[gmx-users] -inter command

[zaved at tezu.ernet.in]

> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 07:39:39 -0500
> From: Justin Lemkul <jalemkul at vt.edu>
> To: gmx-users at gromacs.org
> Subject: Re: [gmx-users] -inter command
> Message-ID: <0281054c-c062-90c3-2243-ef0f5f3ed6c2 at vt.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
>
>
> On 1/18/18 7:02 AM, zaved at tezu.ernet.in wrote:
>>> Send gromacs.org_gmx-users mailing list submissions to
>>> 	gromacs.org_gmx-users at maillist.sys.kth.se
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>> 	https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>> 	gromacs.org_gmx-users-request at maillist.sys.kth.se
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> 	gromacs.org_gmx-users-owner at maillist.sys.kth.se
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> than "Re: Contents of gromacs.org_gmx-users digest..."
>>>
>>>
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>>     1. Re: -inter command (Jo?o Henriques)
>>>     2. Rupture force definition (Rakesh Mishra)
>>>     3. Re: Can I get the fraction of solvent accessible	surface area
>>>        using "gmx sasa"? (=?ISO-8859-1?B?WkhBTkcgQ2hlbmc=?=)
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:30:10 +0100
>>> From: Jo?o Henriques <joao.m.a.henriques at gmail.com>
>>> To: gmx-users at gromacs.org
>>> Subject: Re: [gmx-users] -inter command
>>> Message-ID:
>>> 	<CAHv45qOCV7fOu8heK0q1w_=GDZMEvRCXz35CT8xXzFWWNgUtiQ at mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>> Thank you so much Joao Sir for your kind response.
>>
>> 1. I have predicted the pka values for my protein using H++ server.
>>
>> 2. Based on the pka values, I have set the protonation states of the
>> charged residues using -inter command for pH 9.
>>
>> 3.I have run my simulation at pH 9 (keeping charge of +8e) using gromacs
>> 5.1.4 and gromos54a7 ff.
>>
>> After performing 100ns simulation, I didn't observed any change compared
>> to control system.
>>
>> Can you provide any advice on it?
>
> In what ways do the "pH 9" and "control" simulations differ? What do you
> define as "control" in this instance, default protonation by pdb2gmx? If
> that's the case, unless you have some very noncanonical pKa values,
> there's nothing that's really expected to be different between these two
> pH values, except perhaps the N-terminus itself.
>
> What are you trying to compare or calculate? Perhaps 100 ns is
> insufficient to observe whatever it is you're after. How have you
> quantified that there is no difference/change between these systems?
>
> -Justin


Thank you so much Justin.

1. Yes you are correct. control here means default protonation state and
in this case the system charge of +8e is neutralized. I didn't have any
noncanonical pka values (at ph9). Checked with both H++ server and Propka.
For ph 9, I have kept the charge of +8e.

2. Our experimental data suggests that at higher pH (9), the protein
initiates unfolding.

3. I have taken the final structure (at 100ns) of both systems and
superimposed it. I got a RMSD of 1.030 angstrom and no major structural
change was observed.

4. We can consider to extend the simulation to visualize any change, if
above things are correct.

Thank You

Regards
Zaved H.



* * * D I S C L A I M E R * * *
This e-mail may contain privileged information and is intended solely for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail in error and destroy it from your system. Though considerable effort has been made to deliver error free e-mail messages but it can not be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, delayed, or may contain viruses. The recipient must verify the integrity of this e-mail message.