On 10/18/12 3:55 PM, Peter C. Lai wrote:
On 2012-10-18 02:53:38PM -0400, Justin Lemkul wrote:
On 10/18/12 2:43 PM, klexa wrote:
Hi Gromacs users,
I think I am a bit confused about the proper way to handle boxes that are not
standard cubes. I'm trying to run a membrane simulation where a cyclic
undecapeptide is inserted into the membrane and I want the water layer to be
sufficiently thick that if it were pulled, the peptide could be fully solvated
by the water. To avoid having an enormous box of membrane and water, I have an
orthorhombic box containing my peptide and bilayer. It minimizes alright with
Gromacs, but when I go to equilibrate it it fails because it's too skewed to be
a triclinic box. I've tried modifying the box with editconf and converting it to
a rhombic dodecahedron, sort of like the manual suggests for a membrane system.
I'm not sure that even that is sensible since it seems like I would be losing
content that way, yet nothing is clipped, and I did this after using trjconv to
remove any periodicity from my prior simulation of this system (in Desmond) but
doing so gives me a starting potential energy of NaN for the new system that I
obviously cannot work around. Is what I am trying to do even possible? If it is,
it seems like there is probably a better way than the way I chose, so if you
have any suggestions, I would be greatly appreciative.
I have never produced a membrane system with a hexagonal cross-section like the
manual describes. The most straightforward approach in my mind is simply a
rectangular box. It will save you a ton of headaches.
I'm trying to run this simulation with AMBER FF99SB parameters for the peptide,
Tieleman's lipid parameters for POPC, and SPCE waters, so just as a sanity
check, is it reasonable to consider a system like that?
I don't know how this would even run. The AMBER protein force field and Berger
lipid paramters use different combination rules, and I have never seen a
demonstration that one can use them together. It is most straightforward to use
a Gromos force field or OPLS-AA with modifications to account for the changes in
combination rules.
Or just use a self-consistent FF and setup already published/validated for
such a system, like AMBER+GAFF or CHARMM+CGENFF. The choice of forcefield
combinations for a peptide-membrane system doesn't require completely
reinventing the wheel these days.
One doesn't even need CGENFF for this; there are very good lipid parameters
within the latest editions of the CHARMM force fields. My suggestion was
motivated by the mention of the Berger lipids that the OP was already trying to
use. Has anyone produced good lipid parameters using GAFF? I recall seeing one
or two papers a few years ago, but I think there was considerable refinement
after the initial parameterization.
-Justin
--
========================================
Justin A. Lemkul, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
Department of Biochemistry
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA
jalemkul[at]vt.edu | (540) 231-9080
http://www.bevanlab.biochem.vt.edu/Pages/Personal/justin
========================================
--
gmx-users mailing list gmx-users@gromacs.org
http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
* Please search the archive at
http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/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/Support/Mailing_Lists
