Ab initio calculations on sulfur-containing compounds. I. Uniform quality basis sets for sulfur: Total energies and geometries of H2S

Uniform quality basis sets (UQ-NG ; N=3, 4, 5), with s = p and s ≠ p, and a 6-31 G^* basis set have been optimized for the sulfur atom. These uniform quality basis sets in their uncontracted and contracted forms were used, together with other basis sets reported in the literature (a total of 40 basis sets), to study their accuracy in predicting the bond length and bond angle of H₂S.     

Medium-size Gaussian basis sets for hydrogen through argon

Summary Medium-sized Gaussian basis sets are reoptimized for the ground states of the atoms from hydrogen through argon. The composition of these basis sets is (4s), (5s), and (6s) for H and He, (9s5p) and (12s7p) for the atoms Li to Ne, and (12s8p) and (12s9p) for the atoms Na to Ar. Basis sets for the² P states of Li and Na, and the³ P states of Be and Mg are also constructed since they are useful in molecular calculations. In all cases, our energies are lower than those obtained previously with Gaussian basis sets of the same size.     

Uniform quality gaussian basis sets for molecular calculations,I. C1 hydrocarbons

The optimality of MO basis sets of Gaussian functions, when constructed from AO basis sets optimized for the neutral atom or for atom ions, is investigated. A formal charge parameter Q is defined and used to adjust the AO basis sets to the molecular environment, by virtue of a simple quadratic expression. Calculations on a series of C₁ hydrocarbons (CH₂, CH₃, CH₃⁺, CH₃^?, CH₄) using 3G basis sets indicate considerable variations in the optimum Q value with the molecular species. The proposed method offers a simple alternative technique to a full molecular basis set optimization.     

High-quality Gaussian basis sets for fourth-row atoms

Summary Energy-optimized Gaussian basis sets of triple-zeta quality for the atoms Rb-Xe have been derived. Two series of basis sets are developed; (24s 16p 10d) and (26s 16p 10d) sets which we expand to 13d and 19p functions as the 4d and 5p shells become occupied. For the atoms lighter than Cd, the (24s 16p 10d) sets with triple-zeta valence distributions are higher in energy than the corresponding double-zeta distribution. To ensure a triple-zeta distribution and a global energy minimum the (26s 16p 10d) sets were derived. Total atomic energies from the largest basis sets are between 198 and 284E _H above the numerical Hartree-Fock energies.     

Uniform quality gaussian basis sets for molecular calculations. II. C2 hydrocarbons

This investigation is a continuation of a study on the optimality of MO basis sets of Gaussian functions, when constructed from AO basis sets optimized for the neutral atom or for ions. A formal charge parameter Q is used to adjust AO basis sets to the molecular environment, by virtue of a simple quadratic equation. Calculations are performed on a series of seven C₂ hydrocarbons (C₂H₂, C₂H₄, C₂H₆, C₂H₃⁺ (open), C₂H₃⁺ (bridged), C₂H₅⁺ (bridged), and C₂H₄^? radical anion). A simple rule is formulated to give approximate values of the charge parameter Q.     

Compact contracted basis sets for third-row atoms: Ga–Kr

The (14s11p5d) primitive basis set of Dunning for the third-row main group atoms Ga-Kr has been contracted [6s4p1d]. The core functions have been relatively highly contracted while those which represent the valence region have been left uncontracted to maintain flexibility. Calculations with the [6s4p1d] contraction are reported for a variety of molecules involving third-row atoms. This basis set is found to satisfactorily reproduce experimental properties such as geometric configurations, dipole moments, and vibrational frequencies for a range of molecules. Comparisons are made with the performance of the uncontracted basis set. Polarization functions for the contracted basis set are reported and performance of the basis set with and without polarization functions is examined. A relaxation of the [6s4p1d] contraction to [9s6p2d] for higher level evergy calculations is also presented.     

Uniform quality gaussian basis sets for molecular calculations. IV. Gradient and charged optimized basis sets for CH4

Comparison of the molecular Q-optimized and molecular gradient optimized carbon basis sets for CH 4 showed that molecular Q optimization is an excellent substitute to the more expensive molecular gradient optimization. The parameter Q of the Q optimization is related to the population (i.e., net charge) on the atom.     

