[gmx-users] Fwd: Help with Gromacs 5.1 mdp options for CHARMM27 force field
korenpol3 at gmail.com
Wed Dec 9 18:42:52 CET 2015
Thanks for the reply. Sorry if this question was too long or I was not
1) What are the optimal values of tau_t and tau_p for CHARMM36. I see
in your tutorial that it is 0.1 0.1 for tau_t and 2.0 for tau_p.
The CHARMM-GUI generated mdp settings had 1.0 1.0 for tau_t and 5.0 for
tau_p. So are higher values more appropriate for CHARMM36 FF and what
properties does it effect ?
3) I was asking Berendsen pressure coupling with respect to the
equilibration stage, since I read in some earlier mailing post that
Berendsen coupling is more appropriate for temperature (NVT) as well as
pressure (NPT) equilibration.
4) Moreover once I do pbc correction I still see one or two ions sticking
out of the rhombic dodecahedron box representation in pymol. Is it more of
a visualization artifact ?
On 9 December 2015 at 21:04, Justin Lemkul <jalemkul at vt.edu> wrote:
> On 12/8/15 10:43 PM, Rakesh Ramachandran wrote:
>> Hi Justin,
>> Thanks for the reply. I have few more doubts regarding the mdp
>> and gmx tools related analysis.
>> 1) What are the optimal values of tau_t and tau_p for CHARMM36. I see in
>> your tutorial that it is 0.1 0.1 for tau_t and 2.0 for tau_p. The
>> CHARMM-GUI generated mdp settings had 1.0 1.0 for tau_t and 5.0 for tau_p.
>> So are higher values more appropriate for CHARMM36 FF and what properties
>> does it effect ? Moreover during NPT equilibration is Berendsen pressure
>> coupling necessary or can I use Parinello-Rahman directly.
> Never use Berendsen pressure coupling during production data collection.
> Its ensemble is not a true NPT ensemble. These settings are not dependent
> on force field.
> 2) My protein has MG bound so is CHARMM36 FF enough or some kind of
>> parameterization needs to be performed before running MD. Moreover what
>> precautions or steps should I take before running MD in this case. The
>> crystal structure is at pH 7.5 so is the protonation determined by pdb2gmx
> No additive force field treats divalent ions particularly well.
> Do pKa calculations and set ionization states accordingly.
> 3) I want to keep crystallographic waters (lining the protein surface as
>> well as the binding site) but I find that the box size increases too much
>> even when I use minimum solute-box distance of 1.0 nm. So my question is
>> can I use a fixed box size of 10nm for rhombic dodecahedron, since I know
>> that without the crystallographic waters with (-d 1.4 nm) the size would
>> 100^3A3. Will it lead to violating the minimum image convention or is
>> a way in gromacs which can account for the crystallographic waters.
> Crystal waters should not have a significant impact on box dimensions.
> Usually no more than one solvation shell is present. Decide the box size
> based on the solute; not waters attached to it. Once you start dynamics,
> differentiating between crystal and bulk waters becomes largely irrelevant
> for anything at the surface.
> 4) I was also confused with respect to the periodicity effects removal, So
>> using trjconv is this order correct -pbc whole -> -pbc nojump -> -pbc mol
>> -center -ur compact (for System). Moreover what is the preferred reference
>> for analysis the md.tpr (production run input file) or the crystal
> The reference can be whatever you like.
> Justin A. Lemkul, Ph.D.
> Ruth L. Kirschstein NRSA Postdoctoral Fellow
> Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences
> School of Pharmacy
> Health Sciences Facility II, Room 629
> University of Maryland, Baltimore
> 20 Penn St.
> Baltimore, MD 21201
> jalemkul at outerbanks.umaryland.edu | (410) 706-7441
> Gromacs Users mailing list
> * Please search the archive at
> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List before
> * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
> * For (un)subscribe requests visit
> https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users or
> send a mail to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org.
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users