Re: [AMBER] R: strange POPC under lipids 11 FF

From: Albert <mailmd2011.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:35:38 +0200

I didn't remember the details now and I have to check my notes. However,
I found a similar paper may concerned on this issue:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/jp048969n



On 06/15/2012 12:38 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
> Did they explain why? Seems bogus to me.
>
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2012, at 11:28, Albert<mailmd2011.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/15/2012 12:02 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
>>>> Moreover, the surface tension values probably should also have
>>>>> something
>>>>> to do with the cutoff we use..... I don't know whether Ross have any
>>>>> comments on this aspects.
>>> No it should NOT depend on the cutoff. Why would you think it should depend
>>> on the cutoff?
>>>
>>> If it does then your cutoff is TOO SMALL, period!
>>>
>>> I suggest you check things carefully. Ultimately if you want to publish the
>>> work you will need to defend the surface tension you used so you might as
>>> well run a few hundred nanoseconds for the system you want to run with a
>>> range of surface tension values and then you'll be able to provide a
>>> justification of the value you used if a reviewer asks.
>> that's strange, because in recent CAHRMM workshop, the speaker emphasize
>> this issue and they state that the non-bonded cut off should influence
>> the surface tension.....
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 Fri Jun 15 2012 - 04:00:04 PDT
Custom Search