
233 < \tau _R  \\
234 < \end{array} \right) =  - \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
235 <   {\Xi ^{tt} } & {\Xi ^{rt} }  \\
236 <   {\Xi ^{tr} } & {\Xi ^{rr} }  \\
237 < \end{array}} \right)\left( \begin{array}{l}
238 < v \\
239 < w \\
240 < \end{array} \right)
241 < \]
242 < where $F_r$ is the friction force and $\tau _R$ is the friction
243 < torque.
232 > \mathbf{f}_f  \\
233 > \mathbf{\tau}_f  \\
234 > \end{array} \right) =  - \left( \begin{array}{*{20}c}
235 >   \Xi^{tt} & \Xi^{rt}  \\
236 >   \Xi^{tr} & \Xi^{rr}  \\
237 > \end{array} \right)\left( \begin{array}{l}
238 > \mathbf{v} \\
239 > \mathbf{\omega} \\
240 > \end{array} \right).
241 > \end{equation}
242 > For an arbitrary body moving in a fluid, Peters has derived a set of
243 > fluctuation-dissipation relations for the friction
244 > tensors,\cite{Peters:1999qy,Peters:1999uq,Peters:2000fk}
245 > \begin{eqnarray}
246 > \Xi^{tt} & = & \frac{1}{k_B T} \int_0^\infty \left[ \langle {\bf
247 > F}(0) {\bf F}(-s) \rangle_{eq} - \langle {\bf F} \rangle_{eq}^2
248 > \right] ds \\
249 > \notag \\
250 > \Xi^{tr} & = & \frac{1}{k_B T} \int_0^\infty \left[ \langle {\bf
251 > F}(0) {\bf \tau}(-s) \rangle_{eq} - \langle {\bf F} \rangle_{eq}
252 > \langle {\bf \tau} \rangle_{eq} \right] ds \\
253 > \notag \\
254 > \Xi^{rt} & = & \frac{1}{k_B T} \int_0^\infty \left[ \langle {\bf
255 > \tau}(0) {\bf F}(-s) \rangle_{eq} - \langle {\bf \tau} \rangle_{eq}
256 > \langle {\bf F} \rangle_{eq} \right] ds \\
257 > \notag \\
258 > \Xi^{rr} & = & \frac{1}{k_B T} \int_0^\infty \left[ \langle {\bf
259 > \tau}(0) {\bf \tau}(-s) \rangle_{eq} - \langle {\bf \tau} \rangle_{eq}^2
260 > \right] ds
261 > \end{eqnarray}
262 > In these expressions, the forces (${\bf F}$) and torques (${\bf
263 > \tau}$) are those that arise solely from the interactions of the body with
264 > the surrounding fluid. For a single solute body in an isotropic fluid,
265 > the average forces and torques in these expressions ($\langle {\bf F}
266 > \rangle_{eq}$ and $\langle {\bf \tau} \rangle_{eq}$)
267 > vanish, and one obtains the simpler force-torque correlation formulae
268 > of Nienhuis.\cite{Nienhuis:1970lr} Molecular dynamics simulations with
269 > explicit solvent molecules can be used to obtain estimates of the
270 > friction tensors with these formulae. In practice, however, one needs
271 > relatively long simulations with frequently-stored force and torque
272 > information to compute friction tensors, and this becomes
273 > prohibitively expensive when there are large numbers of large solute
274 > particles.  For bodies with simple shapes, there are a number of
275 > approximate expressions that allow computation of these tensors
276 > without the need for expensive simulations that utilize explicit
277 > solvent particles.
278  
279   \subsubsection{\label{introSection:resistanceTensorRegular}\textbf{The Resistance Tensor for Regular Shapes}}
280 <
281 < For a spherical particle with slip boundary conditions, the
282 < translational and rotational friction constant can be calculated
283 < from Stoke's law,
284 < \[
285 < \Xi ^{tt}  = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
286 <   {6\pi \eta R} & 0 & 0  \\
287 <   0 & {6\pi \eta R} & 0  \\
288 <   0 & 0 & {6\pi \eta R}  \\
289 < \end{array}} \right)
290 < \]
280 > For a spherical body under ``stick'' boundary conditions, the
281 > translational and rotational friction tensors can be estimated from
282 > Stokes' law,
283 > \begin{equation}
284 > \label{eq:StokesTranslation}
285 > \Xi^{tt}  = \left( \begin{array}{*{20}c}
286 >   {6\pi \eta \rho} & 0 & 0  \\
287 >   0 & {6\pi \eta \rho} & 0  \\
288 >   0 & 0 & {6\pi \eta \rho}  \\
289 > \end{array} \right)
290 > \end{equation}
291   and
292 < \[
293 < \Xi ^{rr}  = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
294 <   {8\pi \eta R^3 } & 0 & 0  \\
295 <   0 & {8\pi \eta R^3 } & 0  \\
296 <   0 & 0 & {8\pi \eta R^3 }  \\
297 < \end{array}} \right)
298 < \]
299 < where $\eta$ is the viscosity of the solvent and $R$ is the
300 < hydrodynamic radius.
292 > \begin{equation}
293 > \label{eq:StokesRotation}
294 > \Xi^{rr}  = \left( \begin{array}{*{20}c}
295 >   {8\pi \eta \rho^3 } & 0 & 0  \\
296 >   0 & {8\pi \eta \rho^3 } & 0  \\
297 >   0 & 0 & {8\pi \eta \rho^3 }  \\
298 > \end{array} \right)
299 > \end{equation}
300 > where $\eta$ is the viscosity of the solvent and $\rho$ is the
301 > hydrodynamic radius.  The presence of the rotational resistance tensor
302 > implies that the spherical body has internal structure and
303 > orientational degrees of freedom that must be propagated in time.  For
304 > non-structured spherical bodies (i.e. the atoms in a traditional
305 > molecular dynamics simulation) these degrees of freedom do not exist.
306  
307   Other non-spherical shapes, such as cylinders and ellipsoids, are
308 < widely used as references for developing new hydrodynamics theory,
308 > widely used as references for developing new hydrodynamic theories,
309   because their properties can be calculated exactly. In 1936, Perrin
310 < extended Stokes's law to general ellipsoids, also called a triaxial
311 < ellipsoid, which is given in Cartesian coordinates
312 < by\cite{Perrin1934, Perrin1936}
313 < \[
314 < \frac{{x^2 }}{{a^2 }} + \frac{{y^2 }}{{b^2 }} + \frac{{z^2 }}{{c^2
315 < }} = 1
316 < \]
317 < where the semi-axes are of lengths $a$, $b$, and $c$. Unfortunately,
318 < due to the complexity of the elliptic integral, only the ellipsoid
319 < with the restriction of two axes being equal, \textit{i.e.}
320 < prolate($ a \ge b = c$) and oblate ($ a < b = c $), can be solved
321 < exactly. Introducing an elliptic integral parameter $S$ for prolate
322 < ellipsoids :
323 < \[
324 < S = \frac{2}{{\sqrt {a^2  - b^2 } }}\ln \frac{{a + \sqrt {a^2  - b^2
325 < } }}{b},
326 < \]
327 < and oblate ellipsoids:
328 < \[
329 < S = \frac{2}{{\sqrt {b^2  - a^2 } }}arctg\frac{{\sqrt {b^2  - a^2 }
330 < }}{a},
331 < \]
332 < one can write down the translational and rotational resistance
333 < tensors
334 < \begin{eqnarray*}
335 < \Xi _a^{tt}  & = & 16\pi \eta \frac{{a^2  - b^2 }}{{(2a^2  - b^2 )S - 2a}}. \\
336 < \Xi _b^{tt}  & = & \Xi _c^{tt}  = 32\pi \eta \frac{{a^2  - b^2 }}{{(2a^2  - 3b^2 )S +
337 < 2a}},
338 < \end{eqnarray*}
339 < and
340 < \begin{eqnarray*}
266 < \Xi _a^{rr} & = & \frac{{32\pi }}{3}\eta \frac{{(a^2  - b^2 )b^2 }}{{2a - b^2 S}}, \\
267 < \Xi _b^{rr} & = & \Xi _c^{rr}  = \frac{{32\pi }}{3}\eta \frac{{(a^4  - b^4 )}}{{(2a^2  - b^2 )S - 2a}}.
268 < \end{eqnarray*}
310 > extended Stokes' law to general
311 > ellipsoids,\cite{Perrin1934,Perrin1936} described in Cartesian
312 > coordinates as
313 > \begin{equation}
314 > \frac{x^2 }{a^2} + \frac{y^2}{b^2} + \frac{z^2 }{c^2} = 1.
315 > \end{equation}
316 > Here, the semi-axes are of lengths $a$, $b$, and $c$. Due to the
317 > complexity of the elliptic integral, only uniaxial ellipsoids, either
318 > prolate ($a \ge b = c$) or oblate ($a < b = c$), were solved
319 > exactly. Introducing an elliptic integral parameter $S$ for prolate,
320 > \begin{equation}
321 > S = \frac{2}{\sqrt{a^2  - b^2}} \ln \frac{a + \sqrt{a^2  - b^2}}{b},
322 > \end{equation}
323 > and oblate,
324 > \begin{equation}
325 > S = \frac{2}{\sqrt {b^2  - a^2 }} \arctan \frac{\sqrt {b^2  - a^2}}{a},
326 > \end{equation}
327 > ellipsoids, it is possible to write down exact solutions for the
328 > resistance tensors.  As is the case for spherical bodies, the translational,
329 > \begin{eqnarray}
330 > \Xi_a^{tt}  & = & 16\pi \eta \frac{a^2  - b^2}{(2a^2  - b^2 )S - 2a}. \\
331 > \Xi_b^{tt} =  \Xi_c^{tt} & = & 32\pi \eta \frac{a^2  - b^2 }{(2a^2 - 3b^2 )S + 2a},
332 > \end{eqnarray}
333 > and rotational,
334 > \begin{eqnarray}
335 > \Xi_a^{rr} & = & \frac{32\pi}{3} \eta \frac{(a^2  - b^2 )b^2}{2a - b^2 S}, \\
336 > \Xi_b^{rr} = \Xi_c^{rr} & = & \frac{32\pi}{3} \eta \frac{(a^4  - b^4)}{(2a^2  - b^2 )S - 2a}
337 > \end{eqnarray}
338 > resistance tensors are diagonal $3 \times 3$ matrices. For both
339 > spherical and ellipsoidal particles, the translation-rotation and
340 > rotation-translation coupling tensors are zero.
