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

Comparing trunk/tengDissertation/Langevin.tex (file contents):
Revision 2909 by tim, Thu Jun 29 23:00:35 2006 UTC vs.
Revision 2944 by tim, Tue Jul 18 05:47:33 2006 UTC

# Line 11 | Line 11 | solvent simulations for dynamical properties\cite{Shen
11   simulations. Implicit solvent Langevin dynamics simulations of
12   met-enkephalin not only outperform explicit solvent simulations for
13   computational efficiency, but also agrees very well with explicit
14 < solvent simulations for dynamical properties\cite{Shen2002}.
14 > solvent simulations for dynamical properties.\cite{Shen2002}
15   Recently, applying Langevin dynamics with the UNRES model, Liow and
16   his coworkers suggest that protein folding pathways can be possibly
17 < explored within a reasonable amount of time\cite{Liwo2005}. The
17 > explored within a reasonable amount of time.\cite{Liwo2005} The
18   stochastic nature of the Langevin dynamics also enhances the
19   sampling of the system and increases the probability of crossing
20 < energy barriers\cite{Banerjee2004, Cui2003}. Combining Langevin
20 > energy barriers.\cite{Banerjee2004, Cui2003} Combining Langevin
21   dynamics with Kramers's theory, Klimov and Thirumalai identified
22   free-energy barriers by studying the viscosity dependence of the
23 < protein folding rates\cite{Klimov1997}. In order to account for
23 > protein folding rates.\cite{Klimov1997} In order to account for
24   solvent induced interactions missing from implicit solvent model,
25   Kaya incorporated desolvation free energy barrier into implicit
26   coarse-grained solvent model in protein folding/unfolding studies
27   and discovered a higher free energy barrier between the native and
28   denatured states. Because of its stability against noise, Langevin
29   dynamics is very suitable for studying remagnetization processes in
30 < various systems\cite{Palacios1998,Berkov2002,Denisov2003}. For
30 > various systems.\cite{Palacios1998,Berkov2002,Denisov2003} For
31   instance, the oscillation power spectrum of nanoparticles from
32   Langevin dynamics simulation has the same peak frequencies for
33   different wave vectors, which recovers the property of magnetic
34 < excitations in small finite structures\cite{Berkov2005a}.
34 > excitations in small finite structures.\cite{Berkov2005a}
35  
36   %review langevin/browninan dynamics for arbitrarily shaped rigid body
37   Combining Langevin or Brownian dynamics with rigid body dynamics,
# Line 40 | Line 40 | torques\cite{Mielke2004}. Membrane fusion is another k
40   as well as excluded volume potentials, Mielke and his coworkers
41   discovered rapid superhelical stress generations from the stochastic
42   simulation of twin supercoiling DNA with response to induced
43 < torques\cite{Mielke2004}. Membrane fusion is another key biological
43 > torques.\cite{Mielke2004} Membrane fusion is another key biological
44   process which controls a variety of physiological functions, such as
45   release of neurotransmitters \textit{etc}. A typical fusion event
46 < happens on the time scale of millisecond, which is impractical to
46 > happens on the time scale of a millisecond, which is impractical to
47   study using atomistic models with newtonian mechanics. With the help
48   of coarse-grained rigid body model and stochastic dynamics, the
49   fusion pathways were explored by many
50 < researchers\cite{Noguchi2001,Noguchi2002,Shillcock2005}. Due to the
50 > researchers.\cite{Noguchi2001,Noguchi2002,Shillcock2005} Due to the
51   difficulty of numerical integration of anisotropic rotation, most of
52   the rigid body models are simply modeled using spheres, cylinders,
53   ellipsoids or other regular shapes in stochastic simulations. In an
# Line 56 | Line 56 | consecutive rotations\cite{Fernandes2002}. Unfortunate
56   dynamics simulation algorithm\cite{Ermak1978,Allison1991} by
57   incorporating a generalized $6\times6$ diffusion tensor and
58   introducing a simple rotation evolution scheme consisting of three
59 < consecutive rotations\cite{Fernandes2002}. Unfortunately, unexpected
59 > consecutive rotations.\cite{Fernandes2002} Unfortunately, unexpected
60   errors and biases are introduced into the system due to the
61   arbitrary order of applying the noncommuting rotation
62 < operators\cite{Beard2003}. Based on the observation the momentum
62 > operators.\cite{Beard2003} Based on the observation the momentum
63   relaxation time is much less than the time step, one may ignore the
64   inertia in Brownian dynamics. However, the assumption of zero
65   average acceleration is not always true for cooperative motion which
66   is common in protein motion. An inertial Brownian dynamics (IBD) was
67   proposed to address this issue by adding an inertial correction
68 < term\cite{Beard2000}. As a complement to IBD which has a lower bound
68 > term.\cite{Beard2000} As a complement to IBD which has a lower bound
69   in time step because of the inertial relaxation time, long-time-step
70   inertial dynamics (LTID) can be used to investigate the inertial
71   behavior of the polymer segments in low friction
72 < regime\cite{Beard2000}. LTID can also deal with the rotational
72 > regime.\cite{Beard2000} LTID can also deal with the rotational
73   dynamics for nonskew bodies without translation-rotation coupling by
74   separating the translation and rotation motion and taking advantage
75   of the analytical solution of hydrodynamics properties. However,
# Line 172 | Line 172 | tensors
172   one can write down the translational and rotational resistance
173   tensors
174   \begin{eqnarray*}
175 < \Xi _a^{tt}  = 16\pi \eta \frac{{a^2  - b^2 }}{{(2a^2  - b^2 )S - 2a}}. \\
176 < \Xi _b^{tt}  = \Xi _c^{tt}  = 32\pi \eta \frac{{a^2  - b^2 }}{{(2a^2  - 3b^2 )S +
175 > \Xi _a^{tt}  & = & 16\pi \eta \frac{{a^2  - b^2 }}{{(2a^2  - b^2 )S - 2a}}. \\
176 > \Xi _b^{tt}  & = & \Xi _c^{tt}  = 32\pi \eta \frac{{a^2  - b^2 }}{{(2a^2  - 3b^2 )S +
177   2a}},
178   \end{eqnarray*}
179   and
180   \begin{eqnarray*}
181 < \Xi _a^{rr}  = \frac{{32\pi }}{3}\eta \frac{{(a^2  - b^2 )b^2 }}{{2a - b^2 S}}, \\
182 < \Xi _b^{rr}  = \Xi _c^{rr}  = \frac{{32\pi }}{3}\eta \frac{{(a^4  - b^4 )}}{{(2a^2  - b^2 )S - 2a}}.
183 < \end{eqnarray}
181 > \Xi _a^{rr} & = & \frac{{32\pi }}{3}\eta \frac{{(a^2  - b^2 )b^2 }}{{2a - b^2 S}}, \\
182 > \Xi _b^{rr} & = & \Xi _c^{rr}  = \frac{{32\pi }}{3}\eta \frac{{(a^4  - b^4 )}}{{(2a^2  - b^2 )S - 2a}}.
183 > \end{eqnarray*}
184  
185   \subsubsection{\label{introSection:resistanceTensorRegularArbitrary}\textbf{The Resistance Tensor for Arbitrary Shapes}}
186  
# Line 223 | Line 223 | Garc\'{i}a de la Torre and Bloomfield\cite{Torre1977},
223   Here $R_{ij}$ is the distance vector between bead $i$ and bead $j$.
224   A second order expression for element of different size was
225   introduced by Rotne and Prager\cite{Rotne1969} and improved by
226 < Garc\'{i}a de la Torre and Bloomfield\cite{Torre1977},
226 > Garc\'{i}a de la Torre and Bloomfield,\cite{Torre1977}
227   \begin{equation}
228   T_{ij}  = \frac{1}{{8\pi \eta R_{ij} }}\left[ {\left( {I +
229   \frac{{R_{ij} R_{ij}^T }}{{R_{ij}^2 }}} \right) + R\frac{{\sigma
# Line 278 | Line 278 | arbitrary origin $O$ can be written as
278   bead $i$ and origin $O$, the elements of resistance tensor at
279   arbitrary origin $O$ can be written as
280   \begin{eqnarray}
281 < \Xi _{}^{tt}  = \sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_j {C_{ij} } } \notag , \\
282 < \Xi _{}^{tr}  = \Xi _{}^{rt}  = \sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_j {U_i C_{ij} } } , \\
283 < \Xi _{}^{rr}  =  - \sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_j {U_i C_{ij} } } U_j. \notag \\
281 > \Xi _{}^{tt}  & = & \sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_j {C_{ij} } } \notag , \\
282 > \Xi _{}^{tr}  & = & \Xi _{}^{rt}  = \sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_j {U_i C_{ij} } } , \\
283 > \Xi _{}^{rr}  & = &  - \sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_j {U_i C_{ij} } } U_j. \notag \\
284   \label{introEquation:ResistanceTensorArbitraryOrigin}
285   \end{eqnarray}
286   The resistance tensor depends on the origin to which they refer. The
# Line 528 | Line 528 | Another set of calculation were performed to study the
528   \end{center}
529   \end{table}
530  
531 < Another set of calculation were performed to study the efficiency of
531 > Another set of calculations were performed to study the efficiency of
532   temperature control using different temperature coupling schemes.
533   The starting configuration is cooled to 173~K and evolved using NVE,
534   NVT, and Langevin dynamic with time step of 2 fs.
# Line 538 | Line 538 | scaling to the desire temperature. In extremely lower
538   Nos\'e-Hoover temperature scaling scheme with thermostat of 5 ps
539   which gives reasonable tight coupling, while the blue one from
540   Langevin dynamics with viscosity of 0.1 poise demonstrates a faster
541 < scaling to the desire temperature. In extremely lower friction
542 < regime (when $ \eta  \approx 0$), Langevin dynamics becomes normal
541 > scaling to the desire temperature. When $ \eta = 0$, Langevin dynamics becomes normal
542   NVE (see orange curve in Fig.~\ref{langevin:temperature}) which
543   loses the temperature control ability.
544  
# Line 565 | Line 564 | identified the center of resistance at $(0\AA, 0.7482\
564   made of 2266 small identical beads with size of 0.3 \AA on the
565   surface. Applying the procedure described in
566   Sec.~\ref{introEquation:ResistanceTensorArbitraryOrigin}, we
567 < identified the center of resistance at $(0\AA, 0.7482\AA,
568 < -0.1988\AA)$, as well as the resistance tensor,
567 > identified the center of resistance at (0 $\rm{\AA}$, 0.7482 $\rm{\AA}$,
568 > -0.1988 $\rm{\AA}$), as well as the resistance tensor,
569   \[
570   \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
571   0.9261 & 0 & 0&0&0.08585&0.2057\\
572   0& 0.9270&-0.007063& 0.08585&0&0\\
573 < 0&0.007063&0.7494&0.2057&0&0\\
574 < 0&0.0858&0.2057& 58.64& 0&-8.5736\\
573 > 0&-0.007063&0.7494&0.2057&0&0\\
574 > 0&0.0858&0.2057& 58.64& 0&0\\
575   0.08585&0&0&0&48.30&3.219&\\
576   0.2057&0&0&0&3.219&10.7373\\
577   \end{array}} \right).
578   \]
579 < %\[
581 < %\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
582 < %0.9261 & 1.310e-14 & -7.292e-15&5.067e-14&0.08585&0.2057\\
583 < %3.968e-14& 0.9270&-0.007063& 0.08585&6.764e-14&4.846e-14\\
584 < %-6.561e-16&-0.007063&0.7494&0.2057&4.846e-14&1.5036e-14\\
585 < %5.067e-14&0.0858&0.2057& 58.64& 8.563e-13&-8.5736\\
586 < %0.08585&6.764e-14&4.846e-14&1.555e-12&48.30&3.219&\\
587 < %0.2057&4.846e-14&1.5036e-14&-3.904e-13&3.219&10.7373\\
588 < %\end{array}} \right).
589 < %\]
579 > where the units for translational, translation-rotation coupling and rotational tensors are $\frac{kcal \cdot fs}{mol \cdot \rm{\AA}^2}$, $\frac{kcal \cdot fs}{mol \cdot \rm{\AA} \cdot rad}$ and $\frac{kcal \cdot fs}{mol \cdot rad^2}$ respectively.
580  
581   Curves of the velocity auto-correlation functions in
582   Fig.~\ref{langevin:vacf} were shown to match each other very well.
583   However, because of the stochastic nature, simulation using Langevin
584   dynamics was shown to decay slightly faster than MD. In order to
585   study the rotational motion of the molecules, we also calculated the
586 < auto- correlation function of the principle axis of the second GB
586 > auto-correlation function of the principle axis of the second GB
587   particle, $u$. The discrepancy shown in Fig.~\ref{langevin:uacf} was
588 < probably due to the reason that the viscosity using in the
599 < simulations only partially preserved the dynamics of the system.
588 > probably due to the reason that we used the experimental viscosity directly instead of calculating bulk viscosity from simulation.
589  
590   \begin{figure}
591   \centering
# Line 617 | Line 606 | auto-correlation functions of NVE (explicit solvent) i
606   \centering
607   \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{vacf.eps}
608   \caption[Plots of Velocity Auto-correlation Functions]{Velocity
609 < auto-correlation functions of NVE (explicit solvent) in blue) and
609 > auto-correlation functions of NVE (explicit solvent) in blue and
610   Langevin dynamics (implicit solvent) in red.} \label{langevin:vacf}
611   \end{figure}
612  

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines