[gmx-developers] Group cutoff-scheme simulation temperature affected by nh-chain-length

Mark Abraham mark.j.abraham at gmail.com
Fri Nov 3 02:24:32 CET 2017


Hi,

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:12 AM Du, Yu <duyu at sioc.ac.cn> wrote:

> Hi Mark and Dear GMX-Developers,
>
> I tried the gmx check -s1 -s2, it gives comparison each recording steps.
>

That sounds like your comparing the trajectories. I intended you to compare
the .tpr files, because the combinations are computed in that. Yours may
differ.


> But I need the reason of not changing comb-rule 2to1 and sigma,epsilon to
> c6,c12 in amber ff.
>
> Could you explain why the combined parameters are different and whose
> combined parameters are different from?
>

See the equations in section 5.3.2 of the reference manual. Only in some
cases with the parameters for a pair of atom types be the same in the two
rules. Whether that applies is up to you, but if so then the gmx compare
will confirm your deduction.


> I have adapted the sigma and epsilon of ffnonbonded.itp to c6 and
> c12, comb-rule 2 to 1, I think it's reasonable and these places (forcefield.itp
> and ffnonbonded.itp) are where one only needs to adapt.
>

In so doing, you surely assumed that you were treating an A-A interaction.
But the A-B interactions are the relevant ones for *combining* parameters.


> But Prof. Hess said I should never change the comb-rule of ff. Thanks for
> any detailed information.
>

Because it does not work for e.g. proteins.