Density matrix averaged atomic natural orbital (ANO) basis sets for correlated molecular wave functions

Generally contracted basis sets for the first row transition metal atoms Sc-Zn have been constructed using the atomic natural orbital (ANO) approach, with modifications for allowing symmetry breaking and state averaging. The ANOs are constructed by averaging over the three electronic configurationsd ⁿ ,d ^n–1 s, andd ^n–2 s ² for the neutral atom as well as the ground state for the cation and the ground state atom in an external electric field. The primitive sets are 21s15p10d6f4g. Contraction to 6s5p4d3f2g yields results that are virtually identical to those obtained with the corresponding uncontracted basis sets for the atomic properties, which they have been designed to reproduce. Slightly larger deviations are obtained with the 5s4p3d2f1g for the polarizability, while energetic properties still have only small errors. The design objective has been to describe the ionization potential, the polarizability and the valence spectrum as accurately as possible. The result is a set of well-balanced basis sets for molecular calculations, which can be used together with basis sets of the same quality for the first and second row atoms.     

Long range interaction energies using Gaussian basis sets and a one center method

A one center method, based on the work of Karplus and Kolker, is discussed and used to calculate the induction energy, through O(R^?8), for the H(ls) – H⁺ interaction employing two types of Gaussian basis sets constructed from functions of the form {r^je^?αr2}. The effective hydrogen atom excitation energies and transition multipole moment matrix elements generated in these calculations are used to calculate the dispersion energy for the H(ls) – H(ls) interaction, through O(R^?10), and the R^?9 triple dipole energy corresponding to the interaction of three H(ls) atoms. The results indicate that Gaussian functions can form good basis sets for obtaining long range forces for a variety of multipole interaction energies.     

Large atomic natural orbital basis sets for the first transition row atoms

Large atomic natural orbital (ANO) basis sets are tabulated for the Sc to Cu atoms. The primitive sets are taken from the large sets optimized by Partridge, namely (21s13p8d) for Sc and Ti and (20s12p9d) for V to Cu. These primitive sets are supplemented with threep, oned, sixf, and fourg functions. The ANO sets are derived from configuration interaction density matrices constructed as the average of the lowest states derived from the 3d ⁿ 4s ² and 3d ⁿ⁺¹4s ¹ occupations. For Ni, the¹ S(3d ¹⁰) state is included in the averaging. The choice of basis sets for molecular calculations is discussed.     

1/Z perturbation theory for calculation of line strengths in the neon isoelectronic sequence

The line strengths of 2–2 and 3–3 transitions (2s²2p⁵3s–2s²2p⁵3p–2s²2p⁵3d, 2s2s2p⁶3s–2s2p⁶3p-2s2p⁶3d, 2s²2p⁵3l-2s2p⁶3l) have been calculated for the Ne isoelectronic sequence (Z = 14 ÷ 100). The calculation has been carried out in intermediate coupling. Relativistic corrections have been included through the Breit operator. Perturbation theory in 1/Z has been used to account for electronic interactions.     

Compact basis sets for LCAO-LSD calculations. Part I: Method and bases for Sc to Zn

A method for preparing compact orbital and auxiliary basis sets for LCAO-LSD calculations has been developed. The method has been applied to construct basis sets for first row transition metal atoms from Sc to Zn for the 3d^n?14s¹ and 3d^n?24s² configurations. The properties of different expansion patterns have been tested in atomic calculations for the chromium atom.     

Simple extended STO basis sets. Helium

The two-parameter function, φ = (C₁ + C₂r^n?1) exp (?ζr), (n = 2–5), has been used as a basis function to determine the independent particle model energy of two-electron atomic systems in their ground state. The best energy is found for n = 3 (He—B³⁺) and for n = 4 (H^?). Our energy values are significantly close to Hartree-Fock results.     

Small gaussian basis sets for second-row atoms

6s-type and 4p-type gaussian basis sets are obtained for the second row atoms by fitting, using a least squares criterion, to 12s-type and 9p-type gaussian basis sets which are close to the self-consistent field atomic orbital wave functions. The small gaussian expansions are considered to be more suited for molecular calculations using double basis sets. The differences between these sets and the 10s-type, 6p-type and 9s-type, 5p-type are analysed. For molecular calculations using single gaussian basis sets the 10s-type and 6p-type would seem to be the best compromise.

---

Zusammenfassung Ein Basissatz von Gaußfunktionen vom 6s- bzw. 4p-Typ für Atome der zweiten Reihe wird erhalten, indem die Funktionen mit Hilfe des Kriteriums der kleinsten quadratischen Abweichung einem Satz von Gaußfunktionen vom 12s- bzw. 9p-Typ angepaßt werden; dabei ist der letztgenannte Satz der selbstkonsistenten Wellenfunktion aus Atomorbitalen stark angenähert. Die kürzeren Entwicklungen nach Gaußfunktionen werden für geeigneter bei Berechnungen mit zweifachen Basissätzen gehalten. Die Unterschiede zwischen diesen Sätzen und solchen vom 10s- bzw. 6p-Typ sowie vom 9s- und 5p-Typ werden untersucht. Für Molekülrechnungen mit einfachen Basissätzen von Gaußfunktionen scheint der Satz vom 10s- bzw. 6p-Typ den besten Kompromiß darzustellen.

