[gmx-users] virtual sites set up for topology file

Gavin Melaugh gmelaugh01 at qub.ac.uk
Fri May 6 13:27:08 CEST 2011


Hi Justin

Thanks for the reply. To create a virtual site at the centre of geometry
of 3 atoms, according to the manual, do you not say: [virtual_sitesn],
the index of the site, the index of the three atoms and then the
function type 1 which determines that it is COG.
Or as I now realise. State [virtual_site3], site index atom indices, and
function 1. The fact that there are no parameters then by default must
mean it is COG. Is this correct?

Gavin

Justin A. Lemkul wrote:
>
>
> Gavin Melaugh wrote:
>> Hi
>> Having tried to run grompp using the data below I keep getting the
>> following error
>> Fatal error:
>> Unknown vsiten type 7
>> Does anyone know why this might be?
>>
>
> Your [virtual_sites] directive is not correct, either in its name (no
> such thing as "virtual_sitesn" - the "n" should be replaced by a digit
> indicating the type) or in the contents.  See manual section 5.2.2.
>
> -Justin
>
>> Gavin
>>
>> Gavin Melaugh wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I am trying to alter a topology to include 3 virtual sites and I have a
>>> few queries, the answers to which are not obvious form the manual.
>>> Do I declare the virtual sites in the atomtypes directive like so
>>>
>>> ;type     mass           charge      ptype     sigma(nm)   
>>> epsilon(kjmol-1)
>>>    CB     12.011000      0.000000       A      0.355000      0.292880
>>>    CA     12.011000     -0.115000       A      0.355000      0.292880
>>>    VS1     0.0                        0.0            V    
>>> 0.0           0.0
>>>    VS2     0.0                        0.0            V    
>>> 0.0           0.0
>>>    VS3     0.0                        0.0            V    
>>> 0.0           0.0
>>>
>>> Do I give them an index number in the atoms directive e.g.
>>>
>>> [atoms]
>>> ; atomnr  type   resnr  residue   name    cgnr     charge     mass
>>>     1      CA       1   CGE        CA       1     -0.1150     12.0110
>>>     2      CB       1   CGE        CB       1      0.0000     12.0110
>>>     3      CA       1   CGE        CA       2     -0.1150     12.0110
>>>     4      CB       1   CGE        CB       2      0.0000     12.0110
>>>     5      CA       1   CGE        CA       3     -0.1150     12.0110
>>>      ..........
>>>      ..........
>>>   229      VS1      2   VIR        VS1     85      0.0000      0.0000
>>>   230      VS2      3   VIR        VS2     86      0.0000      0.0000
>>>   231      VS3      4   VIR        VS3     87      0.0000      0.0000
>>>
>>> Then if I want to set up a virtual site between the COG of 3 atoms do I
>>> do it in the following way
>>>
>>> [virtual_sitesn]
>>> ;site COG of three hydrogens at window
>>> ;site  i     j    k    func
>>> 229    7    40   58    1
>>> 230   10    25   55    1
>>> 231   28    37   52    1
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Gavin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gavin Melaugh wrote:
>>>  
>>>> Hi Sikandar
>>>>
>>>> A couple of questions regarding the virtual sites.
>>>> 1) Do I have to number the virtual site in accordance with the atom
>>>> indices of the rest of the molecule?
>>>> 2) Is the parameters for the virtual site declared in the atomtypes
>>>> directive?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Gavin
>>>>
>>>> Sikandar Mashayak wrote:
>>>>      
>>>>>  in doing so .. by default all pair interactions with virtual sites
>>>>> would result in zero forces except those between atoms defined in
>>>>> [nonbond_params]
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Sikandar Mashayak
>>>>> <symashayak at gmail.com <mailto:symashayak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     hey
>>>>>
>>>>>     another approach to do this without using energy group exclusion
>>>>>     is to define non-bonded interactions parameter explicitly between
>>>>>     atoms in ffnonbonded.itp file. You can specify sigma and epsilon
>>>>>     to be zero in virtual sites atoms definition and specify
>>>>>     individual pair interactions parameters using non-bonded
>>>>>     interactions like following ...
>>>>>
>>>>>     ; virtual site
>>>>>     VS1     0        0              0       D       0               0
>>>>>     VS2      0        0              0       D      
>>>>> 0               0
>>>>>     VS3     0        0              0       D       0               0
>>>>>
>>>>>     [ nonbond_params ]
>>>>>     VS1     C     1       1.0             0.25
>>>>>     VS2     C     1       1.0             0.25
>>>>>     VS2     C     1       1.0             0.25
>>>>>
>>>>>     --
>>>>>     sikandar
>>>>>
>>>>>     On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Gavin Melaugh
>>>>>     <gmelaugh01 at qub.ac.uk <mailto:gmelaugh01 at qub.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>         Hi Justin
>>>>>
>>>>>         I do not intend to have charges on the sites. All I want is;
>>>>>         when a CH3 group gets close to the site it feels a repulsive
>>>>>         force. I
>>>>>         have calculated a sigma and epsilon value for this
>>>>> interaction.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Gavin
>>>>>
>>>>>         Justin A. Lemkul wrote:
>>>>>         >
>>>>>         >
>>>>>         > Gavin Melaugh wrote:
>>>>>         >> Hi Justin
>>>>>         >>
>>>>>         >> I am reading the manual at the moment. I want to include
>>>>>         some virtual
>>>>>         >> sites in my molecule so that only surrounding CH3s atom
>>>>>         type C3 interact
>>>>>         >> with then. All other atoms I don't want to interact with
>>>>>         them. Do I
>>>>>         >> create energy groups in the index file called say "virtual
>>>>>         sites" and
>>>>>         >> "exclusions", and list all the indices of the atom types
>>>>>         that I don't
>>>>>         >> want to interact with the virtual site in one group and
>>>>> all
>>>>>         the virtual
>>>>>         >> sites in another.
>>>>>         >> e.g
>>>>>         >>
>>>>>         >> [virtual sites]
>>>>>         >> 17 18 19 20
>>>>>         >>
>>>>>         >> [virtsite_exclus]
>>>>>         >> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 .....
>>>>>         >>
>>>>>         >
>>>>>         > In a general sense, yes, that's the right approach.  Note
>>>>>         that if any
>>>>>         > of these sites is charged and/or you're using PME, then
>>>>> this
>>>>>         whole
>>>>>         > exclusion thing goes out the window, as has been discussed
>>>>>         several
>>>>>         > times in recent days.  Using energygrp_excl applies only to
>>>>>         > short-range nonbonded interactions.  If you need complete
>>>>>         exclusion,
>>>>>         > you may have to look into tabulated potentials if this is
>>>>>         the case.
>>>>>         >
>>>>>         > -Justin
>>>>>         >
>>>>>
>>>>>         --
>>>>>         gmx-users mailing list    gmx-users at gromacs.org
>>>>>         <mailto:gmx-users at gromacs.org>
>>>>>         http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
>>>>>         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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>       
>>>   
>>
>




More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users mailing list