[gmx-users] Re: stepsize too small ... but potential energy negative!

2010-05-25 Thread Anna Marabotti
Dear Justin, you are definitely true. I tested with Gromacs 4.0.7 a couple of other proteins that were correctly minimized with the same machine and the previous version of Gromacs, and both of them stopped with the neighborsearching error. Then, I found a way to switch to version 4.0.5 on the sam

[gmx-users] Re: stepsize too small ... but potential energy negative!

2010-05-25 Thread Anna Marabotti
Dear Justin, to add other elements to find a solution to this problem, I repeated all the Gromacs procedure until minimization on the file PDB I used as template to model my protein. pdb2gmx warns that 232 atoms have non-zero occupancy, it's because there are sidechains with alternative conformatio

Re: [gmx-users] Re: stepsize too small ... but potential energy negative!

2010-05-24 Thread Justin A. Lemkul
Anna Marabotti wrote: Dear Justin, dear Luca, here's the answer to your questions: - I'm currently using the "classical" forcefield gromos96 43a1 (choice "0" in pdb2gmx). After producing the topology, the only warning I see from pdb2gmx is this one: WARNING: there were 0 atoms with zero occupan

[gmx-users] Re: stepsize too small ... but potential energy negative!

2010-05-24 Thread Anna Marabotti
Dear Justin, dear Luca, here's the answer to your questions: - I'm currently using the "classical" forcefield gromos96 43a1 (choice "0" in pdb2gmx). After producing the topology, the only warning I see from pdb2gmx is this one: WARNING: there were 0 atoms with zero occupancy and 63 atoms with occup