AMBER Archive (2009)

Subject: Re: [AMBER] Amber FF and Glycam

• Previous message: David A. Case: "Re: [AMBER] chain restrain x TI"
• In reply to: Dong Xu: "[AMBER] Amber FF and Glycam"
• Next in thread: Hannes Loeffler: "Re: [AMBER] Amber FF and Glycam"
• Reply: Hannes Loeffler: "Re: [AMBER] Amber FF and Glycam"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

either one could be used in principle, but from the protein perspective I
think we have found that 99SB provides a better model. also I think the
charge model for 99SB is more compatible with that of glycam, while ff03
uses a different charge derivation model. I don't think anyone has done a
careful study to determine if this causes any problems.

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Dong Xu <quantum_mania_at_yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Which Amber FF is better suited with Glycam06, ff99SB or ff03?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dong Xu
> UC, San Diego
> _______________________________________________
> 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

• Previous message: David A. Case: "Re: [AMBER] chain restrain x TI"
• In reply to: Dong Xu: "[AMBER] Amber FF and Glycam"
• Next in thread: Hannes Loeffler: "Re: [AMBER] Amber FF and Glycam"
• Reply: Hannes Loeffler: "Re: [AMBER] Amber FF and Glycam"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]