AMBER Archive (2009)

Subject: Re: [AMBER] problem of mm_pbsa

From: Qinghua Liao (fantasticqhl_at_yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Aug 06 2009 - 18:58:55 CDT


Hi sir,
Many thanks for your reply! I have done that too, but there is no problem. I am wondering that maybe the two structural waters will make a difference, so I am just doing another simulation without the two structural waters. Thanks!

Best wishes!

Qinghua Liao

________________________________
From: Rubben Torella <rubben.torella_at_gmail.com>
To: AMBER Mailing List <amber_at_ambermd.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2009 11:53:47 PM
Subject: Re: [AMBER] problem of mm_pbsa

Hi,
try to check the structures of the ligand, repector and complex you created
for the analysis...
use the ambpdb command and check if every structure is correct...
Hope this could help...

2009/8/5 case <case_at_biomaps.rutgers.edu>

> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009, Qinghua Liao wrote:
>
> > I have a problem when I use mm_pbsa in amber 10¬ to calculate the
> > binding energy of the complex. After docking using autodock 4.0, I chose
> > a conformation of the ligand, which matched well with the crystal ligand
> > in the complex, to do MD with the receptor, two structural waters were
> > preserved. I got a sample of 4ns, a equilibrated system according to the
> > RMSD of the backbone.
> >
> > But the binding energy is abnormal:
> >
> > #† † † † † † † † † COMPLEX† † † † † † † † RECEPTOR
> LIGAND
> > #† † † † † ----------------------- -----------------------
> -----------------------
> > #† † † † † † † † † MEAN† † † † STD† † † † MEAN† † † † STD
> MEAN† † † † STD
> > #† † † † † ======================= =======================
> =======================
> > ELE† † † † † † -8427.58† † 249.82† † -7913.17† † 248.20
> -504.26† † † 14.77
> > VDW† † † † 21573827.80† 32502.03† 20373193.05† 31945..80
> 1200511.78† † 3894.24
> > INT† † † † † 7034641.54† 60631.76† 6982919.11† 60080.98
> 51722.43† † 5624.52
> > GAS† † † † 28600041.76† 67739.75† 27348198.98† 66677.44
> 1251729.96† † 7136.00
> > PBSUR† † † † † † 104.47† † † 1.36† † † 104.04† † † 1.33
> 4.94† † † 0.08
>
> You will have to do the analysis (at least some of it) "by hand".† Look at
> the
> output files from your simulation: why do you have such high van der Waals
> and
> internal energies?
>
> The MM-PBSA perl scripts are nice when everything works, but are much less
> helpful when problems show up.† In such circumstances, you should at least
> a
> part of the analysis yourself, so that you really understand what is being
> computed.† Further, everyone's "first" analysis should also be done this
> way.
>
> ...good luck...dac
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER mailing list
> AMBER_at_ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER_at_ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber

      
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER_at_ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber