[gmx-users] RE: Gibbs free energy of binding
ramezanpour.mohsen at gmail.com
Fri Oct 22 12:19:12 CEST 2010
reading your idea:
it seems to me I can't ignore entropy contribution because my simulation is
at room tempreture.
Really I couldn't understand what can I do!
I am working at room tempreture and I want to estimate binding free
energy(delta G),can I ignore entropy in this simulation and calculate
binding free energy by the method that I said in my last email?
what do you think?
thank in advance for your guid
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:45 PM, mohsen ramezanpour <
ramezanpour.mohsen at gmail.com> wrote:
> reading your idea:
> it seems to me I can't ignore entropy contribution because my simulation
> is at room tempreture.
> Really I couldn't understand what can I do!
> I am working at room tempreture and I want to estimate binding free
> energy(delta G),can I ignore entropy in this simulation and calculate
> binding free energy by the method that I said in my last email?
> what do you think?
> thank in advance for your guid
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:15 PM, David van der Spoel <
> spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se> wrote:
>> On 2010-10-21 10.39, Ehud Schreiber wrote:
>>> Actually, I believe that using the energy difference, Delta E, as an
>>> approximation to the free energy difference, Delta G, is a valid
>>> approach (which I'm considering myself). The entropic contribution to
>>> Delta G, namely -T Delta S, may be less prominent than Delta E.
>>> In addition, Delta S can be approximated by various means - see e.g.
>>> Doig& Sternberg 1995. I understand that such an approach is utilized in
>>> the Accelrys Discovery Studio.
>>> Obviously, this is an approximation that might be too crude for some
>> As a simple example the hydrophobic effect at room temperature is largely
>> due to the entropy of the water [ at high temp it is due to the enthalpy of
>> the water ].
>> Since the hydrophobic effect is involved in all ligand binding it seems
>> quite hopeless to get any reliable numbers when neglecting entropy. No
>> referee will buy that - I wouldn't.
>>> What do you think?
>>> On Oct 21, 2010, at 09:25 , Sander Pronk wrote:
>>> Hi Mohsen,
>>> The mean energy difference is only one component of the free energy
>>> Before you go any further I'd suggest reading a good book on molecular
>>> simulations, like 'Understanding Molecular Simulations' by Frenkel and
>>> There's a good reason free energy calculations cover over half of that
>>> On Oct 21, 2010, at 09:18 , mohsen ramezanpour wrote:
>>> Dear Justin
>>>> If I do two MD simulations for a short time in the same
>>> conditions(of course separately for protein and drug)
>>>> and calculate total energy of each one and sum them with each other
>>> as E1 as nonbonding free energy of system.
>>>> then a MD simulation for Protein-drug system in the same condition and
>>> calculate it's total energy too as E2 as bound system .
>>>> what does (E1-E2)mean?
>>>> I think it is binding free energy,Is not it?
>>>> in the other hand when we are working on NPT ensamble it means Gibbs
>>> free energy is the main energy and our total energy is equal to Gibbs
>>> free energy.
>>>> Then,what is the problem?
>> David van der Spoel, Ph.D., Professor of Biology
>> Dept. of Cell & Molec. Biol., Uppsala University.
>> Box 596, 75124 Uppsala, Sweden. Phone: +46184714205.
>> spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se http://folding.bmc.uu.se
>> gmx-users mailing list gmx-users at gromacs.org
>> Please search the archive at
>> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/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/Support/Mailing_Lists
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users