Emmm. I am gotta reply to myself.
I guess the under-estimate of backbone N chemical shift must due to the
fact that N-H can't form hydrogen bond with water in implicit solvent. Am I
right?
Anyway, it's pretty exciting to see that simulation can reproduce
experimental values so well.
On 5/3/07, Mingfeng Yang <mfyang.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dear fellows,
>
> This topic might not be so relevant to Amber. But I do need a little
> help from our community, since I can barely find anyone to discuss with
> me right now.
>
> I finished a MD simulation done by Amber9, igb=7, PARM99SB force fields,
> and tried to compare the results with experiment. Below is what I did:
>
> I took an ensemble average of the chemical shift values of N, CA, CB
> which were calculated by Dr. Case's SHIFTS program, and compared with
> the corresponding chemical shifts determined by solution state NMR.
>
> Encouragingly, for CA and CB atoms, the correlations between simulation
> and experiment are nearly 1 (>0.995). The correlation for N atoms are
> 0.877 which I consider still pretty decent, but the N chemical shifts
> are smaller than experimental values by 5.
>
> Can anybody explain the difference of N chemical shifts between
> simulation and experiments?
>
> Do you consider the comparison fair, and the results be encouraging?
>
> Thanks,
> Mingfeng
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The AMBER Mail Reflector
> To post, send mail to amber.scripps.edu
> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" to majordomo.scripps.edu
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The AMBER Mail Reflector
To post, send mail to amber.scripps.edu
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" to majordomo.scripps.edu
Received on Sun May 06 2007 - 06:07:25 PDT
