Re: [gmx-users] CG-MD simulation of protein, always crash with protein

2010-04-20 Thread XAvier Periole
The representation of extended regions (b-sheets) is more stable using elastic bonds than a dihedral angle because the flexibility of the force field makes possible the occurrence of situations where the two bonds get aligned and therefore the plan used to defined the dihedral can not be

Re: [gmx-users] CG-MD simulation of protein, always crash with protein

2010-04-19 Thread XAvier Periole
Hi, the rmsd you show is for the protein in vacuum? It goes up to 0.7 nm! That is a very large deformation, is it expected? Isn't your protein freezing and all the kinetic energy going into translational motion. there is a few things you could try. 1- First you should increase the rlilst

Re: [gmx-users] CG-MD simulation of protein, always crash with protein

2010-04-19 Thread Martti Louhivuori
On 19 Apr 2010, at 06:49, Trang wrote: The protein topo is too large, so I put it here. http://pastie.org/926617 The protein topology is fine, but you could try also with elastic bonds instead of dihedrals in the extended regions (--elastic option). Elastic bonds are more robust than

Re: [gmx-users] CG-MD simulation of protein, always crash with protein

2010-04-19 Thread Trang
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 4:08 PM, XAvier Periole x.peri...@rug.nl wrote: Hi, the rmsd you show is for the protein in vacuum? It goes up to 0.7 nm! That is a very large deformation, is it expected? Isn't your protein freezing and all the kinetic energy going into translational motion.

Re: [gmx-users] CG-MD simulation of protein, always crash with protein

2010-04-19 Thread Trang
Elastic bonds did help the system survive. I'm not really understand why do we need more robust bonds in this system. Does it mean that there exists large forces that cause my system to blow up? Would you mind giving an explanation? Thanks indeed for your taking time to help. Trang On Mon, Apr

Re: [gmx-users] CG-MD simulation of protein, always crash with protein

2010-04-18 Thread Trang
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Martti Louhivuori m.j.louhivu...@rug.nlwrote: On 15 Apr 2010, at 18:06, Trang wrote: My target system is a protein with lipid molecules added randomly (using GENBOX). Running MD, I expect to I hope you're using a larger van der Waals distance (0.24nm or so)

Re: [gmx-users] CG-MD simulation of protein, always crash with protein

2010-04-16 Thread Martti Louhivuori
On 15 Apr 2010, at 18:06, Trang wrote: My target system is a protein with lipid molecules added randomly (using GENBOX). Running MD, I expect to I hope you're using a larger van der Waals distance (0.24nm or so) when inserting the lipids. broke down the problem, that is, to run md

[gmx-users] CG-MD simulation of protein, always crash with protein

2010-04-15 Thread Trang
Dear gmx users, I'm trying to run some CG-MD with gromacs, using the available Martini FF. The first run with {lipid + water} is fine. The POPC lipid bilayer is successfully self-assembled. I then applied Martini FF for system involving protein. All the systems I've tried so far could not survive

Re: [gmx-users] CG-MD simulation of protein, always crash with protein

2010-04-15 Thread XAvier Periole
It is mot likely that your preparation of the system is somehow corrupted. The insertion of a protein in a lipid bilayer might easily introduce strong forces in the system and thereby result in a crash of your simulation. It is also possible that your protein topology is not describing