AMBER Archive (2008)Subject: AMBER: Force fields for REMD with GB solvent
From: guardiani_at_fi.infn.it
Date: Tue Jul 08 2008  11:24:27 CDT
Dear Amber experts,
I am currently performing REMD simulations in implicit solvent of
a peptide whose coordinates were taken from a larger protein.
My goal is to determine the equilibrium structure of the free
peptide in physiologic conditions. The peptide is first minimized
according to:
Minimization
&cntrl
imin = 1,
maxcyc = 500,
ncyc = 250,
ntb = 0,
igb = 1,
gbsa = 1,
saltcon = 0.2,
cut = 300.0,
ntpr = 10,
ntx = 1,
/
The minimized structure is then cloned into 12 replicas (12 corresponds
to the square root of the number of atoms in my peptide). The target
temperatures of the replicas are chosen in geometric progression and
are: 310, 332, 355, 380, 406, 435, 465, 498, 533, 570, 610, 652.
Each replica is heated from 0 K to the corresponding target temperature
in this way:
Equilibration
&cntrl
imin = 0,
cut = 24.0,
igb = 1,
gbsa = 1,
saltcon = 0.2,
nstlim = 500000,
dt = 0.001,
ntt = 3, gamma_ln = 1.0,
tempi = 0.0, temp0 = 310.0,
ntx = 1, irest = 0, ntb = 0,
nscm = 50,
ntpr = 100, ntwr = 100, ntwx = 100
/
I then perform 2.5 ns of REMD simulation that will be discarded in the
computation of energies and other properties of interest. The input
file for this part of the simulation is like this:
MD run
&cntrl
imin = 0,
cut = 24.0,
igb = 1,
gbsa = 1,
saltcon = 0.2,
nstlim = 2500,
numexchg = 800,
dt = 0.001,
ntt = 3, gamma_ln = 1.0,
tempi = 310.0, temp0 = 310.0,
ntx = 5, irest = 1, ntb = 0,
nscm = 50,
repcrd = 0,
ntpr = 500, ntwr = 500, ntwx = 500
/
After that I perform other 30 ns of simulation through 3 restarts with
input files of this kind:
MD run
&cntrl
imin = 0,
cut = 24.0,
igb = 1,
gbsa = 1,
saltcon = 0.2,
nstlim = 2500,
numexchg = 4000,
dt = 0.001,
ntt = 3, gamma_ln = 1.0,
tempi = 310.0, temp0 = 310.0,
ntx = 5, irest = 1, ntb = 0,
nscm = 50,
repcrd = 0,
ntpr = 500, ntwr = 500, ntwx = 500
/
My problem is that the equilibrium population is completely dominated by
helical structures, which is in disagreement with the simulation of some
colleague who is performin explicitsolvent simulations on the same peptide.
Basically I think there are two main sources of error:
1) I used the ff99 force field without noticing that it introduces a bias
toward helical structures. I am now not sure which force field is more
convenient for my simulations. Do you recommend I should use the ff03
force field or rather the ff99SB force field, or maybe yet another one ?
2) I performed my simulations with the Hawkins, Cramer, Trular generalized
Born model (igb=1). However I have read a paper
(J. Chem. Theory Comput. Vol 3, No 1, pag 156169, 2007)
where the authors report on a comparison of REMD simulations on Ala10
and they conclude that OBCGB and HCTGB introduce a strong bias for
alphahelical conformations while the GBn method (igb=7) produces a
conformational population in better agreement with experimental data.
Do you think the GBn method is the best choice of GB model for my
simulations ? And which set of atomic radii (PBradii) do you recommend ?
I thank you very much for your help and I am looking forward to receiving
feedback from you.
Best regards,
Carlo Guardiani
PS: If you notice any mistake in the REMD protocol that I am using, please
tell me.

This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

The AMBER Mail Reflector
To post, send mail to amber_at_scripps.edu
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" (in the *body* of the email)
to majordomo_at_scripps.edu
