Re: AMBER: atom type question

From: David A. Case <>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 08:18:18 -0700

On Mon, Jun 13, 2005, wrote:

> Out of curiosity, would changing the atom type definitions from gaff to
> parm99 solve the problem also, or would there be reason that make this
> path unsound.

If you are using the gaff force field for the ligand, I don't see any easy way
to avoid using gaff atom types.


The AMBER Mail Reflector
To post, send mail to
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" to
Received on Wed Jun 15 2005 - 16:53:00 PDT
Custom Search