Mark


> Best,
> Yu
>
>
> -----Original Messages-----
> *From:*"Mark Abraham" <mark.j.abraham at gmail.com>
> *Sent Time:*2017-11-02 22:52:54 (Thursday)
> *To:* gmx-developers at gromacs.org
> *Cc:* GMX-developer <gromacs.org_gmx-developers at maillist.sys.kth.se>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [gmx-developers] Group cutoff-scheme simulation
> temperature affected by nh-chain-length
>
> Hi,
>
> The general reason is that the combined parameters are different. Whether
> that matters depends on your system composition. You can see if that
> affects you by doing gmx compare -s1 -s2
>
> Mark
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 3:42 PM Du, Yu <duyu at sioc.ac.cn> wrote:
>
>> Dear Prof. Hess,
>>
>> I compared the MD results of comb-rule=1 and 2 amber99sb-ildn ff and
>> found that there is little difference between them. The MD results of
>> original amber ff and adapted are pasted in the end of this email.
>>
>> Could you give the reason that change should never be made to the
>> comb-rule and the coorsponding ffnonbonded.itp file?
>>
>> Thanks a lot.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Yu
>>
>> ##########################original amber ff############################
>>         Statistics over 25001 steps using 251 frames
>>
>>    Energies (kJ/mol)
>>           Angle    Proper Dih.  Improper Dih.          LJ-14
>>  Coulomb-14
>>     4.02507e+03    5.15818e+03    2.75373e+02    2.11916e+03
>> 1.69171e+04
>>         LJ (SR)   Coulomb (SR)   Coul. recip.      Potential    Kinetic
>> En.
>>     6.20228e+04   -5.36969e+05    3.15506e+03   -4.43296e+05
>> 8.45579e+04
>>    Total Energy  Conserved En.    Temperature Pressure (bar)   Constr.
>> rmsd
>>    -3.58738e+05   -4.39556e+05    3.00296e+02   -1.81660e+02
>> 0.00000e+00
>>
>>    Total Virial (kJ/mol)
>>     3.01440e+04    1.75821e+01   -1.58821e+01
>>     1.84730e+01    3.00339e+04   -9.97169e+01
>>    -1.46410e+01   -1.00240e+02    3.00330e+04
>>
>>    Pressure (bar)
>>    -1.84467e+02   -3.37456e+00    2.10386e+00
>>    -3.46046e+00   -1.75964e+02    1.04734e+01
>>     1.98421e+00    1.05238e+01   -1.84549e+02
>>
>>       T-Protein  T-non-Protein
>>     2.99844e+02    3.00324e+02
>>
>>
>>         M E G A - F L O P S   A C C O U N T I N G
>>
>>  NB=Group-cutoff nonbonded kernels    NxN=N-by-N cluster Verlet kernels
>>  RF=Reaction-Field  VdW=Van der Waals  QSTab=quadratic-spline table
>>  W3=SPC/TIP3p  W4=TIP4p (single or pairs)
>>  V&F=Potential and force  V=Potential only  F=Force only
>>
>>  Computing:                               M-Number         M-Flops  %
>> Flops
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  Pair Search distance check           14291.569978      128624.130     0.5
>>  NxN Ewald Elec. + LJ [F]            184675.631168    12188591.657    51.1
>>  NxN Ewald Elec. + LJ [V&F]            2250.700664      240824.971     1.0
>>  NxN Ewald Elec. [F]                 160299.489552     9778268.863    41.0
>>  NxN Ewald Elec. [V&F]                 1953.462840      164090.879     0.7
>>  1,4 nonbonded interactions             127.655106       11488.960     0.0
>>  Calc Weights                          2540.801628       91468.859     0.4
>>  Spread Q Bspline                     54203.768064      108407.536     0.5
>>  Gather F Bspline                     54203.768064      325222.608     1.4
>>  3D-FFT                               69761.190336      558089.523     2.3
>>  Solve PME                               48.401936        3097.724     0.0
>>  Reset In Box                            42.311124         126.933     0.0
>>  CG-CoM                                  42.412752         127.238     0.0
>>  Angles                                  88.678547       14897.996     0.1
>>  Propers                                139.355574       31912.426     0.1
>>  Impropers                               10.650426        2215.289     0.0
>>  Virial                                  10.413396         187.441     0.0
>>  Stop-CM                                  8.536752          85.368     0.0
>>  Calc-Ekin                              169.413876        4574.175     0.0
>>  Lincs                                  165.281870        9916.912     0.0
>>  Lincs-Mat                             3504.083832       14016.335     0.1
>>  Constraint-V                          1040.480273        8323.842     0.0
>>  Constraint-Vir                          12.528823         300.692     0.0
>>  Settle                                 583.493470      188468.391     0.8
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  Total                                                23873328.747   100.0
>> ##########################original amber ff############################
>>
>> ##########################comb-rule=1 amber ff############################
>>         Statistics over 25001 steps using 251 frames
>>
>>    Energies (kJ/mol)
>>           Angle    Proper Dih.  Improper Dih.          LJ-14
>>  Coulomb-14
>>     4.01117e+03    5.20573e+03    2.78324e+02    2.02413e+03
>> 1.68747e+04
>>         LJ (SR)   Coulomb (SR)   Coul. recip.      Potential    Kinetic
>> En.
>>     6.22595e+04   -5.37413e+05    3.13120e+03   -4.43628e+05
>> 8.45492e+04
>>    Total Energy  Conserved En.    Temperature Pressure (bar)   Constr.
>> rmsd
>>    -3.59079e+05   -4.40129e+05    3.00265e+02   -1.82026e+02
>> 0.00000e+00
>>
>>    Total Virial (kJ/mol)
>>     3.01455e+04   -9.34378e+01   -1.54004e+02
>>    -9.20285e+01    3.00302e+04   -4.38835e+01
>>    -1.53975e+02   -4.42383e+01    3.00377e+04
>>
>>    Pressure (bar)
>>    -1.89288e+02    8.10551e+00    1.64126e+01
>>     7.96965e+00   -1.76137e+02    7.49214e-01
>>     1.64098e+01    7.83424e-01   -1.80654e+02
>>
>>       T-Protein  T-non-Protein
>>     3.00317e+02    3.00262e+02
>>
>>
>>         M E G A - F L O P S   A C C O U N T I N G
>>
>>  NB=Group-cutoff nonbonded kernels    NxN=N-by-N cluster Verlet kernels
>>  RF=Reaction-Field  VdW=Van der Waals  QSTab=quadratic-spline table
>>  W3=SPC/TIP3p  W4=TIP4p (single or pairs)
>>  V&F=Potential and force  V=Potential only  F=Force only
>>
>>  Computing:                               M-Number         M-Flops  %
>> Flops
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  Pair Search distance check           14608.461222      131476.151     0.6
>>  NxN Ewald Elec. + LJ [F]            183977.095776    12142488.321    51.1
>>  NxN Ewald Elec. + LJ [V&F]            2242.460760      239943.301     1.0
>>  NxN Ewald Elec. [F]                 159476.727584     9728080.383    40.9
>>  NxN Ewald Elec. [V&F]                 1943.414296      163246.801     0.7
>>  1,4 nonbonded interactions             127.655106       11488.960     0.0
>>  Calc Weights                          2540.801628       91468.859     0.4
>>  Spread Q Bspline                     54203.768064      108407.536     0.5
>>  Gather F Bspline                     54203.768064      325222.608     1.4
>>  3D-FFT                               69761.190336      558089.523     2.3
>>  Solve PME                               48.401936        3097.724     0.0
>>  Reset In Box                            42.345000         127.035     0.0
>>  CG-CoM                                  42.412752         127.238     0.0
>>  Angles                                  88.678547       14897.996     0.1
>>  Propers                                139.355574       31912.426     0.1
>>  Impropers                               10.650426        2215.289     0.0
>>  Virial                                  10.413396         187.441     0.0
>>  Stop-CM                                  8.536752          85.368     0.0
>>  Calc-Ekin                              169.413876        4574.175     0.0
>>  Lincs                                  168.515866       10110.952     0.0
>>  Lincs-Mat                             3570.772848       14283.091     0.1
>>  Constraint-V                          1043.984536        8351.876     0.0
>>  Constraint-Vir                          12.566057         301.585     0.0
>>  Settle                                 583.673648      188526.588     0.8
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  Total                                                23778711.227   100.0
>> ##########################comb-rule=1 amber ff############################
>>
>> -----Original Messages-----
>> *From:*"Du, Yu" <duyu at sioc.ac.cn>
>>
>> *Sent Time:*2017-11-02 19:45:40 (Thursday)
>>
>>
>> *To:* GMX-developer <gromacs.org_gmx-developers at maillist.sys.kth.se>
>> *Cc:*
>> *Subject:* Re: [gmx-developers] Group cutoff-scheme simulation
>> temperature affected by nh-chain-length
>>
>> Thanks for Prof. Berk's prompt fix.
>>
>> You advised that "You should never change the combination rule of a force
>> field" in Bug #2286 <https://redmine.gromacs.org/issues/2286> and
>> because tabulized potential needs comb-rule=1, what should I do to use the
>> amber99sb-ildn ff? (ff needed for protein-ligand simulation system) Or in
>> Gromacs, I can only use the group cutoff-scheme and tabulized potential
>> with gromos ff?
>>
>> Could you please explain the consequence I may get when I use the
>> comb-func=1 amber99sb-ildn ff which is changed by myself?
>>
>> Best,
>> Yu
>>
>> -----Original Messages-----
>> *From:*"Du, Yu" <duyu at sioc.ac.cn>
>> *Sent Time:*2017-11-02 14:00:40 (Thursday)
>> *To:* GMX-developer <gromacs.org_gmx-developers at maillist.sys.kth.se>
>> *Cc:*
>> *Subject:* Re: [gmx-developers] Group cutoff-scheme simulation
>> temperature affected by nh-chain-length
>>
>> Dear GMX-Developers and Shirts,
>>
>> To reproduce the the problem, I use the material in GROMACS Tutorials Lysozyme
>> in Water
>> <http://www.bevanlab.biochem.vt.edu/Pages/Personal/justin/gmx-tutorials/lysozyme/index.html>
>> .
>>
>> Yes, Prof. Shirts. If I use standard vdwtype=cut-off, coulombtype=pme and
>> cutoff-scheme=group, the simulation temperature accords with the ref_t.
>> If I use gromos ff and tabulized  potential, there is no temperature
>> problem.
>>
>> Now the problem is pinned on the relation between tabulized potential and
>> thermostat under amber99sb-ildn ff.
>>
>> I filed Bug #2286 in redmine.
>> https://redmine.gromacs.org/issues/2286
>>
>> Hope you could give some advice about this issue.
>>
>> Yu
>>
>> -----Original Messages-----
>> *From:*"Michael R Shirts" <Michael.Shirts at Colorado.EDU>
