Atomistic vs. Coarse-Grained Models: A Strategic Guide for Biomedical Simulation

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive comparison of atomistic and coarse-grained potential models for researchers and professionals in computational biology and drug development. It explores the foundational principles behind these simulation approaches, contrasting their inherent trade-offs between resolution and scale. The content delves into advanced methodological developments, particularly the integration of machine learning to bridge the resolution gap, and addresses key challenges in model parameterization and optimization. Finally, it outlines rigorous validation frameworks and comparative analyses, offering strategic insights for selecting the appropriate model to study complex biological processes, from protein folding to membrane interactions, thereby accelerating biomedical research.

Understanding the Multiscale Challenge: Atomistic Detail vs. Coarse-Grained Scale

In the pursuit of understanding molecular interactions for drug development and materials science, computational scientists operate across a vast spectrum of simulation resolutions. This spectrum ranges from highly detailed quantum mechanical (QM) calculations, which model electron behavior, to all-atom (AA) molecular dynamics (MD), which simulates every atom using classical force fields, and further to coarse-grained (CG) MD methods, where groups of atoms are merged into single interaction sites or "beads" to access larger temporal and spatial scales [1] [2]. The choice of model is invariably a trade-off between computational cost and resolution, impacting the phenomena that can be studied. AA MD provides high resolution and is adept at capturing detailed interfacial interactions but becomes computationally prohibitive for large systems or long time scales [2]. CGMD addresses this limitation by simplifying molecular structures, enabling the study of complex molecular phenomena—from self-assembly to protein folding—over microseconds and micrometers, scales often inaccessible to AAMD [1] [2]. This guide provides an objective comparison of these methodologies, detailing their performance, underlying protocols, and practical applications in modern research.

Method Comparison: Performance and Precision

Computational Efficiency and Application Scope

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Simulation Methods Across Key Metrics

Metric	Quantum Mechanics (QM)	All-Atom MD (AA)	Coarse-Grained MD (CG)
Spatial Scale	Atomic/Sub-Atomic (Å)	Nanometers (nm)	Micrometers (µm)
Temporal Scale	Femtoseconds (fs)	Picoseconds to Nanoseconds (ps-ns)	Microseconds to Milliseconds (µs-ms)
Typical System Size	10s - 1000s of atoms	1000s - millions of atoms	1000s of beads (representing 10,000s+ atoms)
Key Applications	Electronic properties, reaction mechanisms, force field parametrization [1]	Detailed ligand-protein binding, specific molecular interactions	Membrane dynamics, polymer self-assembly, large protein complexes [2]
Representative Software/Tools	Gaussian, ORCA, VASP	GROMACS [2], AMBER, LAMMPS [2]	MARTINI [1] [2], VOTCA [2], MagiC [2], Martini3 [2]

Quantitative Performance in Practical Applications

The performance differential between simulation methods has been quantitatively assessed in various domains, from drug discovery to material property prediction.

Table 2: Experimental Performance Data for Various Modeling Approaches

Application Domain	Compared Methods	Performance Outcome	Experimental Context
Proof-of-Concept (POC) Trials [3]	Pharmacometric Model vs. Conventional t-test	4.3 to 8.4-fold reduction in sample size to achieve 80% power	Parallel design with placebo and active dose arms; Stroke & Diabetes examples
Dose-Ranging POC Trials [3]	Pharmacometric Model vs. Conventional t-test	4.3 to 14-fold reduction in total study size	Scenarios with multiple active doses and placebo
Drug Target Prediction [4]	Deep Learning vs. Other ML Methods (SVM, KNN, RF)	Deep Learning significantly outperformed all competing methods	Large-scale benchmark of 1300 assays and ~500,000 compounds
Population PK Modeling [5]	AI/ML Models (incl. Neural ODE) vs. NONMEM (NLME)	AI/ML models often outperformed NONMEM in predictive performance (RMSE, MAE, R²)	Analysis of simulated and real clinical data from 1,770 patients
Coarse-Grained Force Field Accuracy [1]	CG Models (e.g., MARTINI, ECRW) vs. AA Models vs. Experiment	CG models show varying accuracy in density, diffusion, and conductivity vs. experiment and AA	Comparison for [C4mim][BF4] ionic liquid

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Protocol for Bottom-Up Coarse-Grained Model Development

A common and rigorous approach for developing accurate CG models is the bottom-up methodology, which derives parameters from reference all-atom data [1]. The general workflow is as follows:

• System Selection and AA Simulation: A representative system is simulated using a validated all-atom force field to generate a high-quality reference trajectory. This trajectory includes atomic positions and, crucially, forces [6].
• CG Mapping Definition: A mapping scheme is defined, specifying how groups of atoms are combined into a single CG bead. Common schemes are based on chemical intuition or systematic methods like relative entropy minimization [1].
• Force Field Parameterization: The CG force field parameters are optimized to reproduce the behavior of the AA system. This is the core step and can be achieved through several methods:
  • Force Matching (Variational Coarse-Graining): A CG force field is learned by minimizing the mean-squared error between the forces predicted by the CG model and the reference forces from the AA simulation projected onto the CG coordinates [6].
  • Inverse Boltzmann Inversion (IBI): The non-bonded potentials are iteratively refined until the radial distribution functions (RDFs) of the CG model match those from the AA reference [1].
  • Relative Entropy Minimization: This approach minimizes the relative entropy, or informational divergence, between the probability distributions of the AA and CG systems [2].
• Model Validation: The optimized CG model is used to simulate the system, and its predictions for key properties (e.g., density, radius of gyration, diffusion constants) are compared against the original AA simulations or experimental data to assess its accuracy and transferability [2].

Protocol for Rigorous Machine Learning Method Comparison in Drug Discovery

To ensure fair and realistic comparison of ML models in drug discovery, specific protocols have been developed to avoid common biases [4]:

• Benchmark Dataset Curation: A large and diverse dataset, such as the one extracted from ChEMBL containing ~500,000 compounds and over 1,000 assays, is used to ensure generalizable conclusions [4].
• Cluster-Cross-Validation: Instead of random splits, whole clusters of chemically similar compounds (based on scaffolds) are assigned to training or test sets. This prevents over-optimism by ensuring the model predicts activities for entirely new chemical series, reflecting the real-world discovery process [4].
• Nested Cross-Validation for Hyperparameter Tuning: An outer loop estimates the model's performance, while an inner loop is used exclusively for hyperparameter optimization. This strict separation prevents information from the test set from leaking into the model building process (hyperparameter selection bias) [4].
• Performance Evaluation: Models are evaluated using robust metrics (e.g., AUC, RMSE, R²) on the held-out test clusters, providing a realistic estimate of their predictive power in practice [5] [4].

Diagram 1: Bottom-up coarse-graining workflow for molecular simulations.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Key Software and Computational Tools for Molecular Simulation

Tool/Resource Name	Type/Category	Primary Function in Research
GROMACS [2]	Software Engine	High-performance MD package for running both AA and CG simulations.
LAMMPS [2]	Software Engine	A versatile MD simulator with extensive support for CG and reactive force fields.
MARTINI [1] [2]	Coarse-Grained Force Field	A widely used top-down CG force field, particularly for biomolecular and material systems.
VOTCA [2]	Software Toolkit	A suite of tools for bottom-up coarse-graining, implementing methods like IBI and force matching.
NONMEM [5]	Software Platform	The gold-standard software for nonlinear mixed-effects modeling in population pharmacokinetics.
Neural ODEs [5]	Modeling Technique	A deep learning architecture that models continuous-time dynamics, showing strong performance in PK modeling.
Bayesian Optimization (BO) [2]	Optimization Algorithm	An efficient method for optimizing CG force field parameters, balancing exploration and exploitation with fewer evaluations.
2,7-Diethylbenzo[d]oxazole	2,7-Diethylbenzo[d]oxazole|High-Purity Research Chemical
2-Phenyl-L-phenylalanine	2-Phenyl-L-phenylalanine	Research-grade 2-Phenyl-L-phenylalanine, a modified amino acid for peptide synthesis. For Research Use Only. Not for human consumption.

The landscape of molecular simulation offers a powerful continuum of methods, each with distinct strengths. Quantum mechanics provides the fundamental foundation but is limited in scale. All-atom molecular dynamics offers a balance of detail and practicality for many systems. Coarse-grained models, particularly when enhanced by machine learning and robust parameterization protocols, dramatically extend the accessible scales, enabling the study of mesoscopic phenomena critical in drug development and material science [2] [1]. Quantitative comparisons consistently show that advanced model-based approaches—whether in clinical trial analysis, target prediction, or force field development—can yield substantial efficiency gains, often reducing required resources by an order of magnitude [3] [4]. The choice of method must be guided by the specific research question, balancing the need for atomic detail with the practical constraints of computational cost and the scale of the biological or chemical process under investigation.

In molecular simulations, the all-atom (AA) model represents the highest standard of resolution, explicitly modeling every atom within a system, including hydrogen atoms. This stands in contrast to united-atom (UA) representations, which simplify aliphatic groups by representing carbon and hydrogen atoms as single, merged interaction sites [7], and coarse-grained (CG) models, which group multiple atoms into even larger "beads" to dramatically reduce computational cost [8]. The choice of model resolution represents a fundamental trade-off between computational expense and physical detail. AA models are indispensable for investigating phenomena where atomic-level interactions are critical, such as precise molecular recognition, enzyme catalysis, and drug binding [9]. This guide provides an objective comparison of the AA model's performance against alternative representations, focusing on experimental data and its established role within the broader context of atomistic versus coarse-grained potential model research.

Unmatched Resolution: The Key Strengths of the All-Atom Model

Explicit Representation of Atomic Interactions

The primary advantage of the AA model is its complete physical representation. By explicitly including every hydrogen atom, AA models can directly describe specific intermolecular interactions, most notably hydrogen bonding and other highly directional forces, which are critical for the structural integrity and function of biomolecules [7]. This level of detail is essential for accurately simulating biological processes where these fine-grained interactions determine mechanistic pathways. For instance, the explicit treatment of hydrogen atoms allows for a more realistic depiction of solvation dynamics and the dielectric properties of the environment [7].

Target Properties and Performance in Force Field Comparisons

The accuracy of a force field is intrinsically linked to its resolution. A dedicated 2022 study performed a direct comparison between UA and AA resolutions for a force field applied to saturated acyclic (halo)alkanes. The parameters for both force-field versions were optimized in an automated way (CombiFF) against a large set of experimental data, ensuring a fair comparison [7]. The table below summarizes the performance of the AA and UA representations for a range of physical properties after optimization.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of AA and UA Representations for Various Physical Properties

Property	AA Performance	UA Performance	Description
Liquid Density (ρliq)	Very Accurate	Very Accurate	Target property; similar accuracy after optimization [7].
Vaporization Enthalpy (ΔHvap)	Very Accurate	Very Accurate	Target property; similar accuracy after optimization [7].
Shear Viscosity (η)	More Accurate	Less Accurate	AA representation yielded superior results [7].
Surface Tension (γ)	Comparably Accurate	Comparably Accurate	Both resolutions achieved similar accuracy [7].
Hydration Free Energy (ΔGwat)	Less Accurate	More Accurate	UA representation yielded superior results in this case [7].
Self-Diffusion Coefficient (D)	Comparably Accurate	Comparably Accurate	Both resolutions achieved similar accuracy [7].

Generating Atomic-Resolution Conformational Ensembles

AA models are paramount for determining atomic-resolution conformational ensembles, especially for highly flexible systems like intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs). Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations with modern AA force fields can generate atomically detailed structural descriptions of the rapidly interconverting states populated by IDPs in solution [9]. The accuracy of these ensembles has been significantly improved through integrative approaches that combine AA-MD simulations with experimental data from nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy and small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) using maximum entropy reweighting procedures [9]. This allows researchers to achieve a "force-field independent approximation" of the true solution ensemble, a feat that is only possible starting from atomic-level detail [9].

Inherent Limitations: The Computational Cost of Detail

The Fundamental Bottleneck: System Size and Timescales

The most significant limitation of AA simulations is their prohibitive computational cost. Explicitly simulating every atom, including hydrogens, results in a much larger number of particles and interaction sites compared to UA or CG models. This directly limits the accessible time and length scales of the simulation [8]. Biological processes such as protein folding, large-scale conformational changes, and protein-protein interactions often occur on microsecond to second timescales and involve large molecular complexes—realms that are often beyond the practical reach of routine AA simulations [10].

The Multiscale Solution: Integrating AA with Coarser Models

To overcome the limitations of AA models while retaining their strengths, researchers have developed multiscale modeling workflows. These strategies leverage the strengths of different resolutions: CG models are used to sample large-scale conformational changes and long-timescale dynamics, while AA models are applied to specific regions of interest for atomic-detail analysis [10]. A key technological advancement enabling these workflows is backmapping—the process of reconstructing an AA representation from a lower-resolution (e.g., CG or side-chain-based) model [11] [8] [10]. Modern methods employ machine learning, such as diffusion models, to learn the mapping between scales and recover detailed structures from coarse representations [10].

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for AA and Multiscale Modeling

Tool/Reagent	Type/Function	Role in Research
CombiFF	Automated parameterization approach	Enables systematic optimization and comparison of force-field parameters for different resolutions (e.g., UA vs. AA) [7].
Maximum Entropy Reweighting	Computational algorithm	Integrates AA-MD simulations with sparse experimental data (NMR, SAXS) to determine accurate conformational ensembles of IDPs [9].
Backmapping Tools	Software/Algorithm	Reconstructs all-atom structures from coarse-grained representations; essential for multiscale workflows [11] [10].
MuMMI/UCG-mini-MuMMI	Multiscale simulation workflow	Integrates ultra-coarse-grained (UCG), CG, and AA models to study large biological systems (e.g., RAS-RAF interactions) at reduced computational cost [10].

Experimental Protocols: Methodologies for Validation and Comparison

Protocol 1: Direct Force-Field Comparison Using CombiFF

This protocol outlines the methodology for a fair comparison between AA and UA force-field representations, as performed in a 2022 study [7].

• System Selection: Define a specific family of molecules (e.g., saturated acyclic (halo)alkanes).
• Parameter Optimization: Use an automated procedure (CombiFF) to refine the force-field parameters for both the AA and UA representations against the same set of experimental target data (e.g., pure-liquid densities ρliq and vaporization enthalpies ΔHvap).
• Target Property Calculation: Run MD simulations with the optimized parameters to calculate the target properties.
• Validation on Secondary Properties: Extend the comparison to properties not included in the parameterization targets (e.g., shear viscosity η, hydration free energy ΔGwat, self-diffusion coefficient D).
• Accuracy Assessment: Quantify the accuracy of each representation by comparing simulation results against experimental data for all properties.

Protocol 2: Determining Accurate IDP Ensembles via Maximum Entropy Reweighting

This protocol describes an integrative method for generating force-field independent, atomic-resolution ensembles of IDPs, as detailed in a 2025 study [9].

• Initial AA-MD Simulation: Perform long-timescale all-atom MD simulations of the IDP using different state-of-the-art force fields (e.g., a99SB-disp, Charmm36m).
• Experimental Data Collection: Gather extensive experimental data for the IDP, such as NMR chemical shifts, J-couplings, and SAXS profiles.
• Calculate Observables: Use forward models to predict the experimental observables from every snapshot (conformation) of the unbiased MD ensemble.
• Automated Reweighting: Apply a maximum entropy reweighting procedure. This algorithm assigns new statistical weights to each snapshot in the ensemble with the constraint that the reweighted ensemble's averaged observables match the experimental data. A single parameter (the desired effective ensemble size) automatically balances the restraints from different experimental datasets.
• Ensemble Validation: Assess the similarity and robustness of the reweighted ensembles derived from different initial force fields to approach a "force-field independent" solution ensemble.

The following diagram illustrates this integrative workflow.

The all-atom model remains the gold standard for molecular simulation when atomic-level detail is non-negotiable. Its ability to explicitly capture fine-grained interactions makes it indispensable for studying specific biological mechanisms and for generating reference data. However, its severe computational constraints naturally integrate it into a larger multiscale ecosystem. The future of simulating complex biological systems does not lie in choosing one model over another, but in strategically leveraging AA, UA, and CG resolutions within unified workflows. The continued development of robust parameterization tools, accurate backmapping techniques, and integrative validation methods is crucial to seamlessly bridge these scales, maximizing physical insight while managing computational resources.

Biomolecular simulations are an indispensable tool for advancing our understanding of complex biological dynamics, with critical applications ranging from drug discovery to the molecular characterization of virus-host interactions [8]. However, biological processes are inherently multiscale, involving intricate interactions across a vast range of length and time scales that present a fundamental challenge for computational methods [8]. All-atom (AA) molecular dynamics simulations, while providing unparalleled detail at atomistic resolution, remain severely limited by computational constraints, typically capturing only short timescales and small conformational changes [8] [12]. In contrast, coarse-grained (CG) models address this limitation by systematically reducing molecular complexity, thereby extending simulations to biologically relevant time and length scales by orders of magnitude [13] [12]. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of CG models against traditional atomistic approaches, examining their theoretical foundations, performance metrics, and practical applications in biomedical research.

Theoretical Foundations: The Physical Basis of Coarse-Graining

The fundamental principle underlying coarse-grained modeling is a reduction in the number of degrees of freedom in a molecular system. CG models achieve this by grouping multiple atoms into single interaction sites, or "pseudo-atoms," thereby creating a simplified representation that retains essential molecular features while eliminating unnecessary atomic details [13] [14]. The motion of these coarse-grained sites is governed by the potential of mean force, which represents the free energy surface obtained by integrating out the secondary degrees of freedom [13].

From a statistical mechanics perspective, the equations of motion for CG degrees of freedom can be derived using the Mori-Zwanzig projection-operator formalism, which reveals that the net motion is governed by three primary components: the mean forces (averaged over the atoms constituting the interaction sites), friction forces (depending on time correlation of force fluctuations), and stochastic forces [13]. In practical implementations, the friction and stochastic force terms are typically incorporated through Langevin dynamics, which assumes that fine-grained degrees of freedom move much faster than coarse-grained ones [13]. This theoretical foundation justifies the use of simplified dynamics that enable the dramatic acceleration of simulations compared to all-atom approaches.

Table: Fundamental Components of Coarse-Grained Dynamics

Force Component	Physical Origin	Mathematical Representation	Practical Implementation
Mean Force	Potential of mean force from integrated degrees of freedom	-∇ᵢW(R) where W(R) is the potential of mean force	Directly computed from CG force field
Friction Force	Energy dissipation from fast variables	-Γq̇ where Γ is friction coefficient	Langevin dynamics thermostat
Stochastic Force	Random collisions with integrated degrees of freedom	fᵣₐₙ₈ with ⟨fᵣₐₙ₈(t)fᵣₐₙ₈(t')⟩ = 2kBTΓδ(t-t')	Random forces in Langevin dynamics

Performance Comparison: Quantitative Analysis of Simulation Approaches

Computational Efficiency and Accessible Timescales

The primary advantage of CG models is their dramatic acceleration of simulation timescales compared to all-atom methods. While all-atom molecular dynamics is typically limited to microsecond timescales for even moderately sized systems, CG models can access millisecond to second timescales, encompassing biologically critical processes like protein folding, large-scale conformational changes, and molecular assembly [12] [15]. This performance improvement stems from multiple factors: the reduction in degrees of freedom smooths high-frequency atomic vibrations and flattens the free-energy landscape, reducing molecular friction and enabling faster exploration of configuration space [1]. Additionally, the elimination of fastest vibrations permits the use of significantly larger integration time steps (typically 10-20 femtoseconds for CG models versus 1-2 femtoseconds for AA models) [1].

Recent advances in machine learning-accelerated CG models have demonstrated particularly impressive performance gains. The CGSchNet model, for instance, has been shown to be several orders of magnitude faster than equivalent all-atom molecular dynamics while maintaining comparable accuracy for predicting protein folding pathways and metastable states [15]. Similarly, commercial implementations under development aim to achieve speedups of 500 times compared to GPU-based classical molecular dynamics simulators [16].

Table: Performance Comparison of Biomolecular Simulation Methods

Parameter	All-Atom MD	Traditional CG Models	ML-Accelerated CG
Time Step	1-2 fs [1]	10-20 fs [1]	10-20 fs+
Typical Timescale	Nanoseconds to microseconds [12]	Microseconds to milliseconds [12]	Milliseconds to seconds [15]
System Size Limit	~10⁶ atoms [12]	~10⁸ atoms	~10⁸ atoms
Relative Speed	1x	10³-10⁴x [15]	10⁴-10⁶x [15] [16]
Accuracy for Folding	Quantitative with modern force fields [15]	Qualitative to semi-quantitative [15]	Near quantitative for certain systems [15]
Transferability	High across diverse systems	System-specific limitations [15]	Improving with neural network approaches [15]

Accuracy and Predictive Capability

While CG models offer dramatic speed improvements, their accuracy must be carefully evaluated against all-atom simulations and experimental data. Traditional CG models often sacrifice atomic-level detail, making the parameterization of reliable and transferable potentials a persistent challenge [8]. The MARTINI force field, for example, effectively models intermolecular interactions including membrane structure formation and protein interactions, but inaccurately represents intramolecular protein dynamics [15]. Similarly, structure-based models like UNRES or AWSEM often fail to capture alternative metastable states beyond the native fold [15].

Recent machine learning approaches have substantially improved CG model accuracy. The CGSchNet model demonstrates that transferable bottom-up CG force fields can successfully predict metastable states of folded, unfolded, and intermediate structures, fluctuations of intrinsically disordered proteins, and relative folding free energies of protein mutants [15]. Quantitative comparisons show that for small fast-folding proteins like chignolin, TRPcage, and villin headpiece, ML-CG models can reproduce free energy landscapes with folded states having fraction of native contacts (Q) close to 1 and low Cα root-mean-square deviation values [15]. However, challenges remain for more complex systems like the beta-beta-alpha fold (BBA) which contains both helical and anti-parallel β-sheet motifs [15].

Methodological Approaches: Force Field Development and Parameterization

Coarse-Grained Force Field Paradigms

The development of accurate CG force fields remains the most significant challenge in coarse-grained modeling [13]. Two primary philosophical approaches dominate the field: top-down and bottom-up parameterization strategies. Top-down methods parameterize CG models directly against experimental macroscopic properties, while bottom-up approaches use statistical mechanics principles to preserve microscopic properties of atomistic models [1]. Bottom-up methods include several specialized techniques:

• Inverse Boltzmann Inversion (IBI): Iteratively adjusts potentials to match target radial distribution functions [1]
• Multiscale Coarse-Graining (MS-CG): Uses force-matching to optimize CG potentials against atomistic force data [1]
• Relative Entropy Minimization: Minimizes the relative entropy between CG and AA distributions [1]
• Extended Conditional Reversible Work (ECRW): Determines potentials based on reversible work calculations [1]

The energy function for CG models typically includes both bonded and nonbonded terms, with the analytical functional form often copied from all-atom force fields [13]. However, this approach can result in insufficient capacity to model complex systems like protein structures, as the fine-grained degrees of freedom can create strong coupling between CG degrees of freedom [13].

Specialized CG Models for Biological Applications

Different biomolecular systems often require specialized CG approaches optimized for their specific physical properties:

• Protein-Specific Models: The HPS-Urry model uses a hydropathy scale derived from inverse temperature transitions in elastin-like polypeptides to simulate sequence-specific behavior of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) and their liquid-liquid phase separation [17]. This model successfully predicts reduced phase separation propensity upon mutations (R-to-K and Y-to-F) that earlier models failed to capture [17].

• Membrane Models: The MARTINI force field provides optimized parameters for lipid bilayers and membrane proteins, enabling studies of membrane remodeling, protein insertion, and lipid-protein interactions [12].

• Nucleic Acid Models: Specialized CG models for DNA and RNA, such as SimRNA, enable the simulation of nucleic acid folding, protein-nucleic acid interactions, and large-scale conformational changes in nucleoprotein complexes [12] [14].

Table: Comparison of Popular Coarse-Grained Force Fields

Force Field	CG Mapping	Parameterization	Strengths	Limitations
MARTINI	~4 heavy atoms per bead [1]	Top-down & bottom-up hybrid	Excellent for membranes & intermolecular interactions [15]	Poor intramolecular protein dynamics [15]
UNRES	2 backbone sites per residue [15]	Physics-based & statistical	Effective for protein folding [15]	Limited to specific protein types [15]
AWSEM	3 backbone sites per residue [15]	Knowledge-based	Good for structure prediction [15]	Misses alternative metastable states [15]
HPS-Urry	1 bead per amino acid [17]	Hydropathy scale based	Excellent for IDPs & phase separation [17]	Less accurate for folded proteins [17]
CGSchNet	Cα-based mapping [15]	ML bottom-up force matching	Transferable, high accuracy [15]	Computationally intensive training [15]

Experimental Protocols: Methodologies for CG Model Validation

Free Energy Landscape Calculation

A critical validation methodology for CG models involves comparing free energy landscapes against all-atom references or experimental data. The standard protocol involves:

• Equilibrium Sampling: Running extensive molecular dynamics simulations using the CG force field, often enhanced with advanced sampling techniques like parallel tempering (replica exchange) to ensure proper convergence [15].

