Hi,
> I have noticed in a recent paper (PNAS vol 100, p13287) from Daggett's and
> Fersht's groups that they have been using a 2fs time step at 498K
> (although they weren't using AMBER). I am wondering if such a long time
> step is a good idea at this temperature and am currently running
> simulations with 1fs time steps and 2fs time steps at 500K to see what
> differences there are.
I'd say that as long as it's numerically stable, it's ok. MD at 498 K
is a way to untangle a structure but not to obtain the actual behavior
of the respective molecule at that temperature (does anyone know
the boiling temperature of TIP3P water ?) - That's only my personal
opinion. Others (with more experience) might have a different opinion.
Best regards
Andreas
--
)))))
(((((
( O O )
-------oOOO--(_)--OOOo-----------------------------------------------------
o Wolfgang Andreas Svrcek-Seiler
o (godzilla)
svrci.tbi.univie.ac.at
.oooO Tel.:01-4277-52733
( ) Oooo.
-------\ (----( )--------------------------------------------------------
\_) ) /
(_/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The AMBER Mail Reflector
To post, send mail to amber.scripps.edu
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" to majordomo.scripps.edu
Received on Thu Nov 13 2003 - 17:53:01 PST