Re: AMBER: Why the energy from sander minimization (epsilon=4r) is not same with that from nmode, when restraint is applied?

From: David A. Case <>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:06:49 -0700

On Fri, Jun 09, 2006, Yongmei Pan wrote:

> I use sander epsilon=4r model to do minimization for nmode ntrun=1. When
> there is no restraint, it works well; But when the backbone is restrained
> (it???s also restrained in nmode), there is small difference between the
> energies from sander min and nmode, which leads to the different rms
> gradients. That is to say, even if the rmsg in sander reaches for example,
> 1E-4, the rmsg from nmode just 1E-2. And this is the case when nmode won???t
> continue because the rmsg is bigger than the required rmsd. So is there any
> way to fix the problem? Thanks!

This problem has been discussed before, and the fix is here:

Somehow, it looks like this never got posted as a bugfix....I'll put one
up soon. (The amber9 code has the fix as well).


The AMBER Mail Reflector
To post, send mail to
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" to
Received on Sun Jun 11 2006 - 06:07:21 PDT
Custom Search