>> *Sent Time:*2017-10-23 19:43:38 (Monday)
>> *To:* "gmx-developers at gromacs.org" <gmx-developers at gromacs.org>,
>> GMX-developer <gromacs.org_gmx-developers at maillist.sys.kth.se>
>> *Cc:*
>> *Subject:* Re: [gmx-developers] Group cutoff-scheme simulation
>> temperature affected by nh-chain-length
>>
>> If you can file a bug report in redmine (http://redmine.gromacs.org/)
>> with example files, that would be useful. Before you file it can you check
>> if problem happens if you use standard cutoffs, instead of tabulated
>> cutoffs? I wonder if there is some sort of code path that it’s going down.
>> I will bet that combination of inputs has only very rarely been used.
>> Also, you said the temperature jumps. Does it come back down to 310, or
>> does it stay there?
>>
>>
>>
>> Generally, I would recommend using v-rescale instead of Nose-Hoover.
>> Nose-Hoover has some known flaws; increasing the chain length is supposed
>> to help things, but doesn’t really help that much for realistic systems,
>> just with very simple ones.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, any Nose-Hoover change length should in principle give the same
>> average, and did when the code was written.  If it doesn’t, the code was
>> broken somewhere, possibly because of lack of coverage in the regression
>> tests and something getting out of sync.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Michael Shirts
>>
>> Associate Professor
>>
>> michael.shirts at colorado.edu
>>
>> http://www.colorado.edu/lab/shirtsgroup/
>>
>> Phone: (303) 735-7860
>>
>> Office: JSCBB C123
>>
>> Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering
>>
>> University of Colorado Boulder
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *<gromacs.org_gmx-developers-bounces at maillist.sys.kth.se> on
>> behalf of "Du, Yu" <duyu at sioc.ac.cn>
>> *Reply-To: *"gmx-developers at gromacs.org" <gmx-developers at gromacs.org>
>> *Date: *Monday, October 23, 2017 at 12:48 AM
>> *To: *GMX-developer <gromacs.org_gmx-developers at maillist.sys.kth.se>
>> *Subject: *[gmx-developers] Group cutoff-scheme simulation temperature
>> affected by nh-chain-length
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear GMX Developer and Prof. Hess,
>>
>>
>>
>> I think this question is not common to GMX users, so I post it here.
>>
>>
>>
>> Prof. Hess is very familiar with the tabulized potential and group cutoff
>> scheme, so I also CC this email to you. Any advice will be appreciated.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Backgroud:
>>
>> I simulated protein-ligand system (ref_t=300) with amber99sb-ildn ff. I
>> used the normal table6-12.xvg tabulized potential to reproduce this problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Problem:
>>
>> In NVT simulation, integrator=md-vv, Tcoupl=nose-hoover, coulombtype=pme-user,
>> vdwtype=user. I found that at the start of the simulation, there is a
>> temperature jump to around 310K (average 310K in 100ps) higher than the
>> ref_t (300K) under nh-chain-length=10.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1)I tuned and spotted the nh-chain-length parameter. If I
>> used nh-chain-length=1 there is no temperature jump and temperature can
>> converge very well to 300K.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2)I replicated the same experiment in verlet scheme, the temperature
>> converged to ref_t 300K in 100ps and no jump in nh-chain-length=2, which
>> can 50K temperature jump (to 350K).
>>
>>
>>
>> The Question:
>>
>> 1)How will the nh-chain-length parameter affect the simulation
>> temperature under the group cut-off scheme?
>>
>> 2)Is it valid to use NH (nh-chain-length=1) not NH chain
>> (nh-chain-length>1) to simulate the protein-ligand system?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for any advice.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Du, Yu
>> PhD Student,
>> Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry
>>
>> 345 Ling Ling Rd., Shanghai, China.
>>
>> Zip: 200032, Tel: (86) 021 5492 5275
>>
>> --
>> Gromacs Developers mailing list
>>
>> * Please search the archive at
>> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-developers_List before
>> posting!
>>
>> * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
>>
>> * For (un)subscribe requests visit
>> https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-developers
>> or send a mail to gmx-developers-request at gromacs.org.
>
>
> --
> Du, Yu
> PhD Student,
> Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry
> 345 Ling Ling Rd., Shanghai, China.
> Zip: 200032, Tel: (86) 021 5492 5275
> --
> Gromacs Developers mailing list
>
> * Please search the archive at
> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-developers_List before
> posting!
>
> * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
>
> * For (un)subscribe requests visit
> https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-developers
> or send a mail to gmx-developers-request at gromacs.org.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://maillist.sys.kth.se/pipermail/gromacs.org_gmx-developers/attachments/20171103/544c0dd6/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-developers mailing list