[gmx-users] LINCS warning in md run

reisingere at rostlab.informatik.tu-muenchen.de reisingere at rostlab.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
Thu Sep 20 14:15:09 CEST 2012


Hi Justin,
 thank you a lot for your answer. I will try it.

Best,
Eva
>
>
> On 9/20/12 6:52 AM, reisingere at rostlab.informatik.tu-muenchen.de wrote:
>> Hi,
>>   now I tried it without any restriction and still the LINCS warnings
>> occur.
>> Since it is always the hydrogen atom where the huge force lies on I had
>> the idea just to remove the hydrogen atom to find out whether another
>> atom
>> will occur to have such a high force on or everything went fine. And
>> indeed, without the hydrogen atom there is no problem during the MD run.
>> Even when I fix all the other atoms.
>>
>> I can not see why this occurs. I already looked at the residue with
>> pymol
>> and I could see that there is no other residue or atom clashing with it.
>>
>
> I suspect what is happening is that the topology is not stable.  If
> removal of
> the H atom leads to stable trajectories, then it is experiencing some
> interaction that leads to the crash.  Likely what is happening is that it
> is
> experiencing a very strong 1-4 interaction with the other phosphate
> oxygens and
> is being pulled very hard away from the oxygen to which it is bonded,
> leading to
> deformed geometry and the LINCS warnings.  There are two possible
> solutions:
>
> 1. Modify the 1-4 interactions through an appropriate pair term.
> 2. Add exclusions to the topology between the H atom and each of the O
> atoms to
> which it is not bonded.
>
> I would recommend testing with a very simple system of TYP in water to
> validate
> that the topology is stable and rule out other factors.
>
> -Justin
>
>> The residue looks like this:
>>
>> ATOM    955  N   TYP    65      27.310  23.150  27.670  1.00  0.00
>>    N
>> ATOM    956  CA  TYP    65      26.870  23.320  26.300  1.00  0.00
>>    C
>> ATOM    957  C   TYP    65      27.920  23.760  25.300  1.00  0.00
>>    C
>> ATOM    958  O   TYP    65      28.060  23.210  24.210  1.00  0.00
>>    O
>> ATOM    959  CB  TYP    65      25.740  24.340  26.170  1.00  0.00
>>    C
>> ATOM    960  CG  TYP    65      24.530  23.740  26.830  1.00  0.00
>>    C
>> ATOM    961  CD1 TYP    65      24.410  23.760  28.220  1.00  0.00
>>    C
>> ATOM    962  CD2 TYP    65      23.510  23.180  26.050  1.00  0.00
>>    C
>> ATOM    963  CE1 TYP    65      23.290  23.210  28.840  1.00  0.00
>>    C
>> ATOM    964  CE2 TYP    65      22.380  22.630  26.660  1.00  0.00
>>    C
>> ATOM    965  CZ  TYP    65      22.260  22.630  28.070  1.00  0.00
>>    C
>> ATOM    966  OH  TYP    65      21.160  22.100  28.670  1.00  0.00
>>    O
>> ATOM    967  P   TYP    65      20.298  21.422  27.722  1.00  0.00
>>    P
>> ATOM    968  OP1 TYP    65      21.003  21.245  26.467  1.00  0.00
>>    O
>> ATOM    969  OP2 TYP    65      19.920  20.126  28.251  1.00  0.00
>>    O
>> ATOM    970  OP3 TYP    65      19.106  22.218  27.498  1.00  0.00
>>    O
>> ATOM    971  H   TYP    65      27.210  23.914  28.325  1.00  0.00
>>    H
>> ATOM    972  HA  TYP    65      26.485  22.366  25.933  1.00  0.00
>>    H
