Dear Joakim:

I've started bilayer simulations with both of the new conditions that you 
mentioned. Thank you for the advice ans references. I am surprised to hear that 
the bilayer features are similar with different vdw cutoffs (although I'll 
check also). Perhaps this is an unexpected win for dispersion correction. 
Michael Shirts, et al., continue to show us the importance/usefulness of 
dispersion correction in aqueous solution, but I was surprised to hear that it 
also seems to work better than one might hope for when simulating 
orientationally anisotropic biphasic systems like a bilayer in water.

Thanks for your input,
Chris.

-- original message --

Dear Chris,

We have used the following settings in our recent work 
(http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2013/CP/C3CP44472D):

coulombtype=pme
rcoulomb=1.0
rlist=1.0
vdw-type=cut-off
rvdw=1.4
dispcorr=enerpres

And this works fine without any notes etc from grompp, and you do not have to 
use the switching function. Should probably change the md.mdp file on the 
website...thanks for bringing this to our attention!

A colleague of mine have used Slipids with a shorter rvdw and the bilayer 
properties were still very stable. When I use rcoulomb=rvdw=1.0 I see no major 
difference either except for a relatively big boost in performance. But please 
double check that your simulations are able to reproduce experimental 
observables if changing rvdw to around 1.0 nm., but it should be fine.

Best regards,
Joakim


--
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

Reply via email to