[gmx-users] changing atom types versus adding dihedrals to atom types
Rafael I. Silverman y de la Vega
rsilverm at ucsc.edu
Fri Sep 20 03:51:55 CEST 2013
Sulpher is important, but it is in the apoprotein, not the parametrized
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Rafael I. Silverman y de la Vega <
rsilverm at ucsc.edu> wrote:
> Hmm, I will have to do some more controls then, but I prob dont have time
> to do them till after quals this fall...
> You mention Hartree-Fock methods, does this mean that you disfavor DFT for
> some reason for this purpose?
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Justin Lemkul <jalemkul at vt.edu> wrote:
>> On 9/17/13 8:18 PM, Rafael I. Silverman y de la Vega wrote:
>>> Can you give some examples of how these verifications are different for
>>> different force fields? It doesnt seem like verifying takes that much
>>> but a theorist prof in my department told me not to worry as long as my
>>> system doesnt blow up...
>> IMHO simply not blowing up tells you nothing. I can show you a dozen
>> simulations that don't blow up that have terrible small molecule topologies
>> that produce bad results.
>> Parametrization methods and validation procedures are defined in the
>> literature and one could easily fill a book chapter (or more) on such
>> topics, so I will not go into it in an email. You may have to go back
>> several years (or even decades) in the literature to get the full story.
>> And what do you mean "thourough parametrization?
>> Most people hope for a simple, one-shot step they can take to parametrize
>> a small molecule. There are numerous "black box" methods out there, some
>> good and some bad. I advise people to be thorough in terms of what the
>> force field requires and what their chemical knowledge tells them. For
>> instance, for water interactions in CHARMM, HF/6-31G* works well for most
>> compounds, unless sulfur is involved, in which case we need to do a more
>> expensive MP2/6-31G* calculation. You can get an OK result for everything
>> with HF, but it's not sufficiently accurate in all cases.
>> I parametrized flavin mononucleotide using amber99sb-ildn, I used
>>> atomtypes in the force field, but I added partial atomic charges based
>>> on a
>>> decent DFT calculation in orca, and I had to add 2 distance restraints on
>>> the delta negatively charged phosphate oxygens to keep them from crashing
>>> into the delta positive hydrogen on the same phosphate. Is that thorough
>>> your opinion?
>> How does it compare with the results of running the molecule through
>> antechamber? Usually GAFF gives a reasonable topology with minimal
>> adjustment necessary. That's one of the benefits of Amber; there are very
>> well-defined protocols and a robust general force field for the
>> Justin A. Lemkul, Ph.D.
>> Postdoctoral Fellow
>> Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences
>> School of Pharmacy
>> Health Sciences Facility II, Room 601
>> University of Maryland, Baltimore
>> 20 Penn St.
>> Baltimore, MD 21201
>> jalemkul at outerbanks.umaryland.**edu <jalemkul at outerbanks.umaryland.edu>| (410)
>> gmx-users mailing list gmx-users at gromacs.org
>> * Please search the archive at http://www.gromacs.org/**
>> Support/Mailing_Lists/Search<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<http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists>
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users