Thanks for the comments.
Still would you suggest any specific force field for peptide simulations?
Mannan.
--- On Mon, 29/3/10, Carlos Simmerling <carlos.simmerling.gmail.com> wrote:
From: Carlos Simmerling <carlos.simmerling.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [AMBER] AMBER ff99sb
To: "AMBER Mailing List" <amber.ambermd.org>
Date: Monday, 29 March, 2010, 5:02 PM
what you probably heard is that the backbone parameters are better in
ff99SB, but that Ile can be improved in all amber force fields including
99SB. ff94 performs worse than 99SB, but in very short (ns) runs you are
probably OK.
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:04 AM, Mannan <malie_03.yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
> Dear Amber users,
> I was recently told that the dihedral parameters for amino acid
> Isoleucine is incorrect except in ff99sb. I used ff94 for my peptide
> simulations with Ile. Wonder which force field is good for peptide
> simulations of 13mer?
> I used ff94, since it matched well for few experimentally observed trends.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions and comments
>
> Mannan
>
>
>
> The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.
> http://in.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER mailing list
> AMBER.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Tue Mar 30 2010 - 03:30:04 PDT