341  
342   \subsubsection{\label{introSection:resistanceTensorRegularArbitrary}\textbf{The Resistance Tensor for Arbitrary Shapes}}
343 + Other than the fluctuation dissipation formulae given by
344 + Peters,\cite{Peters:1999qy,Peters:1999uq,Peters:2000fk} there are no
345 + analytic solutions for the friction tensor for rigid molecules of
346 + arbitrary shape. The ellipsoid of revolution and general triaxial
347 + ellipsoid models have been widely used to approximate the hydrodynamic
348 + properties of rigid bodies. However, the mapping from all possible
349 + ellipsoidal spaces ($r$-space) to all possible combinations of
350 + rotational diffusion coefficients ($D$-space) is not
351 + unique.\cite{Wegener1979} Additionally, because there is intrinsic
352 + coupling between translational and rotational motion of {\it skew}
353 + rigid bodies, general ellipsoids are not always suitable for modeling
354 + rigid molecules.  A number of studies have been devoted to determining
355 + the friction tensor for irregular shapes using methods in which the
356 + molecule of interest is modeled with a combination of
357 + spheres\cite{Carrasco1999} and the hydrodynamic properties of the
358 + molecule are then calculated using a set of two-point interaction
359 + tensors.  We have found the {\it bead} and {\it rough shell} models of
360 + Carrasco and Garc\'{i}a de la Torre to be the most useful of these
361 + methods,\cite{Carrasco1999} and we review the basic outline of the
362 + rough shell approach here.  A more thorough explanation can be found
363 + in Ref. \citen{Carrasco1999}.
364  
365 < Unlike spherical and other simply shaped molecules, there is no
366 < analytical solution for the friction tensor for arbitrarily shaped
367 < rigid molecules. The ellipsoid of revolution model and general
368 < triaxial ellipsoid model have been used to approximate the
369 < hydrodynamic properties of rigid bodies. However, since the mapping
277 < from all possible ellipsoidal spaces, $r$-space, to all possible
278 < combination of rotational diffusion coefficients, $D$-space, is not
279 < unique\cite{Wegener1979} as well as the intrinsic coupling between
280 < translational and rotational motion of rigid bodies, general
281 < ellipsoids are not always suitable for modeling arbitrarily shaped
282 < rigid molecules. A number of studies have been devoted to
283 < determining the friction tensor for irregularly shaped rigid bodies
284 < using more advanced methods where the molecule of interest was
285 < modeled by a combinations of spheres\cite{Carrasco1999} and the
286 < hydrodynamics properties of the molecule can be calculated using the
287 < hydrodynamic interaction tensor. Let us consider a rigid assembly of
288 < $N$ beads immersed in a continuous medium. Due to hydrodynamic
289 < interaction, the ``net'' velocity of $i$th bead, $v'_i$ is different
290 < than its unperturbed velocity $v_i$,
291 < \[
292 < v'_i  = v_i  - \sum\limits_{j \ne i} {T_{ij} F_j }
293 < \]
294 < where $F_i$ is the frictional force, and $T_{ij}$ is the
295 < hydrodynamic interaction tensor. The friction force of $i$th bead is
296 < proportional to its ``net'' velocity
365 > Consider a rigid assembly of $N$ small beads moving through a
366 > continuous medium.  Due to hydrodynamic interactions between the
367 > beads, the net velocity of the $i^\mathrm{th}$ bead relative to the
368 > medium, ${\bf v}'_i$, is different than its unperturbed velocity ${\bf
369 > v}_i$,
370   \begin{equation}
371 < F_i  = \zeta _i v_i  - \zeta _i \sum\limits_{j \ne i} {T_{ij} F_j }.
299 < \label{introEquation:tensorExpression}
371 > {\bf v}'_i  = {\bf v}_i  - \sum\limits_{j \ne i} {{\bf T}_{ij} {\bf F}_j }
372   \end{equation}
373 < This equation is the basis for deriving the hydrodynamic tensor. In
374 < 1930, Oseen and Burgers gave a simple solution to
375 < Eq.~\ref{introEquation:tensorExpression}
373 > where ${\bf F}_j$ is the frictional force on the medium due to bead $j$, and
374 > ${\bf T}_{ij}$ is the hydrodynamic interaction tensor between the two beads.
375 > The frictional force felt by the $i^\mathrm{th}$ bead is proportional to
376 > its net velocity
377   \begin{equation}
378 < T_{ij}  = \frac{1}{{8\pi \eta r_{ij} }}\left( {I + \frac{{R_{ij}
379 < R_{ij}^T }}{{R_{ij}^2 }}} \right). \label{introEquation:oseenTensor}
378 > {\bf F}_i  = \xi_i {\bf v}_i  - \xi_i \sum\limits_{j \ne i} {{\bf T}_{ij} {\bf F}_j }.
379 > \label{introEquation:tensorExpression}
380   \end{equation}
381 < Here $R_{ij}$ is the distance vector between bead $i$ and bead $j$.
382 < A second order expression for element of different size was
383 < introduced by Rotne and Prager\cite{Rotne1969} and improved by
381 > Eq. (\ref{introEquation:tensorExpression}) defines the two-point
382 > hydrodynamic tensor, ${\bf T}_{ij}$.  There have been many proposed
383 > solutions to this equation, including the simple solution given by
384 > Oseen and Burgers in 1930 for two beads of identical radius.  A second
385 > order expression for beads of different hydrodynamic radii was
386 > introduced by Rotne and Prager,\cite{Rotne1969} and improved by
387   Garc\'{i}a de la Torre and Bloomfield,\cite{Torre1977}
388   \begin{equation}
389 < T_{ij}  = \frac{1}{{8\pi \eta R_{ij} }}\left[ {\left( {I +
390 < \frac{{R_{ij} R_{ij}^T }}{{R_{ij}^2 }}} \right) + R\frac{{\sigma
391 < _i^2  + \sigma _j^2 }}{{r_{ij}^2 }}\left( {\frac{I}{3} -
392 < \frac{{R_{ij} R_{ij}^T }}{{R_{ij}^2 }}} \right)} \right].
389 > {\bf T}_{ij}  = \frac{1}{{8\pi \eta R_{ij} }}\left[ {\left( {{\bf I} +
390 > \frac{{{\bf R}_{ij} {\bf R}_{ij}^T }}{{R_{ij}^2 }}} \right) + \frac{{\rho
391 > _i^2  + \rho_j^2 }}{{R_{ij}^2 }}\left( {\frac{{\bf I}}{3} -
392 > \frac{{{\bf R}_{ij} {\bf R}_{ij}^T }}{{R_{ij}^2 }}} \right)} \right].
393   \label{introEquation:RPTensorNonOverlapped}
394   \end{equation}
395 < Both of the Eq.~\ref{introEquation:oseenTensor} and
396 < Eq.~\ref{introEquation:RPTensorNonOverlapped} have an assumption
397 < $R_{ij} \ge \sigma _i  + \sigma _j$. An alternative expression for
398 < overlapping beads with the same radius, $\sigma$, is given by
395 > Here ${\bf R}_{ij}$ is the distance vector between beads $i$ and $j$.  Both
396 > the Oseen-Burgers tensor and
397 > Eq.~\ref{introEquation:RPTensorNonOverlapped} have an assumption that
398 > the beads do not overlap ($R_{ij} \ge \rho_i + \rho_j$).
399 >
400 > To calculate the resistance tensor for a body represented as the union
401 > of many non-overlapping beads, we first pick an arbitrary origin $O$
402 > and then construct a $3N \times 3N$ supermatrix consisting of $N
403 > \times N$ ${\bf B}_{ij}$ blocks
404   \begin{equation}
405 < T_{ij}  = \frac{1}{{6\pi \eta R_{ij} }}\left[ {\left( {1 -
406 < \frac{2}{{32}}\frac{{R_{ij} }}{\sigma }} \right)I +
407 < \frac{2}{{32}}\frac{{R_{ij} R_{ij}^T }}{{R_{ij} \sigma }}} \right]
408 < \label{introEquation:RPTensorOverlapped}
405 > {\bf B} = \left( \begin{array}{*{20}c}
406 > {\bf B}_{11} &  \ldots  & {\bf B}_{1N}   \\
407 > \vdots  &  \ddots  &  \vdots   \\
408 > {\bf B}_{N1} &  \cdots  & {\bf B}_{NN}
409 > \end{array} \right)
410   \end{equation}
411 < To calculate the resistance tensor at an arbitrary origin $O$, we
412 < construct a $3N \times 3N$ matrix consisting of $N \times N$
331 < $B_{ij}$ blocks
411 > ${\bf B}_{ij}$ is a version of the hydrodynamic tensor which includes the
412 > self-contributions for spheres,
413   \begin{equation}
414 < B = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
415 <   {B_{11} } &  \ldots  & {B_{1N} }  \\
335 <    \vdots  &  \ddots  &  \vdots   \\
336 <   {B_{N1} } &  \cdots  & {B_{NN} }  \\
337 < \end{array}} \right),
414 > {\bf B}_{ij}  = \delta _{ij} \frac{{\bf I}}{{6\pi \eta R_{ij}}} + (1 - \delta_{ij}
415 > ){\bf T}_{ij}
416   \end{equation}
417 < where $B_{ij}$ is given by
418 < \[
419 < B_{ij}  = \delta _{ij} \frac{I}{{6\pi \eta R}} + (1 - \delta _{ij}
420 < )T_{ij}
421 < \]
422 < where $\delta _{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta function. Inverting the
423 < $B$ matrix, we obtain
424 < \[
425 < C = B^{ - 1}  = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
426 <   {C_{11} } &  \ldots  & {C_{1N} }  \\
427 <    \vdots  &  \ddots  &  \vdots   \\
428 <   {C_{N1} } &  \cdots  & {C_{NN} }  \\
429 < \end{array}} \right),
430 < \]
431 < which can be partitioned into $N \times N$ $3 \times 3$ block
432 < $C_{ij}$. With the help of $C_{ij}$ and the skew matrix $U_i$
433 < \[
434 < U_i  = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
435 <   0 & { - z_i } & {y_i }  \\
436 <   {z_i } & 0 & { - x_i }  \\
359 <   { - y_i } & {x_i } & 0  \\
360 < \end{array}} \right)
361 < \]
417 > where $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta function. Inverting the
418 > ${\bf B}$ matrix, we obtain
419 > \begin{equation}
420 > {\bf C} = {\bf B}^{ - 1}  = \left(\begin{array}{*{20}c}
421 >  {\bf C}_{11} &  \ldots  & {\bf C}_{1N} \\
422 > \vdots  &  \ddots  &  \vdots   \\
423 >  {\bf C}_{N1} &  \cdots  & {\bf C}_{NN}
424 > \end{array} \right),
425 > \end{equation}
426 > which can be partitioned into $N \times N$ blocks labeled ${\bf C}_{ij}$.
