The FF+water combinations still work the same way they did 3 years ago! :-) The important question is whether validation for the observables has occurred. (And no relevant problems were seen). If the paper does not support its decision to mix and match, go and ask them why it was reasonable!
Mark On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Rafael I. Silverman y de la Vega <rsilv...@ucsc.edu> wrote: > Dear all, > I have been trying to evaluate a paper that used amber99 with SPC water to > simulate a protein. How would this affect the results, is it important? I > googled for a bit, all I found was: > "Amber, charmm and OPLS-AA were developed with TIP3P, and that should be > the default. Except that charmm uses a TIP3P with lennard-Jones on the > waters, and that should probably be the default with charmm. > >B.t.w., how transferable are water models between ff's? I've always been > thought that >they are actually non-transferable (or at least that is what > I remember), making e.g. >Amber/SPCe a bad option, as would gromos/tip4p.? > Nobody really knows." > > from 2010, have things changed in 3 years, and forcefields work better with > water models not developed specifically for that ff? > Thanks > -- > 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 -- 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
