On 12/5/12 1:39 PM, James Starlight wrote:
Justin,
Indeed the force field is the 54a7 ( modiffied version of the 54a6).
The main reason of using GROMOS ff in that case was the topology of
ligands which could be easily created by means of prodrg or ATB. On
other hand I've never worked with the protein-ligand complexes in
charmm ff for instance.
Well, you get out what you put in. A recent paper
(dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcc.23055) showed that Gromos force fields performed very
poorly for simulating nucleic acids. There are others, but that's just a recent
one. If you're choosing a force field because it makes life easy, be prepared
to defend your results if they are of poor quality or defend a lot of wasted
time while you re-do the simulations :)
There are servers that produce CHARMM topologies and other programs that will
convert AMBER topologies into Gromacs format as well. I would suggest you
evaluate all the options available.
By the way is there any suitable builing blocks (implemented in the
rtp enties of the gromos ff) which could be used for charge
assignment?
That depends on the functional group. If it's also found in proteins, yes. If
not, then maybe but probably not.
-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
