[gmx-users] Can g_wham support using different temperature for different windows?
ljggmx at yahoo.com.sg
Tue Feb 22 04:00:00 CET 2011
Thanks for your comments, Justin.
Using timestep of 20 fs, in each window the simulation runs for 100 ns CG time.
The pulling rate is 0.001 nm/ps. Is it too fast?
My system is a little different. My peptide is highly positively charged. The
NMR experiments show that the conformation of the peptide in water is very
dynamic, so I make it flexible without fixing any secondary structure in Martini
In the membrane, 25% of the lipids are negatively charged, so there are very
strong electrostatic attraction between peptides and membrane.
During the peptide approaching the membrane from the top, peptide can take
different configurations at different reaction coordinates. When pulling the
peptide into the membrane, the peptide takes relatively compact structure and
interacts with only the top leaflet until the distance becomes smaller than 0.45
nm, after that the peptide becomes extended structure and interacts with both
leaflets. This extended structure remains until the distance becomes -1.05 nm.
Further pulling leads to compact structure and interacts only with the lower
leaflet. So the comformation of the peptide is not symmetric between the center
of the bilayer, which leads to Hysteresis. It seems that there is a huge energy
barrier for the peptide to translocate across the membrane because if the
initial conformation in a certain window is extended (interacting with both
leaflets), then it remains extended. Similarly, it the initial conformation in a
certain window is compact (interacting with only one leaflet), it will remain
Any Suggestions of dealing with the highly charged system?
From: Justin A. Lemkul <jalemkul at vt.edu>
To: Gromacs Users' List <gmx-users at gromacs.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2011 09:58:36
Subject: Re: [gmx-users] Can g_wham support using different temperature for
Jianguo Li wrote:
> Thanks Justin.
> I tried your suggestions by either increase more windows and change the force
>constant, but it seems the samplings are still bad in some windows. When I did
>pulling in (0 0 1) direction and a reverse pulling in (0 0 -1) direction, I got
>different configurations at certain reaction coordinates. And the windowed
>umbrella sampling seems depends strongly on the initial configurations in that
>window. Therefore I got different PMFs using pulling in (0 0 1) direction and
>reverse pulling in （0 0 -1) direction.
How long are each of the simulations in each window? Sufficient sampling should
eliminate any configurational bias and/or hysteresis. Also, if the pulling that
sets up the initial configurations is done slowly enough, you won't see these
problems. Sounds to me like you're pulling too fast or hard, such that the
system is not stable.
> In my simulation, I exert constraints on phosphate atoms in z direction, so
>there is no lipid flip-flop and the membrane will be stable at high
>temperatures. Then I am thinking of increasing temperature in those bad windows
>to enhance sampling...
I don't know if I can make a convincing argument here, but intuitively, these
windows would be sampling in a different ensemble, so the free energy landscape
in these windows would be discontinuous with any adjacent windows that are done
at different temperatures, and perhaps the forces required to restrain your
peptide at a given COM distance will still result in a discontinuous PMF. I
would also suspect that g_wham can't handle this situation; it has a -temp flag,
but it only takes one value. So if you construct your PMF curve using WHAM, but
supply incorrect or inconsistent information, I certainly wouldn't believe the
I guess the main point is, there are tons of published demonstrations of
peptides and other molecules crossing a membrane with SMD and umbrella sampling,
so it should be possible to generate stable configurations without any funny
> best regards,
> *From:* Justin A. Lemkul <jalemkul at vt.edu>
> *To:* Discussion list for GROMACS users <gmx-users at gromacs.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 22 February 2011 09:35:37
> *Subject:* Re: [gmx-users] Can g_wham support using different temperature for
> Jianguo Li wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > I want to get the PMF of my peptide across the membrane bilayer. First I
>pulled my peptide across the membrane and then did windowed umbrella sampling
>along the reaction coordinates which is the z-distance between peptide and
>membrane. However, I found that sampling is not sufficient in some windows(e.g.,
>around the center of the membrane). To enhance the sampling, I am thinking to
>run the simulation in those windows at higher temperature (e.g., 500K), but this
>will introduce a bias. My question is: can g_wham remove the bias due to using
>different temperatures in different windows?
> > If g_wham cannot deal with the bias due to using different T, I may need to
>do REMD in those windows. But that will be very expensive computationally.
>Anybody have an idea of enhancing sampling in those windows?
> > Btw, I am using Martini CG model.
> > Any suggestions will be highly appreciated, thank you!
> A more straightforward approach is to (1) add more sampling windows or (2)
>increase the force constant in regions where there's poor sampling, or perhaps
> > Cheers,
> > Jianguo
> -- ========================================
> Justin A. Lemkul
> Ph.D. Candidate
> ICTAS Doctoral Scholar
> MILES-IGERT Trainee
> Department of Biochemistry
> Virginia Tech
> Blacksburg, VA
> jalemkul[at]vt.edu | (540) 231-9080
> -- gmx-users mailing list gmx-users at gromacs.org
><mailto: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 <mailto:gmx-users-request at gromacs.org>.
> Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
Justin A. Lemkul
ICTAS Doctoral Scholar
Department of Biochemistry
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/Support/Mailing_Lists/Search
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