[gmx-users] Conversion of charmm36 parameters from namd to gromacs
jalemkul at vt.edu
Tue Dec 5 03:21:14 CET 2017
On 12/4/17 2:35 PM, Daniel Bauer wrote:
> Unfortunatly It seems like my university has no contract to access this
> paper so I cant check the SI.
> The ones I have are from http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25844 (adjusted
> to better match the free energy of solvation in NMA).
There seem to be several layers of assumption here, including targeting
a value that is actually unknown.
If you want to compare, in the paper I linked before, we did a QM
potential energy scan for NMA...K+ as a function of the distance between
the carbonyl O and the ion. The standard CHARMM force field parameters
are too weak by about 6 kcal/mol relative to an MP2/6-311++G(2df,2pd)
energy surface. The NBFIX we applied to correct it was:
epsilon = -0.050218 kcal/mol
Rmin = 3.30375 A
> On 12/04/2017 07:53 PM, Justin Lemkul wrote:
>> On 12/4/17 12:21 PM, Daniel Bauer wrote:
>>> I finally found my error in the conversion. As always, the devil is in
>>> the detail. I was under the assumption that parameters listed in the
>>> original forcefield files (toppar) are also sigma and epsilon values.
>>> However, as you know, the original files list Rmin values (and not
>>> With the correct conversion term:
>>> eps = Rmin/(10*2^(1/6))
>>> I can now reproduce the conversion of the numbers from the charmm
>>> implementation to gromacs (and thus know how to apply my NBFIX for this
>> I don't know what NBFIX you might have, but FYI there is a value that
>> will become official in the next release of the force field. We've
>> validated it against proteins and nucleic acids. See the SI of
Justin A. Lemkul, Ph.D.
Virginia Tech Department of Biochemistry
303 Engel Hall
340 West Campus Dr.
Blacksburg, VA 24061
jalemkul at vt.edu | (540) 231-3129
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users