From: Roman Petrenko (rpetrenko_at_gmail.com)
Date: Thu Jul 31 2008 - 12:34:26 CDT
thank you for your thoughts about water, but as to lammps i am not
willing to learn another simulation package just because of some extra
SMD functionality (unless i get 10 more reasons why lammps is better
than namd :) )
Back to namd and SMD in water with periodic boundary conditions. Is
there any manual online on how to do it correctly? Namely, how the SMD
atom is not going to hit the fixed atom (at the other end of the
chain) once it goes outside of the box and it's image appears on the
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Axel Kohlmeyer
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Roman Petrenko wrote:
> RP> A general question about SMD and water.
> RP> I've noticed in many articles that a protein is solvated and then SMD
> RP> simulations are used (one atom fixed, another is pulled) without any
> RP> boundary constraints.
> RP> Is there any specific reason besides having significantly smaller
> RP> number of water molecules?
> RP> I want to simulate a small peptide with SMD (so the number of waters
> the number of water molecules is always important. we always use
> far too few waters (by orders of magnitude!) to not see any impact
> of the number of waters.
> RP> is not that important) and to use either cylindrical or spherical
> RP> boundary conditions. The N- and C-terminal CA atoms are supposed to be
> i would say that is running a very high risk of having your results
> being dependend on the position of the peptide in the water area (you
> have surface dipoles!). why not use periodic boundaries? you can use a
> smaller box and the position of your peptide relative to the center of
> the water system does not matter at all.
> RP> pulled towards each other along parallel trajectories.
> RP> Nterm------(force)------------------->
> RP> \ ------
> RP> --- / \ (peptide)
> RP> \ / ---------
> RP> ------- \
> RP> <------------(force)-------------Cterm
> RP> Does this design have an advantage that the whole peptide is always
> RP> going to be at the center of either water sphere or water cylinder?
> please note that this is not quite the same experiment than
> pushing/pulling only one end. the pulling speed is usually
> very high, so that the resulting free energy profile is not
> the same. the area where you apply the pulling force is usually
> behaving non-physical.
> RP> The reason i ask is because maybe someone have already done this and
> RP> ruled out this design as being not effective.
> i cannot tell which option would be more effective, but you could
> try it out with the SMD module for LAMMPS, that our group is working
> on and that offers this functionality (and other enhancements).
> Axel Kohlmeyer akohlmey_at_cmm.chem.upenn.edu http://www.cmm.upenn.edu
> Center for Molecular Modeling -- University of Pennsylvania
> Department of Chemistry, 231 S.34th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6323
> tel: 1-215-898-1582, fax: 1-215-573-6233, office-tel: 1-215-898-5425
> If you make something idiot-proof, the universe creates a better idiot.
-- Roman Petrenko. Physics Department University of Cincinnati
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Wed Feb 29 2012 - 15:49:42 CST