[gmx-users] SPC with amber?

[Mark Abraham]

The FF+water combinations still work the same way they did 3 years
ago! :-) The important question is whether validation for the
observables has occurred. (And no relevant problems were seen). If the
paper does not support its decision to mix and match, go and ask them
why it was reasonable!

Mark

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Rafael I. Silverman y de la Vega
<rsilverm at ucsc.edu> wrote:
> Dear all,
> I have been trying to evaluate a paper that used amber99 with SPC water to
> simulate a protein. How would this affect the results, is it important? I
> googled for a bit, all I found was:
>  "Amber, charmm and OPLS-AA were developed with TIP3P, and that should be
> the default. Except that charmm uses a TIP3P with lennard-Jones on the
> waters, and that should probably be the default with charmm.
>  >B.t.w., how transferable are water models between ff's? I've always been
> thought that >they are actually non-transferable (or at least that is  what
> I remember), making e.g. >Amber/SPCe a bad option, as would  gromos/tip4p.?
>  Nobody really knows."
>
> from 2010, have things changed in 3 years, and forcefields work better with
> water models not developed specifically for that ff?
> Thanks
> --
> 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