[gmx-users] Whether CHARMM force field in GROMACS is different from that in CHARMM commercial package
David van der Spoel
spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se
Thu Feb 14 08:17:24 CET 2013
On 2013-02-14 07:02, fayaz wrote:
> Dear Gromacs Forum,
> I want to do RNA simulation using Gromacs. I have installed gromacs 4.5.5
> and i found Charmm force field present in it. Can I use this force field for
> my simulation. I am asking this because I heard that Charmm force field in
> Gromacs is incomplete and different from the one that is present in CHARMM
> software package. I think this conception is present with many of the
> gromacs users. Most of my friends are also not using Charmm force field that
> comes with gromacs. Please clear this doubt.
Please read the paper by Bjelkmar et al. about the implementation of the FF.
Rumors is not enough, but if there is concrete evidence that something
is incorrect a bug-report should be filed at http://redmine.gromacs.org.
Another question is whether Amber or Charmm is the better force field
for RNA. In my group we use Amber.
> Thanks in advance
> View this message in context: http://gromacs.5086.n6.nabble.com/Whether-CHARMM-force-field-in-GROMACS-is-different-from-that-in-CHARMM-commercial-package-tp5005524.html
> Sent from the GROMACS Users Forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
David van der Spoel, Ph.D., Professor of Biology
Dept. of Cell & Molec. Biol., Uppsala University.
Box 596, 75124 Uppsala, Sweden. Phone: +46184714205.
spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se http://folding.bmc.uu.se
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users