Justin A. Lemkul wrote:
David van der Spoel wrote:
Justin A. Lemkul wrote:
Hi,
I have a quick question about interpreting the output from g_hbond.
I am using the -ac option to calculate H-bond lifetimes between my
protein and a series of different, bound ligands. I read the
associated paper, but I would like to confirm the interpretation of
the results before I continue much further. I obtained the following:
--------------------------------------------------
Type Rate (1/ps) Time (ps) DG (kJ/mol) Chi^2
Forward 0.003 309.475 19.590 0.000294756
Backward 0.007 136.034 17.471
One-way 0.002 471.990 20.678
Integral 0.001 1534.894 23.717
Relaxation 0.002 606.619 21.325
The "forward" and "backward" rates and times make sense based on
equations 3 & 4 in the paper, but I could not find an explanation of
what "one-way" and "relaxation" are. Is the "integral" value taken
from equation 2, and thus should be interpreted as the overall H-bond
lifetime?
Thanks,
Justin
One-way assumes k' (Backward) rate is zero, Relaxation is the time at
which C(t) = 1/e
Integral is just the integral of C(t), which in case of exponential
relation should be the same as the relaxation time (not very close as
you see).
Thanks, that makes sense. According to the terminology in your paper,
then, if k is the rate constant for HB breaking ("forward"), then 1/k is
the lifetime of the hydrogen bond. So that lifetime would be the time
(in ps) given in the "Forward" entry? It seems simple, I just want to
be sure since there are a couple of old threads in the archive where
users claimed that "Backward" was the value to use.
Forward is for breaking, so yes, that is the life time recommended by
Luzar2000.
Two caveats: first, we recently found out that the numbers in my JPCB
paper can not be reproduced in 4.0 (embarassingly this was found out
during a tutorial that I was giving). We are looking into this. Second
we are busy implementing a new algorithm due to Markovitch * Agmon
(JCP 129 (2008) p. 084505) that has several advantages over the Luzar
approach.
My simulations were conducted under 4.0.2, should I not use these
results? Results from 3.3.x should be correct, since it was used in your
JPCB paper; but my installation of 3.3.3 gives a segmentation fault on
our cluster, and a bus error on my local machine. Are there known
issues with g_hbond-3.3.3?
As said, we are looking into this. With the original trajectories from
the paper the 4.0 code gives different values. I haven't tried with 3.3
analysis tools yet. Digging back into my memory, the problem seems to
have to do with the correlation function rather than the analysis, that
is, you can do the Luzar analysis in xmgrace. based on the ACF that
g_hboond spits out. If you do so you find that you get the same results
as g_hbond prints, ergo the Luzar analysis is implemented OK, but the
ACF is suspect.
Or should I just hold off and do analysis after a new version comes out
and these issues are solved or a new algorithm implemented?
This is up to you to decide...
Thanks again,
Justin
Cheers,
--
David.
________________________________________________________________________
David van der Spoel, PhD, Professor of Biology
Dept. of Cell and Molecular Biology, Uppsala University.
Husargatan 3, Box 596, 75124 Uppsala, Sweden
phone: 46 18 471 4205 fax: 46 18 511 755
sp...@xray.bmc.uu.se sp...@gromacs.org http://folding.bmc.uu.se
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
_______________________________________________
gmx-users mailing list gmx-users@gromacs.org
http://www.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
Please search the archive at http://www.gromacs.org/search before posting!
Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
www interface or send it to gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.
Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php