---

Résumé On obtient des bases gaussiennes de type 6s et 4p pour les atomes de la seconde ligne par ajustement selon un critère de moindre carré à des bases gaussiennes de type 12s et 9p proches des orbitales atomiques SCF. Les petits développements en gaussiennes sont plus adaptés à des calculs moléculaires en bases doubles. Analyse des différences entre cas bases et les bases de types 10s et 6p, 9s et 5p. Pour des calculs moléculaires à base simple, 10s et 6p semble le meilleur compromis.

     

Contraction of the well-tempered Gaussian basis sets: The first-row diatomic molecules

The well-tempered Gaussian basis sets (14s 10p) for atoms from lithium to neon were contracted and used in restricted Hartree–Fock calculations on 13 systems: Li₂(Σ), B₂(Σ), C₂(Σ), N₂(Σ), O₂(Σ), F₂(Σ), Ne₂(Σ), LiF(Σ), BeO(Σ), BF(Σ), CN^?(Σ), CO(Σ), and NO⁺(Σ). Spectroscopic constants (R_e, ω_e, ω_ex_e, B_e, α_e, and k_e) and one-electron properties (dipole, quadrupole, and octupole moments at the center of mass and electric field, electric field gradient, potential, and electron density at the nuclei) were evaluated and compared with the Hartree–Fock results. The largest contracted basis set (7_s6_p3_d) gives results very close to the Hartree–Fock values; the remaining differences are attributed to the absence of the f functions in the present basis sets. For Ne₂, the interaction energy was calculated; the magnitude of the basis-set superposition error was found to be very small (less than 3 μE_h at 2.8 a₀ and less than 2 μE_h at 5.0 a₀).     

The influence of basis sets on wave function tails

Wave function tails are analyzed quantitatively by investigating the dependence of exterior electron density (EED ) on basis sets; the EED is defined as the integrated electron density outside the repulsive molecular surface. Ab initio MO calculations with large scale basis sets were performed to establish the benchmark order of EED values for valence orbitals of some simple molecules. It is found that very popular basis sets, such as 4-31G, which are determined by energy optimization, are inferior in describing the wave function tails to some similar size basis sets, such as MIDI -4, which are obtained by least-squares fit to near Hartree-Fock atomic functions. Further the EED values for atomic 2s functions are shown to be unfavorably smaller than those for atomic 2p functions when the same value is used for the exponent α in the GTO basis sets. This indicates that the frequently used constraint α_s = α_p is not appropriate for describing wave function tails with medium-size basis sets. Deficiencies in the energy-optimized basis sets are found to become more serious for molecules including heavier atoms.     

Frontispiece: What Are We Missing by Not Measuring the Net Charge of Proteins?

The net electrostatic charge (Z) of a folded protein in solution represents a bird's eye view of its surface potentials—including contributions from tightly bound metal, solvent, buffer, and cosolvent ions—and remains one of its most enigmatic properties. Few tools are available to the average biochemist to rapidly and accurately measure Z at pH≠pI. Tools that have been developed more recently seem to go unnoticed. Most scientists are content with this void and estimate the net charge of a protein from its amino acid sequence, using textbook values of pK_a. Thus, Z remains unmeasured for nearly all folded proteins at pH≠pI. When marveling at all that has been learned from accurately measuring the other fundamental property of a protein—its mass—one wonders: what are we missing by not measuring the net charge of folded, solvated proteins? A few big questions immediately emerge in bioinorganic chemistry. When a single electron is transferred to a metalloprotein, does the net charge of the protein change by approximately one elementary unit of charge or does charge regulation dominate, that is, do the pK_a values of most ionizable residues (or just a few residues) adjust in response to (or in concert with) electron transfer? Would the free energy of charge regulation (ΔΔG_z) account for most of the outer sphere reorganization energy associated with electron transfer? Or would ΔΔG_z contribute more to the redox potential? And what about metal binding itself? When an apo-metalloprotein, bearing minimal net negative charge (e.g., Z=−2.0) binds one or more metal cations, is the net charge abolished or inverted to positive? Or do metalloproteins regulate net charge when coordinating metal ions? The author's group has recently dusted off a relatively obscure tool—the “protein charge ladder”—and used it to begin to answer these basic questions.