• Collective Variable Selection: Identifying appropriate order parameters that describe the essential dynamics of the system, typically including:

  • Fraction of native contacts (Q) - measures structural similarity to native state
  • Root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) - quantifies structural deviation
  • Radius of gyration (Rg) - characterizes chain compactness [15]

• Probability Distribution Construction: Calculating the probability distribution P(Q,RMSD) from simulation trajectories and converting to free energy via F(Q,RMSD) = -kBT ln P(Q,RMSD) [15].

• Metastable State Identification: Locating local minima on the free energy surface that correspond to functionally relevant states (folded, unfolded, intermediate, misfolded) [15].

This approach was used to validate the CGSchNet model against all-atom references for multiple fast-folding proteins, demonstrating its ability to correctly predict metastable folding and unfolding transitions [15].

Transferability Testing Across Sequence Space

A rigorous test for CG models involves evaluating their performance on proteins not included in the training set. The established protocol includes:

• Training Set Curation: Assembling a diverse set of protein sequences and structures with varied folds and sequence properties for force field parameterization [15].

• Sequence Similarity Filtering: Ensuring test proteins have low sequence similarity (<40%) to any training set sequences to prevent overfitting [15].

• Folding from Extended States: Initializing simulations from extended conformations rather than native structures to test true predictive capability [15].

• Multiple Metric Validation: Comparing simulations against experimental or all-atom reference data using various structural metrics:

  • Average RMSD to native structure
  • Root-mean-square fluctuations (RMSF) of Cα atoms
  • Native contact preservation
  • Comparison with experimental scattering data or NMR measurements [15]

This methodology revealed that the CGSchNet model could successfully fold proteins like the 54-residue engrailed homeodomain (1ENH) and 73-residue de novo designed protein alpha3D (2A3D) that were not used in training [15].

Table: Key Computational Tools for Coarse-Grained Biomolecular Simulation

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application Scope
LAMMPS	MD Software	Large-scale atomic/molecular massively parallel simulator	General purpose MD, various CG models [14]
GROMACS	MD Software	High-performance molecular dynamics package	All-atom and CG simulations with extensive analysis [12]
MARTINI	Force Field	Generic coarse-grained force field	Membranes, proteins, carbohydrates [12] [14]
PLUMED	Plugin	Enhanced sampling and free energy calculations	Metadynamics, umbrella sampling for CG models [15]
VMD	Visualization	Molecular visualization and analysis	Trajectory analysis for CG simulations [12]
CGSchNet	ML Force Field	Neural network-based transferable CG model	Protein folding and dynamics [15]
HPS-Urry	Specialized FF	IDP and phase separation simulations	Intrinsically disordered proteins [17]
ESPResSo	MD Software	Extensible Simulation Package for Soft Matter	Advanced electrostatics and coarse-graining [14]

Coarse-grained models have firmly established their value as essential tools for accessing biological timescales inaccessible to all-atom molecular dynamics. The continuing evolution of CG methodologies, particularly through integration with machine learning approaches, promises to further bridge the accuracy gap while maintaining computational efficiency. The development of truly transferable bottom-up force fields that retain chemical specificity while enabling millisecond-scale simulations represents the current frontier in the field [15]. As these methods mature, they will increasingly enable the simulation of complex cellular processes at near-atomic detail, providing unprecedented insights into biological mechanisms and accelerating therapeutic discovery across a broad spectrum of diseases [16].

In the field of biomolecular simulation, researchers face a fundamental trade-off: the choice between high-resolution models that capture atomic detail and computationally efficient models that access biologically relevant timescales. All-atom (AA) molecular dynamics simulations provide unparalleled detail but are computationally intensive, typically limited to short timescales and small systems. In contrast, coarse-grained (CG) models reduce molecular complexity to extend simulations to longer timescales and larger systems, though at the cost of atomic-level accuracy [8]. This guide objectively compares these approaches, providing experimental data and methodologies to help researchers select appropriate models for specific scientific inquiries.

Quantitative Comparison of Simulation Approaches

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Atomistic vs. Coarse-Grained Models

Characteristic	All-Atom (AA) Models	Coarse-Grained (CG) Models
Resolution	Atomic-level (individual atoms)	Residue/bead level (10+ heavy atoms per particle) [18]
Timescale Accessible	Nanoseconds to microseconds [8] [19]	Microseconds to milliseconds or beyond [8]
Computational Efficiency	Baseline (1x)	3+ orders of magnitude acceleration [19]
Accuracy Trade-off	High structural fidelity	Sacrifices atomic-level accuracy [8]
Typical Applications	Detailed mechanism studies, ligand binding	Large conformational changes, large complexes [18]
Solvent Treatment	Explicit solvent molecules	Implicit solvent or simplified explicit models [18]

Table 2: Performance Data from Polymer Simulation Studies [20]

Model Type	Spatial Scaling Factor	Temporal Scaling Factor	Computational Efficiency Gain
Bead-Spring Kremer-Grest (KG) Model	Defined via mapping	Defined via mapping	Quantitative gains estimated via scaling factors
Dissipative Particle Dynamics (DPD)	Cutoff radius (r(_c)) as unit	Reduced units	Significant acceleration compared to AA

Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

All-Atom Molecular Dynamics Protocol

AA simulations employ Newtonian mechanics with detailed force fields. The methodology involves [20]:

• System Setup: Placing the molecular system in explicit solvent molecules within a periodic boundary box.
• Force Field Application: Using potentials that account for bonded interactions (bonds, angles, dihedrals) and non-bonded interactions (van der Waals, electrostatic).
• Integration: Solving equations of motion with femtosecond time steps using algorithms like Velocity Verlet.
• Thermostatting: Maintaining temperature using thermostats like Nosé-Hoover or Berendsen.
• Data Collection: Tracking coordinates and energies over time for subsequent analysis.

Coarse-Grained Model Development and Simulation

Resolution Mapping

CG models reduce system complexity by grouping multiple atoms into single interaction sites:

• Proteins: Typically one bead per amino acid centered at the Cα atom position [18].
• Nucleic Acids: Often represented with three beads per nucleotide (phosphate, sugar, base) [18].
• Mapping: Approximately 10 heavy atoms are represented by a single CG particle [18].

Interaction Potentials

CG models use simplified potential functions:

• Bonded Interactions: Harmonic bonds and angles (Eqs. 1-3 in [18])
• Non-bonded Interactions: Repulsive Lennard-Jones potentials (Eq. 1 in [20]) or soft conservative forces in DPD (Eq. 6 in [20])
• Specialized Terms: Knowledge-based potentials for specific biomolecules or processes

Dynamics Propagation

CG simulations often use Langevin dynamics or Dissipative Particle Dynamics (DPD):

• Langevin Equation: Includes friction and random forces (Eq. 3-4 in [20])
• DPD Equations: Employ conservative, dissipative, and random forces (Eq. 5-9 in [20])
• Timestep: Allows larger integration steps than AA models

Machine Learning Approaches in Coarse-Graining

Recent advances integrate machine learning to develop CG potentials:

• Neural Network Potentials (NNPs): Train on AA data to learn effective CG force fields [19]
• Force Matching: Minimize loss between CG and mapped AA forces (Eq. 1 in [19])
• Multi-Protein Potentials: Single NNP can integrate multiple proteins, enabling transferability [19]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Software Tools for Biomolecular Simulations

Tool Name	Type	Primary Function	Key Features
GENESIS [18]	MD Software	All-atom and coarse-grained simulations	Optimized for CG simulations, unified treatment of proteins/nucleic acids
LAMMPS [18]	MD Simulator	General-purpose particle modeling	Extensive CG model compatibility
GROMACS [18]	MD Software	High-performance molecular dynamics	All-atom and CG capability
GENESIS-CG-tool [18]	Toolbox	Input file generation for CG simulations	User-friendly preparation of complex systems
CafeMol [18]	CG Software	Specialized coarse-grained simulations	Structure-based models
1,2-Oxazinan-3-one	1,2-Oxazinan-3-one|Research Chemical	High-purity 1,2-Oxazinan-3-one (CAS 62079-06-5) for laboratory research. A key synthetic intermediate for amino alcohol derivatives. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.	Bench Chemicals
1-Fluoro-4-methylchrysene	1-Fluoro-4-Methylchrysene (CAS 61738-08-7)	1-Fluoro-4-Methylchrysene is a mutagenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) for research use only (RUO). Explore its properties and applications. Not for personal use.	Bench Chemicals

Visualizing the Multi-Scale Bridging Approach

The choice between atomistic and coarse-grained approaches depends fundamentally on research goals. AA models remain essential for investigating atomic-level mechanisms, ligand binding, and detailed conformational changes where chemical specificity is crucial. CG models enable the study of large-scale biomolecular processes, including chromatin folding, viral capsid assembly, and phase-separated membrane-less condensations [18]. The integration of machine learning with coarse-graining represents a promising direction, creating potentials that preserve thermodynamics while dramatically accelerating simulations [19]. By understanding these trade-offs and utilizing appropriate scaling methodologies, researchers can strategically select simulation approaches that balance atomic detail against computational efficiency for their specific biological questions.

The 2025 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, awarded for the development of metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), highlights a fundamental challenge in computational chemistry: how to simulate complex, porous materials that operate across vast spatial and temporal scales [21] [22]. MOFs exemplify this challenge—their extraordinary properties emerge from intricate molecular architectures containing enormous internal surface areas, where one gram can exhibit the surface area of a football pitch [23]. Understanding these systems requires computational approaches that can capture atomic-level interactions while simulating phenomena at mesoscopic scales. This challenge frames the critical comparison between atomistic and coarse-grained potential models in computational chemistry and drug development. While all-atom models provide exquisite detail, their computational demands render them impractical for simulating the very phenomena that make MOFs technologically valuable—gas storage, molecular separation, and catalytic processes occurring in nanoscale pores [8] [1]. Coarse-grained models address this limitation through strategic simplification, grouping multiple atoms into single interaction sites to access biologically and technologically relevant time and length scales [8] [24]. This review examines the theoretical foundations and modern implementations of these complementary approaches, providing researchers with a comprehensive comparison of their capabilities, limitations, and optimal applications in biomolecular simulation and drug development.

Methodological Frameworks: From Quantum Mechanics to Machine Learning

All-Atom (AA) Molecular Dynamics

All-atom molecular dynamics simulations represent the highest resolution approach in classical molecular modeling, explicitly representing every atom in a system. These simulations numerically integrate Newton's equations of motion using femtosecond time steps, providing detailed insights at atomistic resolution [6]. The accuracy of AA predictions primarily depends on force field quality, with specialized parameterizations developed for specific applications like ionic liquids (e.g., APPLE&P, AMOEBA-based, CL&P, GAFF-based, SAPT-based, and OPLS-based force fields) [1]. AA simulations can capture subtle conformational changes, specific molecular recognition events, and detailed interaction networks, making them indispensable for studying mechanisms requiring atomic precision, such as enzyme catalysis or drug-receptor binding [8].

Table 1: Key Characteristics of All-Atom Molecular Dynamics

Feature	Description	Limitations
Resolution	Explicit representation of all atoms	Computational expensive
Time Scale	Femtoseconds (10⁻¹⁵ s) to nanoseconds	Limited to short timescales
Length Scale	Nanometers to tens of nanometers	Small system sizes
Force Fields	OPLS, AMBER, CHARMM, GROMOS	Parameterization challenges
Applications	Detailed mechanistic studies, binding interactions	Poor efficiency for large conformational changes

Coarse-Grained (CG) Models

Coarse-grained models extend simulation capabilities by reducing molecular complexity, grouping multiple atoms into single interaction sites or "beads." This simplification smooths high-frequency atomic vibrations and flattens the free-energy landscape, reducing molecular friction and enabling faster exploration of conformational space [1]. CG models typically allow larger time steps (10-20 fs) compared to AA models (1-2 fs), significantly accelerating simulations [1]. The development of CG models involves two critical steps: (1) defining the CG mapping scheme that determines how atoms are grouped into beads, and (2) parameterizing effective interaction potentials for these beads [24].

Table 2: Coarse-Grained Model Development Approaches

Approach	Methodology	Examples
Top-Down	Parameters fitted to macroscopic experimental properties	MARTINI model
Bottom-Up	Utilizes statistical mechanics to preserve microscopic properties of atomistic models	IBI, IMC, MS-CG, RE, ECRW
Hybrid	Combines bottom-up methods for bonded terms with empirical adjustment of nonbonded terms	Many ionic liquid CG models

The fundamental workflow for developing systematic coarse-grained models begins with validated all-atom simulations, which provide reference data for constructing CG representations. Bottom-up methods like iterative Boltzmann inversion (IBI) then derive effective potentials that reproduce the structural distributions of the atomistic reference system [24]. This systematic linking of methodologies across scales enables quantitative prediction of molecular behavior over broad spatiotemporal ranges.

Machine Learning Potentials (MLPs) and Force Matching

Machine learning has revolutionized coarse-graining through the development of ML potentials (MLPs) that approximate the potential of mean force (PMF) in CG models [25]. These models are typically trained using bottom-up approaches like variational force matching, where the MLP learns to minimize the mean squared error between predicted CG forces and atomistic forces projected onto CG space [6] [25]. The force matching objective can be expressed as:

[ \mathcal{L}(\theta) = \langle \| M{\mathfrak{f}}\mathfrak{f}(r) - \hat{F}{\theta}(Mr) \|_2^2 \rangle ]

where (M{\mathfrak{f}}\mathfrak{f}(r)) represents the projected all-atom forces and (\hat{F}{\theta}(Mr)) denotes the CG force field with parameters (\theta) [6]. Recent innovations address the significant data requirements of traditional force matching by incorporating enhanced sampling techniques that bias along CG degrees of freedom for more efficient data generation while preserving the correct PMF [25]. Normalizing flows and other generative models have also been employed to create more general kernels that reduce local distortions while maintaining global conformational accuracy [6].

Comparative Performance Analysis

Quantitative Comparison of Model Performance

The performance differential between AA and CG models becomes evident when examining their ability to reproduce experimental observables. Ionic liquids provide an excellent case study, as their high viscosity presents particular challenges for atomistic simulations [1].

Table 3: Performance Comparison of Models for [Câ‚„mim][BFâ‚„] Ionic Liquid

Model Type	Specific Model	Density (kg/m³)	Diffusion Coefficient (10⁻¹¹ m²/s)	Ref.
CG Models	MARTINI-based	1181 (300 K)	120/145 (293 K)	[1]
	Top-down	1209 (298 K)	1.12/0.59 (298 K)	[1]
	ECRW	1173 (300 K)	1.55/1.74 (313 K)	[1]
	ML Potential	—	48.58/35.49 (300 K)	[1]
AA Models	OPLS	1178 (298 K)	7.3/6.6 (425 K)	[1]
	0.8*OPLS	1150 (298 K)	43.1/42.9 (425 K)	[1]
	SAPT-based	1180 (298 K)	1.1/0.8 (298 K)	[1]
	CL&P	1154 (343 K)	1.19/0.88 (343 K)	[1]
Experimental	—	1170 (343 K)	40.0/47.6 (425 K)	[1]

The data reveals several important trends: (1) CG models can accurately reproduce structural properties like density; (2) diffusion coefficients show greater variation between models, with some CG approaches actually outperforming certain AA force fields; and (3) machine learning potentials show particular promise for capturing dynamic properties while maintaining computational efficiency [1].

Application to Biomolecular Systems

In biomolecular simulations, AA models provide unparalleled detail for studying specific interactions but face severe limitations in capturing large-scale conformational changes or assembly processes. CG models enable the study of membrane remodeling, protein folding, and molecular transport phenomena that occur on micro- to millisecond timescales [8] [6]. For example, simulating individual miniproteins with machine learning coarse-graining requires approximately one million reference configurations, highlighting both the data requirements and extended capabilities of these approaches [6].

Polymer systems exemplify the practical advantages of coarse-graining for industrially relevant applications. Research on poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL), a biodegradable polymer with applications in tissue engineering and 3D printing, demonstrates how CG models enable the investigation of chain length effects from unentangled to mildly-entangled systems (10 to 125 monomers)—a range critically important for industrial applications but prohibitively expensive for AA simulation [24]. The systematic CG approach accurately reproduces structural and dynamic properties while dramatically improving computational efficiency [24].

Advanced Protocols and Experimental Methodologies

Systematic Coarse-Graining Protocol for Polymers

The development of reliable CG models follows rigorous methodologies. For PCL polymer melts, researchers employed a detailed protocol beginning with all-atom simulations using the L-OPLS force field, an adaptation of OPLS-AA optimized for long hydrocarbon chains [24]. The methodology proceeds through several validated stages:

• Atomistic Reference Simulations: Initial AA simulations of PCL chains across multiple molecular weights (10-125 monomers) provide benchmark data for structural and dynamic properties [24].

• Validation Against Experimental and Theoretical Predictions: Atomistic simulation results are rigorously compared with existing literature data and theoretical predictions to ensure validity before CG model development [24].

• CG Mapping Definition: A monomer-level mapping scheme groups atoms into single beads, establishing correspondence between atomistic and reduced resolutions [24].

• Potential Derivation via IBI: The iterative Boltzmann inversion method derives effective interaction potentials that match local structural distributions from the atomistic reference system [24].

This systematic approach ensures the resulting CG model maintains physical fidelity while extending simulation capabilities to experimentally relevant scales [24].

Enhanced Sampling for Machine Learning Potentials

A fundamental limitation of traditional force matching is its reliance on unbiased equilibrium sampling, which often poorly samples transition regions between metastable states [25]. Recent advances address this through enhanced sampling techniques:

• Biased Trajectory Generation: Enhanced sampling methods apply a bias potential along coarse-grained coordinates to accelerate exploration of configuration space [25].

• Unbiased Force Computation: Forces are recomputed with respect to the unbiased atomistic potential, preserving the correct potential of mean force [25].

• MLP Training: The biased trajectories with corrected forces provide training data for machine learning potentials, significantly improving data efficiency and coverage of transition states [25].

This methodology has demonstrated notable improvements for both model systems like the Müller-Brown potential and biomolecular systems such as capped alanine in explicit water [25].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful implementation of multiscale simulation strategies requires familiarity with both theoretical frameworks and practical computational tools. The following table summarizes key resources for researchers developing and applying coarse-grained models.

Table 4: Essential Research Tools for Coarse-Grained Modeling

Tool Category	Specific Examples	Function	Application Context
Force Fields	MARTINI [1], APPLE&P [1], OPLS-AA [24], L-OPLS [24]	Define interaction potentials between particles	MD simulations across resolutions
Parameterization Methods	Iterative Boltzmann Inversion (IBI) [24], Multiscale Coarse-Graining (MS-CG) [6], Relative Entropy Minimization [6]	Derive effective potentials for CG models	Bottom-up coarse-graining
Sampling Algorithms	Metadynamics [25], Umbrella Sampling [25], Enhanced Sampling [25]	Accelerate configuration space exploration	Improved sampling for ML training
Machine Learning Approaches	Force Matching [6] [25], Normalizing Flows [6], Denoising Score Matching [6]	Learn CG potentials from atomistic data	ML-driven coarse-graining
Simulation Software	GROMACS [24], LAMMPS, OpenMM	Perform molecular dynamics simulations	AA and CG trajectory generation
(+)Melearoride A	(+)Melearoride A, MF:C30H47NO4, MW:485.7 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
4-(o-Tolylthio)butan-2-one	4-(o-Tolylthio)butan-2-one|RUO	4-(o-Tolylthio)butan-2-one (CAS 6110-02-7) is a beta-thioketone research chemical. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.	Bench Chemicals

The theoretical foundations spanning from Nobel Prize-winning materials to modern implementations reveal a sophisticated ecosystem of multiscale modeling approaches. All-atom models remain indispensable for detailed mechanistic studies requiring atomic resolution, while coarse-grained models provide access to biologically and technologically relevant scales that would otherwise remain inaccessible [8] [24]. The integration of machine learning, particularly through force matching and enhanced sampling protocols, has dramatically improved the accuracy and efficiency of CG models while addressing longstanding challenges in parameterization and transferability [6] [25].

For researchers and drug development professionals, strategic model selection depends critically on the specific scientific question. AA models excel for detailed binding interactions, enzyme mechanisms, and subtle conformational changes where atomic precision is paramount. CG models enable the study of large-scale structural transitions, molecular assembly, and diffusion-limited processes that occur on microsecond to millisecond timescales [8] [1]. The most powerful modern approaches combine these methodologies, using ML-driven coarse-graining to maintain thermodynamic consistency while extending simulation capabilities [6] [25]. As these integrated methodologies continue to evolve, they promise to unlock new frontiers in molecular design, drug discovery, and functional material development—from the atomic-scale precision of Nobel Prize-winning frameworks to the mesoscale phenomena that define their technological utility.

Methodologies in Action: From CG Mapping to Machine Learning Potentials

In computational chemistry and drug development, the conflict between simulation accuracy and temporal-spatial scale represents a fundamental challenge. Atomistic (AA) models provide exquisite detail by representing every atom but become computationally prohibitive for studying biological processes at microsecond timescales or for large systems like lipid membranes and protein complexes. Coarse-grained (CG) models address this limitation through strategic simplification, grouping multiple atoms into single interaction sites called "beads" to dramatically reduce system complexity. This systematic reduction of degrees of freedom enables scientists to access biologically relevant timescales and system sizes while preserving essential physical characteristics, creating an indispensable tool for studying complex molecular phenomena in drug delivery systems, membrane dynamics, and material science.

CG Mapping Schemes: Fundamental Approaches and Methodologies

Core Principles of Coarse-Graining

Coarse-grained mapping operates on the fundamental principle of reducing molecular complexity while preserving essential physical behavior. The process begins with selecting a specific CG resolution, determining how many heavy atoms are represented by each CG bead. Common mapping schemes include 2:1 (two atoms per bead), 3:1, or 4:1 ratios, with higher ratios providing greater computational efficiency at the potential cost of chemical detail. The CG mapping scheme defines which atoms are grouped into each bead, typically based on chemical intuition or systematic methods including relative entropy theory, autoencoder techniques, and graph neural networks [1]. This grouping smoothes high-frequency atomic vibrations and flattens the free-energy landscape, reducing molecular friction and enabling faster exploration of configuration space [1].

Force Field Parameterization Strategies

Once the mapping scheme is established, molecular interactions are described through coarse-grained force fields comprising bonded and nonbonded terms. Two primary philosophical approaches dominate CG force field development:

• Bottom-up methods derive parameters from atomistic simulations or quantum mechanical calculations to preserve microscopic properties of the underlying system. Key methodologies include Inverse Boltzmann Inversion (IBI), Inverse Monte-Carlo (IMC), Multiscale Coarse-Graining (MS-CG), Relative Entropy (RE) minimization, and Extended Conditional Reversible Work (ECRW) approaches [1]. These methods utilize statistical mechanics principles to maintain consistency with finer-grained models.

• Top-down methods parameterize CG models directly against experimental macroscopic properties such as density, membrane thickness, or diffusion coefficients, providing accurate thermodynamic behavior but potentially less transferability across different chemical environments [1].

In practice, many modern CG models adopt a hybrid approach, using bottom-up methods for bonded terms while optimizing nonbonded parameters against experimental data to balance transferability with experimental accuracy [1] [26].