427 > (Each of the ${\bf C}_{ij}$ blocks is a $3 \times 3$ matrix.)  Using the
428 > skew matrix,
429 > \begin{equation}
430 > {\bf U}_i  = \left(\begin{array}{*{20}c}
431 >  0 & -z_i & y_i \\
432 > z_i &  0   & - x_i \\
433 > -y_i & x_i & 0
434 > \end{array}\right)
435 > \label{eq:skewMatrix}
436 > \end{equation}
437   where $x_i$, $y_i$, $z_i$ are the components of the vector joining
438 < bead $i$ and origin $O$, the elements of resistance tensor at
439 < arbitrary origin $O$ can be written as
438 > bead $i$ and origin $O$, the elements of the resistance tensor (at the
439 > arbitrary origin $O$) can be written as
440   \begin{eqnarray}
366 \Xi _{}^{tt}  & = & \sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_j {C_{ij} } } \notag , \\
367 \Xi _{}^{tr}  & = & \Xi _{}^{rt}  = \sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_j {U_i C_{ij} } } , \\
368 \Xi _{}^{rr}  & = &  - \sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_j {U_i C_{ij} } }
369 U_j  + 6 \eta V {\bf I}. \notag
441   \label{introEquation:ResistanceTensorArbitraryOrigin}
442 + \Xi^{tt}  & = & \sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_j {{\bf C}_{ij} } } \notag , \\
443 + \Xi^{tr}  = \Xi _{}^{rt}  & = & \sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_j {{\bf U}_i {\bf C}_{ij} } } , \\
444 + \Xi^{rr}  & = &  -\sum\limits_i \sum\limits_j {\bf U}_i {\bf C}_{ij} {\bf U}_j + 6 \eta V {\bf I}. \notag
445   \end{eqnarray}
446 < The final term in the expression for $\Xi^{rr}$ is correction that
447 < accounts for errors in the rotational motion of certain kinds of bead
448 < models. The additive correction uses the solvent viscosity ($\eta$)
449 < as well as the total volume of the beads that contribute to the
376 < hydrodynamic model,
446 > The final term in the expression for $\Xi^{rr}$ is a correction that
447 > accounts for errors in the rotational motion of the bead models. The
448 > additive correction uses the solvent viscosity ($\eta$) as well as the
449 > total volume of the beads that contribute to the hydrodynamic model,
450   \begin{equation}
451 < V = \frac{4 \pi}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sigma_i^3,
451 > V = \frac{4 \pi}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \rho_i^3,
452   \end{equation}
453 < where $\sigma_i$ is the radius of bead $i$.  This correction term was
453 > where $\rho_i$ is the radius of bead $i$.  This correction term was
454   rigorously tested and compared with the analytical results for
455 < two-sphere and ellipsoidal systems by Garcia de la Torre and
455 > two-sphere and ellipsoidal systems by Garc\'{i}a de la Torre and
456   Rodes.\cite{Torre:1983lr}
457  
458 <
459 < The resistance tensor depends on the origin to which they refer. The
460 < proper location for applying the friction force is the center of
461 < resistance (or center of reaction), at which the trace of rotational
462 < resistance tensor, $ \Xi ^{rr}$ reaches a minimum value.
463 < Mathematically, the center of resistance is defined as an unique
464 < point of the rigid body at which the translation-rotation coupling
392 < tensors are symmetric,
458 > In general, resistance tensors depend on the origin at which they were
459 > computed.  However, the proper location for applying the friction
460 > force is the center of resistance, the special point at which the
461 > trace of rotational resistance tensor, $\Xi^{rr}$ reaches a minimum
462 > value.  Mathematically, the center of resistance can also be defined
463 > as the unique point for a rigid body at which the translation-rotation
464 > coupling tensors are symmetric,
465   \begin{equation}
466 < \Xi^{tr}  = \left( {\Xi^{tr} } \right)^T
466 > \Xi^{tr}  = \left(\Xi^{tr}\right)^T
467   \label{introEquation:definitionCR}
468   \end{equation}
469 < From Equation \ref{introEquation:ResistanceTensorArbitraryOrigin},
470 < we can easily derive that the translational resistance tensor is
471 < origin independent, while the rotational resistance tensor and
469 > From Eq. \ref{introEquation:ResistanceTensorArbitraryOrigin}, we can
470 > easily derive that the {\it translational} resistance tensor is origin
471 > independent, while the rotational resistance tensor and
472   translation-rotation coupling resistance tensor depend on the
473 < origin. Given the resistance tensor at an arbitrary origin $O$, and
474 < a vector ,$r_{OP}(x_{OP}, y_{OP}, z_{OP})$, from $O$ to $P$, we can
475 < obtain the resistance tensor at $P$ by
476 < \begin{equation}
477 < \begin{array}{l}
478 < \Xi _P^{tt}  = \Xi _O^{tt}  \\
479 < \Xi _P^{tr}  = \Xi _P^{rt}  = \Xi _O^{tr}  - U_{OP} \Xi _O^{tt}  \\
480 < \Xi _P^{rr}  = \Xi _O^{rr}  - U_{OP} \Xi _O^{tt} U_{OP}  + \Xi _O^{tr} U_{OP}  - U_{OP} \Xi _O^{{tr} ^{^T }}  \\
481 < \end{array}
482 < \label{introEquation:resistanceTensorTransformation}
483 < \end{equation}
484 < where
485 < \[
486 < U_{OP}  = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
487 <   0 & { - z_{OP} } & {y_{OP} }  \\
488 <   {z_i } & 0 & { - x_{OP} }  \\
489 <   { - y_{OP} } & {x_{OP} } & 0  \\
490 < \end{array}} \right)
491 < \]
492 < Using Eq.~\ref{introEquation:definitionCR} and
493 < Eq.~\ref{introEquation:resistanceTensorTransformation}, one can
494 < locate the position of center of resistance,
495 < \begin{eqnarray*}
496 < \left( \begin{array}{l}
497 < x_{OR}  \\
498 < y_{OR}  \\
499 < z_{OR}  \\
500 < \end{array} \right) & = &\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
501 <   {(\Xi _O^{rr} )_{yy}  + (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{zz} } & { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xy} } & { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xz} }  \\
502 <   { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xy} } & {(\Xi _O^{rr} )_{zz}  + (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xx} } & { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{yz} }  \\
503 <   { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xz} } & { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{yz} } & {(\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xx}  + (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{yy} }  \\
504 < \end{array}} \right)^{ - 1}  \\
505 <  & & \left( \begin{array}{l}
434 < (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{yz}  - (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{zy}  \\
435 < (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{zx}  - (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{xz}  \\
436 < (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{xy}  - (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{yx}  \\
437 < \end{array} \right) \\
438 < \end{eqnarray*}
439 < where $x_OR$, $y_OR$, $z_OR$ are the components of the vector
473 > origin. Given the resistance tensor at an arbitrary origin $O$, and a
474 > vector ,${\bf r}_{OP} = (x_{OP}, y_{OP}, z_{OP})$, from $O$ to $P$, we
475 > can obtain the resistance tensor at $P$ by
476 > \begin{eqnarray}
477 > \label{introEquation:resistanceTensorTransformation}
478 > \Xi_P^{tt}  & = & \Xi_O^{tt}  \notag \\
479 > \Xi_P^{tr}  = \Xi_P^{rt}  & = & \Xi_O^{tr}  - {\bf U}_{OP} \Xi _O^{tt}  \\
480 > \Xi_P^{rr}  & = &\Xi_O^{rr}  - {\bf U}_{OP} \Xi_O^{tt} {\bf U}_{OP}
481 > + \Xi_O^{tr} {\bf U}_{OP}  - {\bf U}_{OP} \left( \Xi_O^{tr}
482 > \right)^{^T} \notag
483 > \end{eqnarray}
484 > where ${\bf U}_{OP}$ is the skew matrix (Eq. (\ref{eq:skewMatrix}))
485 > for the vector between the origin $O$ and the point $P$. Using
486 > Eqs.~\ref{introEquation:definitionCR}~and~\ref{introEquation:resistanceTensorTransformation},
487 > one can locate the position of center of resistance,
488 > \begin{equation*}
489 > \left(\begin{array}{l}
490 > x_{OR} \\
491 > y_{OR} \\
492 > z_{OR}
493 > \end{array}\right) =
494 > \left(\begin{array}{*{20}c}
495 > (\Xi_O^{rr})_{yy} + (\Xi_O^{rr})_{zz} & -(\Xi_O^{rr})_{xy} & -(\Xi_O^{rr})_{xz} \\
496 > -(\Xi_O^{rr})_{xy} & (\Xi_O^{rr})_{zz} + (\Xi_O^{rr})_{xx} & -(\Xi_O^{rr})_{yz} \\
497 > -(\Xi_O^{rr})_{xz} & -(\Xi_O^{rr})_{yz} & (\Xi_O^{rr})_{xx} + (\Xi_O^{rr})_{yy} \\
498 > \end{array}\right)^{-1}
499 > \left(\begin{array}{l}
500 > (\Xi_O^{tr})_{yz} - (\Xi_O^{tr})_{zy} \\
501 > (\Xi_O^{tr})_{zx} - (\Xi_O^{tr})_{xz} \\
502 > (\Xi_O^{tr})_{xy} - (\Xi_O^{tr})_{yx}
503 > \end{array}\right)
504 > \end{equation*}
505 > where $x_{OR}$, $y_{OR}$, $z_{OR}$ are the components of the vector
506   joining center of resistance $R$ and origin $O$.
507  
508 + For a general rigid molecular substructure, finding the $6 \times 6$
509 + resistance tensor can be a computationally demanding task.  First, a
510 + lattice of small beads that extends well beyond the boundaries of the
511 + rigid substructure is created.  The lattice is typically composed of
512 + 0.25 \AA\ beads on a dense FCC lattice.  The lattice constant is taken
513 + to be the bead diameter, so that adjacent beads are touching, but do
514 + not overlap. To make a shape corresponding to the rigid structure,
515 + beads that sit on lattice sites that are outside the van der Waals
516 + radii of all of the atoms comprising the rigid body are excluded from
517 + the calculation.
518  
519 + For large structures, most of the beads will be deep within the rigid
520 + body and will not contribute to the hydrodynamic tensor.  In the {\it
521 + rough shell} approach, beads which have all of their lattice neighbors
522 + inside the structure are considered interior beads, and are removed
523 + from the calculation.  After following this procedure, only those
524 + beads in direct contact with the van der Waals surface of the rigid
525 + body are retained.  For reasonably large molecular structures, this
526 + truncation can still produce bead assemblies with thousands of
527 + members.
