[gmx-users] General query regarding MD simulation.

[Abhishek Acharya]

>
> On 2/15/13 1:29 PM, Abhishek Acharya wrote:
>> Dear GROMACS Users.
>> Just out of curiosity, i would like to pose a general question here ( i
>> didn't have an idea of  any other suitable forum ). My protein active
>> site
>> has a GDP which is coordinated to a Mg ion. The Mg ion itself
>> coordinates
>> two water molecules and is held in position via non-bonded interactions
>> from two active site residues. For such a system, I could do two things:
>>
>> 1. Do the charge calculation for GDP only and assume the charges of
>> other
>> active site constituents to be taken from the FF parameter library.
>>
>> 2. As suggested by a a person I know, I can do the charge calculation of
>> the whole system including the Mg ion, water molecules and the residues.
>> The explanation was that since GDP is in coordination to Mg ion, the
>> effective charges would be different than on a GDP alone.
>>
>> Can anyone explain which one of the above is a correct approach and why
>> ?
>> I somehow was not convinced by my co-workers explanation simply
>> considering the fact that for each of the amino acids in a protein the
>> charges and parameters are taken from the FF library. Going by the given
>> explanation, one should then resort to a charge calculation for the
>> whole
>> protein system.
>>
>
> In the context of normal MM force fields with fixed charges, option (1) is
> what
> would generally be used.  In determining what is more representative of an
> actual biological setting, option (2) is more rigorously correct.  Force
> fields
> are usually parameterized in a portable way, such that every residue has
> uniform
> parameters independent of its local environment.  Thus polarization
> effects are
> treated in an average way, which may not be optimal.  Metal ions have
> especially
> polarizing effects on partial charges of nearby residues.  Even QM/MM
> studies
> that are 15 years old concluded that fixed charges for such systems are
> inherently deficient.
>
> I guess the bottom line is you have to derive suitable parameters in a way
> that
> is compatible with the original force field.  If that means dealing with
> the
> ligand in isolation, so be it.  The comparison between the parameters
> produced
> by options (1) and (2) would be very interesting, though, and may
> ultimately be
> necessary in justifying why your proposed model worked (or didn't).
>
I think i would try both approaches.
In regard to the derivation of ff compatible parameters, i see that for
ff's like AMBER94 one resorts to ab-initio 6-31G* calculations and fitting
to electrostatic potential surfaces. But for OPLSaa, if one goes through
the literature, it says,  'the charges for OPLS are empirical and have
been obtained largely from fitting to reproducible properties of organic
liquids.The charges for functional groups are taken to be transferable
between molecules and the use of neutral subunits makes the derivation of
charges for large molecules straightforward.'
I presume the first line means charges were derived from experimental
data. But I didn't understand what the last line means. Kindly help!!
> -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
>