>> ATOM    973  HB1 TYP    65      25.524  24.543  25.119  1.00  0.00
>>    H
>> ATOM    974  HB2 TYP    65      26.010  25.270  26.669  1.00  0.00
>>    H
>> ATOM    975  HD1 TYP    65      25.154  24.234  28.821  1.00  0.00
>>    H
>> ATOM    976  HD2 TYP    65      23.603  23.156  24.973  1.00  0.00
>>    H
>> ATOM    977  HE1 TYP    65      23.200  23.222  29.916  1.00  0.00
>>    H
>> ATOM    978  HE2 TYP    65      21.603  22.189  26.053  1.00  0.00
>>    H
>> ATOM    979  H1P TYP    65      20.357  20.996  25.802  1.00  0.00
>>    H
>>
>>
>> The topology entry in the aminoacid.rtp file looks like this:
>>
>> [ TYP ]
>>   [ atoms ]
>>       N    N           -0.516300    1
>>      CA    CT           0.275503    2
>>      HA    H1           0.008223    3
>>      CB    CT          -0.354052    4
>>     HB1    HC           0.110326    5
>>     HB2    HC           0.110326    6
>>      CG    CA           0.119728    7
>>     CD1    CA          -0.198938    8
>>     HD1    HA           0.137143    9
>>     CE1    CA          -0.284884   10
>>     HE1    HA           0.177179   11
>>      CZ    C            0.452616   12
>>      OH    OS          -0.534452   13
>>       H    H            0.293600   14
>>     CE2    CA          -0.284884   15
>>     HE2    HA           0.177179   16
>>     CD2    CA          -0.198938   17
>>     HD2    HA           0.137143   18
>>       C    C            0.536600   19
>>       O    O           -0.581900   20
>>       P    P            1.393213   21
>>     OP1    OH          -0.752821   22
>>     OP2    O2          -0.822464   23
>>     OP3    O2          -0.822464   24
>>     H1P    HO           0.423316   25
>>
>>
>> [ bonds ]
>>       N     H
>>       N    CA
>>      CA    HA
>>      CA    CB
>>      CA     C
>>      CB   HB1
>>      CB   HB2
>>      CB    CG
>>      CG   CD1
>>      CG   CD2
>>     CD1   HD1
>>     CD1   CE1
>>     CE1   HE1
>>     CE1    CZ
>>      CZ    OS
>>      CZ   CE2
>>      OS     P
>>     CE2   HE2
>>     CE2   CD2
>>     CD2   HD2
>>       C     O
>>      -C     N
>>       P   OP1
>>       P   OP2
>>       P   OP3
>>     H1P   OP1
>>
>>
>> [ impropers ]
>>      -C    CA     N     H
>>      CA    +N     C     O
>>      CG   CE2   CD2   HD2
>>      CZ   CD2   CE2   HE2
>>     CD1    CZ   CE1   HE1
>>      CG   CE1   CD1   HD1
>>     CD1   CD2    CG    CB
>>     CE1   CE2    CZ    OH
>>
>>
>> The LINCS problems lie between the oxygen atom of the phosphate where a
>> hydrogen atom is bound to (OP1) and the hydrogen atom bound to the
>> oxygen
>> atom of the phosphate (H1P).
>>
>> Do you see where the problem lies?
>> Thank you,
>>   Eva
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/18/12 8:58 AM, reisingere at rostlab.informatik.tu-muenchen.de wrote:
>>>> Okey,
>>>>    now I tried it without any fixed residues. But still the energy
>>>> after
>>>> the
>>>> minimization is not very low and I still get the LINCS warnings.
>>>>
>>>> The mdp file I use for the minimization looks like this:
>>>>
>>>> define                  = -DPOSRES
>>>
>>> Restraints during minimization generally restrict motion in the same
>>> way
>>> that
>>> freezing does.  Again, this is a potential barrier to sufficient
>>> minimization.