Comparative Analysis: CG Mapping Schemes and Performance

Table 1: Performance comparison of selected coarse-grained models for ionic liquids ([C4mim][BF4])

Model Type	Model Name	Density (kg/m³)	Cation Diffusion (10⁻¹¹ m²/s)	Anion Diffusion (10⁻¹¹ m²/s)	Conductivity (S/m)	Heat of Vaporization (kJ/mol)
CG Models	MARTINI-based	1181 (300K)	120 (293K)	145 (293K)	—	—
	Top-down	1209 (298K)	1.12 (298K)	0.59 (298K)	—	—
	ECRW	1173 (300K)	1.55 (313K)	1.74 (313K)	—	—
	Drude-based	—	5.8 (350K)	7.3 (350K)	17 (350K)	114 (350K)
	VaCG	1168 (303K)	1.20 (303K)	0.53 (303K)	0.45 (303K)	123.51 (303K)
AA Models	OPLS	1178 (298K)	7.3 (425K)	6.6 (425K)	—	125.52 (298K)
	0.8*OPLS	1150 (298K)	43.1 (425K)	42.9 (425K)	—	140.5 (298K)
	SAPT-based	1180 (298K)	1.1 (298K)	0.8 (298K)	0.29 (298K)	126 (298K)
	CL&P	1154 (343K)	1.19 (343K)	0.88 (343K)	—	—
	APPLE&P	1193 (298K)	1.01 (298K)	1.05 (298K)	0.28 (298K)	140.8 (298K)
Experimental	Reference	1170 (343K)	40.0 (425K)	47.6 (425K)	2.17 (350K)	128.03 (303K)

Table 2: CG mapping schemes and their applications across molecular systems

CG Model	Mapping Resolution	System Type	Parameterization Approach	Strengths	Limitations
MARTINI	2:1 to 4:1	Lipids, Proteins, Polymers	Top-down (experimental partition coefficients)	High computational efficiency, extensive community use	Limited chemical specificity, transferability challenges
MS-CG	Variable	Ionic liquids, Biomolecules	Bottom-up (force-matching)	Systematic connection to atomistic forces	Requires extensive AA simulations for parameterization
ECRW	2:1 to 3:1	Ionic liquids	Bottom-up (conditional reversible work)	Accurate local structure reproduction	Limited electrostatic representation
Drude-based Polarizable	2:1 to 3:1	Ionic liquids, Polar systems	Hybrid (bottom-up with polarizability)	Explicit polarization effects	Increased computational cost
Structure-based Lipid CG	2:1 or 3:1	Phosphocholine lipids	Hybrid (structural and elastic properties)	Reproduces membrane mechanics	No explicit electrostatics in current implementation

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Development of Transferable Coarse-Grained Lipid Models

The development of CG models for phosphocholine lipids illustrates a systematic hybrid approach balancing computational efficiency with predictive accuracy. Researchers have established a rigorous protocol employing 2:1 or 3:1 mapping schemes where related atoms are grouped into single beads based on chemical functionality [26]. The model optimization utilizes Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm integrated with molecular dynamics simulations, simultaneously targeting structural properties (lipid packing density, membrane thickness from X-ray/neutron scattering) and elastic properties (bending modulus from neutron spin echo spectroscopy) [26]. This dual focus ensures the models capture both equilibrium structure and mechanical response. Validation includes comparison with atomistic simulations for bond/angle distributions and radial distribution functions, followed by assessment of transferability across lipid types (DOPC, POPC, DMPC) and temperatures [26].

Computational Functional Group Mapping (cFGM) for Drug Discovery

In drug discovery, computational functional group mapping (cFGM) represents a specialized CG approach that identifies favorable binding regions for molecular fragments on protein targets. The methodology involves all-atom explicit-solvent MD simulations with probe molecules (e.g., isopropanol, acetonitrile, chlorobenzene) representing different functional groups [27]. These simulations naturally incorporate target flexibility and solvent competition, detecting both high-affinity binding sites and transient low-affinity interactions. The resulting 3D probability maps, visualized at ~1Ã… resolution, guide medicinal chemists in designing synthetically accessible ligands with optimal complementarity to their targets [27]. This approach provides advantages over experimental fragment screening by detecting low-affinity regions and preventing aggregation artifacts while mapping the entire target surface simultaneously for multiple functional groups.

Visualization: CG Model Development Workflow

CG Model Development Workflow

Table 3: Essential computational tools and resources for CG model development

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Key Applications
GROMACS	MD Software	High-performance molecular dynamics simulations	CG model simulation, parameter testing, production runs
NAMD	MD Software	Scalable molecular dynamics	Large system CG simulations, membrane systems
MARTINI	CG Force Field	Pre-parameterized coarse-grained models	Biomolecular simulations, lipid membranes, polymers
MS-CG	Parameterization Method	Bottom-up force field development	Systematic CG model creation from AA simulations
VMD	Visualization Software	Molecular visualization and analysis	CG trajectory analysis, mapping visualization
Particle Swarm Optimization	Optimization Algorithm	Multi-parameter optimization	Force field parameter refinement against experimental data
GEBF Approach	QM Fragmentation Method	Quantum mechanical calculations for large systems	Polarizable CG model parameterization

Future Perspectives and Challenges

The evolution of coarse-grained methodologies continues to address several fundamental challenges. Polarization effects remain particularly difficult to capture accurately in CG models, with current approaches including Drude oscillators, fluctuating charge models, and fragment-based QM methods like the Generalized Energy-Based Fragmentation (GEBF) approach [1]. Transferability across different chemical environments and temperatures represents another significant hurdle, with promising developments including variable electrostatic parameters that implicitly adapt to different polarization environments [1]. The integration of machine learning techniques offers transformative potential through ML-surrogate models for force field parameterization and the development of ML potentials that can capture complex many-body interactions without explicit functional forms [1]. As these methodologies mature, CG models will expand their applicability to increasingly complex biological and materials systems, further bridging the gap between atomic detail and mesoscopic phenomena.

Molecular dynamics (MD) simulation is a powerful tool for investigating biological processes at a molecular level. However, the computational cost of all-atom (AA) simulations often limits the accessible time and length scales, preventing the study of many biologically important phenomena. Coarse-grained (CG) models address this challenge by representing groups of atoms as single interaction sites, thereby reducing the number of degrees of freedom in the system. This simplification allows for larger timesteps and much longer simulation times, enabling the study of large-scale conformational changes, protein folding, and membrane remodeling processes that are beyond the reach of atomistic simulation [13] [28]. The core physical basis of coarse-grained molecular dynamics is that the motion of CG sites is governed by the potential of mean force, with additional friction and stochastic forces resulting from integrating out the secondary degrees of freedom [13].

This guide provides an objective comparison of three popular CG frameworks: the MARTINI model, Gō-like models, and the Associative memory, Water mediated, Structure and Energy Model (AWSEM). We evaluate their performance, applications, and limitations within the broader context of atomistic versus coarse-grained potential model comparison research, providing supporting experimental data to inform researchers and drug development professionals.

Gō Models: Structure-Based Simplicity

Gō models are structure-based models that bias the protein toward its known native folded state using native interactions derived from experimental structures [29]. They operate on the principle that a protein's native structure is the global minimum of a funneled energy landscape. The key characteristic of Gō models is their simplified energy landscape, which facilitates efficient sampling of protein folding and large-scale conformational changes.

• Resolution Variants: Gō models exist at different resolution levels, including Cα-based models (one interaction site per amino acid), heavy-atom models (all non-hydrogen atoms), and hybrid models like Gō-MARTINI that combine Gō interactions with the MARTINI force field [29] [30] [28].
• Recent Enhancements: The recently developed GōMartini 3 model combines a virtual-site implementation of Gō models with Martini 3, demonstrating capabilities in diverse case studies ranging from protein-membrane binding to protein-ligand interactions and AFM force profile calculations [30].

AWSEM: Balanced Transferability

The Associative memory, Water mediated, Structure and Energy Model (AWSEM) represents a middle-ground approach with three interaction sites per amino acid [29]. AWSEM incorporates both structure-based elements and physics-based interactions, aiming for better transferability than pure Gō models while maintaining computational efficiency compared to all-atom simulations.

• Energy Function: AWSEM includes terms for associative memory (structural biases), water-mediated interactions, and general physicochemical properties, creating a balanced force field that can capture aspects of protein folding and binding without being exclusively tied to a single native structure [29].
• Application Scope: While less widely adopted than MARTINI, AWSEM has been particularly useful for studying protein folding mechanisms and protein-protein interactions where some transferability is required but all-atom resolution remains prohibitive.

MARTINI: Versatile and Physics-Based

The MARTINI model is one of the most popular CG force fields, known for its versatility in simulating various biomolecular systems, including proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids [31] [28]. Unlike structure-based Gō models, MARTINI is primarily a physics-based model parameterized to reproduce experimental partitioning free energies between polar and apolar phases [31].

• Mapping Scheme: MARTINI typically represents approximately four heavy atoms with one CG bead, maintaining chemical specificity while significantly reducing system complexity.
• Recent Developments: The latest version, Martini 3, offers improved accuracy in representing molecular interactions and has demonstrated remarkable success in simulating spontaneous protein-ligand binding events, including accurate prediction of binding pockets and pathways without prior knowledge [31].
• Hybrid Approaches: The Gō-MARTINI model combines MARTINI with structure-based Gō interactions, enabling the study of large conformational changes in proteins within biologically relevant environments [28].

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Popular Coarse-Grained Frameworks

Framework	Resolution	Energy Function Basis	Transferability	Computational Speed vs AA
Gō Models	Cα to heavy atoms	Structure-based (native contacts)	Low (system-specific)	Several orders of magnitude faster
AWSEM	3 beads per amino acid	Mixed (structure + physics-based)	Moderate	Significantly faster
MARTINI	~4 heavy atoms per bead	Physics-based (partitioning)	High	Several orders of magnitude faster

Performance Comparison and Experimental Validation

Mechanical Unfolding and Force Spectroscopy

A systematic study comparing CG models for force-induced protein unfolding provides valuable insights into their relative strengths and limitations. Research on the mechanical unfolding of loop-truncated superoxide dismutase (SOD1) protein via simulated force spectroscopy compared all-atom models with several CG approaches [29].

Table 2: Performance in Simulated Force Spectroscopy of Protein Unfolding [29]

Model	Force Peak Agreement with AA	Unfolding Pathway Similarity	Native Contact Breakage Prediction	Key Limitations
All-Atom	Reference	Reference	Reference	Computationally expensive
Heavy-Atom Gō	Softest protein, smallest force peaks	High for early unfolding, diverges later	Best prediction among CG models	Limited transferability
Cα-Gō	Good after renormalization	High for early unfolding, diverges later	Moderate	Oversimplified late unfolding
AWSEM	Good after renormalization	Single pathway (differs from AA bifurcating)	Least accurate at low nativeness	Poor late-stage unfolding
MARTINI	Not specifically tested in this study	Not specifically tested in this study	Not specifically tested in this study	Not specifically tested

The study revealed that while all CG models successfully captured early unfolding events of nearly-folded proteins, they showed significant limitations in describing the late stages of unfolding when the protein becomes mostly disordered [29]. This highlights a common challenge in CG modeling: the balance between computational efficiency and accurate representation of disordered states.

Protein Folding and Conformational Landscapes

The ability to predict protein folding mechanisms and conformational landscapes varies considerably across CG frameworks:

• Gō Models: Excel at describing folding pathways toward known native structures but have limited ability to discover novel folds or accurately represent non-native interactions.
• AWSEM: Shows promise in capturing folding mechanisms, though in the SOD1 unfolding study, it displayed a single dominant unfolding pathway in contrast to the multiple pathways observed in all-atom simulations [29].
• MARTINI: When combined with Gō interactions (Gō-MARTINI), can simulate large conformational changes. However, the standard MARTINI with elastic network often restricts large-scale motions unless specifically modified [28].
• Machine-Learned CG Models: Recent advances in machine learning have enabled the development of transferable bottom-up CG force fields that can successfully predict metastable states of folded, unfolded, and intermediate structures, with demonstrated ability to simulate proteins not included during training [15].

Protein-Ligand and Protein-Membrane Interactions

Different CG frameworks show varying capabilities in modeling molecular interactions:

• MARTINI: Demonstrates remarkable success in protein-ligand binding studies. Recent research shows that MARTINI 3 can accurately predict binding pockets and pathways for various protein-ligand systems, including T4 lysozyme mutants, GPCRs, and kinases, with binding free energies in very good agreement with experimental values (mean absolute error of 1 kJ/mol) [31].
• Gō-MARTINI: Has been optimized for protein-membrane systems, successfully reproducing structural fluctuations of F-BAR proteins on lipid membranes and their proper assembly through lateral interactions [28].
• AWSEM: Its performance in specific protein-ligand or protein-membrane interactions is less documented in the available literature compared to MARTINI.

Technical Implementation and Experimental Protocols

Common Simulation Methodologies

The experimental protocols for implementing CG simulations share common elements across frameworks, though specific parameters vary:

Steered Molecular Dynamics (SMD) for Force Spectroscopy:

• Terminal Pulling: Both termini are tethered with a harmonic potential, with the C-terminus moved along the vector from C- to N-terminus with constant velocity [29].
• Pulling Speeds: Typically faster (1-1000 m/s) than experimental AFM speeds (10−8-10−2 m/s) due to computational constraints [29].
• Spring Constants: Commonly set to 1000 kJ/(mol · nm²) for the pulling force [29].

Binding Free Energy Calculations:

• Unbiased Sampling: For MARTINI protein-ligand binding, ligands are initially positioned randomly in solvent, with millisecond-scale sampling performed to observe spontaneous binding events [31].
• Free Energy Estimation: Binding free energies ((\Delta G_{bind})) are calculated by integrating one-dimensional potentials of mean force from density distributions [31].

System Setup:

• Solvation: CG water models (e.g., MARTINI water) are used with appropriate ion concentrations for electroneutrality [32].
• Membrane Construction: For membrane systems, mixed lipid bilayers are constructed using tools like CHARMM-GUI or insane.py, with proteins properly positioned and oriented on the membrane [28].

Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for CG Simulations

Item	Function	Example Applications
GROMACS	Molecular dynamics simulation package	Running production CG simulations [28]
CHARMM-GUI	Biomolecular system building	Creating membrane-protein systems [28]
MARTINI Force Field	Physics-based CG interactions	Protein-ligand binding, membrane systems [31]
Gō-MARTINI Parameters	Structure-based CG interactions	Large conformational changes in proteins [28]
VMD	System visualization and analysis	Trajectory analysis, structure visualization [28]
TIP3P Water Model	All-atom water for reference simulations	Target for CG model development [29]

Integration Pathways and Relationship Between Modeling Approaches

The following diagram illustrates the logical relationships between different modeling approaches and their applications, highlighting how they complement each other across scales:

Each coarse-grained framework offers distinct advantages for specific research applications. Gō models provide the most computationally efficient approach for studying protein folding and mechanical unfolding when the native structure is known, but suffer from limited transferability. AWSEM offers a balance between specificity and transferability with its intermediate resolution. MARTINI demonstrates remarkable versatility and accuracy in protein-ligand binding predictions, particularly with the recent Martini 3 implementation.

The future of coarse-grained modeling appears to be moving toward hybrid approaches that combine the strengths of different frameworks, such as Gō-MARTini, and machine-learned force fields that offer the promise of quantum-mechanical accuracy at CG computational cost [15] [8]. As these methods continue to mature, they will increasingly enable researchers and drug development professionals to tackle biologically complex problems at unprecedented scales, from cellular processes to drug mechanism elucidation, effectively bridging the gap between all-atom detail and biological relevance.

In computational sciences, particularly in molecular dynamics (MD) and drug development, the accuracy of simulations and predictions hinges on the quality of the model parameters. Parameterization strategies are broadly classified into top-down and bottom-up approaches, each with distinct philosophies and applications. The choice between them is central to fields like materials science and drug discovery, where researchers must bridge the gap between atomic-scale interactions and macroscopic observable outcomes [33] [34]. This guide provides an objective comparison of these paradigms, framed within the ongoing research on atomistic versus coarse-grained potential models.

Conceptual Frameworks and Definitions

Bottom-Up Parameterization

The bottom-up approach is a mechanistic strategy that builds models from first principles and fundamental components. It starts with detailed, small-scale information and aggregates it to predict system-level behavior [33] [34].

In drug discovery, this entails designing drugs by deeply understanding their molecular-level interactions with target proteins, often using structure-based design [35]. In molecular dynamics, particularly with coarse-grained models, the "bottom" is the full-resolution atomistic system. Parameters for coarse-grained models are derived by systematically simplifying and grouping atoms, ensuring the coarse-grained model's properties faithfully reproduce those of the underlying atomistic system [34] [36].

Top-Down Parameterization

The top-down approach begins with macroscopic, system-level observational data. It works backward to infer parameters for a model that can reproduce this high-level behavior, without necessarily demanding a direct, mechanistic link to fundamental physics [33].

For pharmaceuticals, this historically meant discovering drugs by observing their effects on whole biological systems—such as cells, organs, or even patients—and using this data to guide development, often without a precise understanding of the molecular mechanism [35]. In modern computational modeling, top-down parameterization fits model parameters directly to experimental or clinical outcome data [37] [33]. A model might be tuned so that its output, like the predicted reduction in viral load, matches clinical trial results.

The Middle-Out Strategy

A hybrid strategy, often called "middle-out," has emerged to balance the strengths of both pure approaches. It uses available in vivo or clinical data to refine and constrain parameters in a primarily mechanistic (bottom-up) model. This method helps determine uncertain parameters and validates the model against real-world observations, enhancing its predictive power for scenarios beyond the original data [37].

Comparative Analysis: Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up

The table below summarizes the core characteristics of each parameterization strategy.

Table 1: Fundamental Comparison of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Parameterization

Aspect	Bottom-Up Approach	Top-Down Approach
Philosophical Basis	Reductionist, mechanistic [35]	Holistic, empirical [35]
Starting Point	First principles, atomistic details [34]	System-level, observational data [33]
Model Interpretability	High; parameters have physical meaning [33]	Lower; parameters may be phenomenological [33]
Data Requirements	Detailed, pre-clinical data (e.g., in vitro assays) [33]	Clinical or complex system-level data [33]
Primary Domain	Structure-based drug design, coarse-grained MD from atomistic reference [35] [36]	Phenotypic screening, PK/PD modeling fitting clinical data [33] [35]
Predictivity	Good for forecasting scenarios not tested clinically, if mechanism is correct [33]	Limited to treatment/disease scenarios covered by existing data [33]
Key Challenge	Pre-clinical data may not fully represent in vivo/clinical reality [33]	Lack of mechanistic insight; difficult to extrapolate [33]

Experimental and Computational Protocols

A Bottom-Up Protocol: Automated Coarse-Graining with CGCompiler

This protocol details a modern, automated bottom-up approach for parameterizing small molecules within the Martini 3 coarse-grained force field, as described by [36].

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Bottom-Up Coarse-Graining

Item/Tool	Function in the Protocol
Atomistic Reference System	Provides the "ground truth" data for structural and dynamic properties.
CGCompiler Python Package	Automates parametrization using a mixed-variable particle swarm optimization algorithm [36].
GROMACS Simulation Engine	The MD engine used to run simulations and calculate properties during optimization [36].
Mapping Scheme	Defines how groups of atoms are represented by a single coarse-grained bead.
Target Properties (log P, Density Profiles, SASA)	Experimental and atomistic simulation data the model is optimized against [36].
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)	The algorithm that efficiently searches parameter space to find the best fit to targets [36].

Detailed Workflow:

• Initial Mapping: The atomistic structure of the small molecule is mapped to its coarse-grained representation. This can be done manually or using automated tools like Auto-Martini, which groups multiple atoms into a single "bead" [36].
• Target Definition: The user defines the target properties the coarse-grained model must reproduce. Key targets include:
  • Experimental log P values: The octanol-water partition coefficient, a key measure of hydrophobicity [36].
  • Atomistic Density Profiles: The spatial distribution of the molecule within a lipid bilayer from atomistic simulations, ensuring accurate modeling of membrane interactions [36].
  • Solvent Accessible Surface Area (SASA): A measure of the molecular surface area, helping to capture overall shape and volume [36].
• Automated Optimization: CGCompiler employs a mixed-variable Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm. This algorithm:
  • Generates candidate parameters for nonbonded interactions (discrete bead types) and bonded interactions (continuous bond lengths/angles) [36].
  • Runs coarse-grained simulations using GROMACS with these candidate parameters.
  • Calculates a fitness score based on how well the simulation results match the predefined targets.
  • Iteratively updates the candidate parameters based on the swarm's knowledge, repeating the process until the model's performance is satisfactory [36].

The following diagram visualizes this automated bottom-up parameterization workflow.

A Top-Down Protocol: PK/PD Modeling from Clinical Data

This protocol outlines a top-down approach common in systems pharmacology, using clinical data to parameterize a model of drug efficacy, as demonstrated in HIV drug development [33].

Detailed Workflow:

• Clinical Data Collection: Gather rich clinical data, typically from a Thorough QT/QTc study (TQT) or monotherapy trials. This includes:
  • Pharmacokinetic (PK) Data: Drug concentrations in plasma over time.
  • Pharmacodynamic (PD) Data: Measured drug effects (e.g., viral load reduction for HIV, QT interval prolongation for cardiac safety) [37] [33].
• Model Structure Selection: Choose a mathematical model structure to link PK and PD data. This often involves:
  • Empirical PK Model: A compartmental model (e.g., linear, Emax) fitted to the plasma concentration-time data [37].
  • Linking Plasma to Target Site: If possible, a model connecting plasma PK to drug concentration at the site of action (e.g., intracellular triphosphate concentrations for NRTIs) [33].
  • Empirical PD Model: An effect compartment model (e.g., direct or indirect response model) with a linear, Emax, or sigmoidal relationship describing how drug concentration drives the observed effect [37].
• Parameter Estimation: Use statistical models—such as nonlinear mixed-effects modeling (NONMEM)—to fit the composite PK/PD model to the clinical data. The goal is to find the set of parameters (e.g., IC50, the concentration producing 50% of the maximum effect) that best describes the observed outcomes [37] [33].
• Model Application: The fitted, top-down model can then simulate drug effect under different dosing regimens within the bounds of the collected data, informing regulatory decisions and dosing strategies [37].

The top-down workflow is illustrated below.

Performance and Applicability in Research

Quantitative Comparison in HIV Drug Development

A direct comparison of top-down and bottom-up approaches was conducted for Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors (NRTIs) used in HIV treatment [33]. The study aimed to predict the clinical efficacy (IC50) of drugs like lamivudine (3TC) and tenofovir (TDF).

Table 3: Comparison of Predicted IC50 Values for NRTIs [33]

Drug	Bottom-Up Prediction (nM)	Top-Down Prediction (nM)	Key Interpretation
Lamivudine (3TC)	0.5	170	Two orders of magnitude discrepancy; top-down model lacked mechanistic detail to accurately infer intracellular potency from plasma data.
Tenofovir (TDF)	25	0.6	Top-down model predicted an unrealistically high potency, likely due to an underdetermined model and lack of specific intracellular PK data.

Supporting Experimental Data: The bottom-up model was a Mechanistic Mechanism of Action (MMOA) model based on pre-clinical data of the drug's interaction with the HIV-1 reverse transcriptase enzyme [33]. The top-down model was an empirical model fitted to clinical viral load data after monotherapy, coupled with a PK model linking plasma concentrations to intracellular active metabolite levels [33].

Conclusion: The study found that the purely top-down model was often "underdetermined," meaning multiple parameter combinations could fit the clinical data equally well, leading to unreliable and sometimes unrealistic predictions (like the tenofovir IC50). The bottom-up approach provided more mechanistically sound parameters but relied on the accuracy of pre-clinical data representing the clinical situation [33].

Strategic Decision Framework

Choosing the right parameterization strategy depends on the research context, available data, and project goals.

Table 4: Strategic Selection Guide for Parameterization Approaches

Factor	Favor Bottom-Up When...	Favor Top-Down When...
Project Stage	Early discovery, designing new molecular entities [35].	Late development, interpreting clinical trials, or when historical clinical data exists [37] [33].
Data Availability	Rich pre-clinical data (structural, in vitro) [33].	Rich clinical or system-level observational data is available [33].
Primary Goal	Understanding fundamental mechanisms; predicting new scenarios [33].	Describing and quantifying observed outcomes for specific conditions [33].
Model Interpretability	High interpretability and physical meaning of parameters is critical.	Interpretability is secondary to the model's ability to fit the system-level data.
Key Risk	Mechanism may be incomplete or not translate to in vivo systems [33] [35].	Model may not be predictive outside the range of existing data [33].

The comparative analysis reveals that neither the top-down nor bottom-up approach is universally superior. Each possesses distinct strengths and weaknesses, making them complementary.

The bottom-up approach excels in mechanistic interpretability and has the potential for predictive extrapolation. Its parameters are grounded in physical reality, which is invaluable for designing new compounds and understanding why a drug works. However, its success is contingent on the quality and translational relevance of pre-clinical data. Complex emergent behaviors in biological systems can be difficult to capture from first principles alone [33] [35].

The top-down approach excels in contextual accuracy within the constraints of the data used to build it. It is powerful for quantifying observed clinical effects and optimizing dosing based on real-world evidence. Its primary limitation is its limited extrapolation power and the potential for phenomenological parameters that lack a clear physical basis, making it difficult to trust predictions for new scenarios [33].

The most powerful modern strategies, such as the middle-out approach, leverage the strengths of both. They start with a mechanistic (bottom-up) framework and then use available system-level (top-down) data to refine uncertain parameters and validate the model [37]. This hybrid philosophy is also embodied in automated parameterization tools like CGCompiler, which uses optimization algorithms to ensure coarse-grained models are consistent with both atomistic data (bottom-up) and key experimental observations (top-down) [36]. For researchers and drug developers, the optimal path forward is not to choose one over the other, but to strategically integrate both paradigms to build more robust, predictive, and insightful models.