528 +
529 + If all of the {\it atoms} comprising the rigid substructure are
530 + spherical and non-overlapping, the tensor in
531 + Eq.~(\ref{introEquation:RPTensorNonOverlapped}) may be used directly
532 + using the atoms themselves as the hydrodynamic beads.  This is a
533 + variant of the {\it bead model} approach of Carrasco and Garc\'{i}a de
534 + la Torre.\cite{Carrasco1999} In this case, the size of the ${\bf B}$
535 + matrix can be quite small, and the calculation of the hydrodynamic
536 + tensor is straightforward.
537 +
538 + In general, the inversion of the ${\bf B}$ matrix is the most
539 + computationally demanding task.  This inversion is done only once for
540 + each type of rigid structure.  We have used straightforward
541 + LU-decomposition to solve the linear system and to obtain the elements
542 + of ${\bf C}$. Once ${\bf C}$ has been obtained, the location of the
543 + center of resistance ($R$) is found and the resistance tensor at this
544 + point is calculated.  The $3 \times 1$ vector giving the location of
545 + the rigid body's center of resistance and the $6 \times 6$ resistance
546 + tensor are then stored for use in the Langevin dynamics calculation.
547 + These quantities depend on solvent viscosity and temperature and must
548 + be recomputed if different simulation conditions are required.
549 +
550   \section{Langevin Dynamics for Rigid Particles of Arbitrary Shape\label{LDRB}}
551 +
552   Consider the Langevin equations of motion in generalized coordinates
553   \begin{equation}
554 < M_i \dot V_i (t) = F_{s,i} (t) + F_{f,i(t)}  + F_{r,i} (t)
554 > {\bf M} \dot{{\bf V}}(t) = {\bf F}_{s}(t) +
555 > {\bf F}_{f}(t)  + {\bf F}_{r}(t)
556   \label{LDGeneralizedForm}
557   \end{equation}
558 < where $M_i$ is a $6\times6$ generalized diagonal mass (include mass
559 < and moment of inertial) matrix and $V_i$ is a generalized velocity,
560 < $V_i = V_i(v_i,\omega _i)$. The right side of
561 < Eq.~\ref{LDGeneralizedForm} consists of three generalized forces in
562 < lab-fixed frame, systematic force $F_{s,i}$, dissipative force
563 < $F_{f,i}$ and stochastic force $F_{r,i}$. While the evolution of the
564 < system in Newtownian mechanics typically refers to lab-fixed frame,
565 < it is also convenient to handle the rotation of rigid body in
566 < body-fixed frame. Thus the friction and random forces are calculated
567 < in body-fixed frame and converted back to lab-fixed frame by:
568 < \[
569 < \begin{array}{l}
570 < F_{f,i}^l (t) = Q^T F_{f,i}^b (t), \\
571 < F_{r,i}^l (t) = Q^T F_{r,i}^b (t). \\
463 < \end{array}
464 < \]
465 < Here, the body-fixed friction force $F_{r,i}^b$ is proportional to
466 < the body-fixed velocity at center of resistance $v_{R,i}^b$ and
467 < angular velocity $\omega _i$
558 > where ${\bf M}$ is a $6 \times 6$ diagonal mass matrix (which
559 > includes the mass of the rigid body as well as the moments of inertia
560 > in the body-fixed frame) and ${\bf V}$ is a generalized velocity,
561 > ${\bf V} =
562 > \left\{{\bf v},{\bf \omega}\right\}$. The right side of
563 > Eq.~\ref{LDGeneralizedForm} consists of three generalized forces: a
564 > system force (${\bf F}_{s}$), a frictional or dissipative force (${\bf
565 > F}_{f}$) and a stochastic force (${\bf F}_{r}$). While the evolution
566 > of the system in Newtonian mechanics is typically done in the lab
567 > frame, it is convenient to handle the dynamics of rigid bodies in
568 > body-fixed frames. Thus the friction and random forces on each
569 > substructure are calculated in a body-fixed frame and may converted
570 > back to the lab frame using that substructure's rotation matrix (${\bf
571 > Q}$):
572   \begin{equation}
573 < F_{r,i}^b (t) = \left( \begin{array}{l}
574 < f_{r,i}^b (t) \\
575 < \tau _{r,i}^b (t) \\
576 < \end{array} \right) =  - \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
577 <   {\Xi _{R,t} } & {\Xi _{R,c}^T }  \\
578 <   {\Xi _{R,c} } & {\Xi _{R,r} }  \\
579 < \end{array}} \right)\left( \begin{array}{l}
580 < v_{R,i}^b (t) \\
581 < \omega _i (t) \\
582 < \end{array} \right),
573 > {\bf F}_{f,r} =
574 > \left( \begin{array}{c}
575 > {\bf f}_{f,r} \\
576 > {\bf \tau}_{f,r}
577 > \end{array} \right)
578 > =
579 > \left( \begin{array}{c}
580 > {\bf Q}^{T} {\bf f}^{~b}_{f,r} \\
581 > {\bf Q}^{T} {\bf \tau}^{~b}_{f,r}
582 > \end{array} \right)
583   \end{equation}
584 < while the random force $F_{r,i}^l$ is a Gaussian stochastic variable
585 < with zero mean and variance
584 > The body-fixed friction force, ${\bf F}_{f}^{~b}$, is proportional to
585 > the (body-fixed) velocity at the center of resistance
586 > ${\bf v}_{R}^{~b}$ and the angular velocity ${\bf \omega}$
587   \begin{equation}
588 < \left\langle {F_{r,i}^l (t)(F_{r,i}^l (t'))^T } \right\rangle  =
589 < \left\langle {F_{r,i}^b (t)(F_{r,i}^b (t'))^T } \right\rangle  =
590 < 2k_B T\Xi _R \delta (t - t'). \label{randomForce}
588 > {\bf F}_{f}^{~b}(t) = \left( \begin{array}{l}
589 > {\bf f}_{f}^{~b}(t) \\
590 > {\bf \tau}_{f}^{~b}(t) \\
591 > \end{array} \right) =  - \left( \begin{array}{*{20}c}
592 >   \Xi_{R}^{tt} & \Xi_{R}^{rt} \\
593 >   \Xi_{R}^{tr} & \Xi_{R}^{rr}    \\
594 > \end{array} \right)\left( \begin{array}{l}
595 > {\bf v}_{R}^{~b}(t) \\
596 > {\bf \omega}(t) \\
597 > \end{array} \right),
598   \end{equation}
599 < The equation of motion for $v_i$ can be written as
599 > while the random force, ${\bf F}_{r}$, is a Gaussian stochastic
600 > variable with zero mean and variance,
601   \begin{equation}
602 < m\dot v_i (t) = f_{t,i} (t) = f_{s,i} (t) + f_{f,i}^l (t) +
603 < f_{r,i}^l (t)
602 > \left\langle {{\bf F}_{r}(t) ({\bf F}_{r}(t'))^T } \right\rangle  =
603 > \left\langle {{\bf F}_{r}^{~b} (t) ({\bf F}_{r}^{~b} (t'))^T } \right\rangle  =
604 > 2 k_B T \Xi_R \delta(t - t'). \label{eq:randomForce}
605   \end{equation}
606 < Since the frictional force is applied at the center of resistance
607 < which generally does not coincide with the center of mass, an extra
608 < torque is exerted at the center of mass. Thus, the net body-fixed
609 < frictional torque at the center of mass, $\tau _{n,i}^b (t)$, is
610 < given by
611 < \begin{equation}
612 < \tau _{r,i}^b = \tau _{r,i}^b +r_{MR} \times f_{r,i}^b
606 > $\Xi_R$ is the $6\times6$ resistance tensor at the center of
607 > resistance.  Once this tensor is known for a given rigid body (as
608 > described in the previous section) obtaining a stochastic vector that
609 > has the properties in Eq. (\ref{eq:randomForce}) can be done
610 > efficiently by carrying out a one-time Cholesky decomposition to
611 > obtain the square root matrix of the resistance tensor,
612 > \begin{equation}
613 > \Xi_R = {\bf S} {\bf S}^{T},
614 > \label{eq:Cholesky}
615 > \end{equation}
616 > where ${\bf S}$ is a lower triangular matrix.\cite{Schlick2002} A
617 > vector with the statistics required for the random force can then be
618 > obtained by multiplying ${\bf S}$ onto a random 6-vector ${\bf Z}$ which
619 > has elements chosen from a Gaussian distribution, such that:
620 > \begin{equation}
621 > \langle {\bf Z}_i \rangle = 0, \hspace{1in} \langle {\bf Z}_i \cdot
622 > {\bf Z}_j \rangle = \frac{2 k_B T}{\delta t} \delta_{ij},
623   \end{equation}
624 < where $r_{MR}$ is the vector from the center of mass to the center
625 < of the resistance. Instead of integrating the angular velocity in
626 < lab-fixed frame, we consider the equation of angular momentum in
627 < body-fixed frame
624 > where $\delta t$ is the timestep in use during the simulation. The
625 > random force, ${\bf F}_{r}^{~b} = {\bf S} {\bf Z}$, can be shown to have the
626 > correct properties required by Eq. (\ref{eq:randomForce}).
627 >
628 > The equation of motion for the translational velocity of the center of
629 > mass (${\bf v}$) can be written as
630   \begin{equation}
631 < \dot j_i (t) = \tau _{t,i} (t) = \tau _{s,i} (t) + \tau _{f,i}^b (t)
632 < + \tau _{r,i}^b(t)
631 > m \dot{{\bf v}} (t) =  {\bf f}_{s}(t) + {\bf f}_{f}(t) +
632 > {\bf f}_{r}(t)
633   \end{equation}
634 < Embedding the friction terms into force and torque, one can
635 < integrate the langevin equations of motion for rigid body of
636 < arbitrary shape in a velocity-Verlet style 2-part algorithm, where
637 < $h= \delta t$:
634 > Since the frictional and random forces are applied at the center of
635 > resistance, which generally does not coincide with the center of mass,
636 > extra torques are exerted at the center of mass. Thus, the net
637 > body-fixed torque at the center of mass, $\tau^{~b}(t)$,
638 > is given by
639 > \begin{equation}
640 > \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)
641 > \end{equation}
642 > where ${\bf r}_{MR}$ is the vector from the center of mass to the center of
643 > resistance. Instead of integrating the angular velocity in lab-fixed
644 > frame, we consider the equation of motion for the angular momentum
645 > (${\bf j}$) in the body-fixed frame
646 > \begin{equation}
647 > \frac{\partial}{\partial t}{\bf j}(t) = \tau^{~b}(t)
648 > \end{equation}
649 > Embedding the friction and random forces into the the total force and
650 > torque, one can integrate the Langevin equations of motion for a rigid
651 > body of arbitrary shape in a velocity-Verlet style 2-part algorithm,
652 > where $h = \delta t$:
653  
654 < {\tt moveA:}
654 > {\tt move A:}
655   \begin{align*}
656   {\bf v}\left(t + h / 2\right)  &\leftarrow  {\bf v}(t)
657      + \frac{h}{2} \left( {\bf f}(t) / m \right), \\
# Line 519 | Line 660 | $h= \delta t$:
660      + h  {\bf v}\left(t + h / 2 \right), \\
661   %
662   {\bf j}\left(t + h / 2 \right)  &\leftarrow {\bf j}(t)
663 <    + \frac{h}{2} {\bf \tau}^b(t), \\
663 >    + \frac{h}{2} {\bf \tau}^{~b}(t), \\
664   %
665 < \mathsf{Q}(t + h) &\leftarrow \mathrm{rotate}\left( h {\bf j}
665 > {\bf Q}(t + h) &\leftarrow \mathrm{rotate}\left( h {\bf j}
666      (t + h / 2) \cdot \overleftrightarrow{\mathsf{I}}^{-1} \right).
