David and all,
> I feel I should point out that Table 1 and Fig. 2 of the paper mentioned above
> show that you should be able to get good results, with low statistical
> uncertainties, using the klambda option of Amber8 or 9. The advantages of the
> soft-core potentials (at least in this study) are visible, but relatively
> minor. Thomas is travelling right now, but maybe when he reads this, he can
> post the RMS fluctuations from this studies.
As we discussed before, my previous testing had indicated the noise
was worse in the context of binding sites than for solvation free
energies (which are what were tested here). But I think Thomas is
going to look into this more.
David
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The AMBER Mail Reflector
To post, send mail to amber.scripps.edu
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" to majordomo.scripps.edu
Received on Wed Jul 04 2007 - 06:07:35 PDT
