Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5443_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
[40] Mulvihill, J. J. E., Cunnane, E. M., Ross, A. M., Duskey, J. T., Tosi, G., & Grabrucker, A. M. Drug delivery
across the blood–brain barrier: Recent advances in the use of nanocarriers. Nanomedicine, 2020,
15(2), 205–214.
[41] Girdhar, V., Patil, S., Banerjee, S., & Singhvi, G. Nanocarriers for drug delivery: Mini review. Curr
Nanomedicine (Formerly Recent Patents Nanomedicine), 2018, 8(2), 88–99.
[42] Lakkireddy, H. R., & Bazile, D. V. Nano-carriers for drug routing–towards a new era. Journal of Drug
Targeting, 2019, 27(5–6), 525–541.
[43] Lombardo, D., & Kiselev, M. A. Methods of liposomes preparation: Formation and control factors of
versatile nanocarriers for biomedical and nanomedicine application. Pharmaceutics, 2022,
14(3), 543.
[44] Kumar, K. P. S., Bhowmik, D., & Deb, L. Recent trends in Liposomes used as novel drug delivery
system. Pharma Innovation, 2012, 1(1, Part A), 29.
[45] Saito, Y., Honda, R., Akashi, S., Takimoto, H., Nagao, M., Miura, Y., et al. Polymer nanoparticles with
uniform monomer sequences for sequence‐specific peptide recognition. Angewandte Chemie, 2022,
134(30), e202206456.
[46] Aryal, S., Hu, C.-M. J., & Zhang, L. Polymeric nanoparticles with precise ratiometric control over drug
loading for combination therapy. Molecular Pharmaceutics, 2011, 8(4), 1401–1407.
[47] Terashima, T. Controlled self-assembly of amphiphilic random copolymers into folded micelles and
nanostructure materials. Journal of Oleo Science, 2020, 69(6), 529–538.
[48] Wang, C., Wang, Z., & Zhang, X. Amphiphilic building blocks for self-assembly: From amphiphiles to
supra-amphiphiles. Accounts of Chemical Research, 2012, 45(4), 608–618.
[49] Cook, A. B., & Perrier, S. Branched and dendritic polymer architectures: Functional nanomaterials
for therapeutic delivery. Advanced Functional Materials, 2020, 30(2), 1901001.
[50] Medina, S. H., & El-Sayed, M. E. H. Dendrimers as carriers for delivery of chemotherapeutic agents.
Journal of Chemical Reviews, 2009, 109(7), 3141–3157.
[51] Wu, W., Wang, Y., & Que, L. Enhanced bioavailability of silymarin by self-microemulsifying drug
delivery system. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, 2006, 63(3), 288–294.
[52] Rambhia, K. J., & Ma, P. X. Controlled drug release for tissue engineering. Journal of Controlled
Release, 2015, 219, 119–128.
[53] Rosenblum, D., Joshi, N., Tao, W., Karp, J. M., & Peer, D. Progress and challenges towards targeted
delivery of cancer therapeutics. Nature Communications, 2018, 9(1), 1410.
[54] Campbell, K. C. M., & Le Prell, C. G. Potential therapeutic agents. In: Seminars in Hearing. 2011,
(pp. 281–296). Thieme Medical Publishers.
[55] Lombardo, D., Kiselev, M. A., & Caccamo, M. T. Smart nanoparticles for drug delivery application:
Development of versatile nanocarrier platforms in biotechnology and nanomedicine. Journal of
Nanomaterials, 2019, 1–26.
[56] Madni, A., Tahir, N., Rehman, M., Raza, A., Mahmood, M. A., Khan, M. I., et al. Hybrid Nano-carriers
for potential drug delivery. Advanced Technology Drug Delivery and Therapeutics, 2017, 54–87.
[57] Shi, X., & Tian, F. Multiscale modeling and simulation of nano‐carriers delivery through biological
barriers – A review. Advanced Theory and Simulations, 2019, 2(1), 1800105.
[58] Zeigler, B. P., Muzy, A., & Kofman, E. Theory of Modeling and Simulation: Discrete Event & Iterative
System Computational Foundations. 2018, Academic press.
[59] Karniadakis, G., Beskok, A., & Aluru, N. Microflows and Nanoflows: Fundamentals and Simulation.
2006, (Vol. 29). Springer Science & Business Media.
[60] Kellman, M. E., & Tyng, V. The dance of molecules: New dynamical perspectives on highly excited
molecular vibrations. Accounts of Chemical Research, 2007, 40(4), 243–250.
[61] Ditler, E., & Luber, S. Vibrational spectroscopy by means of first‐principles molecular dynamics
simulations. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science, 2022, 12(5), e1605.
12 Application of simulation system for selection of nanocarrier 303
https://t.me/med1917
[62] Lau, D., Jian, W., Yu, Z., & Hui, D. Nano-engineering of construction materials using molecular
dynamics simulations: Prospects and challenges. Composites Part B: Engineering, 2018, 143,
282–291.
[63] Imani, R., Mohabatpour, F., & Mostafavi, F. Graphene-based nano-carrier modifications for gene
delivery applications. Carbon N Y, 2018, 140, 569–591.
[64] Liu, D.-M., & Dong, C. Recent advances in nano-carrier immobilized enzymes and their applications.
Process Biochemical, 2020, 92, 464–475.
[65] Bernini, M. C., Fairen-Jimenez, D., Pasinetti, M., Ramirez-Pastor, A. J., & Snurr, R. Q. Screening of
bio-compatible metal–organic frameworks as potential drug carriers using Monte Carlo
simulations. Journal of Materials Chemical B, 2014, 2(7), 766–774.
[66] Katiyar, R. S., & Jha, P. K. Molecular simulations in drug delivery: Opportunities and challenges.
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science, 2018, 8(4), e1358.
[67] Price, S. L. The computational prediction of pharmaceutical crystal structures and polymorphism.
Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 2004, 56(3), 301–319.
[68] Winkler, D. A. The role of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) in biomolecular
discovery. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 2002, 3(1), 73–86.
[69] Esposito, E. X., Hopfinger, A. J., & Madura, J. D. Methods for applying the quantitative structure-
activity relationship paradigm. Chemoinformatics Concepts, Methods, Tools Drug Discovery, 2004,
275, 131–213.
[70] Polishchuk, P. Interpretation of quantitative structure–activity relationship models: Past, present,
and future. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 2017, 57(11), 2618–2639.
[71] Guha, R. On the interpretation and interpretability of quantitative structure–activity relationship
models. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 2008, 22, 857–871.
[72] Dimitrov, S., Dimitrova, G., Pavlov, T., Dimitrova, N., Patlewicz, G., Niemela, J., et al. A stepwise
approach for defining the applicability domain of SAR and QSAR models. Journal of Chemical
Information and Modeling, 2005, 45(4), 839–849.
[73] Benigni, R., & Bossa, C. Flexible use of QSAR models in predictive toxicology: A case study on
aromatic amines. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, 2012, 53(1), 62–69.
[74] Young, D., Martin, T., Venkatapathy, R., & Harten, P. Are the chemical structures in your QSAR
correct?. QSAR and Combinatorial Science, 2008, 27(11‐12), 1337–1345.
[75] Sprous, D. G., Palmer, R. K., Swanson, J. T., & Lawless, M. QSAR in the pharmaceutical research
setting: QSAR models for broad, large problems. Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry, 2010, 10(6),
619–637.
[76] Hansch, C., & Klein, T. E. Molecular graphics and QSAR in the study of enzyme-ligand interactions.
On the definition of bioreceptors. Accounts of Chemical Research, 1986, 19(12), 392–400.
[77] Ramezanpour, M., Leung, S. S. W., Delgado-Magnero, K. H., Bashe, B. Y. M., Thewalt, J., & Tieleman,
D. P. Computational and experimental approaches for investigating nanoparticle-based drug
delivery systems. Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta Biomembranes, 2016, 1858(7), 1688–1709.
[78] Duarte, Y., Márquez‐Miranda, V., Miossec, M. J., & González‐Nilo, F. Integration of target discovery,
drug discovery and drug delivery: A review on computational strategies. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology, 2019, 11(4), e1554.
[79] Mollazadeh, S., Sahebkar, A., Shahlaei, M., & Moradi, S. Nano drug delivery systems: Molecular
dynamic simulation. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 2021, 332, 115823.