667   \end{align*}
668 < In this context, the $\mathrm{rotate}$ function is the reversible
669 < product of the three body-fixed rotations,
668 > In this context, $\overleftrightarrow{\mathsf{I}}$ is the diagonal
669 > moment of inertia tensor, and the $\mathrm{rotate}$ function is the
670 > reversible product of the three body-fixed rotations,
671   \begin{equation}
672   \mathrm{rotate}({\bf a}) = \mathsf{G}_x(a_x / 2) \cdot
673   \mathsf{G}_y(a_y / 2) \cdot \mathsf{G}_z(a_z) \cdot \mathsf{G}_y(a_y
674   / 2) \cdot \mathsf{G}_x(a_x /2),
675   \end{equation}
676   where each rotational propagator, $\mathsf{G}_\alpha(\theta)$,
677 < rotates both the rotation matrix ($\mathsf{Q}$) and the body-fixed
677 > rotates both the rotation matrix ($\mathbf{Q}$) and the body-fixed
678   angular momentum (${\bf j}$) by an angle $\theta$ around body-fixed
679   axis $\alpha$,
680   \begin{equation}
681   \mathsf{G}_\alpha( \theta ) = \left\{
682   \begin{array}{lcl}
683 < \mathsf{Q}(t) & \leftarrow & \mathsf{Q}(0) \cdot \mathsf{R}_\alpha(\theta)^T, \\
683 > \mathbf{Q}(t) & \leftarrow & \mathbf{Q}(0) \cdot \mathsf{R}_\alpha(\theta)^T, \\
684   {\bf j}(t) & \leftarrow & \mathsf{R}_\alpha(\theta) \cdot {\bf
685   j}(0).
686   \end{array}
# Line 560 | Line 702 | calculated at the new positions and orientations
702   \end{equation}
703   All other rotations follow in a straightforward manner. After the
704   first part of the propagation, the forces and body-fixed torques are
705 < calculated at the new positions and orientations
705 > calculated at the new positions and orientations.  The system forces
706 > and torques are derivatives of the total potential energy function
707 > ($U$) with respect to the rigid body positions (${\bf r}$) and the
708 > columns of the transposed rotation matrix ${\bf Q}^T = \left({\bf
709 > u}_x, {\bf u}_y, {\bf u}_z \right)$:
710  
711 < {\tt doForces:}
711 > {\tt Forces:}
712   \begin{align*}
713 < {\bf f}(t + h) &\leftarrow
714 <    - \left(\frac{\partial V}{\partial {\bf r}}\right)_{{\bf r}(t + h)}, \\
713 > {\bf f}_{s}(t + h) & \leftarrow
714 >    - \left(\frac{\partial U}{\partial {\bf r}}\right)_{{\bf r}(t + h)} \\
715   %
716 < {\bf \tau}^{s}(t + h) &\leftarrow {\bf u}(t + h)
717 <    \times \frac{\partial V}{\partial {\bf u}}, \\
716 > {\bf \tau}_{s}(t + h) &\leftarrow {\bf u}(t + h)
717 >    \times \frac{\partial U}{\partial {\bf u}} \\
718 > %
719 > {\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) \\
720   %
721 < {\bf \tau}^{b}(t + h) &\leftarrow \mathsf{Q}(t + h)
722 <    \cdot {\bf \tau}^s(t + h).
721 > {\bf f}_{R,f}^{b}(t+h) & \leftarrow - \Xi_{R}^{tt} \cdot
722 > {\bf v}^{b}_{R}(t+h) - \Xi_{R}^{rt} \cdot {\bf \omega}(t+h) \\
723 > %
724 > {\bf \tau}_{R,f}^{b}(t+h) & \leftarrow - \Xi_{R}^{tr} \cdot
725 > {\bf v}^{b}_{R}(t+h) - \Xi_{R}^{rr} \cdot {\bf \omega}(t+h) \\
726 > %
727 > Z & \leftarrow  {\tt GaussianNormal}(2 k_B T / h, 6) \\
728 > {\bf F}_{R,r}^{b}(t+h) & \leftarrow {\bf S} \cdot Z \\
729 > %
730 > {\bf f}(t+h) & \leftarrow {\bf f}_{s}(t+h) + \mathbf{Q}^{T}(t+h)
731 > \cdot \left({\bf f}_{R,f}^{~b} + {\bf f}_{R,r}^{~b} \right) \\
732 > %
733 > \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) \\
734 > \tau^{~b}(t+h) & \leftarrow \mathbf{Q}(t+h) \cdot \tau(t+h) \\
735   \end{align*}
736 + Frictional (and random) forces and torques must be computed at the
737 + center of resistance, so there are additional steps required to find
738 + the body-fixed velocity (${\bf v}_{R}^{~b}$) at this location.  Mapping
739 + the frictional and random forces at the center of resistance back to
740 + the center of mass also introduces an additional term in the torque
741 + one obtains at the center of mass.
742 +
743   Once the forces and torques have been obtained at the new time step,
744   the velocities can be advanced to the same time value.
745  
746 < {\tt moveB:}
746 > {\tt move B:}
747   \begin{align*}
748   {\bf v}\left(t + h \right)  &\leftarrow  {\bf v}\left(t + h / 2
749   \right)
# Line 584 | Line 751 | the velocities can be advanced to the same time value.
751   %
752   {\bf j}\left(t + h \right)  &\leftarrow {\bf j}\left(t + h / 2
753   \right)
754 <    + \frac{h}{2} {\bf \tau}^b(t + h) .
754 >    + \frac{h}{2} {\bf \tau}^{~b}(t + h) .
755   \end{align*}
756  
757   \section{Validating the Method\label{sec:validating}}
758   In order to validate our Langevin integrator for arbitrarily-shaped
759 < rigid bodies, we implemented the algorithm in {\sc
760 < oopse}\cite{Meineke2005} and  compared the results of this algorithm
761 < with the known
762 < hydrodynamic limiting behavior for a few model systems, and to
763 < microcanonical molecular dynamics simulations for some more
764 < complicated bodies. The model systems and their analytical behavior
759 > rigid bodies, we implemented the algorithm in OOPSE\cite{Meineke2005}
760 > and compared the results of this algorithm with the known hydrodynamic
761 > limiting behavior for a few model systems, and to microcanonical
762 > molecular dynamics simulations for some more complicated bodies. Code
763 > to estimate the hydrodynamic tensors using the bead and rough shell
764 > models was also implemented in OOPSE, although a number of other
765 > programs exist that can perform these
766 > tasks.\cite{JoseGarciadelaTorre02012000,Garcia-de-la-Torre:2001wd,GarciadelaTorreJ2002}
767 >
768 > The model systems and their analytical behavior
769   (if known) are summarized below. Parameters for the primary particles
770   comprising our model systems are given in table \ref{tab:parameters},
771   and a sketch of the arrangement of these primary particles into the
# Line 614 | Line 785 | particles with orientational degrees of freedom.
785   \begin{table*}
786   \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
787   \begin{center}
788 < \caption{Parameters for the primary particles in use by the rigid body
789 < models in figure \ref{fig:models}.}
788 > \caption[Parameters for the primary particles in use by the rigid body
789 > models in figure \ref{fig:models}.]{}
790   \begin{tabular}{lrcccccccc}
791   \hline
792   & & & & & & & \multicolumn{3}c{$\overleftrightarrow{\mathsf I}$ (amu \AA$^2$)} \\
# Line 638 | Line 809 | Solvent &  & 4.7 & $= d$ & 0.8 & 1   & 72.06 & & & \\
809   \begin{figure}
810   \centering
811   \includegraphics[width=3in]{sketch}
812 < \caption[Sketch of the model systems]{A sketch of the model systems
813 < used in evaluating the behavior of the rigid body Langevin
643 < integrator.} \label{fig:models}
812 > \caption[A sketch of the model systems used in evaluating the behavior
813 > of the rigid body Langevin integrator]{} \label{fig:models}
814   \end{figure}
815  
816   \subsection{Simulation Methodology}
817   We performed reference microcanonical simulations with explicit
818   solvents for each of the different model system.  In each case there
819   was one solute model and 1929 solvent molecules present in the
820 < simulation box.  All simulations were equilibrated using a
820 > simulation box.  All simulations were equilibrated for 5 ns using a
821   constant-pressure and temperature integrator with target values of 300
822   K for the temperature and 1 atm for pressure.  Following this stage,
823 < further equilibration and sampling was done in a microcanonical
824 < ensemble.  Since the model bodies are typically quite massive, we were
825 < able to use a time step of 25 fs.
823 > further equilibration (5 ns) and sampling (10 ns) was done in a
824 > microcanonical ensemble.  Since the model bodies are typically quite
825 > massive, we were able to use a time step of 25 fs.