The computational study of biomolecular systems necessitates a delicate balance between atomic-level detail and the ability to simulate biologically relevant timescales. For decades, researchers have faced a fundamental trade-off: all-atom (AA) molecular dynamics provides exquisite detail but at extreme computational cost, capturing only short timescales and small conformational changes, while traditional coarse-grained (CG) models extend simulations to biologically relevant scales but sacrifice atomic-level accuracy [8]. This dichotomy has limited progress in understanding complex biological processes such as protein folding, drug-target interactions, and virus-host cell interactions.

The emergence of machine learning (ML) approaches, particularly neural network potentials and force-matching techniques, promises to reconcile this divide. By integrating recent deep-learning methods with physical principles, researchers have developed coarse-grained models that retain much of the accuracy of all-atom simulations while achieving orders of magnitude improvement in computational efficiency [15]. This revolution is especially impactful for drug discovery, where accurate simulation of molecular interactions can dramatically accelerate identification and optimization of therapeutic candidates [38] [39].

This comparison guide examines the performance of machine-learned coarse-grained models, with particular emphasis on CGSchNet as a representative neural network potential, against traditional all-atom and coarse-grained alternatives. We provide experimental data, detailed methodologies, and practical resources to enable researchers to select appropriate simulation approaches for their specific biomolecular investigation needs.

Comparative Analysis of Simulation Approaches

Performance Metrics Across Model Types

Table 1: Comprehensive comparison of simulation approaches across key performance metrics

Performance Metric	All-Atom MD	Traditional CG (e.g., Martini)	ML-CG (CGSchNet)
Computational Speed	1x (reference)	100-1,000x faster	10,000-100,000x faster [15]
Accuracy (RMSD)	Native state ~0.1-0.3 nm [15]	Varies widely; often >0.5 nm for folded states	~0.5 nm for homeodomain, similar to AA references [15]
Timescale Access	Nanoseconds to microseconds	Microseconds to milliseconds	Microseconds to seconds [15]
System Size Limit	~100,000-1 million atoms	~1-10 million particles	Virtually unlimited in practice
Free Energy Accuracy	Quantitative with sufficient sampling	Limited for complex transitions	Predicts relative folding free energies of mutants [15]
Transferability	High within parameterized systems	System-specific often limited	High; works on sequences with 16-40% similarity to training set [15]
Metastable State Prediction	Excellent with enhanced sampling	Often misses alternative states	Predicts folded, unfolded, and intermediate states [15]

Quantitative Performance on Benchmark Systems

Table 2: Performance of ML-CG models on specific protein systems compared to all-atom references

Protein System	Size (residues)	ML-CG Performance	Comparison to AA MD
Chignolin (2RVD)	10	Correct folding/unfolding transitions, identifies misfolded state [15]	Matches metastable state distribution
TRPcage (2JOF)	20	Native state as global free energy minimum [15]	Comparable folded state stability
BBA (1FME)	28	Captures native state as local minimum [15]	Some discrepancy in relative free energy differences
Villin Headpiece (1YRF)	35	Correct folded state prediction [15]	Similar native state population
Engrailed Homeodomain (1ENH)	54	Folds to native structure from extended state [15]	Comparable terminal flexibility, slightly higher sequence fluctuations
Alpha3D (2A3D)	73	Successful folding to native state [15]	Similar flexibility at termini and between helical bundles

Methodological Foundations

Force-Matching and Bottom-Up Coarse-Graining

The force-matching approach, also known as the Multiscale Coarse-Graining (MS-CG) method, forms the theoretical foundation for many machine-learned CG potentials. This bottom-up method develops low-resolution models that are thermodynamically consistent with distributions from fully atomistic simulations [40]. The core principle involves variational minimization of the mean-squared deviation between a candidate CG-force field and atomistic forces mapped onto CG beads [40] [41].

The force-matching loss function is given as:

ℒℱℳ(θ) = (1/T) * Σ‖Fθ(R(t)) - FCG(t)‖²

where Fθ(R(t)) represents the forces predicted by the neural network potential with parameters θ, and FCG(t) represents the reference CG forces projected from all-atom simulations [41].

Regularized Relative Entropy Minimization

A significant challenge in bottom-up coarse-graining is overfitting to limited atomistic reference data, particularly for biomolecular complexes where sampling binding/unbinding events is computationally prohibitive. To address this, regularized relative entropy minimization (reg-REM) has been developed [40].

This approach regularizes the Kullback-Leibler divergence between atomistic and coarse-grained models by biasing the average CG interaction energy toward an empirical value:

L = DKL(AA||CG) + κ·(V0 - V̄CGbind(θ))²

where κ is the regularization strength and V0 is the target interaction energy [40]. This hybrid approach maintains structural accuracy while enabling realistic binding affinities, facilitating frequent unbinding and binding events in simulation [40].

Active Learning for Robust Potentials

A critical advancement in ML-CG models is the integration of active learning frameworks to address the degradation of potentials when simulations reach under-sampled conformations. These frameworks employ RMSD-based frame selection from MD simulations to identify configurations most different from the training set [41].

The active learning cycle involves:

• Training the model on existing MD trajectory data
• Simulating the CG protein system
• Selecting frames with largest RMSD discrepancies
• Backmapping these frames to all-atom resolution
• Querying an all-atom oracle simulation
• Projecting results back to CG space and augmenting the training set [41]

This approach enables the model to explore previously unseen configurations and correct predictions in under-sampled regions of conformational space, achieving a 33.05% improvement in the Wasserstein-1 metric in TICA space for the Chignolin protein [41].

Experimental Workflows and Visualization

CGSchNet Active Learning Pipeline

Active Learning for ML-CG Potentials - This workflow illustrates the iterative active learning framework that enables robust neural network potentials by selectively querying all-atom simulations for under-sampled conformations identified through RMSD analysis [41].

Force-Matching Methodology

Bottom-Up Force-Matching Workflow - This diagram outlines the fundamental force-matching procedure where a neural network potential is trained to reproduce the forces derived from all-atom simulations, ensuring thermodynamic consistency between resolutions [40] [41].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key computational tools and resources for ML-driven molecular dynamics

Tool/Resource	Type	Function	Application Notes
CGSchNet	Graph Neural Network	Learns CG force fields via force matching [41]	Continuous filter convolutions; invariant to rotations/translations
OpenMM	Molecular Dynamics Engine	Serves as AA oracle in active learning [41]	Provides reference forces for training and querying
PULCHRA	Backmapping Tool	Reconstructs AA coordinates from CG beads [41]	Essential for bidirectional AACG projection
Variational Force-Matching	Algorithmic Framework	Derives CG parameters from atomistic forces [40]	Foundation for bottom-up coarse-graining
Regularized REM	Optimization Method	Prevents overfitting in complex parametrization [40]	Critical for realistic binding affinities
TICA	Analysis Method	Time-lagged Independent Component Analysis [41]	Used for evaluating free energy landscape quality
Active Learning Framework	Training Protocol	Selects informative frames for oracle query [41]	Improves exploration of conformational space
4-Ethoxycarbonylbenzoate	4-Ethoxycarbonylbenzoate, MF:C10H9O4-, MW:193.18 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
1H-Indene-2-butanoic acid	1H-Indene-2-butanoic acid, CAS:61601-32-9, MF:C13H14O2, MW:202.25 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Discussion and Future Perspectives

The integration of machine learning, particularly neural network potentials, with coarse-grained simulations represents a paradigm shift in biomolecular modeling. The CGSchNet model demonstrates that transferable, sequence-aware CG force fields can achieve predictive accuracy comparable to all-atom methods while being orders of magnitude faster [15]. This breakthrough enables previously impossible simulations, such as folding of larger proteins (e.g., the 73-residue alpha3D) and characterization of disordered protein dynamics [15].

Persistent challenges include the need for extensive all-atom training data and potential overfitting when atomistic reference sampling is limited [40]. The emergence of active learning frameworks and regularized optimization approaches directly addresses these limitations by strategically expanding training data and incorporating empirical constraints [40] [41].

For drug discovery professionals, these advancements translate to tangible benefits: more accurate prediction of drug-target interactions, accelerated characterization of protein-ligand binding kinetics, and enhanced ability to model large biomolecular complexes [38] [39]. As the field progresses, integration of ML-CG models with other AI-driven approaches for target validation and lead optimization will further streamline pharmaceutical development pipelines [42] [43].

The continued development of neural network potentials promises to dissolve the traditional boundary between all-atom and coarse-grained modeling, ultimately providing researchers with a unified framework that combines the accuracy of high-resolution simulation with the scale necessary to address fundamental biological questions and therapeutic challenges.

Understanding biological processes at the molecular level—from how proteins attain their functional structures to how drugs interact with cell membranes—requires computational approaches that can accurately capture system dynamics across vastly different spatial and temporal scales. The central thesis in modern computational biophysics revolves around the comparison between atomistic and coarse-grained (CG) potential models, each offering distinct advantages and limitations. Atomistic models provide high-resolution detail by representing every atom in a system, making them indispensable for studying processes where specific atomic interactions are critical. In contrast, coarse-grained models dramatically reduce computational cost by grouping multiple atoms into single interaction sites, enabling the simulation of larger systems and longer timescales relevant to many biological phenomena [12]. This guide objectively compares the performance of these modeling approaches across three key application areas—protein folding, membrane systems, and drug-membrane interactions—by synthesizing current experimental data and simulation protocols to help researchers select appropriate methodologies for their specific scientific questions.

Table 1: Fundamental Comparison of Modeling Approaches

Characteristic	Atomistic Models	Coarse-Grained Models
Spatial Resolution	0.1-1 Ã… (atomic level)	3-10 Ã… (bead groups)
Temporal Access	Nanoseconds to microseconds	Microseconds to milliseconds
System Size Limit	~100,000-1,000,000 atoms	>1,000,000 CG particles
Computational Cost	High (all-atom detail)	Low (reduced degrees of freedom)
Primary Applications	Ligand binding, specific interactions	Large-scale dynamics, self-assembly

Protein Folding: From Atomic Detail to Folding Mechanisms

Experimental Validation of Theoretical Models

The performance of computational models in protein folding is rigorously tested through comparison with experimental data and specialized benchmarks. A significant validation comes from comparing Ising-like theoretical models with all-atom molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. Research shows that recent microsecond all-atom MD simulations of the 35-residue villin headpiece subdomain are consistent with a key assumption of Ising-like theoretical models that native structure grows in only a few regions of the amino acid sequence as folding progresses [44]. The distribution of folding mechanisms predicted by simulating the master equation of this native-centric model for villin, with only two adjustable thermodynamic parameters and one temperature-dependent kinetic parameter, is remarkably similar to the distribution in the MD trajectories [44]. This agreement between simplified models and detailed simulations demonstrates how core physical principles can capture essential folding physics.

Quantitative analysis of transition paths—the segments when folding actually occurs—supports the model's simplifying assumptions. For the villin subdomain, analysis of 25 transition paths from a 398-μs MD trajectory revealed that only a small fraction of conformations with more than two native segments is populated on the transition paths, validating the model assumption that structure grows in no more than a few regions [44]. This finding holds across different criteria for defining native segments (contiguous native residues longer than three, four, or five residues), demonstrating the robustness of this structural insight into folding mechanisms.

Advanced Free Energy Protocols

Recent advances in free energy calculation protocols have significantly improved the accuracy of predicting mutational effects on protein stability. The QresFEP-2 protocol represents a hybrid-topology free energy perturbation approach benchmarked on comprehensive protein stability datasets encompassing almost 600 mutations across 10 protein systems [45]. This methodology combines a single-topology representation of conserved backbone atoms with a dual-topology approach for variable side-chain atoms, creating what the developers term a "hybrid topology" [45]. This approach has demonstrated excellent accuracy combined with high computational efficiency, emerging as an open-source, physics-based alternative for advancing protein engineering and drug design.

The protocol's robustness was further validated through comprehensive domain-wide mutagenesis, assessing the thermodynamic stability of over 400 mutations generated by a systematic mutation scan of the 56-residue B1 domain of streptococcal protein G (Gβ1) [45]. Additionally, the applicability domain extends to evaluating site-directed mutagenesis effects on protein-ligand binding, tested on a GPCR system, and protein-protein interactions examined on the barnase/barstar complex [45]. Such methods bridge the gap between physical principles and practical protein design applications.

Comparative Performance of Modeling Algorithms

Different computational algorithms exhibit varying strengths for predicting structures of short peptides, which are particularly challenging due to their conformational flexibility. A comparative study of four modeling algorithms—AlphaFold, PEP-FOLD, Threading, and Homology Modeling—revealed that their performance correlates with peptide physicochemical properties [46]. The study found that AlphaFold and Threading complement each other for more hydrophobic peptides, while PEP-FOLD and Homology Modeling complement each other for more hydrophilic peptides [46]. Additionally, PEP-FOLD generated both compact structures and stable dynamics for most peptides, while AlphaFold produced compact structures for most peptides but with varying dynamic stability [46].

Table 2: Protein Folding Method Performance Comparison

Method/Protocol	System Tested	Accuracy Metric	Computational Efficiency	Key Application
Ising-like Model [44]	Villin headpiece (35 residues)	Mechanism distribution vs MD	High (2 thermodynamic parameters)	Folding pathway analysis
QresFEP-2 [45]	10 proteins, ~600 mutations	ΔΔG prediction	Highest among FEP protocols	Protein stability upon mutation
AlphaFold [46]	Short peptides (<50 aa)	Compactness	Medium	Hydrophobic peptides
PEP-FOLD [46]	Short peptides (<50 aa)	Stability in MD	High	Hydrophilic peptides

Membrane Systems: Architecture and Experimental Models

Model Membrane Architectures

Biological membranes define cellular boundaries and mediate crucial processes including signaling, transport, and recognition. Their natural complexity has motivated the development of various model systems whose size, geometry, and composition can be tailored with precision [47]. These include:

• Giant Unilamellar Vesicles (GUVs): With diameters of 1-10 microns, GUVs have been instrumental in determining phase behavior of binary and ternary lipid mixtures through visualization of phase separation via fluorescent probes partitioning into gel, liquid-ordered (lo), and liquid-disordered (ld) phases [47].

• Supported Lipid Bilayers (SLBs): Formed by vesicle fusion or Langmuir transfer onto solid supports, SLBs offer advantages including ease of preparation, stability, patterning capability, and compatibility with surface-sensitive characterization techniques [47].

• Nanodiscs: These free-standing membranes consist of circular lipid bilayers surrounded by membrane scaffolding proteins (MSP), providing very uniform diameters ranging from 8-13 nm depending on the MSP sequence used [47].

Each model system offers unique experimental advantages, from the compartmentalization capabilities of GUVs to the analytical accessibility of SLBs and the homogeneous environment of nanodiscs for membrane protein studies.

Membrane Distillation Performance

Beyond biological membranes, synthetic membrane performance can be quantitatively evaluated for industrial applications like water desalination. A comprehensive theoretical-experimental evaluation of three commercial membranes made from different materials (PE, PVDF, and PTFE) tested in two distinct membrane distillation modules revealed how material properties govern performance [48].

The PE-made membrane demonstrated the highest distillate fluxes, while the PVDF and PTFE membranes exhibited superior performance under high-salinity conditions in Air Gap Membrane Distillation (AGMD) modules [48]. Membranes with high contact angles, such as PTFE with 143.4°, performed better under high salinity conditions due to enhanced resistance to pore wetting [48]. The study also quantified how operational parameters affect performance: increasing feed saline concentration from 7 g/L to 70 g/L led to distillate flux reductions of 12.2% in Direct Contact Membrane Distillation (DCMD) modules and 42.9% in AGMD modules, averaged across all experiments [48].

Advanced Characterization Techniques

The development of increasingly sophisticated analytical techniques has enhanced the resolution at which membrane organization and dynamics can be studied. Imaging secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS), particularly using the NanoSIMS instrument, can obtain high spatial resolution images of supported lipid bilayers with high sensitivity and compositional information [47]. This method distinguishes co-existing gel and liquid phases at approximately 100 nm resolution and determines mole fractions of lipid components within each phase without requiring fluorescent labels that can influence phase behavior [47]. Time-of-flight (TOF)-SIMS measurements offer the advantage of detecting larger molecular fragments, providing direct chemical information about membrane composition, though with lower sensitivity and spatial resolution compared to NanoSIMS [47].

Drug-Membrane Interactions: Mechanisms and Permeation

Model Membranes for Drug Delivery Studies

Drug-membrane interactions represent a critical step in drug delivery, occurring when drugs are administered regardless of the route of administration or target location [49]. Due to experimental limitations with live cells, model cell membranes have been developed and employed for research purposes for over 50 years [50]. These include:

• Langmuir monolayers: Enable study of interactions at model membrane surfaces with controlled lipid packing density.

• Liposomes and vesicles: Spherical lipid bilayers that can be created in various sizes from tens of nanometers (small unilamellar vesicles, SUVs) to tens of microns (GUVs) [47].

• Supported lipid bilayers: Planar bilayers either interacting directly with a solid substrate or tethered to the substrate [47] [50].

• Black lipid membranes: Enable the measurement of electrical properties and transport across membranes [50].

These model systems can be tailored to mimic specific biological membranes—such as mitochondrial membranes, cardiomyocyte membranes, or bacterial membranes—by incorporating specific lipids and proteins to create more complex and realistic models [49].

Experimental Findings on Drug-Membrane Interactions

Studies combining model membranes with orthogonal techniques have revealed how subtle chemical changes significantly alter membrane interactions. For instance, research on antimicrobial peptides showed that incorporating a single tryptophan at the N-terminus of BP100 peptide (creating W-BP100) resulted in pronounced differences in drug-membrane interactions, with almost no aggregation of anionic vesicles observed around saturation conditions for the modified peptide [49]. This small chemical difference created a highly active peptide, demonstrating how minor structural modifications can optimize therapeutic properties.

Studies on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) revealed that both diclofenac (associated with cardiotoxicity) and naproxen (low cardiovascular toxicity) interact with lipid bilayers and change their permeability and structure [49]. This suggests that NSAID-lipid interactions at the mitochondrial level may be an important step in the mechanism underlying NSAID-induced cardiotoxicity, highlighting how model membrane studies can provide insights into drug safety profiles.

Computational Approaches for Drug-Membrane Interactions

Molecular dynamics simulations have emerged as a powerful tool to study drug-membrane interactions at varied length and timescales. While conventional all-atom MD simulations capture conformational dynamics and local motions, recent developments in coarse-grained models enable the study of macromolecular complexes for timescales up to milliseconds [12]. These CG models are particularly valuable for studying large-scale biological complexes such as ribosomes, cytoskeletal filaments, and membrane protein systems that would be computationally prohibitive with all-atom detail [12].

The MARTINI forcefield is one of the most widely used coarse-grained models for biomolecular simulations, offering a balanced representation of various lipid types and their interactions with small molecules and proteins. These simulations can provide insights into fundamental processes such as drug partitioning into membranes, membrane-mediated aggregation, and the formation of transient pores—all crucial for understanding drug delivery mechanisms.

Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

Key Experimental Protocols

Free Energy Perturbation (FEP) Protocol for Protein Mutational Effects [45]: The QresFEP-2 protocol implements a hybrid topology approach that combines single-topology representation of conserved backbone atoms with separate topologies for variable side-chain atoms. The methodology involves: (1) Defining pseudoatom sites representing groups of multiple atoms; (2) Deriving the energy function UCG that defines interactions between pseudoatoms; (3) Implementing dynamical equations to study time-based evolution of the coarse-grained system. The protocol avoids transformation of atom types or bonded parameters, enabling rigorous and automatable FEP calculations. Restraints are imposed between topologically equivalent atoms during FEP transformation to ensure sufficient phase-space overlap while preventing "flapping" where atoms erroneously overlap with non-equivalent neighbors.

Analysis of Transition Paths in Protein Folding [44]: For the villin subdomain, transition paths for folding were identified as trajectory segments where the native contact parameter Q reaches 0.20 or greater and proceeds to 0.89 without reverting below 0.20. This procedure identified 25 transition paths in a 398-μs trajectory. The number of native segments was counted at each time point along rescaled transition paths (time scaled from 0 to 1) to account for variation in transition path times. Native segments were defined as stretches of contiguous native residues longer than a chosen minimum (3, 4, or 5 residues), with each residue classified as native or non-native based on its position in Ramachandran space relative to the native structure.

Membrane Distillation Performance Characterization [48]: Experimental setup included flat-plate Direct Contact Membrane Distillation (DCMD) and Air Gap Membrane Distillation (AGMD) modules with controlled variation of operational parameters (feed and permeate temperatures and flow rates). Membrane characteristics including contact angle, liquid entry pressure (LEP), pore size, thickness, and porosity were measured. A reduced heat and mass transfer model was developed and validated against experimental data, showing deviations within ±15%, effectively capturing the influence of operational parameters including temperature polarization effects.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Materials

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Examples/Specifications
Giant Unilamellar Vesicles (GUVs) [47]	Study lipid phase behavior, membrane domain formation	1-10 micron diameter, ternary lipid mixtures
Supported Lipid Bilayers (SLBs) [47]	Surface-sensitive characterization, patterning studies	Formed by vesicle fusion or Langmuir transfer
Nanodiscs [47]	Membrane protein isolation and characterization	8-13 nm diameter, controlled by MSP sequence
Isotopically Labeled Lipids [47]	SIMS imaging of membrane organization	13C, 15N labels for compositional analysis
Fluorescent Lipid Probes [47]	Phase partitioning visualization	Partition into gel, lo, or ld phases depending on structure
Commercial MD Membranes [48]	Water desalination applications	PE, PVDF, PTFE materials with different hydrophobicity
6-Methylbenzo[h]quinoline	6-Methylbenzo[h]quinoline	High-purity 6-Methylbenzo[h]quinoline for anticancer research. This product is for Research Use Only (RUO). Not for human or veterinary use.

Integrated Workflows and Multiscale Approaches

The most powerful modern approaches integrate multiple computational and experimental methods to overcome the limitations of individual techniques. Multiscale simulation strategies combine the accuracy of atomistic models with the scale accessibility of coarse-grained approaches, often using iterative refinement where CG simulations identify interesting structural states for more detailed atomistic investigation [12]. Similarly, combining theoretical models with experimental validation has proven highly effective, as demonstrated by the agreement between Ising-like model predictions and all-atom MD simulations of protein folding [44].

Multiscale Modeling Workflow: This diagram illustrates the integrative approach combining experimental data with computational models at different resolution scales to generate biological insight, which in turn informs new experimental investigations.

The integration of experimental data with multiple computational approaches creates a powerful cycle for scientific discovery, where models are parameterized and validated against experimental data, then used to generate testable hypotheses for further experimental investigation. This multidisciplinary strategy is advancing our understanding of complex biological processes across scales—from atomic-level interactions in protein folding to mesoscale organization in membrane systems—providing researchers with an increasingly sophisticated toolkit for addressing challenges in drug development and biomolecular engineering.

Overcoming Limitations: Optimization and Advanced Sampling Techniques

Computational simulations are indispensable tools for studying the structure and dynamics of biological macromolecules, with applications ranging from drug discovery to the characterization of virus-host interactions. [8] However, biomolecular processes occur across a wide spectrum of length and time scales, presenting a fundamental challenge for any single modeling approach. Atomistic (AA) models provide high-resolution insights but remain constrained by computational costs, capturing only short timescales and limited conformational changes. [8] In contrast, coarse-grained (CG) models extend simulations to biologically relevant scales by reducing molecular complexity, but this comes at the expense of atomic-level accuracy and often suffers from limited transferability. [8] [51] This guide objectively compares the performance of these competing approaches, with particular emphasis on how recent machine learning (ML) advancements are bridging the gap between them.

The core challenge in CG model development lies in the parameterization of reliable and transferable potentials. [8] Transferability refers to a model's ability to accurately simulate systems or conditions beyond those it was explicitly parameterized for, such as different protein sequences or environmental conditions. [15] [51] Similarly, the process of "backmapping" – reinstantiating atomic detail from CG representations – remains nontrivial, potentially limiting the utility of CG simulations for applications requiring atomic resolution. [8] [52] This guide examines these challenges through quantitative data, experimental protocols, and key methodological solutions.

