Report on the sixth blind test of organic crystal structure prediction methods.

The sixth blind test of organic crystal structure prediction (CSP) methods has been held, with five target systems: a small nearly rigid molecule, a polymorphic former drug candidate, a chloride salt hydrate, a co-crystal and a bulky flexible molecule. This blind test has seen substantial growth in the number of participants, with the broad range of prediction methods giving a unique insight into the state of the art in the field. Significant progress has been seen in treating flexible molecules, usage of hierarchical approaches to ranking structures, the application of density-functional approximations, and the establishment of new workflows and `best practices' for performing CSP calculations. All of the targets, apart from a single potentially disordered Z' = 2 polymorph of the drug candidate, were predicted by at least one submission. Despite many remaining challenges, it is clear that CSP methods are becoming more applicable to a wider range of real systems, including salts, hydrates and larger flexible molecules. The results also highlight the potential for CSP calculations to complement and augment experimental studies of organic solid forms.The organisers and participants are very grateful to the crystallographers who supplied the candidate structures: Dr. Peter Horton (XXII), Dr. Brian Samas (XXIII), Prof. Bruce Foxman (XXIV), and Prof. Kraig Wheeler (XXV and XXVI). We are also grateful to Dr. Emma Sharp and colleagues at Johnson Matthey (Pharmorphix) for the polymorph screening of XXVI, as well as numerous colleagues at the CCDC for assistance in organising the blind test. Submission 2: We acknowledge Dr. Oliver Korb for numerous useful discussions. Submission 3: The Day group acknowledge the use of the IRIDIS High Performance Computing Facility, and associated support services at the University of Southampton, in the completion of this work. We acknowledge funding from the EPSRC (grants EP/J01110X/1 and EP/K018132/1) and the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013)/ERC through grant agreements n. 307358 (ERC-stG- 2012-ANGLE) and n. 321156 (ERC-AG-PE5-ROBOT). Submission 4: I am grateful to Mikhail Kuzminskii for calculations of molecular structures on Gaussian 98 program in the Institute of Organic Chemistry RAS. The Russian Foundation for Basic Research is acknowledged for financial support (14-03-01091). Submission 5: Toine Schreurs provided computer facilities and assistance. I am grateful to Matthew Habgood at AWE company for providing a travel grant. Submission 6: We would like to acknowledge support of this work by GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Vertex. Submission 7: The research was financially supported by the VIDI Research Program 700.10.427, which is financed by The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), and the European Research Council (ERC-2010-StG, grant agreement n. 259510-KISMOL). We acknowledge the support of the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM). Supercomputer facilities were provided by the National Computing Facilities Foundation (NCF). Submission 8: Computer resources were provided by the Center for High Performance Computing at the University of Utah and the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE), supported by NSF grant number ACI-1053575. MBF and GIP acknowledge the support from the University of Buenos Aires and the Argentinian Research Council. Submission 9: We thank Dr. Bouke van Eijck for his valuable advice on our predicted structure of XXV. We thank the promotion office for TUT programs on advanced simulation engineering (ADSIM), the leading program for training brain information architects (BRAIN), and the information and media center (IMC) at Toyohashi University of Technology for the use of the TUT supercomputer systems and application software. We also thank the ACCMS at Kyoto University for the use of their supercomputer. In addition, we wish to thank financial supports from Conflex Corp. and Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Submission 12: We thank Leslie Leiserowitz from the Weizmann Institute of Science and Geoffrey Hutchinson from the University of Pittsburgh for helpful discussions. We thank Adam Scovel at the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility (ALCF) for technical support. Work at Tulane University was funded by the Louisiana Board of Regents Award # LEQSF(2014-17)-RD-A-10 “Toward Crystal Engineering from First Principles”, by the NSF award # EPS-1003897 “The Louisiana Alliance for Simulation-Guided Materials Applications (LA-SiGMA)”, and by the Tulane Committee on Research Summer Fellowship. Work at the Technical University of Munich was supported by the Solar Technologies Go Hybrid initiative of the State of Bavaria, Germany. Computer time was provided by the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility (ALCF), which is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. Submission 13: This work would not have been possible without funding from Khalifa University’s College of Engineering. I would like to acknowledge Prof. Robert Bennell and Prof. Bayan Sharif for supporting me in acquiring the resources needed to carry out this research. Dr. Louise Price is thanked for her guidance on the use of DMACRYS and NEIGHCRYS during the course of this research. She is also thanked for useful discussions and numerous e-mail exchanges concerning the blind test. Prof. Sarah Price is acknowledged for her support and guidance over many years and for providing access to DMACRYS and NEIGHCRYS. Submission 15: The work was supported by the United Kingdom’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) (EP/J003840/1, EP/J014958/1) and was made possible through access to computational resources and support from the High Performance Computing Cluster at Imperial College London. We are grateful to Professor Sarah L. Price for supplying the DMACRYS code for use within CrystalOptimizer, and to her and her research group for support with DMACRYS and feedback on CrystalPredictor and CrystalOptimizer. Submission 16: R. J. N. acknowledges financial support from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) of the U.K. [EP/J017639/1]. R. J. N. and C. J. P. acknowledge use of the Archer facilities of the U.K.’s national high-performance computing service (for which access was obtained via the UKCP consortium [EP/K014560/1]). C. J. P. also acknowledges a Leadership Fellowship Grant [EP/K013688/1]. B. M. acknowledges Robinson College, Cambridge, and the Cambridge Philosophical Society for a Henslow Research Fellowship. Submission 17: The work at the University of Delaware was supported by the Army Research Office under Grant W911NF-13-1- 0387 and by the National Science Foundation Grant CHE-1152899. The work at the University of Silesia was supported by the Polish National Science Centre Grant No. DEC-2012/05/B/ST4/00086. Submission 18: We would like to thank Constantinos Pantelides, Claire Adjiman and Isaac Sugden of Imperial College for their support of our use of CrystalPredictor and CrystalOptimizer in this and Submission 19. The CSP work of the group is supported by EPSRC, though grant ESPRC EP/K039229/1, and Eli Lilly. The PhD students support: RKH by a joint UCL Max-Planck Society Magdeburg Impact studentship, REW by a UCL Impact studentship; LI by the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre and the M3S Centre for Doctoral Training (EPSRC EP/G036675/1). Submission 19: The potential generation work at the University of Delaware was supported by the Army Research Office under Grant W911NF-13-1-0387 and by the National Science Foundation Grant CHE-1152899. Submission 20: The work at New York University was supported, in part, by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory and the U.S. Army Research Office under contract/grant number W911NF-13-1-0387 (MET and LV) and, in part, by the Materials Research Science and Engineering Center (MRSEC) program of the National Science Foundation under Award Number DMR-1420073 (MET and ES). The work at the University of Delaware was supported by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory and the U.S. Army Research Office under contract/grant number W911NF-13-1- 0387 and by the National Science Foundation Grant CHE-1152899. Submission 21: We thank the National Science Foundation (DMR-1231586), the Government of Russian Federation (Grant No. 14.A12.31.0003), the Foreign Talents Introduction and Academic Exchange Program (No. B08040) and the Russian Science Foundation, project no. 14-43-00052, base organization Photochemistry Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Calculations were performed on the Rurik supercomputer at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. Submission 22: The computational results presented have been achieved in part using the Vienna Scientific Cluster (VSC). Submission 24: The potential generation work at the University of Delaware was supported by the Army Research Office under Grant W911NF-13-1-0387 and by the National Science Foundation Grant CHE-1152899. Submission 25: J.H. and A.T. acknowledge the support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under the program DFG-SPP 1807. H-Y.K., R.A.D., and R.C. acknowledge support from the Department of Energy (DOE) under Grant Nos. DE-SC0008626. This research used resources of the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility at Argonne National Laboratory, which is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357. This research used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, which is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DEAC02-05CH11231. Additional computational resources were provided by the Terascale Infrastructure for Groundbreaking Research in Science and Engineering (TIGRESS) High Performance Computing Center and Visualization Laboratory at Princeton University.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Wiley via http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S2052520616007447

Report on the sixth blind test of organic crystal-structure prediction methods

The sixth blind test of organic crystal-structure prediction (CSP) methods has been held, with five target systems: a small nearly rigid molecule, a polymorphic former drug candidate, a chloride salt hydrate, a co-crystal, and a bulky flexible molecule. This blind test has seen substantial growth in the number of submissions, with the broad range of prediction methods giving a unique insight into the state of the art in the field. Significant progress has been seen in treating flexible molecules, usage of hierarchical approaches to ranking structures, the application of density-functional approximations, and the establishment of new workflows and "best practices" for performing CSP calculations. All of the targets, apart from a single potentially disordered Z` = 2 polymorph of the drug candidate, were predicted by at least one submission. Despite many remaining challenges, it is clear that CSP methods are becoming more applicable to a wider range of real systems, including salts, hydrates and larger flexible molecules. The results also highlight the potential for CSP calculations to complement and augment experimental studies of organic solid forms

Towards crystal structure prediction of complex organic compounds - a report on the fifth blind test

Following on from the success of the previous crystal structure prediction blind tests (CSP1999, CSP2001, CSP2004 and CSP2007), a fifth such collaborative project (CSP2010) was organized at the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre. A range of methodologies was used by the participating groups in order to evaluate the ability of the current computational methods to predict the crystal structures of the six organic molecules chosen as targets for this blind test. The first four targets, two rigid molecules, one semi-flexible molecule and a 1: 1 salt, matched the criteria for the targets from CSP2007, while the last two targets belonged to two new challenging categories - a larger, much more flexible molecule and a hydrate with more than one polymorph. Each group submitted three predictions for each target it attempted. There was at least one successful prediction for each target, and two groups were able to successfully predict the structure of the large flexible molecule as their first place submission. The results show that while not as many groups successfully predicted the structures of the three smallest molecules as in CSP2007, there is now evidence that methodologies such as dispersion-corrected density functional theory (DFT-D) are able to reliably do so. The results also highlight the many challenges posed by more complex systems and show that there are still issues to be overcome

Chironomids of small Alpine water bodies (springs, spring brooks, pools, small lakes) of the northern Calcareous Alps (Insecta, Diptera, Chironomidae)

Volume: 23Start Page: 121End Page: 12

A classification of semi-natural northern prealpine river stretches based on chironomid communities

Using cluster analysis, ecological profiles of the species, and the (Diamesinae + Orthocladiinae) / Chironominae ratios, prealpine rivers were classified by their chironomid communities based on 338 species: (1) summer-cold mountain rivers (Isar, Salzach, Inn/Mühldorf), (2) summer-warm moraine-stretches (Würm, Alz/moraine rupture, Amper, Altmühl), (3) the summerwarm lowland river Upper Alz (lake outlet and the stretch to Altenmarkt village), (4) the lower section of the river Inn regulated by dams, which is dominated by a littoral community. The river Upper Alz is faunistically differentiated along it’s course. Classification of river stretches is predominantly explained by rhithral and eurytope species. Potamal and littoral species had no effect on classification. The results suggest that water temperature is the most important factor of the chironomid-based river classification, which is in harmony with studies by Rossaro (1992) and Lindegaard & Brodersen (1995). Locally, other morphological parameters as reach slope and substrate may be important factors as well. However, further data are needed to clarify their role in species distribution

Include or exclude? A review on the role and suitability of aquatic invertebrate neozoa as indicators in biological assessment with special respect to fresh and brackish European waters

This paper reviews published knowledge on how to deal with invasive species during biological quality assessments in European river systems for water management and assessments of ecological quality required, for example, by the European Water Frame Work Directive. The papers studied included international papers and some standards for water assessment. An overview of the current state of neozoa research showed that many different topics are treated, comprising biogeography and fauna records, species replacements and effectiveness of colonisation, life cycles, competition between native and invasive species, habitat quality and pathways of migration. Additionally, some papers have been published recently on the integration of neozoa in index-based assessment systems. Although the decline or increase of alien species populations and the corresponding impacts on indigenous populations were frequently observed, the mechanisms behind the invasions often remain hypothetical. In the reviewed papers, issues such as possible reasons for coexistence, tolerances, quality of habitat or water, life history traits and introduction of diseases were rarely covered. Few neozoa are sufficiently investigated to be categorised as indicators. After discussing the advantages and disadvantages of inclusion or exclusion, inclusion of invaders in assessments of both biodiversity (all species) and human impact (only species classified in their specific tolerance) is suggested. Further research is required to (1) update and assign ecological profiles of the non-indigenous species currently and (2) assess the effects of new invaders on native communities