[gmx-users] on the force field

[Acoot Brett]

Dear All,

Does anyone can make an introduction on the differences among the following force fields for protein? Which are much easy to be accepted for publication purpose?

Cheers,

Acoot

1: AMBER03 force field (Duan et al., J. Comp. Chem. 24, 1999-2012, 2003)
2: AMBER94 force field (Cornell et al., JACS 117, 5179-5197, 1995)
3: AMBER96 force field (Kollman et al., Acc. Chem. Res. 29, 461-469, 1996)
4: AMBER99 force field (Wang et al., J. Comp. Chem. 21, 1049-1074, 2000)
5: AMBER99SB force field (Hornak et al., Proteins 65, 712-725, 2006)
6: AMBER99SB-ILDN force field (Lindorff-Larsen et al., Proteins 78, 1950-58, 2010)
7: AMBERGS force field (Garcia & Sanbonmatsu, PNAS 99, 2782-2787, 2002)
8: CHARMM27 all-atom force field (with CMAP) - version 2.0
9: GROMOS96 43a1 force field
10: GROMOS96 43a2 force field (improved alkane dihedrals)
11: GROMOS96 45a3 force field (Schuler JCC 2001 22 1205)
12: GROMOS96 53a5 force field (JCC 2004 vol 25 pag 1656)
13: GROMOS96 53a6 force field (JCC 2004 vol 25 pag 1656)
14: OPLS-AA/L all-atom force field (2001 aminoacid dihedrals)
15: [DEPRECATED] Encad all-atom force field, using full solvent charges
16: [DEPRECATED] Encad all-atom force field, using scaled-down vacuum charges
17: [DEPRECATED] Gromacs force field (see manual)
18: [DEPRECATED] Gromacs force field with hydrogens for NMR
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://maillist.sys.kth.se/pipermail/gromacs.org_gmx-users/attachments/20120328/93c7fd1c/attachment.html>