[80] Bunker, A., & Róg, T. Mechanistic understanding from molecular dynamics simulation in
pharmaceutical research 1: Drug delivery. Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences, 2020, 7, 604770.
[81] Kosmidis, K., & Dassios, G. Monte Carlo simulations in drug release. Journal of Pharmacokinetics
and Pharmacodynamics, 2019, 46, 165–172.
[82] Wang, T., Wu, M.-B., Lin, J.-P., & Yang, L.-R. Quantitative structure–activity relationship: Promising
advances in drug discovery platforms. Expert Opinion Drug Discovery, 2015, 10(12), 1283–1300.
304 Abhishek Singh et al.
https://t.me/med1917
[83] Boso, D. P., Di Mascolo, D., Santagiuliana, R., Decuzzi, P., & Schrefler, B. A. Drug delivery:
Experiments, mathematical modelling and machine learning. Computers in Biology and Medicine,
2020, 123, 103820.
[84] Dan, N. Nanostructured lipid carriers: Effect of solid phase fraction and distribution on the release
of encapsulated materials. Langmuir, 2014, 30(46), 13809–13814.
[85] Wang, W., & Ouyang, D. Opportunities and challenges of physiologically based pharmacokinetic
modeling in drug delivery. Drug Discovery Today: Technologies, 2022, 27(8), 2100–2120.
[86] Thelen, K., Coboeken, K., Willmann, S., Dressman, J. B., & Lippert, J. Evolution of a detailed
physiological model to simulate the gastrointestinal transit and absorption process in humans, Part
II: Extension to describe performance of solid dosage forms. Journal Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2012,
101(3), 1267–1280.
[87] Lemaalem, M., Hadrioui, N., Derouiche, A., & Ridouane, H. Structure and dynamics of liposomes
designed for drug delivery: Coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations to reveal the role of
lipopolymer incorporation. RSC Advances, 2020, 10(7), 3745–3755.
[88] Bunker, A., Magarkar, A., & Viitala, T. Rational design of liposomal drug delivery systems, a review:
Combined experimental and computational studies of lipid membranes, liposomes and their
PEGylation. Biochim Biophys Acta (BBA)-Biomembranes, 2016, 1858(10), 2334–2352.
[89] Islam, M. A., Barua, S., & Barua, D. A multiscale modeling study of particle size effects on the tissue
penetration efficacy of drug-delivery nanoparticles. BMC System Biology, 2017, 11, 1–13.
[90] Nadia Hanim, S. Computational Design Strategy of Pharmaceutical Co-crystals: A Case Study of
Anti-cancer drugs/Nadia Hanim Sabri. 2018, University of Malaya.
[91] Rahman, M. M., Islam, M. R., Rahman, F., Rahaman, M. S., Khan, M. S., Abrar, S., et al. Emerging
promise of computational techniques in anti-cancer research: At a glance. Bioengineering, 2022,
9(8), 335.
[92] Butreddy, A., Janga, K. Y., Ajjarapu, S., Sarabu, S., & Dudhipala, N. Instability of therapeutic
proteins – An overview of stresses, stabilization mechanisms and analytical techniques involved in
Lyophilized proteins. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 2021, 167, 309–325.
[93] Paquet, E., & Viktor, H. L. Molecular dynamics, Monte Carlo simulations, and Langevin dynamics: A
computational review. BioMed Research International, 2015, 2–18.
[94] Shamsi, M., Mohammadi, A., Manshadi, M. K. D., & Sanati-Nezhad, A. Mathematical and
computational modeling of nano-engineered drug delivery systems. Journal of Controlled Release,
2019, 307, 150–165.
[95] Halappanavar, S., Vogel, U., Wallin, H., & Yauk, C. L. Promise and peril in nanomedicine: The
challenges and needs for integrated systems biology approaches to define health risk. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology, 2018, 10(1), e1465.
[96] Pavurala, N. Oral Drug Delivery-Molecular Design and Transport Modeling. 2013, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University.
[97] Moore, J. A., & Chow, J. C. L. Recent progress and applications of gold nanotechnology in medical
biophysics using artificial intelligence and mathematical modeling. Nano Express, 2021, 2(2), 22001.
[98] Wang, E. Y., Sarmadi, M., Ying, B., Jaklenec, A., & Langer, R. Recent advances in micro-and nano-
scale carrier systems for controlled delivery of vaccines. Biomaterials, 2023, 303, 122345.
