oh yeah, I see it now. that's what I get for trying to answer questions
early in the AM!
I do not at all recommend igb=7. the underlying model is good, but the
parameters were not well optimized. We refit them for igb=8 and the
performance is far better. you'll also want mbondi3 radii.
the easiest way for you to debug this is to actually look at the radii that
leap assigned in each of the cases. It could indeed be that the ILDN atom
types aren't compatible with the radii logic in leap- typically leap does
need to know more than just the element in order to set the radii. getting
an error is the best case- it's possible to set them incorrectly for your
molecule and actually get bad behavior without an error.... leap really
doesn't know that much about chemistry.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Vlad Cojocaru <
vlad.cojocaru.mpi-muenster.mpg.de> wrote:
> Carlos,
>
> I mentioned already I am using AMBER 12 ... But it was kind of between
> the lines .. Sorry for that !
>
> Best,
>
Vlad
>
> On 09/10/2012 02:57 PM, Carlos Simmerling wrote:
> > how radii are set does depend on which version of Amber you have, so we'd
> > need to know that before we can help...
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Vlad Cojocaru <
> > vlad.cojocaru.mpi-muenster.mpg.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> It appears that the Generalized Born simulations with igb=7 or igb=8 are
> >> incompatible with the ILDN modification of the ff99SB force field.
> >> I was trying to do an implicit solvent optimization of an unstructured
> >> tail before starting explicit solvent simulations, but after setting
> >> PBradii to "bondi" in Leap and running with igb=7 (AMBER 12), I got the
> >> error
> >>
> >> " Atom 25 has radius 2.2000000000000002 outside of
> >> allowed range
> >> of 1.0 to 2.0 angstroms for igb=7. Regenerate prmtop file with bondi
> >> radii."
> >>
> >> Looking in the topology I realized that this is a CG2 atom in ILE which
> >> has the type C3 ...
> >>
> >> If I do the same simulation with igb=5, I do not get any error .. But
> >> now I am actually wondering if the radii for these atom types are
> >> assigned properly with the set "mbondi2" (which I used for the igb=5
> >> simulations)...
> >>
> >> I know that ILDN modifications are optimized for explicit solvent
> >> simulations, but since my goal is actually explicit solvent simulations
> >> I did not want to use a different force field for the intermediate step
> >> of implicit solvent optimization.
> >>
> >> Best wishes
> >> Vlad
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dr. Vlad Cojocaru
> >> Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine
> >> Department of Cell and Developmental Biology
> >> Röntgenstrasse 20, 48149 Münster, Germany
> >> Tel: +49-251-70365-324; Fax: +49-251-70365-399
> >> Email: vlad.cojocaru[at]mpi-muenster.mpg.de
> >> http://www.mpi-muenster.mpg.de/research/teams/groups/rgcojocaru
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> Dr. Vlad Cojocaru
> Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine
> Department of Cell and Developmental Biology
> Röntgenstrasse 20, 48149 Münster, Germany
> Tel: +49-251-70365-324; Fax: +49-251-70365-399
> Email: vlad.cojocaru[at]mpi-muenster.mpg.de
> http://www.mpi-muenster.mpg.de/research/teams/groups/rgcojocaru
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Mon Sep 10 2012 - 06:30:03 PDT