826  
827   The model systems studied used both Lennard-Jones spheres as well as
828   uniaxial Gay-Berne ellipoids. In its original form, the Gay-Berne
829   potential was a single site model for the interactions of rigid
830 < ellipsoidal molecules.\cite{Gay81} It can be thought of as a
830 > ellipsoidal molecules.\cite{Gay1981} It can be thought of as a
831   modification of the Gaussian overlap model originally described by
832   Berne and Pechukas.\cite{Berne72} The potential is constructed in the
833   familiar form of the Lennard-Jones function using
834   orientation-dependent $\sigma$ and $\epsilon$ parameters,
835   \begin{equation*}
836 < V_{ij}({\mathbf{\hat u}_i}, {\mathbf{\hat u}_j}, {\mathbf{\hat
837 < r}_{ij}}) = 4\epsilon ({\mathbf{\hat u}_i}, {\mathbf{\hat u}_j},
838 < {\mathbf{\hat r}_{ij}})\left[\left(\frac{\sigma_0}{r_{ij}-\sigma({\mathbf{\hat u
836 > V_{ij}({{\bf \hat u}_i}, {{\bf \hat u}_j}, {{\bf \hat
837 > r}_{ij}}) = 4\epsilon ({{\bf \hat u}_i}, {{\bf \hat u}_j},
838 > {{\bf \hat r}_{ij}})\left[\left(\frac{\sigma_0}{r_{ij}-\sigma({{\bf \hat u
839   }_i},
840 < {\mathbf{\hat u}_j}, {\mathbf{\hat r}_{ij}})+\sigma_0}\right)^{12}
841 < -\left(\frac{\sigma_0}{r_{ij}-\sigma({\mathbf{\hat u}_i}, {\mathbf{\hat u}_j},
842 < {\mathbf{\hat r}_{ij}})+\sigma_0}\right)^6\right]
840 > {{\bf \hat u}_j}, {{\bf \hat r}_{ij}})+\sigma_0}\right)^{12}
841 > -\left(\frac{\sigma_0}{r_{ij}-\sigma({{\bf \hat u}_i}, {{\bf \hat u}_j},
842 > {{\bf \hat r}_{ij}})+\sigma_0}\right)^6\right]
843   \label{eq:gb}
844   \end{equation*}
845  
# Line 686 | Line 856 | are given elsewhere,\cite{Luckhurst90,Golubkov06,SunGe
856   Additionally, a well depth aspect ratio, $\epsilon^r = \epsilon^e /
857   \epsilon^s$, describes the ratio between the well depths in the {\it
858   end-to-end} and side-by-side configurations.  Details of the potential
859 < are given elsewhere,\cite{Luckhurst90,Golubkov06,SunGezelter08} and an
859 > are given elsewhere,\cite{Luckhurst90,Golubkov06,SunX._jp0762020} and an
860   excellent overview of the computational methods that can be used to
861   efficiently compute forces and torques for this potential can be found
862   in Ref. \citen{Golubkov06}
# Line 721 | Line 891 | A similar form exists for the bulk viscosity
891   \int_{t_0}^{t_0 + t} P_{xz}(t') dt' \right)^2 \right\rangle_{t_0}.
892   \label{eq:shear}
893   \end{equation}
894 < A similar form exists for the bulk viscosity
895 < \begin{equation}
726 < \kappa = \lim_{t->\infty} \frac{V}{2 k_B T} \frac{d}{dt} \left\langle \left(
727 < \int_{t_0}^{t_0 + t}
728 < \left(P\left(t'\right)-\left\langle P \right\rangle \right)dt'
729 < \right)^2 \right\rangle_{t_0}.
730 < \end{equation}
731 < Alternatively, the shear viscosity can also be calculated using a
732 < Green-Kubo formula with the off-diagonal pressure tensor correlation function,
733 < \begin{equation}
734 < \eta = \frac{V}{k_B T} \int_0^{\infty} \left\langle P_{xz}(t_0) P_{xz}(t_0
735 < + t) \right\rangle_{t_0} dt,
736 < \end{equation}
737 < although this method converges extremely slowly and is not practical
738 < for obtaining viscosities from molecular dynamics simulations.
894 > which converges much more rapidly in molecular dynamics simulations
895 > than the traditional Green-Kubo formula.
896  
897   The Langevin dynamics for the different model systems were performed
898   at the same temperature as the average temperature of the
# Line 761 | Line 918 | have used in this study, there are differences between
918   compute the diffusive behavior for motion parallel to each body-fixed
919   axis by projecting the displacement of the particle onto the
920   body-fixed reference frame at $t=0$.  With an isotropic solvent, as we
921 < have used in this study, there are differences between the three
922 < diffusion constants, but these must converge to the same value at
923 < longer times.  Translational diffusion constants for the different
924 < shaped models are shown in table \ref{tab:translation}.
921 > have used in this study, there may be differences between the three
922 > diffusion constants at short times, but these must converge to the
923 > same value at longer times.  Translational diffusion constants for the
924 > different shaped models are shown in table \ref{tab:translation}.
925  
926   In general, the three eigenvalues ($D_1, D_2, D_3$) of the rotational
927   diffusion tensor (${\bf D}_{rr}$) measure the diffusion of an object
# Line 844 | Line 1001 | hydrodynamic flows is well known, giving translational
1001   an arbitrary value of 0.8 kcal/mol.  
1002  
1003   The Stokes-Einstein behavior of large spherical particles in
1004 < hydrodynamic flows is well known, giving translational friction
1005 < coefficients of $6 \pi \eta R$ (stick boundary conditions) and
1006 < rotational friction coefficients of $8 \pi \eta R^3$.  Recently,
1007 < Schmidt and Skinner have computed the behavior of spherical tag
1008 < particles in molecular dynamics simulations, and have shown that {\it
1009 < slip} boundary conditions ($\Xi_{tt} = 4 \pi \eta R$) may be more
1010 < appropriate for molecule-sized spheres embedded in a sea of spherical
1011 < solvent particles.\cite{Schmidt:2004fj,Schmidt:2003kx}
1004 > hydrodynamic flows with ``stick'' boundary conditions is well known,
1005 > and is given in Eqs. (\ref{eq:StokesTranslation}) and
1006 > (\ref{eq:StokesRotation}).  Recently, Schmidt and Skinner have
1007 > computed the behavior of spherical tag particles in molecular dynamics
1008 > simulations, and have shown that {\it slip} boundary conditions
1009 > ($\Xi_{tt} = 4 \pi \eta \rho$) may be more appropriate for
1010 > molecule-sized spheres embedded in a sea of spherical solvent
1011 > particles.\cite{Schmidt:2004fj,Schmidt:2003kx}
1012  
1013   Our simulation results show similar behavior to the behavior observed
1014   by Schmidt and Skinner.  The diffusion constant obtained from our
# Line 876 | Line 1033 | D = \frac{k_B T}{6 \pi \eta a} G(\rho),
1033   can be combined to give a single translational diffusion
1034   constant,\cite{Berne90}
1035   \begin{equation}
1036 < D = \frac{k_B T}{6 \pi \eta a} G(\rho),
1036 > D = \frac{k_B T}{6 \pi \eta a} G(s),
1037   \label{Dperrin}
1038   \end{equation}
1039   as well as a single rotational diffusion coefficient,
1040   \begin{equation}
1041 < \Theta = \frac{3 k_B T}{16 \pi \eta a^3} \left\{ \frac{(2 - \rho^2)
1042 < G(\rho) - 1}{1 - \rho^4} \right\}.
1041 > \Theta = \frac{3 k_B T}{16 \pi \eta a^3} \left\{ \frac{(2 - s^2)
1042 > G(s) - 1}{1 - s^4} \right\}.
1043   \label{ThetaPerrin}
1044   \end{equation}
1045 < In these expressions, $G(\rho)$ is a function of the axial ratio
1046 < ($\rho = b / a$), which for prolate ellipsoids, is
1045 > In these expressions, $G(s)$ is a function of the axial ratio
1046 > ($s = b / a$), which for prolate ellipsoids, is
1047   \begin{equation}
1048 < G(\rho) = (1- \rho^2)^{-1/2} \ln \left\{ \frac{1 + (1 -
892 < \rho^2)^{1/2}}{\rho} \right\}
1048 > G(s) = (1- s^2)^{-1/2} \ln \left\{ \frac{1 + (1 - s^2)^{1/2}}{s} \right\}
1049   \label{GPerrin}
1050   \end{equation}
1051   Again, there is some uncertainty about the correct boundary conditions
# Line 914 | Line 1070 | The translational diffusion constants from the microca
1070   exact treatment of the diffusion tensor as well as the rough-shell
1071   model for the ellipsoid.
1072  
1073 < The translational diffusion constants from the microcanonical simulations
1074 < agree well with the predictions of the Perrin model, although the rotational
1075 < correlation times are a factor of 2 shorter than expected from hydrodynamic
1076 < theory.  One explanation for the slower rotation
1077 < of explicitly-solvated ellipsoids is the possibility that solute-solvent
1078 < collisions happen at both ends of the solute whenever the principal
1079 < axis of the ellipsoid is turning. In the upper portion of figure
1080 < \ref{fig:explanation} we sketch a physical picture of this explanation.
1081 < Since our Langevin integrator is providing nearly quantitative agreement with
1082 < the Perrin model, it also predicts orientational diffusion for ellipsoids that
1083 < exceed explicitly solvated correlation times by a factor of two.
1073 > The translational diffusion constants from the microcanonical
1074 > simulations agree well with the predictions of the Perrin model,
1075 > although the {\it rotational} correlation times are a factor of 2
1076 > shorter than expected from hydrodynamic theory.  One explanation for
1077 > the slower rotation of explicitly-solvated ellipsoids is the
1078 > possibility that solute-solvent collisions happen at both ends of the
1079 > solute whenever the principal axis of the ellipsoid is turning. In the
1080 > upper portion of figure \ref{fig:explanation} we sketch a physical
1081 > picture of this explanation.  Since our Langevin integrator is
1082 > providing nearly quantitative agreement with the Perrin model, it also
1083 > predicts orientational diffusion for ellipsoids that exceed explicitly
1084 > solvated correlation times by a factor of two.
1085  
1086   \subsection{Rigid dumbbells}
1087   Perhaps the only {\it composite} rigid body for which analytic
# Line 932 | Line 1089 | model. Equation (\ref{introEquation:oseenTensor}) abov
1089   two-sphere dumbbell model.  This model consists of two non-overlapping
1090   spheres held by a rigid bond connecting their centers. There are
1091   competing expressions for the 6x6 resistance tensor for this
1092 < model. Equation (\ref{introEquation:oseenTensor}) above gives the
1093 < original Oseen tensor, while the second order expression introduced by
1094 < Rotne and Prager,\cite{Rotne1969} and improved by Garc\'{i}a de la
938 < Torre and Bloomfield,\cite{Torre1977} is given above as
1092 > model. The second order expression introduced by Rotne and
1093 > Prager,\cite{Rotne1969} and improved by Garc\'{i}a de la Torre and
1094 > Bloomfield,\cite{Torre1977} is given above as
1095   Eq. (\ref{introEquation:RPTensorNonOverlapped}).  In our case, we use
1096   a model dumbbell in which the two spheres are identical Lennard-Jones
1097   particles ($\sigma$ = 6.5 \AA\ , $\epsilon$ = 0.8 kcal / mol) held at
# Line 948 | Line 1104 | those derived from the 6 x 6 tensors mentioned above).
1104   motion in a flow {\it perpendicular} to the inter-sphere
1105   axis.\cite{Davis:1969uq} We know of no analytic solutions for the {\it
1106   orientational} correlation times for this model system (other than
1107 < those derived from the 6 x 6 tensors mentioned above).