[99] Gupta, R., Srivastava, D., Sahu, M., Tiwari, S., Ambasta, R. K., & Kumar, P. Artificial intelligence to
deep learning: Machine intelligence approach for drug discovery. Molecular Divers, 2021, 25,
1315–1360.
[100] Pappalardo, F., Russo, G., Tshinanu, F. M., & Viceconti, M. In silico clinical trials: Concepts and early
adoptions. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 2019, 20(5), 1699–1708.
[101] Nerenberg, P. S., & Head-Gordon, T. New developments in force fields for biomolecular simulations.
Current Opinion in Structural Biology, 2018, 49, 129–138.
12 Application of simulation system for selection of nanocarrier 305
https://t.me/med1917
[102] Sabari, V., Kanimozhi, M. S., Ramya, M. R., & Sumi, M. L. Nano technology in artificial intelligence
and its application.In: Impact of Smart Technologies and Artificial Intelligence (AI) Paving Path
Towards Interdisciplinary Research in the Fields of Engineering, Arts, Humanities, Commerce,
Economics, Social Sciences, Law and Management-Challenges and Opportunities. 2015 Feb 16,
(pp. 273).
[103] Artese, A., Cross, S., Costa, G., Distinto, S., Parrotta, L., Alcaro, S., et al. Molecular interaction fields in
drug discovery: Recent advances and future perspectives. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
Computational Molecular Science, 2013, 3(6), 594–613.
[104] Chan, C. Y., Huang, P.-H., Guo, F., Ding, X., Kapur, V., Mai, J. D., et al. Accelerating drug discovery via
organs-on-chips. Lab Chip, 2013, 13(24), 4697–4710.
[105] Fortunato, F., Rossi, R., Falzarano, M. S., & Ferlini, A. Innovative therapeutic approaches for
Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Journal of Clinical Medical, 2021, 10(4), 820.
[106] Van Nortwick, S. S., Lendvay, T. S., Jensen, A. R., Wright, A. S., Horvath, K. D., & Kim,
S. Methodologies for establishing validity in surgical simulation studies. Surgery, 2010, 147(5),
622–630.
[107] Cook, D. A., Brydges, R., Zendejas, B., Hamstra, S. J., & Hatala, R. Technology-enhanced simulation to
assess health professionals: A systematic review of validity evidence, research methods, and
reporting quality. Academic Medicine, 2013, 88(6), 872–883.
[108] Hammoud, M. M., Nuthalapaty, F. S., Goepfert, A. R., Casey, P. M., Emmons, S., Espey, E. L., et al. To
the point: Medical education review of the role of simulators in surgical training. American Journal
of Obstetrics and Gynecology MFM, 2008, 199(4), 338–343.
[109] Feliciani, T., Luo, J., Ma, L., Lucas, P., Squazzoni, F., Marušić, A., et al. A scoping review of simulation
models of peer review. Scientometrics, 2019, 121, 555–594.
[110] Tripathy, S. K., Jain, M., & Sen, R. K. Ethical practice for postgraduate students in orthopedics:
Nurturing professionalism and patient care. Indian Journal of Orthopaedic, 2023, 57(11), 1–9.
[111] Aston SJ, Rheault W, Arenson C, Tappert SK, Stoecker J, Orzoff J, Galitski H, Mackintosh S.
Interprofessional education: a review and analysis of programs from three academic health
centers. Academic Medicine. 2012 Jul 1;87(7):949–55.
306 Abhishek Singh et al.
https://t.me/med1917
Sankha Bhattacharya
✶
13 Applications and challenges in molecular
dynamic simulations in polymeric
nanoparticle drug delivery systems
Abstract: Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations are often used to resolve discrepancies
between temporal means and ensemble means. Polymeric nanoparticles are biocompati-
ble and effective drug delivery vehicles, and MD simulations are a potent tool for study-
ing their properties. This chapter showed how MD simulations can be used to improve
the structure of a polymer prodrug and how they can be used in drug design and materi-
als science to make drugs, materials, and technologies better. Periodic system optimiza-
tion is indispensable for achieving stable structures of polymeric nanoparticles in MD
simulations. Utilizing a regression model to determine the interrelationships between
experimental variables enables calculation of potential drug uptake through the estima-
tion of energy expenditure in drug–material interactions. Large molecular ensembles
can be studied with coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations, which also have ap-
plications in drug delivery systems. Scientists employ this method to examine the influ-
ence of rubber’s molecular structure on its performance characteristics. In addition, a
regression model that predicts drug uptake based on the interaction energy between the
drug and polymer was presented. This research sheds light on macroscopic systems and
may have implications for drug delivery applications. This chapter concludes by empha-
sizing the significance of MD simulations in drug design and materials science and out-
lining the obstacles that must be surmounted to realize their full potential.
Keywords: Molecular dynamic simu lations, polymeric nanoparticles, drug delivery
system, force fields, simulation times
13.1 Introduction
Polymeric nanoparticles (NPs) are exciting new materials for drug delivery systems
(DDSs) because of their biocompatibility, stability, and high drug-loading efficiency [1].
Polymeric NPs interact with biological membranes, self-assemble, and release drugs ef-
ficiently; all of these factors contribute to their efficacy as DDSs [2]. Molecular dynamic
(MD) simulations are useful tools for investigating how polymeric NPs act as drug deliv-
✶
Corresponding author: Sankha Bhattacharya, Department of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy
and Technology Management, SVKM’S NMIMS Deemed-to-Be University, Shirpur 425405, Maharashtra,
India, e-mail: sankhabhatt@gmail.com, ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0771-9582
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111208671-013
https://t.me/med1917
ery vehicles. MD simulat ions are powerful computational tools for studying the re-
sponse of polymeric NPs to different conditions, as they are based on Newton’slawsof
motion. Since MD simulations can provide insight into conformational changes, aggre-
gation behavior, self-assembly, interaction with biological membranes, and drug release
performance, they have proven to be effective methods for studying the properties of
polymeric NPs [3]. This chapter explains how scientists can use MD simulations to bet-
ter design DDSs with increased therapeutic efficacy and decreased toxicity by applying
the simulations to polymeric NPs [4]. MD simulations are frequently used in nanomedi-
cine to investigate these interactions at the subatomic level [5]. Recent developments in
the application of MD simulations to polymeric NP DDSs are discussed in this collection
[6]. Significant effects of nanomedicines on healthcare, especially DDSs, are discussed in
this chapter. Possible future developments include the identification of new DDS sys-
tems, the determination of free energy, and the development of novel therapeutic appli-
cations for existing drugs, as well as the investigation of entirely new therapeutic
avenues, such as gene delivery [7]. In this chapter, methods for addressing the obstacles
inherent in MD simulations of polymeric NPs used in pharmaceutical DDSs were dis-
cussed. In addition to a discussion on how to analyze drug release, this chapter features
examples of simulations of DDSs at both the atomistic and coarse-grained (CG) levels
[8]. However, due to the computational power and simulation time required, modeling
large systems with thousands of atoms and molecules can be challenging. In order to
overcome the performance compromise of rubber materials, an understanding of this
relationship is crucial [9]. This research sheds light on the mechanisms behind the chal-
lenging task of juggling multiple attributes in a trade-off scenario. The study found that
modifying the polymer structure with sulphur cross-linking and other methods signifi-
cantly altered the rubber’s physical properties, and that machine learning was used to
analyze these changes and extract the structural properties that contribute to these
changes. This chapter explains how scientists can use MD simulations to better design
DDSs with increased therapeutic efficacy and decreased toxicity by applying the simula-
tions to polymeric NPs [10]. Nanoparticulated systems are used for the controlled re-
lease of drugs. However, not all NPs can be analyzed using MD due to the limitations of
today’s computers. Better DDSs and better health outcomes for patients can be achieved
by investigating the insights gained from MD simulations. Despite the challenges that
researchers have faced, MD simulations have been extremely helpful in the field of
drug delivery. With the continued development of computational power, MD simula-
tions will become even more useful in the design and optimization of DDSs.
