[gmx-users] Re: Chloroform (CHCl3) solvent box for G53a5 force field
Justin A. Lemkul
jalemkul at vt.edu
Fri Oct 23 14:09:16 CEST 2009
Pablo Englebienne wrote:
> Following up on the previous message, I noticed that the topology I
> previously sent (including 10 bonds) works for a minimization, but not
> for an MD simulation. grompp issues the following warning:
>
> WARNING 1 [file topol.top, line 29]:
> Molecule type 'CHCL3' has 10 constraints.
> For stability and efficiency there should not be more constraints than
> internal number of degrees of freedom: 9.
>
> I therefore used the following .itp file, with only the C-H and C-Cl bonds:
>
If bonds are supposed to be defined between, i.e. H-Cl and Cl-Cl, then this may
not be appropriate. Instead, you could perhaps set the covalent bonds as
[constraints] in the topology, leaving the other "nonbonded" bonds as [bonds]
(and then use "constraints = none" in the .mdp file, so only the [constraints]
are used).
> --[chcl3.itp]--
> [ moleculetype ]
> ; Name nrexcl
> CHCL3 1
>
> [ atoms ]
> ; nr type resnr residue atom cgnr charge mass
> typeB chargeB massB
> 1 HCHL 1 CHCL3 HChL 1 0.082 1.008
> 2 CCHL 1 CHCL3 CChL 1 0.179 12.011
> 3 CLCHL 1 CHCL3 CLCh1 1 -0.087 35.453
> 4 CLCHL 1 CHCL3 CLCh2 1 -0.087 35.453
> 5 CLCHL 1 CHCL3 CLCh3 1 -0.087 35.453
>
> [ bonds ]
> ; ai aj funct c0 c1 c2 c3
> 1 2 2 gb_39
> 2 3 2 gb_40
> 2 4 2 gb_40
> 2 5 2 gb_40
>
> [ angles ]
> ; ai aj ak funct c0 c1
> c2 c3
> 1 2 3 2 ga_43
> 1 2 4 2 ga_43
> 1 2 5 2 ga_43
> 3 2 4 2 ga_44
> 3 2 5 2 ga_44
> 4 2 5 2 ga_44
>
> [ exclusions ]
> 1 2 3 4 5
> 2 1 3 4 5
> 3 1 2 4 5
> 4 1 2 3 5
> 5 1 2 3 4
> --[chcl3.itp]--
>
> These are the steps I took:
> - build a box with 216 CHCL3 molecules with genbox
> - adjusted the density to 1479 with editconf
> - minimized the box to F<100 (steep, 50000 steps)
> - equilibrated NVT (position restrained C), 100ps, 300K, tau_t 0.1
> - equilibrated NPT (position restrained C), 100ps, 300K, 1bar, tau_t
> 0.1, tau_p 2.0, compressibility 1e-4 (from CRC handbook)
>
What is the purpose of position restraints here?
> Until here, everything looks decent, except for relatively large
> fluctuations in T (RMSD ~9K) and density (RMSD ~10kg m-3).
>
Probably a consequence of restraining the starting structure. I'd say you're
not equilibrating appropriately with position restraints imposed.
> I then performed an unconstrained MD, 1ns, otherwise identical
> parameters to NPT equilibration. Temp (300K) and density (1450 kg m-3)
> stable, but fluctuating (RMSD 8 and 20 respectively).
>
> In order to compare the results with Tironi and van Gunsteren, Molecular
> Physics 1994, 83, 381, who used the same GROMOS parameters: Epot = -28.6
> +/- 0.3 kJ/mol, density 1520 +/- 12 kg m-3.
>
> This is the output I get from g_energy:
>
> Energy Average RMSD Fluct. Drift
> Tot-Drift
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Potential -4720.16 119.141 118.978 -0.0215895
> -21.5896
>
> Therefore molar Epot = -(-4720)/216 = 21.9 kJ/mol. What factors could be
> accountable for the decrease wrt the reported value of 28.4?
> Experimental deltaHv is 31.4 kJ/mol (same reference).
>
Insufficient equilibration, and a variety of factors within the .mdp file. If
you want feedback on run parameters, you'll have to post the .mdp.
-Justin
> Would there be any other parameters I should check before using this
> solvent box in production runs?
>
> Regards,
> Pablo
>
--
========================================
Justin A. Lemkul
Ph.D. Candidate
ICTAS Doctoral Scholar
Department of Biochemistry
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA
jalemkul[at]vt.edu | (540) 231-9080
http://www.bevanlab.biochem.vt.edu/Pages/Personal/justin
========================================
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users
mailing list