[gmx-users] -inter command
zaved at tezu.ernet.in
zaved at tezu.ernet.in
Sat Jan 20 08:26:18 CET 2018
>>>>> 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
>>>>> <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
>>>> 5.1.4 and gromos54a7 ff.
>>>> After performing 100ns simulation, I didn't observed any change
>>>> to control system.
>>>> Can you provide any advice on it?
>>> In what ways do the "pH 9" and "control" simulations differ? What do
>>> define as "control" in this instance, default protonation by pdb2gmx?
>>> that's the case, unless you have some very noncanonical pKa values,
>>> there's nothing that's really expected to be different between these
>>> 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?
>> 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
>> 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.
> There won't be one. Since the topologies are identical, you're running
> the same simulation twice, and concluding that there are no major
> variations between the two. You don't actually have any simulation that
> you can claim is representing anything other than "pH 7," though pH
> isn't really a thing in fixed-charge/fixed-topology MD. This is a
> limitation of modeling something with fixed protonation states; it
> doesn't necessarily reflect reality. A constant pH method might show
> some results, but AFAIK this is not possible in GROMACS (though some
> people do have custom code in old versions that might work). You may
> want to consider a different program like AMBER or CHARMM that can do
> these types of simulations.
Thank You so much Justin.
Can you provide the name and any link for older gromacs version?
* * * 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.
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users