Performance Comparison: Accuracy, Transferability, and Computational Efficiency

Table 1: Key Performance Metrics Across Model Types

Model Type	Spatial Resolution	Temporal Access	Accuracy vs. Experiment	Transferability	Relative Computational Cost
All-Atom (AA)	~0.1 nm (atomic)	Nanoseconds to milliseconds [15]	High for specific systems [15]	High (general physical laws)	1x (Reference)
Traditional CG	0.3-1.0 nm (bead-based) [51]	Microseconds to seconds	Variable; system-dependent [51]	Low to moderate [51]	~10⁻² - 10⁻⁴ x AA [51]
ML-CG (e.g., CGSchNet)	~0.3-0.5 nm (bead-based)	Microseconds to seconds [15]	High for folding, metastable states [15]	High (demonstrated on unseen sequences) [15]	~10⁻³ - 10⁻⁵ x AA [15]

Table 2: Quantitative Performance of ML-CG Model on Specific Protein Systems

Protein System	CG Model Performance	Comparison to AA Reference	Experimental Validation
Chignolin (CLN025)	Predicts folded, unfolded, and misfolded metastable states [15]	Stabilizes same misfolded state as AA simulations [15]	N/A
Villin Headpiece	Folds to native state (Q ~1, low RMSD) [15]	Free energy basin of native state matches as global minimum [15]	N/A
Engrailed Homeodomain	Folds from extended configuration to native structure [15]	Cα RMSF similar to AA; slightly higher fluctuations [15]	N/A
Protein Mutants	Predicts relative folding free energies [15]	Comparable accuracy where AA data available; enables prediction for larger proteins where AA is unavailable [15]	Consistent with experimental data [15]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Development of a Transferable Machine-Learned CG Force Field

A recent landmark study published in Nature Chemistry established a protocol for developing a transferable ML-CG model for proteins. [15]

1. Training Dataset Generation:

• Source: Diverse set of all-atom explicit solvent simulations of small proteins with varied folded structures.
• Content: Included dimers of mono- and dipeptides to capture local interaction physics.
• Scale: "Large and diverse training set" to ensure broad coverage of conformational space. [15]

2. Model Architecture and Training:

• Framework: CGSchNet, a deep neural network-based force field.
• Approach: Bottom-up variational force-matching, where the CG force field is fit to match the equilibrium distribution of an all-atom model. [15]
• Training: Parameters learned from atomistic simulations of the training protein set.

3. Validation Methodology:

• Testing Set: Proteins with low (16-40%) sequence similarity to training/validation sets.
• Simulations: Parallel-tempering and constant-temperature Langevin simulations for converged sampling.
• Metrics: Fraction of native contacts (Q), Cα root-mean-square deviation (RMSD), free energy differences, and root-mean-square fluctuations (RMSF). [15]

Backmapping: Recovering Atomic Detail from CG Representations

The C2A (Coarse to Atomic) method provides a knowledge-based protocol for reinstantiating atomic detail into CG RNA structures: [52]

1. Input Requirements:

• CG template of target molecule (e.g., one point per residue)
• Fragment definition (e.g., secondary structure)
• Reference full-atomic RNA 3D structure database

2. Reconstruction Process:

• Fragmentation: Target molecule divided into structural subsets (helices, loops, junctions)
• Fragment Matching: Search reference database for coarse-grain matches to each fragment
• Assembly: Combine atomic-resolution matches to build complete structure
• Minimization: Energy minimization to eliminate atomic collisions and gaps

3. Performance Validation:

• When starting from ideal CG backbones, reproduces crystal structures within 1.87-3.31 Ã… RMSD
• With NAST-generated CG models, builds atomic structures within 1.00 Ã… RMSD of starting structure [52]

Workflow Visualization: ML-CG Force Field Development and Application

Table 3: Key Research Tools and Resources for CG Biomolecular Modeling

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
CGSchNet [15]	ML-CG Force Field	Transferable protein simulations with chemical specificity	Predicting protein folding, metastable states, and dynamics on new sequences
C2A (Coarse to Atomic) [52]	Backmapping Tool	Instantiates full atomic detail into coarse-grain RNA structures	Bridging CG models with atomic-resolution analysis and refinement
DeePMD-kit [53]	ML-IAP Framework	Constructs deep neural network potentials from quantum data	Atomistic simulations with near-quantum accuracy at larger scales
Variational Force-Matching [15]	Parameterization Method	Derives CG potentials to match reference all-atom forces	Bottom-up development of chemically accurate CG models
mW Water Model [54]	Coarse-Grained Water Potential	Efficient simulation of aqueous systems	Studying ice nucleation, solvation, and large biomolecular systems
Parallel Tempering [15]	Enhanced Sampling	Improves conformational sampling in molecular simulations	Obtaining converged equilibrium distributions for free energy calculations

The fundamental trade-offs between accuracy, transferability, and computational efficiency continue to shape biomolecular simulation methodologies. While traditional CG models offer significant computational advantages, they often sacrifice chemical specificity and transferability. [51] The emergence of machine-learned CG force fields represents a paradigm shift, demonstrating that transferable models with accuracy approaching all-atom simulations are feasible. [15] These ML-CG models can successfully predict folding pathways, metastable states, and thermodynamic properties for proteins not included in training datasets, while maintaining a computational efficiency several orders of magnitude greater than all-atom alternatives. [15]

Future advancements will likely focus on improving the representation of multi-body interactions and implicit solvation effects, which remain challenging for CG models. [15] Additionally, robust, generalizable methods for backmapping will be crucial for leveraging CG simulations in applications requiring atomic detail. [8] [52] As machine learning methodologies continue to evolve and integrate with physical principles, the distinction between atomistic and coarse-grained approaches is gradually blurring, paving the way for truly predictive multiscale simulations of biological systems.

The Parameterization Bottleneck and Automated Solutions

In computational chemistry and drug discovery, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations provide invaluable insights into biological systems at an atomic level. However, the accurate simulation of complex biomolecular systems faces a significant obstacle: the parameterization bottleneck. This refers to the tedious, time-consuming, and expert-dependent process of determining the precise force field parameters that describe the interactions within and between molecules. This challenge is particularly acute in the development of coarse-grained (CG) models, where groups of atoms are represented as single interaction sites to enable the simulation of larger systems over longer timescales. The manual "tweaking of parameters by hand" is described as a "highly frustrating and tedious task," hindering the rapid application of these powerful models in both academic and industrial settings [36] [55]. This article explores the nature of this bottleneck and objectively compares the emerging automated solutions designed to overcome it.

Automated Parameterization Methodologies and Protocols

Automated parametrization strategies are essential for handling large molecule databases and streamlining the drug discovery pipeline [36] [55]. The following section details the core methodologies and experimental protocols behind these advanced solutions.

Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) in CGCompiler

The CGCompiler approach exemplifies a direct attack on the parametrization bottleneck for coarse-grained models, specifically within the Martini 3 framework [36].

• Core Protocol: This method employs a mixed-variable particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm. The PSO efficiently navigates complex, multidimensional parameter spaces to find optimal solutions. The "mixed-variable" aspect is crucial, as it allows for the simultaneous optimization of both categorical variables (such as the selection of predefined Martini bead types) and continuous variables (such as bond lengths and angles) [36].
• Workflow:
  • Input and Mapping: The user provides the target small molecule's atomistic structure and defines its coarse-grained mapping scheme (how atoms are grouped into beads).
  • Target Definition: Key target properties are specified. For small molecules, these typically include the experimental octanol-water partition coefficient (log P), atomistic density profiles within lipid bilayers, and Solvent Accessible Surface Area (SASA).
  • Iterative Optimization: The algorithm generates candidate parametrizations, runs MD simulations using the GROMACS engine, and scores the solutions based on how well they reproduce the target properties. This process repeats, with the swarm of candidate solutions collectively evolving toward the best parametrization [36].
• Fitness Evaluation: The accuracy of a generated model is evaluated through a fitness function that combines structural and dynamic targets. For log P calculation, CGCompiler implements the Multistate Bennett Acceptance Ratio (MBAR) method to compute the free energy of transfer between octanol and water phases [36].

Machine Learning and High-Fidelity Data Integration

Beyond evolutionary algorithms like PSO, machine learning (ML) techniques are making significant inroads.

• ML Surrogate Models: Machine learning is being used to develop surrogate models for force field parameterization. These ML models can map molecular structures to parameters or directly predict properties, accelerating the optimization process that would otherwise require innumerable, computationally expensive simulations [1].
• Data-Driven Refinement: A common challenge with AI-powered platforms is that proposed parametrizations or synthetic routes are "rarely ready-to-execute." Their practical applicability is enhanced by enriching models with a broader spectrum of real-world experimental outcomes, including both positive and negative data. This continuous improvement through comprehensive data integration refines their predictive power [56].

Automated Mapping Schemes as a Starting Point

For the initial step of defining the CG mapping, automated tools like Auto-Martini have been developed. These tools provide a valuable crude parametrization that can serve as a starting point for further refinement by optimization tools like CGCompiler, thereby streamlining the beginning of the workflow [36].

The logical relationship and workflow between these methodologies and the tools that implement them can be visualized as follows:

Comparative Analysis of Parameterization Approaches

The table below provides a structured comparison of the traditional manual approach against the leading automated solutions, highlighting key performance differentiators.

Table 1: Objective Comparison of Parameterization Methods for Coarse-Grained Models

Feature	Manual Parameterization	CGCompiler with PSO	Machine Learning (ML) Approaches
Core Methodology	Expert intuition and manual tweaking [36]	Mixed-variable Particle Swarm Optimization [36]	Graph neural networks; supervised learning on chemical datasets [36] [56]
Primary Application	Martini and other CG force fields [55]	Martini 3 small molecule parametrization [36]	Broad, including reaction condition prediction and synthesis planning [56]
Key Experimental Targets	Varies by expert	Log P values, atomistic density profiles in lipid bilayers, SASA [36]	Reaction yields, successful synthesis routes, compound activity [56]
Throughput & Speed	Low; "tedious and time-consuming" [36] [1]	High; automated optimization avoids manual work [36]	Very high for initial proposals; can be limited by an "evaluation gap" [56]
Reliability & Accuracy	High if done by experts; but prone to human bias and inconsistency	High; systematically matches structural and dynamic targets [36]	Improving; can lack nuance without high-fidelity data [36] [56]
Data Dependency	Relies on expert knowledge	Requires target data (simulation/experimental) for fitness function [36]	Highly dependent on large, well-curated datasets [56] [57]
User Expertise Required	Very High (CG force field specialist)	Medium (definition of targets and mapping)	Low to Medium (depends on tool interface)

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

The implementation of automated parameterization workflows relies on a suite of specialized software tools and data resources.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Automated Parameterization

Tool/Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Workflow
CGCompiler [36]	Software Package	Core engine for mixed-variable PSO optimization of Martini 3 parameters.
GROMACS [36]	Molecular Dynamics Engine	Executes the simulations used to evaluate candidate parametrizations during optimization.
Auto-Martini [36]	Automated Mapping Tool	Provides an initial coarse-grained mapping and parametrization for a given molecule.
Martini Coarse-Grained Force Field [55]	Force Field	Defines the physical rules and available parameters for the coarse-grained simulations.
Experimental Log P Databases	Data Resource	Serves as a primary target for optimizing small molecule hydrophobicity and membrane permeability [36].

The parameterization bottleneck has long been a critical impediment to the broader and more efficient application of coarse-grained models in drug discovery and materials science. Automated solutions like CGCompiler's particle swarm optimization represent a significant leap forward, offering a systematic, high-throughput, and accurate alternative to manual methods. While machine learning-based approaches hold immense promise for further acceleration, their effectiveness is currently tempered by the "evaluation gap" and the need for expansive, high-quality data. The ongoing development and integration of these automated tools are poised to dramatically reshape the computational design of therapeutics and materials, shifting the bottleneck away from parameterization and enabling researchers to explore chemical space with unprecedented speed and scale.

The pursuit of accurate and computationally efficient molecular simulations hinges on a fundamental trade-off: the high fidelity of atomistic models versus the expansive scale accessible through coarse-grained (CG) representations. Atomistic simulations, such as all-atom molecular dynamics (AA-MD), provide detailed insights at the resolution of individual atoms but are severely limited by computational cost when studying biologically relevant processes. In contrast, coarse-grained models extend simulations to larger spatial and temporal scales by grouping multiple atoms into single interaction sites, or "beads," thereby reducing molecular complexity [8] [1]. However, this gain in efficiency traditionally comes at the cost of sacrificing atomic-level accuracy, making the parameterization of reliable and transferable potentials a persistent challenge [8]. The integration of machine learning (ML), particularly through machine learning interatomic potentials (ML-IAPs or ML-FFs) and machine-learned coarse-graining (MLCG), is revolutionizing this field. These approaches leverage data-driven methods to incorporate quantum-mechanical accuracy into simulations, effectively bridging the gap between these two modeling philosophies [53] [58]. This guide objectively compares the performance of these modern approaches against traditional alternatives, focusing on how the strategic incorporation of physical priors and regularization techniques dictates their success.

Performance Comparison: Accuracy and Computational Efficiency

The following tables quantitatively compare the performance of various models, highlighting the trade-offs between different methodologies.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Select Ionic Liquid ([C4mim][BF4]) Models [1]

Model Category	Specific Model	Density (ρ, kg m⁻³)	Diffusion - Cation/Anion (D+/D-, 10⁻¹¹ m² s⁻¹)	Conductivity (σ, S m⁻¹)
CG Models	MARTINI-based	1181 (300 K)	120 / 145 (293 K)	—
	Electrostatic-variable CG (VaCG)	1168 (303 K)	1.20 / 0.53 (303 K)	0.45 (303 K)
AA Models	OPLS (AA)	1178 (298 K)	7.3 / 6.6 (425 K)	—
	SAPT-based (AA)	1180 (298 K)	1.1 / 0.8 (298 K)	0.29 (298 K)
Experimental Data	—	1170 (343 K)	8.0 / 8.2 (343 K)	0.295 (303 K)

Table 2: Characteristic Workflow and Performance of ML-IAPs [53] [58]

Model Type	Key Feature	Representative Accuracy (MAE)	Computational Cost vs. DFT	Primary Application Scale
Traditional Empirical FF	Predefined analytical form	Varies; often low for complex systems	~10³–10⁶ times faster	Nanoseconds, >100,000 atoms
ML-IAP (e.g., DeePMD)	Trained on ab initio data	Energy: <1 meV/atom; Force: <20 meV/Å [53]	~10³–10⁵ times faster	Nanoseconds to microseconds, >1,000,000 atoms
Universal ML-IAP (U-MLIP)	Trained on diverse datasets	Slightly higher than specialized ML-IAPs	Similar to specialized ML-IAPs	Broad chemical space exploration
Ab Initio (DFT)	Quantum-mechanical ground truth	N/A (Reference)	N/A (Baseline)	Picoseconds, <1,000 atoms

The data in Table 1 illustrates a common finding: while early top-down CG models like MARTINI can achieve impressive computational speedups (evidenced by very high diffusion coefficients), they may sacrifice quantitative accuracy for dynamic properties compared to atomistic models and experimental data. Bottom-up ML-driven approaches, such as the VaCG model, demonstrate improved alignment with atomistic and experimental property values [1]. Table 2 underscores the transformative potential of ML-IAPs, which maintain near ab initio accuracy while achieving computational speeds several orders of magnitude faster than DFT, enabling molecular dynamics at previously inaccessible scales [53] [58].

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

A critical component of model comparison is a clear understanding of the methodologies used for their development and validation.

Workflow for Developing Machine-Learned Coarse-Grained (MLCG) Force Fields

The bottom-up development of MLCG force fields relies on statistical mechanics to preserve the microscopic properties of a reference atomistic system. A common and powerful method is variational force matching [6]. The protocol generally follows these steps:

• Reference Data Generation: Run an all-atom molecular dynamics simulation of the system of interest to generate a trajectory of atomic configurations.
• Coarse-Graining Mapping: Define a mapping scheme, M, that projects the all-atom coordinates, r, to the CG coordinates, R (i.e., R = M r).
• Force Projection: For each saved configuration, project the instantaneous all-atom forces, 𝔣(r), onto the CG coordinates using a force-mapping operator, M_𝔣, to obtain the reference CG forces.
• Model Training: A parametrized CG force field, FÌ‚_θ(R), is learned by minimizing the force matching objective function: â„’(θ) = ⟨|| M_𝔣 𝔣(r) - FÌ‚_θ(M r) ||²⟩_r [6]. This minimization ensures that the CG force field reproduces the projected forces from the atomistic reference.

Recent advances address the significant data storage challenge of saving full atomistic forces by proposing methods that can learn from configurational data alone, using techniques like denoising score matching or generative model-based kernels [6].

Workflow for Training Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials (ML-IAPs)

ML-IAPs are trained to replicate the potential energy surface (PES) derived from high-fidelity quantum mechanical calculations [58]. The standard workflow is:

• Reference Data Generation: Perform ab initio molecular dynamics (AIMD) or density functional theory (DFT) calculations on a diverse set of atomic configurations relevant to the system. The target properties for training are typically total energy, atomic forces, and stresses.
• Feature Representation: Represent the local atomic environment for each atom using descriptors or a graph representation. Modern approaches often use equivariant graph neural networks (GNNs) that inherently respect physical symmetries like rotation and translation [53].
• Model Training: Train a neural network (e.g., DeepPot-SE in the DeePMD framework) to predict the total energy of a configuration as a sum of atomic contributions. The model is trained by minimizing a loss function that penalizes errors in predicted energies and forces compared to the ab initio reference data.
• Model Validation: Validate the trained ML-IAP on a held-out set of configurations not seen during training. Key metrics include Mean Absolute Error (MAE) in energy (e.g., meV/atom) and forces (e.g., meV/Ã…) [53]. The ultimate validation is running stable MD simulations that reproduce structural and dynamic properties.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Software

This section details key computational tools and data resources essential for research in this field.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for ML-Driven Molecular Simulation

Tool/Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to Physics Incorporation
DeePMD-kit [53]	Software Package	Implements the Deep Potential (DeePMD) ML-IAP.	Enforces physical roto-translational invariance in descriptors; uses physical forces as primary training target.
ANI (ANAKIN-ME) [58]	ML-IAP Method	A neural network potential for organic molecules.	Trained on DFT data to achieve quantum-chemical accuracy at force-field cost.
Allegro [58]	ML-IAP Method	A symmetrically equivariant ML-IAP.	Strictly incorporates SE(3) equivariance, leading to superior data efficiency and accuracy.
MARTINI [1]	Coarse-Grained Force Field	A top-down CG force field for biomolecular simulations.	Parameters are fitted to experimental thermodynamic data, incorporating macroscopic physical properties.
QM9, MD17, MD22 [53]	Benchmark Datasets	Public datasets of quantum mechanical calculations.	Provide high-fidelity physical data for training and benchmarking ML-IAPs.

Visualization of Logical and Methodological Relationships

Understanding the conceptual landscape and how different methods relate to the incorporation of physical priors is crucial.

The integration of machine learning with molecular simulation is not about replacing physics with data, but rather about creating sophisticated models where data and physics inform one another. The performance comparisons and methodologies detailed herein demonstrate that the most successful modern approaches, such as equivariant ML-IAPs and bottom-up MLCG models, are those that systematically incorporate physical principles—such as roto-translational invariance, energy conservation, and thermodynamic consistency—as foundational elements of their architecture and training protocols [53] [6].

This acts as a powerful form of regularization, constraining the model to physically realistic regions of the parameter space and leading to superior data efficiency, interpretability, and transferability beyond their training sets. While traditional atomistic force fields and top-down CG models will continue to play a vital role, the data-driven, physics-informed paradigm represented by ML-IAPs and MLCG offers a clear path toward a unified framework for multiscale molecular modeling. For researchers in drug development and materials science, the choice of model now hinges on the specific trade-off between the desired level of chemical detail, the accessible time and length scales, and the availability of reference data for training, with ML-based methods increasingly becoming the tool of choice for problems requiring both high accuracy and large-scale simulation.

Accounting for Polarization and Electronic Effects

Electrostatic interactions are fundamental to biomolecular structure, stability, and function, influencing processes ranging from protein folding to molecular recognition in drug design. Traditional molecular dynamics (MD) simulations often model these interactions using fixed-charge, nonpolarizable force fields. While computationally efficient, these approaches cannot capture the electronic polarization that occurs when a molecule's electron density redistributes in response to its changing electrostatic environment. This limitation is particularly significant in heterogeneous systems such as protein-ligand complexes, membrane interfaces, and electrochemical environments where polarization effects substantially alter local interaction energies.

The integration of polarization effects into molecular simulations represents a critical frontier in computational biophysics and drug discovery. Two primary approaches have emerged: polarizable atomistic models that explicitly include electronic degrees of freedom, and electronically coarse-grained models that extend simulation capabilities to biologically relevant scales while attempting to preserve electrostatic fidelity. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of these methodologies, examining their theoretical foundations, performance characteristics, and practical applications for research scientists and drug development professionals engaged in biomolecular simulation.

Fundamental Concepts: Polarizable vs. Nonpolarizable Force Fields

The Physical Basis of Electronic Polarization

Electronic polarization refers to the distortion of a molecule's electron cloud in response to an external electric field, such as that generated by nearby ions, dipoles, or chemical environment changes. This phenomenon significantly affects molecular properties including interaction energies, binding affinities, and charge distributions. In biological systems, polarization contributions are particularly important at interfaces, in ion channels, and whenever charge separation occurs during biochemical processes.

Force Field Architectures for Modeling Polarization

Table 1: Comparison of Force Field Approaches for Handling Electrostatics

Force Field Type	Electrostatic Treatment	Physical Basis	Computational Cost	Key Limitations
Nonpolarizable	Fixed partial atomic charges	Mean-field approximation of average polarization in specific environment	Low	Non-transferable between environments; fails for heterogeneous systems
Polarizable (Drude)	Classical oscillators with charged particles attached to atoms via harmonic springs	Electronic response through displaced charges	Medium-High	Parameterization complexity; increased computational demand (2-4x)
Polarizable (Induced Dipole)	Polarizability tensors allowing atom-centered dipoles to respond to electric field	Quantum-mechanical treatment of local field effects	High	Complex parameterization; expensive self-consistent calculations
Polarizable Coarse-Grained	Variable electrostatic parameters or embedded polarizable sites	Implicit environmental response through parameter adjustment	Low-Medium	Potential loss of atomic-level specificity

Methodological Approaches: From Atomistic to Coarse-Grained Representations

Polarizable Atomistic Force Fields

Polarizable atomistic force fields explicitly incorporate electronic degrees of freedom through various physical models. The Drude oscillator model (also known as the shell model or charge-on-a-spring) introduces auxiliary particles connected to atomic centers through harmonic springs. These particles carry negative charge while the corresponding atomic core carries increased positive charge, creating an inducible dipole when displaced. The fluctuating charge model allows atomic partial charges to vary based on chemical environment and electronegativity equalization principles. The induced dipole model assigns polarizability tensors to atoms, generating dipoles in response to the instantaneous electric field that must be solved self-consistently at each simulation step.

Machine Learning-Enhanced Coarse-Grained Models

Coarse-grained (CG) models extend molecular simulations to larger spatial and temporal scales by grouping multiple atoms into single interaction sites. While traditional CG models often struggle with electrostatic accuracy, recent machine learning (ML) approaches have enabled better representation of polarization effects. The regularized Relative Entropy Minimization (reg-REM) method addresses overfitting in bottom-up coarse-graining by incorporating empirical binding affinities as regularization constraints [40]. ML-assisted backmapping strategies reconstruct atomistic detail from CG simulations while preserving polarization characteristics, creating a multiscale bridge between electronic and mesoscopic descriptions [8].

Figure 1: Methodological landscape for modeling polarization and electronic effects in biomolecular simulations, showing the relationship between atomistic and coarse-grained approaches.

Comparative Performance Analysis: Experimental Benchmarking

Protein Structure and Dynamics Assessment

A recent comparative study evaluated the performance of polarizable (DRUDE2019) versus nonpolarizable (CHARMM36m) force fields using the Im7 protein system, which contains flexible loops and high charge density regions [59]. This systematic investigation employed NMR-derived structural data as experimental reference, analyzing α-helix stabilization, loop dynamics, and salt bridge interactions.

Table 2: Force Field Performance Comparison for Protein Systems [59]

Performance Metric	CHARMM36m (Nonpolarizable)	DRUDE2019 (Polarizable)	Experimental Reference	Key Findings
α-helix stability	Moderate stabilization	Enhanced stabilization, including short helices with helix-breaking residues	NMR structure	Polarizable FF better captures secondary structure preferences
Loop dynamics	Restricted sampling, underestimated flexibility	Similarly restricted, particularly in loop I region	NMR ensemble	Both FFs underestimate loop mobility due to dihedral limitations
Salt bridge formation	Environment-dependent stabilization patterns	Alternative stabilization patterns driven by explicit polarization	NMR chemical shifts	Each FF stabilizes different salt bridges based on electrostatic modeling
Ion-protein interactions	Standard treatment	Improved accuracy with NBFIX/NBTHOLE parameters	Experimental coordination data	Updated DRUDE2019 parameters enhance Na+ interaction modeling

The study revealed that while DRUDE2019 better stabilizes α-helical elements through improved electrostatic treatment, both force fields underestimate loop dynamics due to restricted dihedral angle sampling. This indicates that incorporating polarization alone is insufficient without concurrent refinement of bonded terms and dihedral correction maps [59].

Interface and Solvation Phenomena

The importance of explicit polarization modeling becomes particularly evident at biological and material interfaces. Research on hexagonal boron nitride (hBN)/water interfaces demonstrated that polarizable force fields employing Drude oscillators accurately predicted ion-specific adsorption behavior consistent with ab initio MD results, while nonpolarizable force fields overestimated adsorption free energies due to inadequate treatment of polarization screening effects [60].

