AMBER Archive (2005)

Subject: Re: AMBER: atom type question

From: David A. Case (case_at_scripps.edu)
Date: Wed Jun 15 2005 - 10:18:18 CDT

On Mon, Jun 13, 2005, opitz_at_che.udel.edu wrote:

> Out of curiosity, would changing the atom type definitions from gaff to
> parm99 solve the problem also, or would there be reason that make this
> path unsound.

If you are using the gaff force field for the ligand, I don't see any easy way
to avoid using gaff atom types.

...dac

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The AMBER Mail Reflector
To post, send mail to amber_at_scripps.edu
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" to majordomo_at_scripps.edu