[gmx-users] Higher that usual salt bridge occupancies in Amber99sb*-ildn forcefield despite adding nonbonded corrections

Priyesh Mohanty priyeshmohanty at yahoo.in
Fri Apr 21 10:26:57 CEST 2017

Here you go.



    On Friday, 21 April 2017 1:49 PM, Timofey Tyugashev <tyugashev at niboch.nsc.ru> wrote:

 Care to share a link? I'm interested in reading it, but can't locate the 
paper with a casual search.

21.04.2017 01:30, gromacs.org_gmx-users-request at maillist.sys.kth.se пишет:
> The forcefield modifications have been extensively validated by the Aksementiev group (JCTC, 2016) against experimental data on both Gromacs and NAMD,

Gromacs Users mailing list

* Please search the archive at http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List before posting!

* 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 mailing list