1107 > those derived from the 6 x 6 tensor mentioned above).
1108  
1109   The bead model for this model system comprises the two large spheres
1110   by themselves, while the rough shell approximation used 3368 separate
# Line 962 | Line 1118 | inversion of a 6 x 6 matrix).  
1118  
1119   \begin{figure}
1120   \centering
1121 < \includegraphics[width=2in]{RoughShell}
1122 < \caption[Model rigid bodies and their rough shell approximations]{The
1123 < model rigid bodies (left column) used to test this algorithm and their
1124 < rough-shell approximations (right-column) that were used to compute
1125 < the hydrodynamic tensors.  The top two models (ellipsoid and dumbbell)
1126 < have analytic solutions and were used to test the rough shell
1127 < approximation.  The lower two models (banana and lipid) were compared
1128 < with explicitly-solvated molecular dynamics simulations. }
1121 > \includegraphics[width=2in]{RoughShellReduced}
1122 > \caption[The model rigid bodies (left column) used to test this
1123 > algorithm and their rough-shell approximations (right-column) that
1124 > were used to compute the hydrodynamic tensors.  The top two models
1125 > (ellipsoid and dumbbell) have analytic solutions and were used to test
1126 > the rough shell approximation.  The lower two models (banana and
1127 > lipid) were compared with explicitly-solvated molecular dynamics
1128 > simulations]{}
1129   \label{fig:roughShell}
1130   \end{figure}
1131  
# Line 1001 | Line 1157 | correlation times for explicitly-solvated models and h
1157   \centering
1158   \includegraphics[width=6in]{explanation}
1159   \caption[Explanations of the differences between orientational
1004 correlation times for explicitly-solvated models and hydrodynamics
1005 predictions]{Explanations of the differences between orientational
1160   correlation times for explicitly-solvated models and hydrodynamic
1161 < predictions.   For the ellipsoids (upper figures), rotation of the
1161 > predictions.  For the ellipsoids (upper figures), rotation of the
1162   principal axis can involve correlated collisions at both sides of the
1163   solute.  In the rigid dumbbell model (lower figures), the large size
1164   of the explicit solvent spheres prevents them from coming in contact
# Line 1012 | Line 1166 | rotational diffusion.
1166   Therefore, the explicit solvent only provides drag over a
1167   substantially reduced surface area of this model, where the
1168   hydrodynamic theories utilize the entire surface area for estimating
1169 < rotational diffusion.
1016 < } \label{fig:explanation}
1169 > rotational diffusion]{} \label{fig:explanation}
1170   \end{figure}
1171  
1019
1020
1172   \subsection{Composite banana-shaped molecules}
1173   Banana-shaped rigid bodies composed of three Gay-Berne ellipsoids have
1174   been used by Orlandi {\it et al.} to observe mesophases in
# Line 1029 | Line 1180 | A reference system composed of a single banana rigid b
1180   behavior of this model, we have left out the dipolar interactions of
1181   the original Orlandi model.
1182  
1183 < A reference system composed of a single banana rigid body embedded in a
1184 < sea of 1929 solvent particles was created and run under standard
1185 < (microcanonical) molecular dynamics.  The resulting viscosity of this
1186 < mixture was 0.298 centipoise (as estimated using Eq. (\ref{eq:shear})).
1187 < To calculate the hydrodynamic properties of the banana rigid body model,
1188 < we created a rough shell (see Fig.~\ref{fig:roughShell}), in which
1189 < the banana is represented as a ``shell'' made of 3321 identical beads
1190 < (0.25 \AA\  in diameter) distributed on the surface.  Applying the
1191 < procedure described in Sec.~\ref{introEquation:ResistanceTensorArbitraryOrigin}, we
1192 < identified the center of resistance, ${\bf r} = $(0 \AA, 0.81 \AA, 0 \AA), as
1193 < well as the resistance tensor,
1194 < \begin{equation*}
1044 < \Xi =
1045 < \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
1046 < 0.9261 & 0 & 0&0&0.08585&0.2057\\
1047 < 0& 0.9270&-0.007063& 0.08585&0&0\\
1048 < 0&-0.007063&0.7494&0.2057&0&0\\
1049 < 0&0.0858&0.2057& 58.64& 0&0\\0.08585&0&0&0&48.30&3.219&\\0.2057&0&0&0&3.219&10.7373\\\end{array}} \right),
1050 < \end{equation*}
1051 < where the units for translational, translation-rotation coupling and
1052 < rotational tensors are (kcal fs / mol \AA$^2$), (kcal fs / mol \AA\ rad),
1053 < and (kcal fs / mol rad$^2$), respectively.
1183 > A reference system composed of a single banana rigid body embedded in
1184 > a sea of 1929 solvent particles was created and run under standard
1185 > (microcanonical) molecular dynamics.  The resulting viscosity of this
1186 > mixture was 0.298 centipoise (as estimated using
1187 > Eq. (\ref{eq:shear})).  To calculate the hydrodynamic properties of
1188 > the banana rigid body model, we created a rough shell (see
1189 > Fig.~\ref{fig:roughShell}), in which the banana is represented as a
1190 > ``shell'' made of 3321 identical beads (0.25 \AA\ in diameter)
1191 > distributed on the surface.  Applying the procedure described in
1192 > Sec.~\ref{introEquation:ResistanceTensorArbitraryOrigin}, we
1193 > identified the center of resistance, ${\bf r} = $(0 \AA, 0.81 \AA, 0
1194 > \AA).  
1195  
1196 < The Langevin rigid-body integrator (and the hydrodynamic diffusion tensor)
1197 < are essentially quantitative for translational diffusion of this model.  
1198 < Orientational correlation times under the Langevin rigid-body integrator
1199 < are within 11\% of the values obtained from explicit solvent, but these
1200 < models also exhibit some solvent inaccessible surface area in the
1201 < explicitly-solvated case.  
1196 > The Langevin rigid-body integrator (and the hydrodynamic diffusion
1197 > tensor) are essentially quantitative for translational diffusion of
1198 > this model.  Orientational correlation times under the Langevin
1199 > rigid-body integrator are within 11\% of the values obtained from
1200 > explicit solvent, but these models also exhibit some solvent
1201 > inaccessible surface area in the explicitly-solvated case.
1202  
1203   \subsection{Composite sphero-ellipsoids}
1063 Spherical heads perched on the ends of Gay-Berne ellipsoids have been
1064 used recently as models for lipid molecules.\cite{SunGezelter08,Ayton01}
1204  
1205 < MORE DETAILS
1205 > Spherical heads perched on the ends of Gay-Berne ellipsoids have been
1206 > used recently as models for lipid
1207 > molecules.\cite{SunX._jp0762020,Ayton01} A reference system composed
1208 > of a single lipid rigid body embedded in a sea of 1929 solvent
1209 > particles was created and run under a microcanonical ensemble.  The
1210 > resulting viscosity of this mixture was 0.349 centipoise (as estimated
1211 > using Eq. (\ref{eq:shear})).  To calculate the hydrodynamic properties
1212 > of the lipid rigid body model, we created a rough shell (see
1213 > Fig.~\ref{fig:roughShell}), in which the lipid is represented as a
1214 > ``shell'' made of 3550 identical beads (0.25 \AA\ in diameter)
1215 > distributed on the surface.  Applying the procedure described by
1216 > Eq. (\ref{introEquation:ResistanceTensorArbitraryOrigin}), we
1217 > identified the center of resistance, ${\bf r} = $(0 \AA, 0 \AA, 1.46
1218 > \AA).
1219  
1220 + The translational diffusion constants and rotational correlation times
1221 + obtained using the Langevin rigid-body integrator (and the
1222 + hydrodynamic tensor) are essentially quantitative when compared with
1223 + the explicit solvent simulations for this model system.  
1224  
1225 < \subsection{Summary}
1226 < According to our simulations, the langevin dynamics is a reliable
1227 < theory to apply to replace the explicit solvents, especially for the
1228 < translation properties. For large molecules, the rotation properties
1229 < are also mimiced reasonablly well.
1225 > \subsection{Summary of comparisons with explicit solvent simulations}
1226 > The Langevin rigid-body integrator we have developed is a reliable way
1227 > to replace explicit solvent simulations in cases where the detailed
1228 > solute-solvent interactions do not greatly impact the behavior of the
1229 > solute.  As such, it has the potential to greatly increase the length
1230 > and time scales of coarse grained simulations of large solvated
1231 > molecules.  In cases where the dielectric screening of the solvent, or
1232 > specific solute-solvent interactions become important for structural
1233 > or dynamic features of the solute molecule, this integrator may be
1234 > less useful.  However, for the kinds of coarse-grained modeling that
1235 > have become popular in recent years (ellipsoidal side chains, rigid
1236 > bodies, and molecular-scale models), this integrator may prove itself
1237 > to be quite valuable.
1238  
1239 + \begin{figure}
1240 + \centering
1241 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{graph}
1242 + \caption[The mean-squared displacements ($\langle r^2(t) \rangle$) and
1243 + orientational correlation functions ($C_2(t)$) for each of the model
1244 + rigid bodies studied.  The circles are the results for microcanonical
1245 + simulations with explicit solvent molecules, while the other data sets
1246 + are results for Langevin dynamics using the different hydrodynamic
1247 + tensor approximations.  The Perrin model for the ellipsoids is
1248 + considered the ``exact'' hydrodynamic behavior (this can also be said
1249 + for the translational motion of the dumbbell operating under the bead
1250 + model). In most cases, the various hydrodynamics models reproduce each
1251 + other quantitatively]{}
1252 + \label{fig:results}
1253 + \end{figure}
1254 +
1255   \begin{table*}
1256   \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
1257   \begin{center}
1258 < \caption{Translational diffusion constants (D) for the model systems
1258 > \caption[Translational diffusion constants (D) for the model systems
1259   calculated using microcanonical simulations (with explicit solvent),
1260   theoretical predictions, and Langevin simulations (with implicit solvent).
1261 < Analytical solutions for the exactly-solved hydrodynamics models are
1262 < from Refs. \citen{Einstein05} (sphere), \citen{Perrin1934} and \citen{Perrin1936}
1261 > Analytical solutions for the exactly-solved hydrodynamics models are obtained
1262 > from: Stokes' law (sphere), and Refs. \citen{Perrin1934} and \citen{Perrin1936}
1263   (ellipsoid), \citen{Stimson:1926qy} and \citen{Davis:1969uq}
1264   (dumbbell). The other model systems have no known analytic solution.