308 Sankha Bhattacharya
https://t.me/med1917
13.2 A molecular dynamics perspective of polymeric
nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems
To deliver drugs to specific tissues in the body, NPs encapsulate them in polymers that
are both biocompatible and biodegradable [11]. These NPs can enhance drug perfor-
mance, lessen adverse effects, and boost patient adherence. The small size and dynamic
nature of NPs make it difficult to study their behavior in vivo. MD simulations are a
useful computational tool for investigating how polymeric NPs react to varying environ-
mental conditions [12]. These simulations model the long-term behavior of atoms and
molecules in a system using classical mechanics. Researchers can anticipate how poly-
meric NPs will behave in various settings, including the circulatory system, cells, and
tissues, by employing MD simulations. To better understand the interactions between
polymeric NPs and biological membranes, MD simulations are used in DDSs [13]. Sur-
face properties of NPs, such as surface charge and hydrophobicity, can be important in
establishing how the NPs interact with the membranes. MD simulations allow research-
ers to examine the NP–membrane interaction at the atomic level and predict the effects
of alterations to NP surface properties. Understanding the release of drugs from poly-
meric NP DDSs is another application of MD simulations. Several variables, including
the NPs’ location, size, shape, and composition, and the surrounding environment, can
affect the rate at which drugs are released. Researchers can model the release of drugs
from the NPs and predict how different factors will affect the release rate and profile
by using MD simulations.
13.3 Principles of molecular dynamic simulations
Polymeric NPs have increased in acceptance as a material for DDSs because of their
biocompatibility, stability, and excellent drug-loading efficiency [14]. To investigate the
nanoscale behavior of such complex systems, MD simulations, which are established on
Newton’s laws of motion, can be used [15]. To solve the equations of motion for each
atom in the system, MD simulations make use of numerical techniques like the Verlet
algorithm or the Leapfrog algorithm [16]. The basis for MD simulations is the potential
energy surface (PES), which characterizes the energy of the system as a function of the
positions of all its atoms [17]. Mathematical functions like the Lennard-Jones potential
or the Buckingham potential, which describe atomic interactions within molecules, are
frequently used to demonstrate the PES [18]. In the case of DDSs involving polymeric
NPs, the force field must take into account the specific properties of both the polymer
and the drug. Polymeric NPs containing anticancer drugs like doxorubicin and pacli-
taxel have been modeled using the optimized potentials for liquid simulations (OPLS)
force field [19]. Many different modeling strategies and methods can be used to model
DDSs based on polymeric NPs. One such technique that facilitates this volume and en-
13 Applications and challenges in molecular dynamic simulations 309
https://t.me/med1917
ergy exchange is the NPT ensemble. In addition, employing many copies of the system
at different temperatures and exchanging them can improve sampling of the potential
energy surface. Researchers can use tools like Groningen Machine for Chemical Simula-
tions (GROMACS) and Assisted Model Building with Energy Refinement (AMBER) to
carry out MD simulations of polymeric NPs that deliver drugs [20]. An integral aspect of
MD simulations, the PES allows for the prediction of the forces acting on each atom in
the system. The Chemistry at HARvard Molecular Mechanics (CHARMm) force field is
commonly used to model polymeric NPs because of its accurate capture of intermolecu-
lar interactions, and it can be generated either from actual data or from theoretical sim-
ulations [21]. The properties of molecules and materials are determined by the PES that
regulates these interactions. The PES can be evaluated using either quantum mechani-
cal calculations or empirical force fields. Mathematical models called force fields are
used to describe the dynamics between particles in each system [22]. Force fields incor-
porate experimental data or quantum mechanical simulations to fit Van der Waals in-
teractions, electrostatic interactions, bond stretching and bending characteristics, and
other properties. Molecular models are used to represent the system in MD simulations.
Molecular models often incorporate information about atomic masses, charge distribu-
tions, bond lengths, bond orientations, and other characteristics that explain how the
particles in the system interact. Empirical force fields are often used in MD simulations
due to their computing efficiency and ability to model large systems [23]. Accurate po-
tential energy surfaces, force fields, and simulation tools help scientists understand the
physics of drug release, polymer degradation, and NP stability. These findings pave the
way for the development of safer, more efficacious medication delivery methods. Using
MD simulations, we can now understand the nanoscale behavior of polymeric NPs drug
delivery devices (Figure 13.1). This chapter also discussed the application of MD simula-
tions to polymeric NPs in the context of DDSs. The potential energy surface, force fields,
and simulation methods have all been highlighted as valuable tools for elucidating the
behavior of these intricate systems. Because of the advancement of MD simulations, sci-
entists may now design DDSs with improved therapeutic efficacy and reduced toxicity.
