Dear Carl,
thank you very much for your additional information !
Best,
Marek
Dne Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:07:00 +0200 Karl Kirschner
<kkirsch.scai.fraunhofer.de> napsal/-a:
> Hi,
>
> I would recommend using the Glycam force field when sugars are involved
> in
> the simulation (but I am a bit biased :) ). In the development of Glycam
> and
> my personal use of it I have not seen "dramatic" differences when using
> the
> scaling factors. If I recall correctly, using the default scaling factor
> seems to effect the rotational barriers by reducing them (or raising the
> minima, depending on your perspective). You also get slightly different
> conformational populations (~1-10%) when using scaling factors versus no
> scaling factor, so it has some effects on the relative minima as well.
> However, I haven't seen a significant effect yet... One observable I
> would
> monitor if you use Glycam with scaling factors is the carbohydrate
> puckering.
> If your simulation alters the puckering, which is normally 4C1 for many
> sugars, then I would question if that is due to the use of scaling
> factors.
>
> Glycam has been extensively tested on it ability to reproduce
> experimental
> observables of carbohydrates. I can not comment on the ability of GAFF to
> model carbohydrates.
>
> Cheers,
> Karl
>
--
Tato zpráva byla vytvořena převratným poštovním klientem Opery:
http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Wed May 20 2009 - 11:24:39 PDT
