[gmx-users] Implicit solvent MD is not fast and not accurate.

[xiao]

Dear Justin,
Thank you very much for your reply.
I found that the speed of implict MD is slower that explict MD. For examplex, the speed of an explict MD for a protein of 300 amino acids is about 3ns per day, however, the implicit solvent is about 1.5ns per day.
With respect to the accuracy of implicit solvent, the result shows bad result. There are two carbon atom types which are not in the gbsa.itp, and i just copied some carbon atom type in gbsa.itp because i find that there is no big difference between the carbon parameters. I do not know whether this is the reason.
BW
Fugui




At 2013-03-27 21:45:42,"Justin Lemkul" <jalemkul at vt.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:27 AM, xiao <helitrope at 126.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Gromacs users:
>> I did a protein MD using implicit solvent and Amber 99SB force filed.
>> However, i found that the implicit solvent is not faster than explicit
>> solvent, and what is worse is that it is also not accurate.
>> The system is a protein-ligand complex. Firstly, i run a minimization, and
>> then i did a production MD. The explicit solvent MD can give nearly same
>> strucuture as the crystal structure after 10ns MD. However, there is a
>> significant change in the ligand after 1ns MD in implicit solvent.
>> My .mdp file is as follows:
>> title  = OPLS Lysozyme MD
>> ; Run parameters
>> integrator = md  ; leap-frog integrator
>> nsteps  = 10000000 ; 2 * 500000 = 1000 ps, 1 ns
>> dt  = 0.002  ; 2 fs
>> ; Output control
>> nstxout  = 1000  ; save coordinates every 2 ps
>> nstvout  = 1000  ; save velocities every 2 ps
>> nstxtcout = 1000  ; xtc compressed trajectory output every 2 ps
>> nstenergy = 1000  ; save energies every 2 ps
>> nstlog  = 1000  ; update log file every 2 ps
>> ; Bond parameters
>> continuation = yes  ; Restarting after NPT
>> constraint_algorithm = lincs ; holonomic constraints
>> constraints = all-bonds ; all bonds (even heavy atom-H bonds) constrained
>> lincs_iter = 1  ; accuracy of LINCS
>> lincs_order = 4  ; also related to accuracy
>> ; Neighborsearching
>> ns_type  = grid  ; search neighboring grid cells
>> nstlist  = 5  ; 10 fs
>> rlist  = 0  ; short-range neighborlist cutoff (in nm)
>> rcoulomb = 0  ; short-range electrostatic cutoff (in nm)
>> rvdw  = 0  ; short-range van der Waals cutoff (in nm)
>> ; Electrostatics
>> coulombtype = cut-off ; Particle Mesh Ewald for long-range
>> vdwtype         = cut-off
>> pme_order = 4  ; cubic interpolation
>> fourierspacing = 0.16  ; grid spacing for FFT
>> ; Temperature coupling is on
>> tcoupl  = V-rescale ; modified Berendsen thermostat
>> tc-grps  = system  ; two coupling groups - more accurate
>> tau_t  = 0.1    ; time constant, in ps
>> ref_t  = 300   ; reference temperature, one for each group, in K
>> ;
>> ;
>> comm-mode           =  angular
>> comm-grps           =  system
>> ;
>> ;
>> pcoupl  = no ; Pressure coupling on in NPT
>> pbc      = no  ; 3-D PBC
>> gen_vel             =  yes
>> gen_temp            =  300
>> gen_seed            =  -1
>> ;
>> ;
>> implicit_solvent    =  GBSA
>> gb_algorithm        =  OBC ; HCT ; OBC
>> nstgbradii          =  1
>> rgbradii            =  0   ; [nm] Cut-off for the calculation of the
>> Born radii. Currently must be equal to rlist
>> gb_epsilon_solvent  =  80    ; Dielectric constant for the implicit solvent
>> ; gb_saltconc       =  0     ; Salt concentration for implicit solvent
>> models, currently not used
>> sa_algorithm        =  Ace-approximation
>> sa_surface_tension  = -1
>>
>> Can anyone give me some suggestions?
>>
>
>Performance issues are known. There are plans to implement the implicit
>solvent code for GPU and perhaps allow for better parallelization, but I
>don't know what the status of all that is.  As it stands (and as I have
>said before on this list and to the developers privately), the implicit
>code is largely unproductive because the performance is terrible.
>
>As for the accuracy assessment, I think you need to provide better evidence
>of what you mean. A single simulation is not definitive of anything, and
>moreover, some differences between explicit and implicit are likely given
>the lack of solvent collisions. The implicit trajectory will probably
>sample states that are inaccessible (or at least very rare) in the explicit
>trajectory.
>
>-Justin
>
>-- 
>
>========================================
>
>Justin A. Lemkul, Ph.D.
>Research Scientist
>Department of Biochemistry
>Virginia Tech
>Blacksburg, VA
>jalemkul[at]vt.edu | (540)
>231-9080http://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