In their analysis of the connection between the polymer structure and the physical
properties of vulcanized natural rubber, Kohei Yoshida et al. [24] combine MD simula-
tions and machine learning [24]. Understanding the principles associated with the influ-
ence of polymer structure on physical properties is vital to overcome the restrictions
imposed by the performance trade-off of rubber materials, as noted by the authors. The
study concluded that sulfur cross-linking and other modifications to the polymer struc-
ture significantly altered the rubber’s physical characteristics. Analyzing this effect and
extracting structural characteristics that contribute to physical qualities was done with
the help of machine learning. Our results shed light on the mechanisms involved in the
hitherto challenging task of managing various attributes in a trade-off relationship.
310 Sankha Bhattacharya
https://t.me/med1917
Figure 13.1: The study used the software QuantumATK to make a model of a large group of molecules, which was then simulated
using the software LAMMPS. Using the Quantum ATK and Winmostar software, the results of the simulation were shown and
analyzed. For the simulations, the OPLS-AA force field was used, but some missing parameters were filled in with other similar
parameters. The authors made a total of 42 models of sulfur-crosslinked polymers with different degrees of polymerization,
polymer numbers, and sulfur loading values. Under NVT and NPT conditions, the models were annealed and brought to a state of
equilibrium at 300 K. The models were given names based on how much they were polymerized and how much sulfur was in
them. For example, 40–10 means that it is a 40-mer polymer with a sulfur loading value of 10. In the study, the structural parts of
these models were looked at (permission obtained for the reuse of the figure; License Number 5516300657666).
13 Applications and challenges in molecular dynamic simulations 311
https://t.me/med1917
13.4 Mechanical statistics: arithmetic mean
The objective of this compilation was also to investigate the link between the macroscopic
dynamics or fluctuations of a large system and its macroscopic properties. Particles like
atoms, molecules, and electrons function in accordance with certain microscopic rules
and interparticle interactions. Modern computing power notwithstanding, solving the
equation of motion for a many-body system remains a challenging and intricate under-
taking. Macroscale samples consisting of unimaginably massive numbers of atoms or
molecules in various conformations are typically used in studies. To obtain experimental
observables, a large number of system replicas are used, and statistical mechanics is ap-
plied to calculate the ensemble mean of observable A. Yet, the microscopic state of a sys-
tem is determined by the locations and velocities of the particles, which represent the
coordinates of a multidimensional space with 6N dimensions (where N is the number of
particles). The averages of the ensemble are the experimental observables, not the aver-
ages over time. Yet, in MD simulations, thousands of atoms or beads are utilized to sam-
ple a mechanical-statistical ensemble. Thisraisestheproblemofhowtobringtogether
the averages over different time periods and across multiple ensembles. The solution can
be found in the ergodic hypothesis, one of the fundamental axioms of statistical mechan-
ics, which states that the ensemble average of an observable is equal to its temporal aver-
age. According to the ergodic hypothesis, if you let a system continue indefinitely, it will
eventually reach every possible state that is consistent with the constraints. Even if it is
impractical, MD simulations need a large sampling of representative conformations in
the phase space. The ensembles employed in simulations have fixed values for the ther-
modynamic variables representing the state of the system. The experimental setup is
characterized by the statistical ensemble. For example, in the NPT ensemble, the values
for T, P,andthenumberofparticles(N) are all held constant. For each distinct state that
these parameters specify, there is a corresponding state equation that characterizes the
system. Positive surface tension (ensemble NPzT) is commonly used in simulations to cre-
ate realistic model membranes in biology. This ensemble was chosen because it best
mimics the way experimental bilayers adjust their area per lipid to generate a small
amount of free energy. However, periodic boundary conditions in simulations provide
limits on the undulations of the bilayer, and these limits affect how surface tension is
understood. Hence, in this case, the most common practice is to completely loosen the
constraints placed on the simulation box (NPT ensemble).
13.5 Mechanics approach
The physical properties of matter are determined by the organization and mobility of
its constituent particles, nuclei and electron s [25]. The Schrödinger equation, which
calculates the probability of finding particles in a given location in space over time,
312 Sankha Bhattacharya
https://t.me/med1917
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана