[gmx-users] PMF profile from Umbrella - Plateau
Justin A. Lemkul
jalemkul at vt.edu
Wed May 16 17:20:01 CEST 2012
On 5/16/12 11:16 AM, Steven Neumann wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Justin A. Lemkul <jalemkul at vt.edu
> <mailto:jalemkul at vt.edu>> wrote:
> On 5/16/12 10:25 AM, Steven Neumann wrote:
> Dear Justin,
> I pulled my ligad away of 6nm from the protein and obtained beautiful
> and smooth
> curve of PMF using 28 windows. Starting from zero kcal/mol corresponding
> to app
> 0.3 nm then minima and curve increase till my plateau which starts from
> app 1 nm
> - then I have nearly straight line till 6.3 nm.
> My question: Can I decrease pulling distance to save time for the future
> simualtions with this system in terms of number of water molecules?
> Shall I just
> pull it away of 2-3 nm and I will obtain the same deltaG?
> Ideally, one would separate the molecules such that they are no longer
> interacting. Obviously with methods like PME this is impossible, so what
> you're after is sufficient separation such that there is negligible
> interaction between the protein and ligand. The required distance depends
> on the nature and size of the ligand, the types of interactions it
> experiences, and the cutoffs used. Keep in mind that even if a molecule is
> beyond the longest nonbonded cutoff, there are still effects like water
> ordering that can persist up to about 1.0 nm, so I would certainly make sure
> that all the atoms of the ligand and protein are separated by a minimum of
> twice the longest cutoff or so to account for this effect. Note that this
> would imply the use of g_mindist, not g_dist, as the distance I'm talking
> about is not the same as the COM distance.
> That's just my own rule of thumb for an initial check; you'll have to
> analyze your own system to decide what's happening and what you should do.
> Thanks Justin! I totally agree. But now having my ligand pulled 6 nm away and
> obtained deltaG= -4.5 kcal/mol. In theory when I use all windows till 3.5 nm
> (not till 6.3 nm) and I will obtain the same value it means that I can decrease
> the pulling distance in future simulations. Am I right?
In theory, as long as you've satisfied yourself that this constitutes a
sufficient representation of a non-interacting state, or as close to it as one
can achieve in a system of finite size. I've already said what I think are
reasonable criteria for a preliminary assessment; it's up to you to convince
anyone reading your work that such measurements are sound and appropriate.
Justin A. Lemkul, Ph.D.
Department of Biochemistry
jalemkul[at]vt.edu | (540) 231-9080
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users