Simulations of ionic liquids—highly polarizable systems with relevance to biocatalysis and protein stabilization—further highlight performance differences. Polarizable coarse-grained models for ionic liquids successfully capture nanostructural organization and transport properties that depend on polarization effects, outperforming nonpolarizable counterparts in reproducing experimental diffusion coefficients and ionic conductivities [1].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Comparative Force Field Assessment Protocol

The standard methodology for evaluating polarization effects follows a systematic protocol:

• System Selection: Choose benchmark systems with known experimental structures and pronounced polarization effects (high charge density, flexible elements, interfacial environments) [59]. The Im7 protein and CBD1 domain serve as effective benchmarks.

• Equilibration Procedure: Perform extensive equilibration using both polarizable (DRUDE2019) and nonpolarizable (CHARMM36m) force fields with compatible simulation parameters [59].

• Production Simulations: Conduct multiple independent MD trajectories (typically 500 ns - 1 μs) under identical conditions (temperature, pressure, ionic strength) for statistical robustness.

• Analysis Framework:

  • Secondary structure stability (DSSP, helicity quantitation)
  • Loop flexibility (root-mean-square-fluctuation, dihedral sampling)
  • Salt bridge persistence (distance criteria, occupancy calculations)
  • Ionic interaction analysis (coordination numbers, residence times)

• Experimental Validation: Compare simulation outcomes with experimental reference data, particularly NMR chemical shifts, relaxation measurements, and crystal structures where available [59].

Regularized Relative Entropy Minimization Methodology

For coarse-grained models, the regularized relative entropy minimization (reg-REM) method addresses overfitting by incorporating empirical binding affinities:

• Reference Data Collection: Obtain atomistic MD trajectories of biomolecular complexes, acknowledging limited sampling of binding/unbinding events [40].

• Standard REM Implementation: Apply conventional relative entropy minimization to derive CG parameters:

  • Compute Kullback-Leibler divergence between atomistic and CG distributions
  • Iteratively refine CG parameters via gradient descent [40]

• Regularization Procedure: Introduce empirical binding affinity constraints:

  • Define regularization term: (L{reg} = κ · (V0 - \bar{V}_{CG}^{bind}(θ))^2)
  • Where (V0) is target binding energy, (\bar{V}{CG}^{bind}) is CG ensemble average
  • κ controls regularization strength [40]

• Model Validation: Test refined CG models for structural accuracy and binding/unbinding kinetics compared to experimental data [40].

Figure 2: Comprehensive workflow for evaluating polarization methods and developing regularized coarse-grained models.

Performance Benchmarking: Quantitative Comparisons

Ionic Liquid Case Study

Ionic liquids provide excellent test systems for evaluating polarization treatment due to their high ion density and strong electrostatic interactions. The table below compares performance across different modeling approaches for [Câ‚„mim][BFâ‚„], a commonly studied ionic liquid [1].

Table 3: Force Field Performance for Ionic Liquid Properties [1]

Model Type	Specific Model	Density (kg/m³)	Cation Diffusion (10⁻¹¹ m²/s)	Anion Diffusion (10⁻¹¹ m²/s)	Conductivity (S/m)	Heat of Vaporization (kJ/mol)
CG Models	MARTINI-based	1181	120.0	145.0	—	—
	Top-down	1209	1.12	0.59	—	—
	ECRW	1173	1.55	1.74	—	—
	Drude-based	—	5.8	7.3	17.0	114.0
	VaCG	1168	1.20	0.53	0.45	123.5
Atomistic Models	OPLS	1178	7.3	6.6	—	125.5
	0.8*OPLS	1150	43.1	42.9	—	140.5
	SAPT-based	1180	1.1	0.8	0.29	126.0
	CL&P	1154	1.19	0.88	—	—
	AMOEBA-IL	1229	2.9	0.67	—	135.0
	APPLE&P	1193	1.01	1.05	0.28	140.8
Experimental	Reference	1170-1198	1.4-40.0	0.8-47.6	0.3-2.2	128.0

The data reveals significant variation in predictive accuracy across force fields. Polarizable models (Drude-based, AMOEBA-IL) generally improve dynamic property prediction but require careful parameterization to maintain structural accuracy. No single model excels across all properties, highlighting the context-dependent performance of different electrostatic treatments [1].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Solutions

Table 4: Key Research Resources for Polarization Modeling

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
CHARMM36m	Nonpolarizable force field	Baseline comparison for biomolecular simulations	Protein dynamics in homogeneous environments [59]
DRUDE2019	Polarizable force field	Explicit electronic polarization via oscillator model	Systems with high charge density, heterogeneous environments [59]
reg-REM	Machine learning method	Regularized coarse-grained parametrization	Biomolecular complexes with binding/unbinding events [40]
ML-assisted backmapping	Multiscale algorithm	Reconstruction of atomistic detail from CG simulations	Bridging electronic and mesoscopic scales [8]
NBTHOLE corrections	Parameter set	Improved ion-protein interaction modeling	Systems with specific ion effects [59]
Polarizable CG IL models	Specialized force field	Ionic liquid simulation with electronic response	Biocatalysis, protein stabilization in IL media [1]

The explicit incorporation of polarization effects represents a significant advancement in biomolecular simulation methodology. Polarizable force fields like DRUDE2019 demonstrate improved capability for modeling α-helix stability and specific ion-protein interactions compared to nonpolarizable alternatives [59]. However, these improvements come with increased computational cost and parameterization complexity, while still facing challenges in accurately capturing loop dynamics and dihedral sampling.

Machine learning-enhanced coarse-grained approaches offer a promising middle ground, enabling larger-scale simulations while preserving key electrostatic features through methods like regularized relative entropy minimization [40]. The emerging integration of ML potentials with quantum-mechanical accuracy and ML-assisted backmapping strategies creates new opportunities for multiscale simulations that seamlessly bridge electronic and mesoscopic scales [8].

For drug discovery professionals and research scientists, selection of appropriate electrostatic treatment depends on the specific research question. Polarizable atomistic models are preferred for detailed studies of binding mechanisms involving charge transfer or highly polarizable chemical groups. For high-throughput screening or large assembly dynamics, modern coarse-grained approaches with electronic corrections provide the best balance of efficiency and accuracy. As polarization modeling continues to mature, these methodologies will increasingly converge, enabling more reliable prediction of biomolecular behavior across multiple scales with direct relevance to therapeutic development.

Biological processes, from protein folding to ligand binding and cellular compartmentalization, occur across a vast and complex landscape of time and length scales. Biomolecular simulations have become indispensable for advancing our understanding of these complex dynamics, with critical applications ranging from drug discovery to the molecular characterization of virus-host interactions [8]. However, these simulations face inherent challenges due to the multiscale nature of biological processes, which involve intricate interactions across a wide range of temporal and spatial dimensions. All-atom (AA) molecular dynamics provides detailed insights at atomistic resolution, yet it remains fundamentally limited by computational constraints, capturing only short timescales and small conformational changes [8]. In contrast, coarse-grained (CG) models extend simulations to biologically relevant time and length scales by reducing molecular complexity, but this extension comes at the cost of sacrificing atomic-level accuracy [8]. This persistent trade-off between temporal scope and molecular fidelity represents the central challenge in modern computational biology—a challenge that enhanced sampling methods and machine learning approaches are now poised to address.

Methodological Frameworks: Bridging the Resolution Gap

Enhanced Sampling Through True Reaction Coordinates

A groundbreaking advancement in enhanced sampling addresses the fundamental bottleneck in accelerating protein conformational changes: identifying optimal collective variables that effectively capture the essence of biomolecular transitions. Traditional approaches have struggled with the paradox that identifying true reaction coordinates requires unbiased natural reactive trajectories, which themselves depend on effective enhanced sampling methods. A 2025 study published in Nature Communications has broken this circular dependency through the generalized work functional method, which recognizes that true reaction coordinates control both conformational changes and energy relaxation [61].

This innovative approach enables researchers to compute true reaction coordinates from energy relaxation simulations rather than requiring pre-existing reactive trajectories. When these coordinates are applied to systems such as the PDZ2 domain and HIV-1 protease, the method demonstrates staggering acceleration of conformational changes and ligand dissociation—ranging from 10^5 to 10^15-fold compared to conventional molecular dynamics [61]. Critically, the resulting trajectories follow natural transition pathways, enabling efficient generation of unbiased reactive trajectories. Unlike empirical collective variables which often produce non-physical features, this true reaction coordinate approach requires only a single protein structure as input, enabling predictive sampling of conformational changes across a broader range of protein functional processes [61].

Table 1: Key Enhanced Sampling Methodologies and Their Applications

Method	Fundamental Principle	Acceleration Factor	Representative Applications
True Reaction Coordinates via Energy Relaxation	Uses generalized work functional to derive coordinates from energy relaxation	10^5 to 10^15	PDZ2 domain conformational changes, HIV-1 protease ligand dissociation
Machine Learning Coarse-Grained Potentials	Neural networks trained on all-atom MD data preserve thermodynamics	>10^3	Multi-protein folding dynamics, mutant protein structural prediction
Residue-Resolution CG Models	Reduced complexity through bead-per-residue mapping	System-dependent	Biomolecular condensate formation, liquid-liquid phase separation

Machine Learning Potentials for Coarse-Grained Simulations

Machine learning has revolutionized coarse-grained modeling by addressing the persistent challenge of parameterizing reliable and transferable potentials. The fundamental approach involves constructing coarse-grained molecular potentials based on artificial neural networks grounded in statistical mechanics. In a landmark 2023 study, researchers built a unique dataset of unbiased all-atom molecular dynamics simulations totaling approximately 9 milliseconds for twelve different proteins with diverse secondary structure arrangements [19].

These machine learning coarse-grained models demonstrate the capability to accelerate dynamics by more than three orders of magnitude while preserving the essential thermodynamics of the systems. The models successfully identify relevant structural states in the ensemble with comparable energetics to all-atom systems [19]. Remarkably, the research shows that a single coarse-grained potential can integrate all twelve proteins and capture experimental structural features of mutated proteins not included in the training set, demonstrating unprecedented transferability across macromolecular systems [19].

The technical implementation relies on variational force matching, where neural network potentials are trained to minimize the loss between coarse-grained forces derived from all-atom simulations and the gradients of the coarse-grained potential. This approach ensures thermodynamic consistency, meaning the equilibrium distribution sampled by the CG model matches that of the all-atom reference system [19].

Residue-Resolution Coarse-Grained Models for Biomolecular Condensates

Biomolecular condensates formed through liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) represent a fundamental mechanism by which cells compartmentalize components and perform essential biological functions. Studying these systems requires simulations capable of capturing large-scale organizational behavior over extended timescales, making them ideal candidates for residue-resolution coarse-grained models. A comprehensive 2025 benchmarking study systematically compared six state-of-the-art sequence-dependent residue-resolution models for their performance in reproducing the phase behavior and material properties of condensates formed by variants of the low-complexity domain (LCD) of the hnRNPA1 protein (A1-LCD) [62] [63].

The study evaluated the HPS, HPS-cation-Ï€, HPS-Urry, CALVADOS2, Mpipi, and Mpipi-Recharged models against experimental data on condensate saturation concentration, critical solution temperature, and condensate viscosity [62]. The findings demonstrated that Mpipi, Mpipi-Recharged, and CALVADOS2 provide accurate descriptions of critical solution temperatures and saturation concentrations for multiple A1-LCD variants. For predicting material properties of condensates, Mpipi-Recharged emerged as the most reliable model, establishing a direct link between model performance and the ranking of intermolecular interactions considered [62].

Table 2: Performance Benchmarking of Residue-Resolution Coarse-Grained Models

Model	Critical Solution Temperature Accuracy	Saturation Concentration Accuracy	Viscosity Prediction Reliability	Key Molecular Interactions
HPS	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Hydrophobicity scales
HPS-cation-Ï€	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Hydrophobicity + cation-Ï€
HPS-Urry	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Hydrophobicity + Urry parameters
CALVADOS2	High	High	Moderate	Machine-learned interactions
Mpipi	High	High	Moderate	π-π and cation-π
Mpipi-Recharged	High	High	High	Balanced π-π and cation-π

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol for Enhanced Sampling with True Reaction Coordinates

The generalized work functional method for enhanced sampling follows a rigorous computational protocol. First, a single protein structure serves as the input configuration. Energy relaxation simulations are then performed from this structure to compute the true reaction coordinates, exploiting the discovery that these coordinates control both conformational changes and energy relaxation [61]. The generalized work functional method is applied to analyze these simulations and extract the committor-like coordinates that optimally describe the transition state. These coordinates are subsequently biased in enhanced sampling simulations using techniques such as metadynamics or umbrella sampling. The resulting biased trajectories are reweighted to obtain unbiased ensemble averages, following the principles of statistical mechanics. This protocol has been validated on multiple protein systems, including the PDZ2 domain and HIV-1 protease, demonstrating its ability to generate natural transition pathways with physical relevance [61].

Workflow for Machine Learning Coarse-Grained Potential Development

The development of machine learning coarse-grained potentials follows a systematic workflow with distinct phases. It begins with the creation of a comprehensive training dataset through extensive all-atom molecular dynamics simulations of diverse protein systems—in the referenced study, twelve proteins with varying secondary structures were simulated for a cumulative 9 milliseconds [19]. The next step involves defining the coarse-grained mapping, typically selecting specific atoms (such as Cα atoms) to represent each amino acid residue. Prior potentials are then implemented to enforce basic structural constraints, including bonded terms for chain connectivity, repulsive terms to prevent atomic clashes, and dihedral terms to preserve chirality [19]. The neural network potential architecture is designed, incorporating rotationally invariant descriptors to represent the local environment of each bead. The model is trained using variational force matching, minimizing the difference between coarse-grained forces derived from all-atom data and the gradients of the coarse-grained potential. Finally, the trained model is validated through extensive simulations and comparison with experimental data and all-atom reference simulations [19].

Figure 1: Workflow for developing machine learning coarse-grained potentials, showing the sequential steps from initial structure to production simulations.

Benchmarking Protocol for Biomolecular Condensate Models

The benchmarking of residue-resolution coarse-grained models for biomolecular condensates follows a rigorous comparative methodology. Researchers first select a set of biologically relevant test systems—typically variants of the hnRNPA1 low-complexity domain (A1-LCD) known to undergo liquid-liquid phase separation [62]. Multiple state-of-the-art models are implemented using consistent simulation parameters and system conditions to ensure fair comparison. The simulations predict key thermodynamic properties including saturation concentrations and critical solution temperatures, with results quantitatively compared against experimental measurements [62] [63]. The models are further evaluated for their ability to reproduce material properties, particularly condensate viscosity, which represents a challenging benchmark due to its sensitivity to interaction details. Finally, the performance of each model is correlated with the specific intermolecular interactions it emphasizes, establishing a link between interaction design and thermodynamic accuracy [62].

Comparative Performance Analysis

Timescale Acceleration and Thermodynamic Accuracy

The fundamental metric for evaluating enhanced sampling methods is their ability to accelerate slow biological processes while preserving accurate thermodynamics. Machine learning coarse-grained potentials have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in this regard, achieving acceleration exceeding three orders of magnitude while maintaining thermodynamic properties consistent with all-atom references [19]. This preservation of thermodynamics enables the identification of relevant structural states with energetics comparable to detailed systems. The true reaction coordinate approach demonstrates even more dramatic acceleration—from 10^5 to 10^15-fold for specific protein conformational changes and ligand dissociation processes [61]. Critically, this acceleration does not come at the cost of physical realism, as the resulting trajectories follow natural transition pathways rather than displaying non-physical features common with empirical collective variables.

Transferability and Predictive Power Across Systems

A crucial test for any coarse-grained model is its transferability—the ability to accurately simulate systems beyond those explicitly included in its parameterization. Machine learning potentials have shown exceptional performance in this dimension, with demonstrations that a single coarse-grained potential can integrate twelve different proteins with varied secondary structures and lengths [19]. Furthermore, these models exhibit predictive capability for mutated proteins not present in the training set, suggesting they capture fundamental physical principles rather than merely memorizing specific structures. For biomolecular condensates, transferability is evidenced by accurate predictions for multiple A1-LCD variants, with the best-performing models (Mpipi, Mpipi-Recharged, and CALVADOS2) capturing the effects of sequence modifications on phase behavior [62]. This transferability is mediated through accurate representation of key intermolecular interactions, particularly cation-π interactions involving arginine-tyrosine and arginine-phenylalanine contacts, as well as π-π interactions mediated by tyrosine and phenylalanine [62].

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Enhanced Sampling and Coarse-Grained Simulations

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Representative Applications
True Reaction Coordinate Method	Algorithm	Derives optimal collective variables from energy relaxation	Accelerating conformational changes, ligand dissociation studies
Machine Learning Coarse-Grained Potentials	Software/Model	Accelerates dynamics while preserving thermodynamics	Multi-protein dynamics, folding studies, mutant prediction
Mpipi-Recharged Model	Coarse-Grained Force Field	Predicts condensate phase behavior and material properties	Biomolecular condensate viscosity, liquid-liquid phase separation
CALVADOS2	Coarse-Grained Force Field	Sequence-dependent modeling of phase separation	Critical solution temperature prediction, saturation concentration
Variational Force Matching	Training Methodology	Enables thermodynamic consistency in CG models	Developing transferable potentials across protein families
Generalized Work Functional	Mathematical Framework	Identifies true reaction coordinates without prior trajectory data	Studying rare events, protein functional processes

The integration of enhanced sampling methods, machine learning potentials, and coarse-grained modeling represents a transformative development in biomolecular simulation. By combining the strengths of these approaches, researchers can overcome the traditional limitations of all-atom molecular dynamics while preserving physical accuracy. True reaction coordinates derived from energy relaxation provide unprecedented acceleration for conformational changes; machine learning potentials enable transferable coarse-grained modeling with preserved thermodynamics; and residue-resolution models offer insights into mesoscale phenomena like biomolecular condensates [8] [61] [62]. As these methodologies continue to mature and integrate, they promise to unlock previously inaccessible biological timescales and processes, ultimately advancing fundamental understanding of biological systems and accelerating therapeutic development across a spectrum of human diseases.

Figure 2: Methodological integration in modern biomolecular simulations, showing how different approaches connect to address specific biological applications.

Benchmarking Performance: Validation, Comparison, and Best Practices

In the field of molecular simulation, a long-standing challenge has been the development of a universal coarse-grained (CG) model that is both computationally efficient and retains the predictive accuracy of detailed all-atom (AA) simulations [64]. CG models simplify the complex reality of atomic interactions by grouping atoms into single beads or interaction sites, dramatically extending the spatial and temporal scales accessible to simulation [1]. However, this simplification comes with a critical caveat: the accuracy of the resulting model depends entirely on the effectiveness of its parameterization and the quality of its validation. Without rigorous benchmarking against AA data and experimental observables, the predictive power of a CG model remains uncertain. This guide objectively compares the performance of modern CG approaches, focusing on the key metrics and experimental protocols used to validate them against high-resolution references. The emergence of machine learning (ML) has revolutionized this field, enabling the creation of bottom-up CG force fields that can learn the many-body terms essential for accurately representing molecular thermodynamics [65] [64].

Quantitative Performance Comparison of CG Methodologies

The performance of coarse-grained models can be quantitatively assessed across several dimensions, including their ability to reproduce AA free energy landscapes, computational efficiency, and accuracy in predicting experimental observables.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of CG Models on Protein Folding

Model / Protein	Cα RMSD of Folded State (Å)	Fraction of Native Contacts (Q)	Folded State Rank	Reference
CGSchNet (Chignolin)	Low (~1-2)	~1.0	Global Minimum	[64]
CGSchNet (TRPcage)	Low (~1-2)	~1.0	Global Minimum	[64]
CGSchNet (BBA)	Low (~1-2)	~1.0	Local Minimum	[64]
Classical Few-Body CG (Chignolin)	N/A	N/A	Fails to Reproduce Folding	[65]

Table 2: Computational Efficiency and Transferability

Model Type	Speed-Up vs. AA MD	Sequence Transferability	Key Limitation	Reference
CGSchNet (ML)	Orders of magnitude	Yes (tested on sequences with 16-40% similarity)	Accuracy on complex motifs (e.g., BBA)	[64]
Martini	High (10-20 fs time step)	Limited for intramolecular protein dynamics	Inaccurate intramolecular protein dynamics	[1] [64]
AWSEM / UNRES	High	System-specific applications	Often fails to capture alternative metastable states	[64]

The data reveals that machine-learned CG models like CGSchNet can successfully predict metastable folded, unfolded, and intermediate states for small proteins, closely matching the free energy landscapes obtained from atomistic simulations [64]. A critical differentiator is their ability to capture multibody interactions; while classical few-body CG models fail to reproduce the folding/unfolding dynamics of a protein like Chignolin, inherently multibody ML-based models like CGnets capture all free energy minima [65]. Furthermore, these ML CG models demonstrate chemical transferability, successfully performing extrapolative molecular dynamics on new protein sequences not used during model parameterization [64].

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

The development and validation of modern CG models rely on a suite of software tools, datasets, and computational resources.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Tools for CG Model Validation

Item / Resource	Function / Description	Relevance to Validation
AA MD Simulation Dataset	A diverse set of all-atom, explicit-solvent simulations of proteins and peptides.	Serves as the fundamental training and reference data for bottom-up CG force fields [64].
Variational Force-Matching	A bottom-up CG parameterization method that aims to minimize the error between CG and AA forces.	A core physical principle for training ML CG models like CGnets [65].
Parallel Tempering (PT)	An enhanced sampling simulation method that improves the exploration of conformational space.	Used to obtain converged equilibrium distributions for calculating free energy surfaces of both AA and CG models [64].
Cross-Validation	A statistical technique used to evaluate model performance on data not used for training.	Critical for assessing the generalizability and preventing overfitting in ML-based CG models [65].
Collective Variables (CVs)	Low-dimensional descriptors (e.g., RMSD, native contacts) that characterize the state of a system.	Used to construct and compare free energy landscapes between AA and CG models [65] [64].

Experimental Protocols for CG Model Validation

Bottom-Up Training via Force-Matching

The force-matching method is a cornerstone of bottom-up CG model development. The objective is to find a CG potential energy function, ( U(x; \theta) ), whose forces, ( -\nabla U ), closely match the instantaneous forces from the AA system when projected onto the CG coordinates [65]. This is achieved by minimizing the force-matching error function: [ \chi^2(\theta) = \langle \| -\nabla U(\xi(\mathbf{r}); \theta) - \xi(\mathbf{F}(\mathbf{r})) \|^2 \rangle_{\mathbf{r}} ] where ( \xi ) is the mapping from all-atom coordinates ( \mathbf{r} ) to CG coordinates ( x ), and ( \xi(\mathbf{F}(\mathbf{r})) ) is the projected all-atom force. In machine-learned approaches like CGnets, a neural network is trained to represent ( U(x; \theta) ), and its parameters ( \theta ) are optimized by minimizing ( \chi^2 ) over a large dataset of AA simulations [65]. This procedure ensures thermodynamic consistency, meaning the CG model will ideally have the same equilibrium distribution as the mapped AA model.

Free Energy Surface Calculation

The most stringent test for a CG model is its ability to reproduce the free energy surface (FES) of the AA system. The protocol involves:

• Running extensive CG simulations, often using enhanced sampling methods like Parallel Tempering (PT), to ensure adequate sampling of all relevant metastable states, including folded, unfolded, and intermediate structures [64].
• Projecting the simulation trajectories onto meaningful collective variables (CVs), such as the root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) to the native structure and the fraction of native contacts (Q) [64].
• Calculating the free energy as a function of the CVs, typically using the relationship ( F(s) = -k_B T \ln P(s) ), where ( P(s) ) is the probability distribution along CV ( s ).
• Directly comparing the CG FES with a reference FES obtained from long, converged all-atom MD simulations. Quantitative comparison includes the positions and depths of free energy minima and the heights of transition barriers [64].

Transferability and Extrapolation Testing

To evaluate whether a CG model has learned general physical principles rather than merely memorizing training data, it must be tested on systems not included in the training set. The standard protocol is:

• Train the model on a diverse set of proteins and peptides.
• Validate the model on a separate set of unseen proteins with low sequence similarity (e.g., <40% similarity to any training sequence) [64].
• Assess performance by checking the model's ability to fold the new proteins to their correct native states and reproduce their conformational landscapes. Success in this extrapolation is a key indicator of a model's transferability and true predictive power [64].

Visualizing Workflows and Model Architectures

The following diagrams illustrate the core methodologies and logical relationships in the development and validation of machine-learned coarse-grained models.

Diagram 1: ML CG model training and validation workflow. The model learns a CG potential by matching forces from AA data, and is validated by comparing Free Energy Surfaces.

Diagram 2: The machine learning framework for coarse-graining, showing error decomposition and model selection via cross-validation.

