[gmx-users] CHARMM nonbonded parameters and grompp output
David van der Spoel
spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se
Thu Feb 21 17:27:10 CET 2008
Justin A. Lemkul wrote:
> Hi all,
> As a number of others have attempted, I am exploring the use of the CHARMM force
> fields in Gromacs. I have read about a number of difficulties throughout the
> list archive, but I am seeing something that thusfar it seems no one has
> reported, regarding nonbonded parameters. Let me tell you what I've done so
> far, and perhaps someone can shed some light on what's going on.
> I downloaded the ffcharmm* files from the old User Contribution site, following
> a link I found in the archive. I created a .hdb file (for ease of use) and
> edited the .tdb files, as they contained some inconsistencies in atom naming
> and formatting. I converted the CHARMM27 force field parameters from Alex
> MacKerell's site using a script that was also made available through User
> Contributions, giving me ffcharmm.itp, ffcharmmbon.itp, and ffcharmmnb.itp. So
> far, so good. For the moment, I am also approximating the Urey-Bradley
> potential by using distance restraints, using scripts that came along with the
> ffcharmm package.
Urey bradley is implemented. CHeck manual.
> I was able to produce a topology for hen egg white lysozyme (a decent system to
> test, I thought), with correct disulfides, charges, etc. and life was good. I
> ran grompp to attempt an in vacuo energy minimization, and saw this among my
> processing topology...
> Generated 0 of the 8646 non-bonded parameter combinations
> The rest of the grompp output indicated no errors or warnings (aside from a net
> charge, which is OK for now). I reasoned that there should be _some_ form of
> nonbonded interactions within the protein, correct? I read about 1-4
> interactions (i.e. OPLSAA generates these by scaling, so they are not
> explicitly included in ffoplsaanb.itp), but such scaling is reportedly not used
> in the CHARMM force field, and thus it was no surprise to find [ nonbond_params
> ] within ffcharmmnb.itp. This brings me to my question: is grompp not finding
> these parameters? And if so, why?
> I noticed that ffcharmmnb.itp is formatted much like the GROMOS force field
> files (ffgmxnb.itp, ffG*nb.itp) and saw something that is not mentioned in the
> manual. The first line under [ atomtypes ] in each of the GROMOS force fields
> has formatting like:
> ;name at.num mass charge ptype c6 c12
> O 8 15.99940 0.000 A 0.22617E-02 0.74158E-06
> The at. num column is not mentioned in the manual (Gromacs version 3.3). Is it
> needed for proper interpretation of the *nb.itp files? Such a column is
> missing in my ffcharmmnb.itp file. The [ nonbond_params ] and [ pairtypes ]
> sections seem to have correct formatting, so I am not sure that this
> (potential) inconsistency among the [ atomtypes ] is causing the issue.
> Thanks for reading (yet another) long email from me, and thanks in advance if
> anyone has any ideas as to what's going on.
> Justin A. Lemkul
> Graduate Research Assistant
> Department of Biochemistry
> Virginia Tech
> Blacksburg, VA
> jalemkul at vt.edu | (540) 231-9080
> gmx-users mailing list gmx-users at gromacs.org
> Please search the archive at http://www.gromacs.org/search before posting!
> 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
David van der Spoel, PhD, Assoc. Prof., Molecular Biophysics group,
Dept. of Cell and Molecular Biology, Uppsala University.
Husargatan 3, Box 596, 75124 Uppsala, Sweden
phone: 46 18 471 4205 fax: 46 18 511 755
spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se spoel at gromacs.org http://folding.bmc.uu.se
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users