AMBER Archive (2008)

Subject: AMBER: MM-PBSA in AMBER 10

From: Daniel Oehme (
Date: Mon Jun 23 2008 - 20:32:24 CDT


I have recently received a copy of AMBER 10 and have been running some
tests with the MM-PBSA suite of perl scripts. I have come across a
couple of issues while doing so.

The first is that the files in the Examples directory have
the the AMBER9 format not AMBER10. The in
$AMBERHOME/src/mm_pbsa/Examples is correct but the ones in the
01_GenerateSnapshots, 03_MMPBSA_Binding etc are of the old format.

Secondly, running the ras_raf 03_MMPBSA_Binding example did not work,
even when changes were made to to align it with the AMBER10
format. The error I got was "No data for 0+0 PB ELRAELE 0". By
searching the perl scripts I was able find ELRAELE defined in I edited such that the
$PB section of $VARREG (Lines 131-143) read:
        "PB" => {
                  "ELRAELE" => [0,0,'ELRAELE = +(-?\d+\.\d+)'], #
                  "EPB" => [0,0,'EPB = +(-?\d+\.\d+)'],
                  "PB" => [1,0,'corrected reaction field
energy: +(-?\d+\.\d+)'],
                  "PBDIS" => [1,0,'EDISPER = +(-?\d+\.\d+)'],
                  "PBCAV" => [1,0,'ECAVITY = +(\d+\.\d+)'],
                  "PBNONPOL" => [0,0,'ENPOLAR = +(\d+\.\d+)'],
                  "PBSUR" => [3,5],
                  "PBCAL" => [3,6],
                  "PBSOL" => [2,7,'+PB_PBCAL+PB_PBSUR+PB_PBDIS'],
                  "PBELE" => [2,8,'+PB_PBCAL+?MM_ELE'],
                  "PBTOT" => [2,9,'+PB_PBSOL+?MM_GAS']
By changing index 0 of ELRAELE, EPB, PBNONPOL to 0, MM-PBSA would
complete. Can anyone tell me if this was a valid way of solving the
problem or have I misunderstood something.

Finally, reading though the changes to I noticed that the
Surften and Surfoff values have been changed from the values used in
AMBER9, to values which depend on the radii type used or if IVCAP is
set. My questions regarding this are first - have the values that have
been suggested for Surften/Surfoff been published anywhere. Secondly,
why are the AMBER9 values used for Surften and Surfoff in the GB
calculations section instead of the new values as given in the PB
section. I would think that the non polar solvation energy would be
independent of the implicit solvent method used and therefore the same
value for Surften/Surfoff should be used for both methods

Thanks in advance for any help I receive.

Daniel Oehme
PhD student
La Trobe University
The AMBER Mail Reflector
To post, send mail to
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" (in the *body* of the email)