>>>
>>>> integrator              = steep
>>>> emtol                   = 10
>>>> nsteps                  = 1500
>>>> nstenergy               = 1
>>>> energygrps              = System
>>>> coulombtype             = PME
>>>> rcoulomb                = 0.9
>>>> rvdw                    = 0.9
>>>> rlist                   = 0.9
>>>> fourierspacing          = 0.12
>>>> pme_order               = 4
>>>> ewald_rtol              = 1e-5
>>>> pbc                     = xyz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> the mdp file for the md run looks like this:
>>>>
>>>> define          = -DPOSRES
>>>> integrator              = md
>>>> dt                      = 0.001
>>>> nsteps          = 5000
>>>> nstxout         = 100
>>>> nstvout         = 0
>>>> nstfout         = 0
>>>> nstlog          = 1000
>>>> nstxtcout               = 500
>>>> nstenergy               = 5
>>>> energygrps              = Protein Non-Protein
>>>> nstcalcenergy   = 5
>>>> nstlist         = 10
>>>> ns-type         = Grid
>>>> pbc                     = xyz
>>>> rlist           = 0.9
>>>> coulombtype             = PME
>>>> rcoulomb                = 0.9
>>>> rvdw            = 0.9
>>>> fourierspacing          = 0.12
>>>> pme_order               = 4
>>>> ewald_rtol              = 1e-5
>>>> gen_vel         = yes
>>>> gen_temp                = 200.0
>>>> gen_seed                = 9999
>>>> constraints             = all-bonds
>>>> tcoupl          = V-rescale
>>>> tc-grps         = Protein  Non-Protein
>>>> tau_t           = 0.1     0.1
>>>> ref_t           = 298     298
>>>> pcoupl          = no
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The output of the minimization run is:
>>>>
>>>> Steepest Descents converged to machine precision in 15 steps,
>>>> but did not reach the requested Fmax < 10.
>>>> Potential Energy  = -7.9280412e+05
>>>> Maximum force     =  1.0772942e+04 on atom 979
>>>> Norm of force     =  9.6685356e+01
>>>>
>>>
>>> Note that this outcome is even worse than before.  The maximum force is
>>> now over
>>> 10,000.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The output of the MD run is:
>>>>
>>>> Step 1031, time 1.031 (ps)  LINCS WARNING
>>>> relative constraint deviation after LINCS:
>>>> rms 0.001431, max 0.010707 (between atoms 976 and 979)
>>>> bonds that rotated more than 30 degrees:
>>>>    atom 1 atom 2  angle  previous, current, constraint length
>>>>       976    979   81.6    0.1272   0.0970      0.0960
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> As you should expect.  If you can't get a reasonable minimization, the
>>> MD
>>> will
>>> always crash.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The atom 979 is the hydrogen atom on the phosphate. There has to be
>>>> one
>>>> hydrogen atoms because it is protonated once. The other atom 976 is
>>>> the
>>>> oxygen atom where the hydrogen atom is bound to.
>>>> The bounding parameters for this kind of binding were already there. I
>>>> didn't add them.
>>>>
>>>> I already did it for another phosphorylation on another position in
>>>> this
>>>> structure. And here I also got many LINCS errors. And again the
>>>> problem
>>>> is
>>>> the connection between the hydrogen atom and the oxygen atom.
>>>>
>>>> But I do not understand why.
>>>
>>> Remove all restraints/freezing/whatever in the .mdp file and try the EM
>>> again.
>>> If it still does not converge to a reasonable value, then there are two
>>> potential problems:
>>>
>>> 1. The topology is flawed and thus the structure cannot be run stably
>>> 2. The structure cannot accommodate phosphate in this location and due
>>> to
>>> unresolvable clashes, the runs fail
>>>
>>> -Justin
>>>
>>> --
>>> ========================================
>>>
>>> Justin A. Lemkul, Ph.D.
>>> Research Scientist
>>> Department of Biochemistry
>>> Virginia Tech
>>> Blacksburg, VA
>>> jalemkul[at]vt.edu | (540) 231-9080
>>> http://www.bevanlab.biochem.vt.edu/Pages/Personal/justin
>>>
>>> ========================================
>>> --
>>> gmx-users mailing list    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.
>>> * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> ========================================
>
> Justin A. Lemkul, Ph.D.
> Research Scientist
> Department of Biochemistry
> Virginia Tech
> Blacksburg, VA
> jalemkul[at]vt.edu | (540) 231-9080
> http://www.bevanlab.biochem.vt.edu/Pages/Personal/justin
>
> ========================================
> --
> gmx-users mailing list    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.
> * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
>





More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users mailing list