|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AMBER Archive (2004)Subject: AMBER: A few questions in the protein unfolding simulations using GB model
From: Jiayun Pang (JXP251_at_bham.ac.uk)
Dear Amber Users,
I am trying to use the GB implicit solvent model to simulate the unfolding of a dimeric protein at elevated temperatures, for instance, 500 K and 600 K.
My input file is:
&cntrl
imin=0,
ntx=5, irest=1,
ntb=0,
cut=16.0, igb=1, gbsa=1,
ntt=1, tempi=600.0, temp0=600.0, tautp=2.0
ntf=2, ntc=2, tol=0.000001,
ntpr=100, ntwx=1000,
nstlim=500000, dt=0.002,
nrespa=2,
&end
RES 1 328
END
END
It took 2.5 days to run a 1 ns simulations to the monomeric structure (164 residues) while it took 12 days to finish a 1 ns run on the dimeric structure. This time difference, I think, is a bit surprising.
And also, when I visualized the trajectory files, I found the two subunits of the dimer began to separate (which is as what I expected) but were almost 300 Å away from each other within 1 ns at 600K, and therefore the αC rmsds reached around 200 Å. It is bizarre as I assume such thing won’t happen in the simulation using an explicit solvent model with PBC applied. Is there any way to judge a GB model simulation?
I am thinking of doing the simulations using explicit solvent model as a comparison. In Valerie Daggett’s unfolding papers, the water density was set to the experimental values at certain temperatures. I am wondering whether it could be done in Amber7 as well. And also, when I did simulations using the TIP3P water box at room temperature (300 K), the water density couldn’t reach the experimental water density value (0.997 gm/ml), no matter how long the constant pressure equilibration I did (hundreds of pico seconds).
Quite a few questions here. Thanks a lot in advance for any answer.
Jiayun
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|