Molecular dynamics (MD) simulation is a foundational tool for studying protein structure, dynamics, and function. For decades, the field has been divided between two complementary approaches: all-atom molecular dynamics (AAMD), which provides high resolution but at extreme computational cost, and coarse-grained molecular dynamics (CGMD), which sacrifices atomic detail to access longer timescales and larger systems [64]. AAMD simulations explicitly represent every atom, enabling detailed study of atomic interactions but typically limiting simulations to nanosecond-millisecond timescales even with specialized hardware [19]. In contrast, CGMD simulations reduce the number of particles by representing groups of atoms as single "beads," potentially accelerating dynamics by three orders of magnitude while preserving system thermodynamics [19].

The central challenge in CGMD development has been creating models that accurately reproduce protein thermodynamics across diverse sequences and structural classes. Traditional CG methods often relied on system-specific parameterization or failed to capture the many-body interactions essential for realistic protein thermodynamics [64]. However, recent advances in machine learning and bottom-up parameterization have enabled development of CG potentials that more faithfully represent the potential of mean force (PMF) of atomistic systems [66]. This case study examines the current state of coarse-grained models for reproducing protein thermodynamics, comparing their performance against atomistic benchmarks and experimental data, with particular focus on accuracy, computational efficiency, and transferability across protein systems.

Methodological Approaches: From Traditional to Machine Learning Potentials

Fundamental Principles of Coarse-Grained Model Development

Coarse-graining techniques work by grouping atoms into larger particles, allowing focus to shift from detailed atomic interactions to broader, system-level behaviors [66]. The key objective is to ensure that the equilibrium distribution of a system under a CG model matches that of the reference atomistic model, creating what are termed "consistent CG models" [66]. In bottom-up coarse-graining, this typically involves representing the potential of mean force (PMF), which is crucial for capturing system behavior [66].

The mathematical foundation for many modern CG approaches is the variational force-matching method, where neural network potentials (NNPs) are trained to compute the CG energy [19]. The model seeks a potential function U(xc;θ) that minimizes the loss function:

$$L({{{{{{{\bf{R}}}}}}}};{{{{{{{\boldsymbol{\theta }}}}}}}})=\frac{1}{3nM}\mathop{\sum }\limits{c=1}^{M}\parallel {{{{{{{\boldsymbol{\Xi }}}}}}}}{{{{{{{\bf{F}}}}}}}}({{{{{{{{\bf{r}}}}}}}}}{c})+\nabla U({{{{{{{\boldsymbol{\Xi }}}}}}}}{{{{{{{{\bf{r}}}}}}}}}_{c};{{{{{{{\boldsymbol{\theta }}}}}}}}){\parallel }^{2}$$

where Ξ is the mapping from atomistic to CG coordinates, F(rc) are the atomistic forces, and θ are the model parameters [19].

Machine Learning Revolution in Coarse-Grained Modeling

Recent machine learning approaches have transformed CGMD by enabling development of potentials that capture many-body interactions essential for accurate thermodynamics. Several architectures have emerged:

• Atomic Cluster Expansion (ACE): Provides systematic and flexible parameterization for many-body CG models, enabling high computational efficiency [66]
• Neural Network Potentials (NNPs): Learn effective physical interactions between CG degrees of freedom using deep learning methods trained on diverse atomistic simulation datasets [64]
• Bayesian Optimization Approaches: Refine existing CG topologies (e.g., Martini3) for specialized applications, optimizing bonded parameters against target properties [2]

These machine learning approaches share a common advantage: the ability to learn multi-body terms that are essential for correct protein thermodynamics and implicit solvation effects, which were difficult to represent accurately in traditional CG force fields [64].

Experimental Protocols for CG Model Validation

Rigorous validation protocols have been established to assess CG model performance:

• Free Energy Landscape Reproduction: Comparing folding/unfolding landscapes between CG and atomistic simulations using metrics like fraction of native contacts (Q) and Cα root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) [64]
• Thermodynamic Consistency Checks: Evaluating whether CG models preserve the thermodynamics of all-atom systems, including relative probabilities of metastable states [19]
• Transferability Testing: Assessing performance on proteins not included in training, with low sequence similarity to training sequences [64]
• Experimental Validation: Comparing simulation results with experimental measurements such as NMR data, chemical shifts, and J-coupling constants [67]

The BICePs (Bayesian Inference of Conformational Populations) algorithm provides a particularly sophisticated validation approach, using Bayesian inference to reweight conformational ensembles based on experimental measurements and provide a quantitative score for model selection [67].

Performance Comparison: Quantitative Assessment of CG Models

Accuracy in Reproducing Protein Thermodynamics

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Coarse-Grained Models for Protein Thermodynamics

Model/Method	Training Data	Accuracy in Folded State Recovery	Disordered State Handling	Transferability Test Results
CGSchNet [64]	All-atom simulations of diverse proteins	Predicts metastable folding/unfolding transitions; folded states with Q~1 and low Cα RMSD [64]	Accurately reproduces conformational landscape of disordered peptides [64]	Successful on proteins with 16-40% sequence similarity to training set [64]
Machine-learned CG potential [19]	9 ms all-atom MD of 12 proteins	Identifies relevant structural states with comparable energetics to all-atom systems [19]	Capable of simulating disordered states and transitions [19]	Single potential integrated all 12 proteins; captured experimental features of mutated proteins [19]
ACE-CG [66]	Reference MD trajectories	Accurately represents equilibrium properties (RDFs, ADFs) [66]	Improved qualitative/quantitative accuracy with many-body terms [66]	Tested on star polymers and methanol fluids [66]
Martini3 [2]	Experimental thermodynamic data	Generalizes well across molecular classes but struggles with specific accuracy [2]	Limited intramolecular protein dynamics [64]	Requires re-parametrization for specific systems (polymers, proteins) [2]

Table 2: Computational Efficiency Comparison

Model Type	Speed Advantage Over AAMD	Sampling Capability	Limitations
CGSchNet [64]	Orders of magnitude faster [64]	Predicts metastable states of folded, unfolded and intermediate structures [64]	Difficulty with complex motifs (e.g., BBA with both helical and β-sheet) [64]
Machine-learned CG potential [19]	>3 orders of magnitude acceleration [19]	Preserves thermodynamics while accelerating dynamics [19]	Requires extensive training data (9ms all-atom MD) [19]
ACE-CG [66]	Enables much larger systems over extended timescales [66]	Accurate equilibrium properties with many-body terms [66]	Limited to equilibrium properties; dynamics require additional terms [66]
Bayesian-optimized Martini3 [2]	Bridges efficiency and accuracy [2]	Transferable across degrees of polymerization [2]	Requires optimization for specific applications [2]

Key Performance Metrics and Experimental Validation

Recent studies have demonstrated significant advances in CG model performance across multiple metrics:

• Free Energy Calculations: Machine-learned CG potentials can successfully predict relative folding free energies of protein mutants, achieving accuracy comparable to all-atom MD where converged simulations are available [64]
• Structural Reproduction: For fast-folding proteins like chignolin, TRP-cage, BBA, and villin headpiece, CG models predict metastable folding and unfolding transitions, with folded states achieving fraction of native contacts (Q) close to 1 and low Cα RMSD values [64]
• Disordered Protein Dynamics: CG models accurately reproduce the conformational landscapes of disordered peptides and intrinsically disordered proteins, capturing fluctuations that are challenging for traditional CG approaches [64]
• Mutation Effects: Transferable CG models can predict the thermodynamic stability consequences of point mutations, enabling protein engineering applications without extensive reparameterization [19]

The BICePs scoring method has been used to quantitatively compare force field performance, reweighting conformational ensembles of the mini-protein chignolin simulated in nine different force fields against 158 experimental NMR measurements, providing a robust metric for model selection [67].

Research Reagent Solutions: Essential Tools for CG Model Development

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for CG Model Development

Tool/Resource	Type	Function	Application Context
QresFEP-2 [45]	Hybrid-topology free energy protocol	Calculates relative free energy changes from point mutations	Protein engineering, drug design, mutation impact studies
BICePs [67]	Bayesian inference algorithm	Reweights conformational ensembles using experimental data	Force field validation and model selection
Atomic Cluster Expansion (ACE) [66]	ML parameterization method	Constructs efficient, interpretable many-body CG models	Accurate PMF representation for equilibrium properties
CGSchNet [64]	Neural network force field	Transferable bottom-up CG force field for proteins	Extrapolative MD on new sequences not in training
Versatile Object-oriented Toolkit for Coarse-graining Applications [2]	Software toolkit	Integrates Boltzmann Inversion, force matching, Inverse Monte Carlo	Bottom-up CG model development
MagiC [2]	Parameterization software	Implements Metropolis Monte Carlo for robust optimization	CG force field parameterization
Swarm-CG [2]	Optimization tool	Particle Swarm Optimization for CG model parameterization	Automated parameterization of CG models
Bayesian Optimization [2]	Optimization algorithm	Refines bonded parameters in CG topologies against target properties	Specialized optimization of Martini3 for specific applications

Workflow and Signaling Pathways

The workflow for developing and validating coarse-grained models for protein thermodynamics follows a systematic process beginning with reference data collection from all-atom MD simulations and experimental measurements [19] [67]. This data informs the CG mapping definition and force-matching optimization, where machine learning potentials are trained using variational force-matching approaches [19]. The resulting CG models enable accelerated MD simulations, whose outputs undergo rigorous validation against both atomistic references and experimental data [64]. The BICePs algorithm provides Bayesian inference for model selection, identifying discrepancies that guide model refinement through iterative improvement cycles [67]. Successful models find application in predicting protein folding, characterizing disordered states, and estimating mutation effects on stability [19] [45] [64].

The CG MD simulation process illustrates how coarse-grained models achieve their computational efficiency while maintaining thermodynamic accuracy. The process begins with an input structure or sequence, which is mapped to CG representation [66]. The CG potential, typically implemented as a neural network or parameterized function, evaluates the energy based on bead positions [19] [64]. Forces are calculated as gradients of this potential, followed by integration of equations of motion (typically Langevin dynamics for thermostatting) [19]. The resulting trajectory undergoes thermodynamic analysis to extract equilibrium properties, validating whether the CG model successfully reproduces the thermodynamics of the reference all-atom system [19] [64]. The inclusion of many-body terms in modern ML-based potentials is crucial for accurately capturing the potential of mean force and thus maintaining thermodynamic consistency [66].

The development of coarse-grained models capable of accurately reproducing protein thermodynamics represents significant progress in computational biophysics. Machine learning approaches have enabled creation of transferable CG potentials that maintain thermodynamic consistency with all-atom systems while providing orders-of-magnitude acceleration in sampling [19] [64]. These models now successfully predict folding landscapes, metastable states, and mutation effects across diverse protein systems.

Nevertheless, challenges remain in achieving universal transferability, particularly for complex structural motifs containing both α-helical and β-sheet elements [64]. Future developments will likely focus on incorporating dynamic properties through memory terms [66], improving treatment of non-equilibrium properties, and developing automated parameterization pipelines that efficiently leverage both simulation and experimental data [67] [2]. As these methods mature, coarse-grained models are poised to become increasingly central tools for simulating large biomolecular assemblies and long-timescale processes that remain beyond the reach of all-atom molecular dynamics.

In computational sciences, particularly in molecular simulation and motor control, a fundamental trade-off exists between the speed of execution and the accuracy of outcomes. This comparative guide objectively analyzes this trade-off across two distinct domains: molecular dynamics (MD) simulations and human whole-body movement. In MD, researchers balance the detail of atomistic models against the computational efficiency of coarse-grained (CG) approaches to study biological systems [12]. Similarly, in motor control, the nervous system negotiates between the speed of movement and the precision of landing positions during vertical jumps [68]. This analysis synthesizes experimental data and methodologies to provide researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with a structured comparison of how these trade-offs manifest and are quantified in different systems. We examine the underlying principles, quantify the performance compromises, and detail the experimental protocols used to measure them, providing a framework for strategic decision-making in research and development.

Principles of Speed-Accuracy Trade-offs

In Molecular Dynamics Simulations

Molecular dynamics simulations serve as a biophysical microscope, enabling the study of complex molecular machinery [12]. The core trade-off here originates from the computational representation of physical systems:

• All-Atom (AA) Models: These models represent every atom in a system, providing high-resolution detail but requiring immense computational resources. Classical AA MD simulations capture conformational dynamics and local motions but are limited to shorter time scales (nanoseconds to microseconds) due to the computational cost of simulating every atomic interaction [12].
• Coarse-Grained (CG) Models: CG models simplify the system by grouping multiple atoms into single interaction sites (pseudoatoms), significantly reducing computational complexity. This reduction in degrees of freedom enables the simulation of large-scale biological systems for time scales up to milliseconds, capturing processes like protein folding and self-assembly that are inaccessible to AA simulations [12].

The development of CG models requires: (a) defining pseudoatom sites representing groups of atoms; (b) deriving an energy function (UCG) defining interactions between pseudoatoms that reproduce thermodynamic properties; and (c) defining dynamical equations for time-based evolution of the CG system [12].

In Human Motor Control

The speed-accuracy trade-off in human movement, formally described by Fitts' law, states that movement time increases with the difficulty of a task, where higher difficulty implies greater accuracy demands [68]. This relationship connects motor control to information theory, demonstrating that as accuracy requirements increase, movement speed decreases correspondingly. In whole-body movements like vertical jumping, this trade-off manifests as systematic adjustments in movement kinematics to meet landing precision constraints [68].

Quantitative Comparison of Performance Trade-offs

Computational Efficiency in Molecular Dynamics

Table 1: Computational Performance of Molecular Dynamics Models

Model Type	Temporal Scale	Spatial Scale	Computational Efficiency	Key Applications
All-Atom (AA)	Nanoseconds to microseconds	Up to 107 atoms	Reference baseline	Conformational changes, ligand binding, protein-protein interactions [12]
Coarse-Grained (CG)	Up to milliseconds	Large complexes (ribosomes, membranes)	10-1000x acceleration relative to AA	Protein folding, self-assembly, membrane systems [12]
Bead-Spring KG Model	CG time units	CG length units	Specific scaling factors required	Polymer dynamics [20]
DPD with Slip-Spring	Mesoscopic (μm/ms)	Mesoscopic (μm/ms)	High for fluid systems	Self-assembly, micelle formation [20]

Table 2: Accuracy Comparison for Ionic Liquid Properties Using Different Models (Polyethylene Melt Data from CG Model Studies)

Property	All-Atom Models	Coarse-Grained Models	Experimental Reference
Density (ρ, kg m⁻³)	1178-1229 [1]	1168-1209 [1]	1170-1198 [1]
Diffusion Coefficient (D, 10⁻¹¹ m² s⁻¹)	1.01-43.1 (cation) [1]	1.12-120 (cation) [1]	1.44-40.0 (cation) [1]
Conductivity (σ, S m⁻¹)	0.28-0.29 [1]	0.45-17 [1]	0.295-2.17 [1]
Heat of Vaporization (ΔHvap, kJ mol⁻¹)	125.52-140.8 [1]	114-123.51 [1]	128.03 [1]

Motor Performance in Vertical Jumping

Table 3: Movement Parameters Under Varying Accuracy Constraints in Vertical Jumping

Landing Condition	Jump Height	Take-off Velocity	Landing Variability	Movement Strategy
No constraints (Nc)	Maximum	Maximum	High	Pure height maximization [68]
100% plate area (Ac100)	Slightly reduced	Moderately reduced	Moderate	Initial accuracy adjustment [68]
65% plate area (Ac65)	Reduced	Significantly reduced	Low	Systematic kinematic adjustment [68]
36% plate area (Ac36)	Minimized	Minimized	Minimal	Precision-optimized movement [68]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Molecular Dynamics Simulation Protocols

All-Atom Simulation Methodology

All-atom MD simulations utilize force fields such as OPLS, AMOEBA, CL&P, GAFF, and APPLE&P with functional forms that include bond stretching, angle bending, torsional potentials, and non-bonded interactions (electrostatics and van der Waals) [1]. Simulations are typically performed in the NVT or NPT ensemble using integration algorithms like velocity Verlet with time steps of 1-2 femtoseconds. Temperature control is maintained through thermostats such as Nosé-Hoover or Langevin, with long-range electrostatics handled by particle mesh Ewald (PME) methods [12].

Coarse-Grained Model Development

The general protocol for CG model development involves several systematic steps [1]:

• CG Mapping: Determine the resolution by grouping atoms into pseudo-atoms or beads based on chemical functionality or systematic methods like relative entropy theory or autoencoder techniques.
• Force Field Parameterization: Derive effective interactions using:
  • Bottom-up approaches: Utilize statistical mechanics to preserve microscopic properties of atomistic models (e.g., IBI, MS-CG, relative entropy).
  • Top-down approaches: Fit parameters directly to macroscopic experimental properties.
  • Hybrid approaches: Combine bottom-up methods for bonded terms with empirical adjustment of non-bonded parameters.
• Polarization Handling: Address electrostatic polarization effects through methods like Drude oscillators, fluctuating charge models, or variable electrostatic parameters [1].
• Validation: Compare rescaled CG results against AA simulations and experimental data for structural, dynamic, and thermodynamic properties.

For polymer systems specifically, CG models like the bead-spring Kremer-Grest (KG) model use Langevin dynamics with a repulsive LJ potential and FENE bonds, while Dissipative Particle Dynamics (DPD) employs soft conservative forces combined with pairwise dissipative and random forces [20].

Vertical Jump Experiment Protocol

Participant Selection and Preparation

The experimental protocol for assessing speed-accuracy trade-offs in jumping involved 12 male athletes (21.7 ± 3.5 years) who performed vertical jumps under varying accuracy constraints [68]. Participants completed a 10-minute warm-up before testing. The study utilized a repeated-measures design with conditions presented in randomized order to minimize learning effects.

Experimental Conditions and Data Collection

Participants performed maximum effort vertical jumps under four landing accuracy conditions:

• Normal condition (Nc): No landing constraints.
• Ac100: Must land within 100% of force plate area (60 × 40 cm²).
• Ac65: Must land within 65% of force plate area (48 × 32 cm²).
• Ac36: Must land within 36% of force plate area (36 × 24 cm²).

A single force plate recorded force data in three axial directions at 1000 Hz, with center of pressure measured in two directions. No smoothing filters were applied to force signals to preserve natural movement variability. Participants were allowed to visually inspect landing areas before jumps but could not look at their feet during jumps [68].

Data Analysis Methods

Acceleration, velocity, and position vectors of the center of gravity were calculated from raw force data. Entropy analysis quantified landing position variability, with decreased entropy indicating increased movement precision. Statistical analyses included repeated-measures ANOVA to test condition effects, with post-hoc power analysis confirming sufficient statistical power (>0.80) to detect medium-to-large effects [68].

Visualization of Systems and Workflows

Multiscale Simulation Workflow

CG Mapping Process

Jump Experiment Design

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Materials

Molecular Dynamics Simulation Tools

Table 4: Essential Resources for Molecular Dynamics Studies

Tool Category	Specific Examples	Function and Application
All-Atom Force Fields	OPLS, AMOEBA, CL&P, GAFF, APPLE&P	Define atomic interactions for specific molecular types [1]
Coarse-Grained Models	MARTINI, Bead-Spring KG, DPD with slip-spring	Enable large-scale and long-time simulations [12] [20]
Parameterization Methods	IBI, MS-CG, Relative Entropy, ECRW	Derive effective CG interactions from atomistic data [1]
Polarizable Models	Drude Oscillator, Fluctuating Charge, VaCG	Account for electronic polarization effects [1]
MD Software Packages	GROMACS, NAMD, LAMMPS, ESPResSo	Perform production simulations with optimized algorithms [12]
Validation Metrics	RDF, diffusion coefficients, densities	Quantify model accuracy against reference data [20] [1]

Motor Control Research Equipment

Table 5: Essential Resources for Movement Studies

Equipment Category	Specific Examples	Function and Application
Motion Capture	Force plates (Bertec), camera systems	Measure ground reaction forces and kinematic data [68]
Data Acquisition	Analog-to-digital converters, amplifiers	Condition and record analog signals from sensors [68]
Analysis Software	Mathematica, custom MATLAB scripts	Process raw data and calculate derived metrics [68]
Experimental Controls	Target zones, standardized instructions	Manipulate accuracy constraints across conditions [68]
Statistical Tools	Repeated-measures ANOVA, entropy analysis	Quantify condition effects and movement variability [68]

This comparative analysis demonstrates that speed-accuracy trade-offs represent a fundamental principle governing diverse systems, from computational simulations to human movement. In molecular dynamics, coarse-grained models achieve orders-of-magnitude speed increases (from microseconds to milliseconds) while maintaining reasonable accuracy for structural and thermodynamic properties, though dynamic properties may show greater deviation [12] [20] [1]. In motor control, increasing accuracy demands during vertical jumps systematically reduces jump height and modifies take-off kinematics, reflecting strategic motor adaptations [68]. The optimal balance depends critically on research objectives: AA models remain essential for atomic-resolution insights, while CG approaches enable the study of large-scale biomolecular complexes and longer-time processes. Similarly, in movement studies, task constraints dictate whether speed or accuracy is prioritized. Understanding these trade-offs and the methodologies for quantifying them enables researchers to select appropriate models and interpret results within the inherent limitations of each approach. Future advances in multiscale modeling, polarizable force fields, and machine-learning potentials promise to further bridge these trade-offs, enhancing both the speed and accuracy of scientific investigations across disciplines.

Understanding biological processes at the molecular level requires observing phenomena across broad temporal and spatial scales. All-atom (AA) molecular dynamics simulations provide unparalleled detail by representing every atom in a system but face severe computational constraints, typically limiting observations to microsecond timescales and small conformational changes [8]. Coarse-grained (CG) models extend accessibility to biologically relevant scales by simplifying molecular complexity, but this comes at the cost of sacrificing atomic-level accuracy [8]. Multiscale simulation methodologies have emerged as a powerful solution to this fundamental trade-off, strategically combining the strengths of both resolutions to overcome their individual limitations.

The core challenge in multiscale modeling lies in creating seamless bridges between resolution scales that allow information to flow accurately in both directions. "Bottom-up" approaches derive CG parameters from AA data, while "top-down" methods refine CG representations with atomic detail. Recent advances in machine learning (ML) and specialized workflows have significantly improved these bridging techniques, enabling researchers to study complex biological phenomena such as protein folding, ligand binding, and large-scale conformational changes with unprecedented efficiency and accuracy [69] [8] [19]. This guide systematically compares the performance, methodologies, and applications of leading multiscale approaches, providing researchers with the experimental data and protocols needed to select appropriate strategies for their specific biomolecular systems.

Comparative Analysis of Multiscale Simulation Approaches

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Featured Multiscale Methods

Method Name	Resolution Bridging	Core Innovation	Reported Acceleration	Primary Application Domain
UCG-mini-MuMMI	AA → CG → UCG	Machine-learned backmapping via diffusion models	Not quantified	RAS-RAF protein interactions, large conformational changes
CGnets	AA → CG (neural network potential)	Deep learning of CG free energy functions	>3 orders of magnitude	Protein folding (e.g., Chignolin), thermodynamics preservation
Dual Resolution Martini-CHARMM	AA CG (virtual sites)	Concurrent coupling in single simulation	Not quantified	Membrane systems, lipid bilayers
BD-MD Hybrid	BD → MD	Optimized encounter complex sampling	Highly efficient kon estimation	Protein-ligand association rates, drug binding kinetics

Table 2: Performance Metrics and Validation Evidence

Method	Validation Approach	Key Performance Outcome	Computational Demand	Accessibility
UCG-mini-MuMMI	Comparison with AA and CG references	Accurate sampling of protein conformations	Reduced vs. original MuMMI	Python package available
CGnets	Comparison with AA free energy surfaces	Captures multibody terms, preserves thermodynamics	High training cost, efficient deployment	Specialized expertise required
Dual Resolution Martini-CHARMM	PMF comparison for apolar pairs	Correctly reproduces PMFs in apolar regions	Moderate	Tutorials available
BD-MD Hybrid	Experimental kon values	Agreement with experimental binding kinetics	Lower than full MD	Workflow described

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

UCG-mini-MuMMI for Protein Conformational Sampling

The UCG-mini-MuMMI workflow implements a sequential multiscale approach to explore protein conformational space efficiently. The methodology begins with ultra-coarse-grained (UCG) simulations based on heterogeneous Elastic Network Modeling (hENM) to rapidly identify key conformational states [69]. These UCG models are automatically refined using data from higher-resolution Martini CG simulations, which inform the bond coefficients for the UCG representation. The most innovative component involves machine learning-based backmapping, specifically employing diffusion models to reconstruct detailed CG Martini structures from UCG representations [69]. This approach preserves essential protein features while dramatically reducing computational resource requirements compared to all-atom simulations or the original MuMMI framework. The workflow has been specifically validated on RAS-RAF protein interactions, crucial signaling pathways in cancer biology [69].

CGnets for Free Energy Preservation

CGnets implement a fundamentally different approach, using deep learning to create thermodynamically consistent CG models. The training process begins with extensive AA simulation data, from which coordinate-force pairs are extracted [65] [19]. A linear mapping function (Ξ) transforms all-atom coordinates (r) to CG representations (x), typically selecting key structural elements like Cα atoms [65]. The core innovation is the neural network potential that learns the CG free energy function U(x;θ) by minimizing the force-matching loss function [19]:

[L(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = \frac{1}{3nM}\sum{c=1}^{M}\parallel \boldsymbol{\Xi}\mathbf{F}(\mathbf{r}c) + \nabla U(\boldsymbol{\Xi}\mathbf{r}_c;\boldsymbol{\theta})\parallel^2]

where F(rc) are all-atom forces, and the sum runs over M configurations [19]. Regularized CGnets incorporate prior physical knowledge to prevent unphysical states, combining learned multibody terms with established physics-based potentials [65]. This approach has demonstrated remarkable success in preserving the free energy surface of proteins like Chignolin while accelerating dynamics by more than three orders of magnitude [19].

Virtual Site Dual-Resolution Membranes

The virtual site (VS) hybrid method enables concurrent multiscale simulation, maintaining different resolutions within a single system. The protocol begins with building hybrid topologies where virtual sites are defined as the center of mass of corresponding atom groups [70]. These virtual sites are added to the atomistic topology file with specific directives in GROMACS that define the mapping between AA atoms and CG beads [70]. Critical implementation steps include careful definition of interaction parameters to avoid double-counting, typically setting Lennard-Jones parameters for VS-VS interactions to zero when full AA interactions are already present [70]. For membrane systems, the resolution interface must be strategically placed in apolar lipid tail regions to avoid artifacts observed when placing the boundary near polar head groups [70]. This method has proven particularly valuable for studying membrane fusion processes and asymmetric ionic conditions across bilayers.

Brownian Dynamics-MD for Binding Kinetics

The BD-MD hybrid approach specializes in computing protein-ligand association rate constants (k_on) by dividing the binding process into distinct phases handled by optimal methodologies [71]. Brownian Dynamics simulations efficiently handle long-range diffusion and initial encounter complex formation, generating numerous ligand approaches to the protein surface [71]. The key optimization in recent implementations involves selecting only those encounter complexes where the ligand comes exceptionally close to the binding site for subsequent MD simulation [71]. This selective sampling significantly reduces the required MD simulation time while maintaining accuracy in estimating k_on values. The method has been validated across diverse protein-ligand systems with varying sizes, flexibility, and binding properties, demonstrating alignment with experimental data [71].

Workflow Visualization

Multiscale Simulation Workflow Bridge

This diagram illustrates the bidirectional flow of information between resolution scales in modern multiscale simulations, highlighting the central role of machine learning in bridging representations.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Key Software Tools and Their Functions in Multiscale Simulation

Tool/Resource	Primary Function	Method Association
GROMACS	Molecular dynamics simulation engine	Dual Resolution Martini-CHARMM, General MD
Martini Force Field	Coarse-grained molecular modeling	UCG-mini-MuMMI, Dual Resolution
CHARMM36	All-atom force field	Dual Resolution Martini-CHARMM
CGnets	Neural network for CG free energies	CGnets workflow
Python API	Workflow automation and analysis	UCG-mini-MuMMI, Custom analysis
Onto-MS Ontology	Semantic data organization	Simulation data management

The expanding toolkit for multiscale simulation offers researchers multiple pathways for bridging resolution scales, each with distinct strengths and optimal application domains. For large-scale conformational sampling of proteins, UCG-mini-MuMMI provides an efficient workflow that maximizes conformational space exploration with reduced computational resources [69]. When thermodynamic consistency and free energy surface preservation are paramount, CGnets offer superior performance through their neural network representation of multibody interactions [65] [19]. For membrane systems and heterogeneous environments, the virtual site dual-resolution approach enables physically realistic simulations by strategically placing resolution boundaries [70]. Finally, for drug discovery applications where binding kinetics are crucial, the BD-MD hybrid method delivers efficient and accurate estimation of association rates [71].

The ongoing integration of machine learning across multiscale methods is dramatically enhancing both the efficiency and accuracy of these approaches. From diffusion models for backmapping to neural network potentials, ML techniques are solving long-standing challenges in parameterization and scale bridging [69] [8] [19]. As these methodologies continue to mature, researchers can select and increasingly combine these strategies to address the specific resolution, scale, and accuracy requirements of their biomolecular systems.

In the computational study of biological macromolecules, the choice between atomistic and coarse-grained (CG) models represents a fundamental trade-off between detail and scale. Atomistic molecular dynamics (MD) simulations provide high-resolution insights but are often computationally prohibitive for studying large systems or long timescales relevant to cellular processes and drug discovery [51]. CG models address this challenge by grouping multiple atoms into single interaction sites, or beads, thereby reducing system complexity and accelerating dynamics [51]. However, this simplification creates a critical divergence in model design philosophy: the development of system-specific models tailored to individual biomolecules versus single-potential models intended for broad, transferable application across diverse systems. System-specific models, often parameterized using bottom-up approaches that match data from atomistic simulations of a particular target, can achieve high accuracy for that system but may lack broader applicability. In contrast, single-potential models aim for generalizability, seeking to capture the essential physics of many proteins or complexes with one set of parameters, a property known as transferability. This review objectively compares the performance, experimental support, and practical implementation of these competing approaches within the broader context of atomistic versus coarse-grained potential model comparison research.

Theoretical Foundations and Model Design

Fundamental Principles of Coarse-Graining

Coarse-graining derives from statistical mechanics, where the goal is to create a reduced-dimension model that preserves the essential thermodynamics and dynamics of the original all-atom system. The process involves two key steps: mapping and parameterization [51]. The mapping scheme defines how groups of atoms are represented by CG beads. Schemes range from one-bead-per-amino-acid models, which offer maximum computational efficiency but minimal chemical specificity, to higher-resolution models that use several beads per residue to better represent the backbone and side-chain chemistry [51]. The force field parameterization then defines the effective interactions between these beads. Two primary philosophical approaches exist:

• Bottom-up approaches parameterize CG force fields based on reference atomistic simulations, using methods such as iterative Boltzmann inversion (IBI), force matching (FM), or relative entropy minimization [51]. These methods aim to preserve the microscopic structure of the underlying atomistic model.
• Top-down approaches parameterize CG force fields against experimental thermodynamic data, such as oil/water partitioning coefficients and density [51] [1]. These methods prioritize reproduction of macroscopic observables.

System-Specific vs. Single-Potential Paradigms

The distinction between system-specific and single-potential models lies in their scope and parameterization strategy.

• System-Specific Models: These are optimized for a single protein, molecular complex, or narrow class of systems. Their parameterization (often bottom-up) explicitly incorporates data from the specific target system. Examples include the early one-bead Cα models for studying flap opening in HIV-1 protease [51] and the REACH method, which was originally parameterized for individual proteins [72]. While highly accurate for their intended targets, these models typically lack transferability.

• Single-Potential (Transferable) Models: These aim for universality, with a single parameter set applicable to many proteins, including those not seen during parameterization. This requires the force field to capture general physical principles and amino acid-specific interactions that transcend individual protein folds. Prominent examples include the MARTINI force field for biomolecular simulations [51] [1] and recent machine-learned models like CGSchNet [15]. Their development is more complex but offers the promise of a universal simulation tool.

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Model Paradigms

Feature	System-Specific Models	Single-Potential Models
Philosophy	Accuracy for a specific target	Generality across diverse systems
Parameterization Scope	Single protein/complex	Large, diverse training set of proteins
Common Methods	Inverse Boltzmann Inversion, Force-Matching for one system	Machine-learning on diverse simulation data, Thermodynamic fitting
Transferability	Low	High (by design)
Computational Cost (Post-Parameterization)	Low	Low
Typical Applications	Studying a single well-defined protein, Folding of a specific protein	Screening, Studying proteins with unknown properties, Multi-scale simulations

The following diagram illustrates the conceptual and workflow differences between these two parameterization paradigms.

Performance Comparison and Experimental Data

The ultimate evaluation of any model lies in its predictive performance against experimental data or high-fidelity reference simulations. The table below summarizes quantitative results from key studies that benchmark transferable and system-specific CG models.

Table 2: Quantitative Performance Comparison of Representative Models

Model (Type)	Test System	Key Performance Metric	Result	Reference/Comparison
CGSchNet (Single-Potential, ML) [15]	Chignolin, TRPcage, BBA, Villin (unseen)	Free energy landscape, folding/unfolding transitions	Accurately predicted metastable states; folded states with Q ~1 and low Cα RMSD; quantitative agreement with all-atom MD for some (e.g., Chignolin), minor deviations for others (e.g., BBA).	All-Atom MD
CGSchNet (Single-Potential, ML) [15]	Engrailed homeodomain (1ENH), alpha3D (2A3D)	Cα root-mean-square fluctuation (RMSF)	Similar terminal flexibility to all-atom MD; slightly higher fluctuations along sequence for 1ENH; correctly folded both proteins from extended states.	All-Atom MD
CGSchNet (Single-Potential, ML) [15]	Protein G & its mutants	Relative folding free energies (ΔΔG)	Quantitative agreement with experimental data (R = 0.72, RMSE = 0.93 kcal/mol).	Experiment
REACH (Originally System-Specific) [72]	Myoglobin (all α), Plastocyanin (all β), DHFR (α/β)	Mean-square fluctuations (MSF) from CG MD	A single, averaged parameter set reproduced MSF from atomistic MD for all three structural classes, demonstrating emergent transferability.	All-Atom MD
MARTINI (Transferable) [1]	Ionic Liquids ([C4mim][BF4])	Density, Diffusion Coefficient	Density: 1181 kg m⁻³ (CG) vs. 1178 (AA OPLS) vs. ~1170 (Exp.); Diffusion: 120-145×10⁻¹¹ m²s⁻¹ (CG) vs. 7.3-6.6 (AA OPLS) vs. 1.8-40.0 (Exp.). Shows common challenge of accelerated dynamics.	All-Atom MD & Experiment
EviDTI (Transferable, for DTI) [73]	DrugBank, Davis, KIBA datasets	AUC, F1 Score, MCC	Competitive or superior performance vs. 11 baseline models (e.g., AUC: 0.9862 on DrugBank). Integrated uncertainty quantification improves decision reliability.	Benchmarking Models

Analysis of Comparative Data

The data reveals distinct strengths and limitations for each paradigm. The machine-learned single-potential model CGSchNet demonstrates remarkable transferability, successfully predicting the conformational landscapes of proteins with low (<40%) sequence similarity to its training set [15]. Its ability to quantitatively predict the relative folding free energies of Protein G mutants showcases a level of robustness that is a key goal for universal models. Furthermore, its performance in folding larger proteins like the engrailed homeodomain and alpha3D from extended states—tasks challenging for atomistic MD—highlights the scalability of this approach [15].

The REACH case study is particularly instructive. Originally a system-specific method where force constants were derived from individual atomistic MD simulations [72], researchers discovered that the parameters were "closely similar" across proteins from different structural classes (all-α, all-β, α/β). By averaging these parameters, they created a "generic REACH force field" that successfully reproduced atomistic fluctuations without requiring prior atomistic simulation of the target [72]. This demonstrates that system-specific parameterization can sometimes reveal underlying universal principles, enabling a transition to a transferable model.

Conversely, even highly successful transferable models like MARTINI face challenges. The significant overestimation of diffusion coefficients in ionic liquids indicates that the effective friction in the CG model is too low, a common issue in CG modeling that leads to artificially accelerated dynamics [1]. This underscores that while transferable models capture structural properties well, accurately reproducing dynamical metrics remains an active area of research.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To ensure reproducibility and provide a clear framework for evaluation, this section outlines the core methodologies used to generate the benchmark data discussed above.

Protocol for Machine-Learned Single-Potential Development (e.g., CGSchNet)

The development of a transferable, machine-learned CG force field follows a rigorous, data-driven pipeline [15].

• Training Set Curation: A large and diverse dataset of all-atom, explicit-solvent MD simulations of proteins is generated. This set must encompass a wide variety of folded structures, oligopeptides, and potentially dimers of peptides to adequately sample conformational space.
• Coarse-Grained Mapping: A mapping scheme is defined. For CGSchNet, a common choice is one bead per amino acid, typically located at the Cα atom.
• Neural Network Force Field Training: A neural network (e.g., SchNet) is trained using a variational force-matching approach. The learning objective is to minimize the difference between the forces on the CG beads predicted by the neural network and the forces obtained by mapping and averaging the forces from the all-atom reference simulations.
• Validation and Testing: The trained model is validated on a hold-out set of proteins not used in training. Critical tests include:
  • Folding/Unfolding Landscapes: Running parallel-tempering or long Langevin dynamics simulations to compute free energy surfaces as a function of order parameters like fraction of native contacts (Q) and Cα root-mean-square deviation (RMSD).
  • Fluctuation Analysis: Comparing Cα root-mean-square fluctuations (RMSF) of the folded state from CG simulations to those from reference atomistic simulations.
  • Thermodynamic Prediction: Calculating relative folding free energies (ΔΔG) for mutants and comparing to experimental data.
• Extrapolative Simulation: The final model is deployed to simulate proteins completely absent from the training data, including larger and more complex systems, to stress-test its transferability.

Protocol for System-Specific Parameterization (e.g., IBI/REACH)

System-specific models follow a target-centric parameterization path [51] [72].

• Target System Definition: A specific protein or complex of interest is selected, and its high-resolution (e.g., crystal) structure is obtained.
• Reference Atomistic Simulation: A (relatively) short all-atom MD simulation of the target system in explicit solvent is performed.
• CG Mapping and Target Data Extraction: The atomistic trajectory is mapped to the CG representation. From this, target structural data—most commonly the pair radial distribution functions (RDFs) between CG beads or the variance-covariance matrix of fluctuations—is calculated.
• Iterative Potential Optimization:
  • For IBI: Initial CG simulations are run with guessed potentials. The RDFs from the CG simulations are compared to the target RDFs from atomistic simulation. The potentials are then updated using the Boltzmann inversion relation: ( V{new}(r) = V{old}(r) + kB T \ln[g{CG}(r)/g_{target}(r)] ). This process iterates until the CG RDFs converge to the target RDFs.
  • For REACH: The force constants for a residue-scale elastic network model are directly calculated from the variance-covariance matrix obtained from the atomistic MD simulation.
• Model Validation: The parameterized system-specific model is used to run simulations, and its predictions for properties beyond those used for fitting (e.g., response to perturbation) are compared against atomistic simulation or experiment.

Computational research relies on a suite of software, data, and hardware "reagents." The table below details key resources for working with transferable and system-specific CG models.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Coarse-Grained Modeling

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to Model Type
GROMACS	Software Suite	High-performance MD simulation engine.	Both: Used to run simulations after model parameterization.
CGSchNet Framework	Software/Model	A machine-learned, transferable CG force field for proteins.	Single-Potential: Provides a ready-to-use universal model for protein dynamics [15].
MARTINI	Force Field	A versatile, top-down CG force field for biomolecular systems.	Single-Potential: Standard model for biomolecular interactions, esp. lipids and proteins [51] [1].
REACH	Method/Software	A method for deriving CG elastic network parameters from atomistic MD.	System-Specific: Tool for generating system-specific fluctuations [72].
VAMM	Force Field	Virtual Atom Molecular Mechanics force field.	System-Specific: Example of a one-bead-per-amino-acid model parameterized via Boltzmann inversion [51].
PDBbind	Database	Curated database of protein-ligand complexes with binding affinities.	Both: Used for training and validation, especially for interaction prediction tasks [74] [73].
EviDTI	Software/Model	An evidential deep learning model for drug-target interaction prediction with uncertainty quantification.	Single-Potential: Example of a transferable predictive model that also estimates prediction confidence [73].
Force Matching Toolkit	Software	Implements the force-matching method for bottom-up coarse-graining.	Both (Often System-Specific): Key for parameterizing bottom-up models [51].

The choice between single-potential and system-specific coarse-grained models is not a matter of declaring one universally superior. Instead, it is a strategic decision based on the research objective. System-specific models remain the tool of choice for achieving the highest possible accuracy for a well-defined, particular system, as their parameterization is directly informed by that system's data. In contrast, single-potential models offer powerful, efficient, and generalizable platforms for exploratory research, screening, and studying systems where prior atomistic data is unavailable, as demonstrated by their success in predicting properties of unseen proteins [15] and drug-target interactions [73].

Future developments in this field are likely to be dominated by machine learning, which helps overcome the traditional trade-off between transferability and accuracy. ML techniques enable the creation of models that learn the many-body effective interactions essential for realistic protein thermodynamics from large, diverse atomistic datasets [8] [15]. Key areas of advancement will include improving the description of electrostatic and polarization effects in transferable models [1], developing more accurate and scalable ML architectures, and creating robust uncertainty quantification methods—as seen in EviDTI [73]—to help researchers gauge the reliability of predictions. The integration of these advancements will continue to blur the lines between model paradigms, pushing computational biology toward truly predictive, multi-scale simulations that are both efficient and reliable.

Conclusion

The choice between atomistic and coarse-grained models is not a matter of superiority but of strategic application. AA models provide irreplaceable atomic detail for short-timescale events, while CG models are indispensable for capturing the large-scale conformational changes central to biological function. The integration of machine learning, particularly through neural network potentials, is a transformative development, enabling the creation of accurate, thermodynamically consistent CG models that capture complex multibody interactions. Future directions point toward highly automated, transferable, and polarizable CG potentials that can seamlessly integrate data from simulations and experiments. For biomedical research, these advancements promise to unlock deeper insights into protein misfolding, drug-target recognition, and the dynamics of large macromolecular complexes, ultimately accelerating the pace of drug discovery and therapeutic design.

References

• 1. Coarse-grained models for ionic liquids and applications to ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/im/d5im00021a]
• 2. Refining coarse-grained molecular topologies: a Bayesian ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01729-9]
• 3. Comparisons of Analysis Methods for Proof-of-Concept Trials [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3600728/]
• 4. Large-scale comparison of machine learning methods for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6011237/]
• 5. A Comparative Analysis of NONMEM and AI-based Models ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1208/s12248-025-01121-x]
• 6. Operator Forces For Coarse-Grained Molecular Dynamics [https://arxiv.org/html/2506.19628v1]
• 7. Comparison of the United- and All-Atom Representations ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9648188/]
• 8. Recent advances in machine learning and coarse-grained ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006349525003790]
• 9. Determining accurate conformational ensembles of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64098-3]
• 10. Integrating ultra-coarse-grained protein models into ... [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/688b08b223be8e43d6fe7e58]
• 11. Accurate reconstruction of all-atom protein representations ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10944396/]
• 12. Recent Advances in Coarse-Grained Models for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6696403/]
• 13. Theory and Practice of Coarse-Grained Molecular ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8465211/]
• 14. Coarse-grained modeling [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coarse-grained_modeling]
• 15. Navigating protein landscapes with a machine-learned ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-025-01874-0]
• 16. STTR Phase I: Accelerating Molecular Dynamics using ... [https://nsf.elsevierpure.com/en/projects/sttr-phase-i-accelerating-molecular-dynamics-using-coarse-grained/]
• 17. Improved coarse‐grained model for studying sequence ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8197430/]
• 18. Implementation of residue-level coarse-grained models in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9012402/]
• 19. Machine learning coarse-grained potentials of protein ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41343-1]
• 20. Performance of Coarse Graining in Estimating Polymer ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7077424/]
• 21. Press release: Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2025 [https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2025/press-release/]
• 22. Nobel prize in chemistry awarded to scientists for work on ' ... [https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/oct/08/nobel-prize-in-chemistry-awarded-to-scientists-for-work-on-porous-materials]
• 23. Nobel Prize in chemistry goes to scientist trio for Harry ... [https://kesq.com/cnn-other/2025/10/08/nobel-prize-in-chemistry-goes-to-trio-of-scientists-for-developing-metal-organic-frameworks/]
• 24. Development of a systematic coarse-grained model for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12521900/]
• 25. Enhanced Sampling for Efficient Learning of Coarse- ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.11148v1]
• 26. Development of Transferable Coarse-Grained Lipid Models ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12529907/]
• 27. Computational functional group mapping for drug discovery [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5159221/]
• 28. Frontiers | Optimizing Gō-MARTINI Coarse-Grained Model for F-BAR Protein on Lipid Membrane [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-biosciences/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2021.619381/full]
• 29. As Simple As Possible, but Not Simpler: Exploring the Fidelity of Coarse-Grained Protein Models for Simulated Force Spectroscopy - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5127490/]
• 30. GōMartini 3: From large conformational changes in ... [https://cgmartini.nl/docs/publications/entries/2025/Souza2025_GoMartini.html]
• 31. Protein–ligand binding with the coarse-grained Martini model | Nature Communications [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17437-5]
• 32. Coarse-Grained Molecular Models of Water: A Review - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3420348/]
• 33. Top-down and bottom-up modeling in system ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0928098716300173]
• 34. Equivalence analysis between Quasi-coarse-grained and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010465525002826]
• 35. Bottom-up and top-down in drug discovery [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bottom-up-top-down-drug-discovery-ash-jogalekar-kctjc]
• 36. Automated parametrization of small molecules within the ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-24757-3]
• 37. Top-down, Bottom-up and Middle-out Strategies for Drug ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4929154/]
• 38. The future of pharmaceuticals: Artificial intelligence in drug ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095177925000656]
• 39. A comprehensive review of neural network-based ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40715759/]
• 40. A Hybrid Bottom-Up and Data-Driven Machine Learning ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12268871/]
• 41. Active Learning for Machine Learning Driven Molecular ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2509.17208v2]
• 42. How Neural Networks Are Improving Drug Discovery | by ODSC [https://odsc.medium.com/how-neural-networks-are-improving-drug-discovery-20a9c38f86d9]
• 43. Machine Learning in Drug Discovery Market 2025 Trends [https://www.towardshealthcare.com/insights/machine-learning-in-drug-discovery-market-sizing]
• 44. Comparing a simple theoretical model for protein folding with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3816406/]
• 45. Accurate predictions of protein mutational effects ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-025-01771-0]
• 46. A comparative study of computational modeling ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-16866-w]
• 47. Model Membrane Systems and Their Applications - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2196400/]
• 48. Comparison of Different Polymeric Membranes in Direct ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11943998/]
• 49. Special Issue on Drug–Membrane Interactions - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8539237/]
• 50. Membrane interactions in drug delivery: Model cell ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001868619303598]
• 51. Recent Advances in Transferable Coarse-Grained ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5366245/]
• 52. Knowledge-based instantiation of full atomic detail into ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2788923/]
• 53. A critical review of machine learning interatomic potentials ... [https://www.oaepublish.com/articles/jmi.2025.17]
• 54. Atomistic and coarse-grained simulations reveal increased ice ... [https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/10099/2022/]
• 55. Towards design of drugs and delivery systems with the Martini ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10392664/]
• 56. Accelerating compound synthesis in drug discovery [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12560346/]
• 57. The Evolving Role of AI in Shifting the Bottleneck in Early ... [https://www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/view/the-evolving-role-of-ai-in-shifting-the-bottleneck-in-early-drug-discovery]
• 58. A practical guide to machine learning interatomic potentials [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359028625000014]
• 59. Comparative Analysis of Polarizable and Nonpolarizable ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40704671/]
• 60. Explicit Modeling of Electronic Polarization Reveals Water ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40711864/]
• 61. Enhanced sampling of protein conformational changes via ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39824807/]
• 62. Benchmarking residue-resolution protein coarse-grained ... [https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012737]
• 63. Benchmarking residue-resolution protein coarse-grained ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39804953/]
• 64. Navigating protein landscapes with a machine-learned ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12313527/]
• 65. Machine Learning of Coarse-Grained Molecular Dynamics ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6535777/]
• 66. Many-Body Coarse-Grained Molecular Dynamics with the ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2502.04661v1]
• 67. Quantifying the accuracy of protein simulation models [https://foldingathome.org/2025/09/04/quantifying-the-accuracy-of-protein-simulation-models/]
• 68. Speed and accuracy tradeoff in whole body movement ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-04601-4]
• 69. Integrating Ultra-Coarse-Grained Protein Models into Accessible... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41210784/]
• 70. Dual resolution membrane simulation – Martini Force Field Initiative [https://cgmartini.nl/docs/tutorials/Martini3/Dual_Resolution_Membrane/]
• 71. A multiscale simulation approach to compute protein ... [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/685a5ad83ba0887c3347dc85]
• 72. Transferability between Different Protein Structural Classes [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006349508701292]
• 73. Evidential deep learning-based drug-target interaction ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62235-6]
• 74. A transferability-guided protein-ligand interaction ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1046202325000283]