From chemistry-request -A_T- server.ccl.net Wed Jul 10 10:05:49 2002
Received: from mail.fqspl.com.pl ([212.244.147.20])
	by server.ccl.net (8.11.6/8.11.0) with SMTP id g6AE5np13806
	for <chemistry%!at!%ccl.net>; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:05:49 -0400
Received: (qmail 2809 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2002 14:12:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO test) (212.244.147.4)
  by mail.fqspl.com.pl with SMTP; 10 Jul 2002 14:12:50 -0000
Message-ID: <009901c2281b$46bb8e40$320a0a0a&$at$&test>
From: "Victor Anisimov" <victor $#at#$ fqspl.com.pl>
To: <chemistry#* at *#ccl.net>
Subject: Accuracy question
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:05:31 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="koi8-r"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400

Dear CCLers,

Based on my short investigation I could learn that HF/6-31G* is the most
popular
method for electrostatic parameter optimization in Amber, Charmm, OPLS and
perhaps in other prominent force fields with the aim of the description of
molecular
electrostatic potential of protein systems.

Here I'd like to ask experts in this field. Is it the correct conclusion I
derived or
perhaps other quantum-chemistry methods are more popular for the purpose of
electrostatic parameters development, e.g. databases of ESP charges of amino
acids
or similar.

Thank you in advance. I will summarise the responses promptly.

With best regards,
Victor.

--
Victor Anisimov
FQS Poland, Krakow.