[gmx-users] Switch - Shift function electrostatics

Emanuel Peter Emanuel.Peter at chemie.uni-regensburg.de
Mon Jul 27 10:16:44 CEST 2009


Dear Gromacs-users,

At the moment I have a question which regards the different
electrostatic algorithms mentioned in the Gromacs-manual.

I did some simulations and I tried three different electrostatic
algorithms: Cut-off, Shift and PME.

It is clear to me what Shift and PME means principally, but I ask myself
 which electrostatic algorithm is used by Cut-off.
I know that Cut-off means a twin-range-electrostatics calculation with
rlist as the first range and r_coulomb as the second range. Both are
calculated within different frequencies. Is that true ?

In my .log file it is mentioned that when using Cut-off a default value
r_coulombswitch equal to 0 is set. It is the same in the case of
r_vdwswitch.

Does that mean that I use in this special case a switch function which
switches at 0 nm which represents in this case a shift-function that
shifts my electrostatic potential in such a way, that it decays to zero
at r_coulomb?
I think this means that I used a shift-function which is calculated
within the twin-range-electrostatics scheme.
Is this true?

What disadvantages does the twin-range-electrostatics calculation
have in comparison to PME?
Is it true that PME could stabilize my system artificially?

Now another question:

Some people who perform molecular-dynamics calculations are stabilizing
the dihedral angles in the forcefield to avoid 'unrealistical'
fluctuations of their protein. Is this a reasonable way to simulate a
protein?
Is it also reasonable to heat up a crystal -.pdb structure, determined
by x-ray, slowly from 50 K up to 300 K in a couple of steps?
Does this have any purpose or is this just a non proven setup of my
structure?

Thanks for your good advice in advance!

Best regards,

Emanuel Peter

Institute of Phys. and Theor. Chemistry
93053 Regensburg
Germany














More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users mailing list