1265 < All  diffusion constants are reported in units of $10^{-3}$ cm$^2$ / ps (=
1266 < $10^{-4}$ \AA$^2$  / fs). }
1265 > All diffusion constants are reported in units of $10^{-3}$ cm$^2$ / ps (=
1266 > $10^{-4}$ \AA$^2$  / fs).]{}
1267   \begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
1268   \hline
1269   & \multicolumn{2}c{microcanonical simulation} & & \multicolumn{3}c{Theoretical} & Langevin \\
1270   \cline{2-3} \cline{5-7}
1271   model & $\eta$ (centipoise)  & D & & Analytical & method & Hydrodynamics & simulation \\
1272   \hline
1273 < sphere    & 0.261  & ?    & & 2.59 & exact       & 2.59 & 2.56 \\
1273 > sphere    & 0.279  & 3.06 & & 2.42 & exact       & 2.42 & 2.33 \\
1274   ellipsoid & 0.255  & 2.44 & & 2.34 & exact       & 2.34 & 2.37 \\
1275            & 0.255  & 2.44 & & 2.34 & rough shell & 2.36 & 2.28 \\
1276 < dumbbell  & 0.322  & ?    & & 1.57 & bead model  & 1.57 & 1.57 \\
1277 <          & 0.322  & ?    & & 1.57 & rough shell & ?    & ?    \\
1276 > dumbbell  & 0.308  & 2.06 & & 1.64 & bead model  & 1.65 & 1.62 \\
1277 >          & 0.308  & 2.06 & & 1.64 & rough shell & 1.59 & 1.62 \\
1278   banana    & 0.298  & 1.53 & &      & rough shell & 1.56 & 1.55 \\
1279 < lipid     & 0.349  & 0.96 & &      & rough shell & 1.33 & 1.32 \\
1279 > lipid     & 0.349  & 1.41 & &      & rough shell & 1.33 & 1.32 \\
1280   \end{tabular}
1281   \label{tab:translation}
1282   \end{center}
# Line 1106 | Line 1286 | lipid     & 0.349  & 0.96 & &      & rough shell & 1.3
1286   \begin{table*}
1287   \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
1288   \begin{center}
1289 < \caption{Orientational relaxation times ($\tau$) for the model systems using
1289 > \caption[Orientational relaxation times ($\tau$) for the model systems using
1290   microcanonical simulation (with explicit solvent), theoretical
1291   predictions, and Langevin simulations (with implicit solvent). All
1292   relaxation times are for the rotational correlation function with
1293   $\ell = 2$ and are reported in units of ps.  The ellipsoidal model has
1294   an exact solution for the orientational correlation time due to
1295 < Perrin, but the other model systems have no known analytic solution.}
1295 > Perrin, but the other model systems have no known analytic solution.]{}
1296   \begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
1297   \hline
1298   & \multicolumn{2}c{microcanonical simulation} & & \multicolumn{3}c{Theoretical} & Langevin \\
1299   \cline{2-3} \cline{5-7}
1300   model & $\eta$ (centipoise) & $\tau$ & & Perrin & method & Hydrodynamic  & simulation \\
1301   \hline
1302 < sphere    & 0.261  &      & & 9.06 & exact       & 9.06 & 9.11 \\
1302 > sphere    & 0.279  &      & & 9.69 & exact       & 9.69 & 9.64 \\
1303   ellipsoid & 0.255  & 46.7 & & 22.0 & exact       & 22.0 & 22.2 \\
1304            & 0.255  & 46.7 & & 22.0 & rough shell & 22.6 & 22.2 \\
1305 < dumbbell  & 0.322  & 14.0 & &      & bead model  & 52.3 & 52.8 \\
1306 <          & 0.322  & 14.0 & &      & rough shell & ?    & ?    \\
1305 > dumbbell  & 0.308  & 14.1 & &      & bead model  & 50.0 & 50.1 \\
1306 >          & 0.308  & 14.1 & &      & rough shell & 41.5 & 41.3 \\
1307   banana    & 0.298  & 63.8 & &      & rough shell & 70.9 & 70.9 \\
1308   lipid     & 0.349  & 78.0 & &      & rough shell & 76.9 & 77.9 \\
1309   \hline
# Line 1135 | Line 1315 | The Langevin dynamics integrator was applied to study
1315  
1316   \section{Application: A rigid-body lipid bilayer}
1317  
1318 < The Langevin dynamics integrator was applied to study the formation of
1319 < corrugated structures emerging from simulations of the coarse grained
1320 < lipid molecular models presented above.  The initial configuration is
1321 < taken from our molecular dynamics studies on lipid bilayers with
1322 < lennard-Jones sphere solvents. The solvent molecules were excluded
1323 < from the system, and the experimental value for the viscosity of water
1324 < at 20C ($\eta = 1.00$ cp) was used to mimic the hydrodynamic effects
1325 < of the solvent.  The absence of explicit solvent molecules and the
1326 < stability of the integrator allowed us to take timesteps of 50 fs.  A
1327 < total simulation run time of 100 ns was sampled.
1328 < Fig. \ref{fig:bilayer} shows the configuration of the system after 100
1329 < ns, and the ripple structure remains stable during the entire
1330 < trajectory.  Compared with using explicit bead-model solvent
1331 < molecules, the efficiency of the simulation has increased by an order
1332 < of magnitude.
1318 > To test the accuracy and efficiency of the new integrator, we applied
1319 > it to study the formation of corrugated structures emerging from
1320 > simulations of the coarse grained lipid molecular models presented
1321 > above.  The initial configuration is taken from earlier molecular
1322 > dynamics studies on lipid bilayers which had used spherical
1323 > (Lennard-Jones) solvent particles and moderate (480 solvated lipid
1324 > molecules) system sizes.\cite{SunX._jp0762020} the solvent molecules
1325 > were excluded from the system and the box was replicated three times
1326 > in the x- and y- axes (giving a single simulation cell containing 4320
1327 > lipids).  The experimental value for the viscosity of water at 20C
1328 > ($\eta = 1.00$ cp) was used with the Langevin integrator to mimic the
1329 > hydrodynamic effects of the solvent.  The absence of explicit solvent
1330 > molecules and the stability of the integrator allowed us to take
1331 > timesteps of 50 fs. A simulation run time of 30 ns was sampled to
1332 > calculate structural properties.  Fig. \ref{fig:bilayer} shows the
1333 > configuration of the system after 30 ns.  Structural properties of the
1334 > bilayer (e.g. the head and body $P_2$ order parameters) are nearly
1335 > identical to those obtained via solvated molecular dynamics. The
1336 > ripple structure remained stable during the entire trajectory.
1337 > Compared with using explicit bead-model solvent molecules, the 30 ns
1338 > trajectory for 4320 lipids with the Langevin integrator is now {\it
1339 > faster} on the same hardware than the same length trajectory was for
1340 > the 480-lipid system previously studied.
1341  
1342   \begin{figure}
1343   \centering
1344   \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{bilayer}
1345 < \caption[Snapshot of a bilayer of rigid-body models for lipids]{A
1346 < snapshot of a bilayer composed of rigid-body models for lipid
1347 < molecules evolving using the Langevin integrator described in this
1160 < work.} \label{fig:bilayer}
1345 > \caption[A snapshot of a bilayer composed of 4320 rigid-body models
1346 > for lipid molecules evolving using the Langevin integrator described
1347 > in this work]{} \label{fig:bilayer}
1348   \end{figure}
1349  
1350   \section{Conclusions}
1351  
1352 < We have presented a new Langevin algorithm by incorporating the
1353 < hydrodynamics properties of arbitrary shaped molecules into an
1354 < advanced symplectic integration scheme. Further studies in systems
1355 < involving banana shaped molecules illustrated that the dynamic
1356 < properties could be preserved by using this new algorithm as an
1357 < implicit solvent model.
1352 > We have presented a new algorithm for carrying out Langevin dynamics
1353 > simulations on complex rigid bodies by incorporating the hydrodynamic
1354 > resistance tensors for arbitrary shapes into a stable and efficient
1355 > integration scheme.  The integrator gives quantitative agreement with
1356 > both analytic and approximate hydrodynamic theories, and works
1357 > reasonably well at reproducing the solute dynamical properties
1358 > (diffusion constants, and orientational relaxation times) from
1359 > explicitly-solvated simulations.  For the cases where there are
1360 > discrepancies between our Langevin integrator and the explicit solvent
1361 > simulations, two features of molecular simulations help explain the
1362 > differences.
1363  
1364 + First, the use of ``stick'' boundary conditions for molecular-sized
1365 + solutes in a sea of similarly-sized solvent particles may be
1366 + problematic.  We are certainly not the first group to notice this
1367 + difference between hydrodynamic theories and explicitly-solvated
1368 + molecular
1369 + simulations.\cite{Schmidt:2004fj,Schmidt:2003kx,Ravichandran:1999fk,TANG:1993lr}
1370 + The problem becomes particularly noticable in both the translational
1371 + diffusion of the spherical particles and the rotational diffusion of
1372 + the ellipsoids.  In both of these cases it is clear that the
1373 + approximations that go into hydrodynamics are the source of the error,
1374 + and not the integrator itself.
1375  
1376 + Second, in the case of structures which have substantial surface area
1377 + that is inaccessible to solvent particles, the hydrodynamic theories
1378 + (and the Langevin integrator) may overestimate the effects of solvent
1379 + friction because they overestimate the exposed surface area of the
1380 + rigid body.  This is particularly noticable in the rotational
1381 + diffusion of the dumbbell model.  We believe that given a solvent of
1382 + known radius, it may be possible to modify the rough shell approach to
1383 + place beads on solvent-accessible surface, instead of on the geometric
1384 + surface defined by the van der Waals radii of the components of the
1385 + rigid body.  Further work to confirm the behavior of this new
1386 + approximation is ongoing.
1387 +
1388   \section{Acknowledgments}
1389   Support for this project was provided by the National Science
1390   Foundation under grant CHE-0134881. T.L. also acknowledges the
1391 < financial support from center of applied mathematics at University
1392 < of Notre Dame.
1391 > financial support from Center of Applied Mathematics at University of
1392 > Notre Dame.
1393 >
1394   \newpage
1395  
1396 < \bibliographystyle{jcp}
1396 > \bibliographystyle{jcp2}
1397   \bibliography{langevin}
1398 <
1398 > \end{doublespace}
1399   \end{document}

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines