Stefan Boresch

Dr. Stefan Boresch

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

37Years (1990-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
14 May 2009 in Journal of Computational Chemistry
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
BBB. R. Brooks
B. R. Brooks
CBCharles Brooks
Charles Brooks
AMAlexander MacKerell
Alexander MacKerell
LNL. Nilsson
L. Nilsson
RPR. J. Petrella
R. J. Petrella
MKMartin Karplus
Martin Karplus

13 August 2003 in The Journal of Physical Chemistry B
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SBStefan Boresch
Stefan Boresch
FTFranz Tettinger
Franz Tettinger
MLMartin Leitgeb
Martin Leitgeb
MKMartin Karplus
Martin Karplus

20 September 2024 in The Journal of Physical Chemistry B
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
WHWonmuk Hwang
Wonmuk Hwang
SASteven L. Austin
Steven L. Austin
ABArnaud Blondel
Arnaud Blondel
EBEric D. Boittier
Eric D. Boittier
SBStefan Boresch
Stefan Boresch
MKMartin Karplus
Martin Karplus
Since its inception nearly a half century ago, CHARMM has been playing a central role in computational biochemistry and biophysics. Commensurate with the developments in experimental research and advances in computer hardware, the range of methods and applicability of CHARMM have also grown. This review summarizes major developments that occurred after 2009 when the last review of CHARMM was published. They include the following: new faster simulation engines, accessible user interfaces for convenient workflows, and a vast array of simulation and analysis methods that encompass quantum mechanical, atomistic, and coarse-grained levels, as well as extensive coverage of force fields. In addition to providing the current snapshot of the CHARMM development, this review may serve as a starting point for exploring relevant theories and computational methods for tackling contemporary and emerging problems in biomolecular systems. CHARMM is freely available for academic and nonprofit research at https://academiccharmm.org/program.

1 July 2003 in Neuroscience
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MEMargot Ernst
Margot Ernst
DBD Brauchart
D Brauchart
SBStefan Boresch
Stefan Boresch
WSWerner Sieghart
Werner Sieghart

1 December 1995 in Journal of Molecular Biology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SBStefan Boresch
Stefan Boresch
MKM. Karplus
M. Karplus

11 February 2014 in Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
GKGerhard Koenig
Gerhard Koenig
PHPhillip Hudson
Phillip Hudson
SBStefan Boresch
Stefan Boresch
HWHenry Lee Woodcock
Henry Lee Woodcock
The reliability of free energy simulations (FES) is limited by two factors: (a) the need for correct sampling and (b) the accuracy of the computational method employed. Classical methods (e.g., force fields) are typically used for FES and present a myriad of challenges, with parametrization being a principle one. On the other hand, parameter-free quantum mechanical (QM) methods tend to be too computationally expensive for adequate sampling. One widely used approach is a combination of methods, where the free energy difference between the two end states is computed by, e.g., molecular mechanics (MM), and the end states are corrected by more accurate methods, such as QM or hybrid QM/MM techniques. Here we report two new approaches that significantly improve the aforementioned scheme; with a focus on how to compute corrections between, e.g., the MM and the more accurate QM calculations. First, a molecular dynamics trajectory that properly samples relevant conformational degrees of freedom is generated. Next, potential energies of each trajectory frame are generated with a QM or QM/MM Hamiltonian. Free energy differences are then calculated based on the QM or QM/MM energies using either a non-Boltzmann Bennett approach (QM-NBB) or non-Boltzmann free energy perturbation (NB-FEP). Both approaches are applied to calculate relative and absolute solvation free energies in explicit and implicit solvent environments. Solvation free energy differences (relative and absolute) between ethane and methanol in explicit solvent are used as the initial test case for QM-NBB. Next, implicit solvent methods are employed in conjunction with both QM-NBB and NB-FEP to compute absolute solvation free energies for 21 compounds. These compounds range from small molecules such as ethane and methanol to fairly large, flexible solutes, such as triacetyl glycerol. Several technical aspects were investigated. Ultimately some best practices are suggested for improving methods that seek to connect MM to QM (or QM/MM) levels of theory in FES.