[gmx-users] on NVE and pressure
Loris.Moretti at pharm.unige.ch
Mon Apr 16 15:33:04 CEST 2007
The goal of mine is to see whether I can simulate a large conformational
change on an protein.
A relative movement of one part respect another one, a rearrangment of
on enzyme inactive state to its active one.
When I started more than I year ago I thought this was the MD framework.
I am modifing the inactive state, present in a crystallographic
structure, in a way that would lead to the conformational change and
then simulating as accurate as possible.
I guess that what I am interesting in is the conformation evolution of
the protein system rather than monitoring parameters. For what I can
understand this evolution is deterministically correlated with the atom
velocities. So far I appreciated how trajectories changed depending on
the initial conditions and on the used settings and parameters.
Statistics over 624001 steps [ 114.0000 thru 738.0000 ps ], 1 data sets
Energy Average RMSD Fluct. Drift
Total-Energy -464122 10572.6 0 -58.7363
The drift seems to me quite large compare to other simulations.
Shouldn't the energy be constant in NVE?
thanks for helping,
Berk Hess wrote:
>> From: lorix <Loris.Moretti at pharm.unige.ch>
>> Reply-To: Discussion list for GROMACS users <gmx-users at gromacs.org>
>> To: Discussion list for GROMACS users <gmx-users at gromacs.org>
>> Subject: Re: [gmx-users] on NVE and pressure
>> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:25:15 +0200
>> Hi Berk and Jelger,
>> Thanks for your comments...
>> Yes I equilibrated the system with Berendsen thermostat and barostat
>> for 100ps and 200 ps and then switched them off.
>> I thought that the coupling could have an influence in the final
>> trajectory, because of the atom velocities scaling (?).
>> Why does not make sense to run NVE after NPT?
> You don't specify what your goals are, so I have to guess what you want.
> MD is inherently chaotic and velocity correlations decay quickly,
> so using NVE does, in general, not provide "better" velocities than NVT.
> NVT is usually what you want when your system is in thermal equilibrium.
> Only when you have energy dissipation after an event which takes your
> out of thermal equilibrium, i.e. pumps energy into the system,
> it makes sense to use NVE.
> However, when you equilibrate using NVT, this energy will already be
>> The two systems (15000 and 40000 atoms) I am simulating at NVE both
>> show increasing total energy:
>> The first system had -154442 kJ mol^-1 as average for the 7-207 psec
>> NPT equilibration and -168837 kJ mol^-1 as average value for
>> 1500-2000 ps of NVE.
>> The second system had -445679 kJ mol^-1 as average for the 14-114
>> psec NPT equilibration and -465630 kJ mol^-1 as average for the
>> 300-600 ps of NVE equilibration.
> For energy conservation you should not look at the average energy,
> but the energy drift during your NVE simulation.
> The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by
> gmx-users mailing list gmx-users at gromacs.org
> Please search the archive at http://www.gromacs.org/search before
> Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the www
> interface or send it to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org.
> Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users