The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Photo Lynn Kamerlin

Lynn Kamerlin

Professor

Photo Lynn Kamerlin

On unjustifiably misrepresenting the EVB approach while simultaneously adopting it

Author

  • Shina C L Kamerlin
  • Jie Cao
  • Edina Rosta
  • Arieh Warshel

Summary, in English

In recent years, the EVB has become a widely used tool in the QM/MM modeling of reactions in condensed phases and in biological systems, with ever increasing popularity. However, despite the fact that its power and validity have been repeatedly established since 1980, a recent work (Valero, R.; et al. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2009, 5, 1) has strongly criticized this approach, while not discussing the fact that one of the authors is effectively using it himself for both gas-phase and solution studies. Here, we have responded to the most serious unjustified assertions of that paper, covering both the more problematic aspects of that work and the more complex scientific aspects. Additionally, we have demonstrated that the poor EVB results shown in Valero et al. which where presented as verification of the unreliability of the EVB model were in fact obtained by the use of incorrect parameters, without comparing to the correct surface obtained by our program.

Publishing year

2009

Language

English

Pages

10905-15

Publication/Series

The Journal of Physical Chemistry Part B

Volume

113

Issue

31

Document type

Article

Publisher

The American Chemical Society (ACS)

Keywords

  • Gases/chemistry
  • Models, Chemical
  • Quantum Theory
  • Solutions/chemistry
  • Static Electricity
  • Thermodynamics

Status

Published

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 1520-6106