There are fewer data for POPC than for DOPC and DPPC. If your force fields and methods give you good results for DOPC and DPPC, you should be in good shape for POPC, since the building blocks are the same, but just rearranged.
Agreed. I add my emphasis to the given reference to the DOPC/DPPC combination to ensure that your double bond is correct (A quick look at the topology from the tieleman website near the double bond indicates that this is not at all evident and should be tested as suggested by the previous post.)
A simple google search for "Nagle popc" (without quotes) indicates that the experimental information you are looking for is easily available. I have used popc in the past and found it to basically meet the experimental data (based exactly on the topology available in the tieleman website, and ignoring my inability to understand exactly why the double bond was treated as it was). That said, it is my current opinion that the Charmm parameters are superior for lipid in the absence of protein. I don't use the charmm parameters myself, but from the papers I read the charmm lipid parameters appear to be better (my understanding, and definitely up for debate)
Chris. _______________________________________________ gmx-users mailing list [email protected] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php
