Re: [AMBER] positive free energy

From: Vlad Cojocaru <>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 23:45:26 +0200

Maybe its worth mentioning in this thread that changing from inp=2 to inp=1 also involves changing other parameters such as cavity_surften and cavity_offset.


On August 20, 2014 11:36:44 PM CEST, Jason Swails <> wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Vlad Cojocaru <
>> wrote:
>> In my experience inp=2 gives far better affinities than inp=1 for
>> protein-nucleic acids . As long as non-linear PB is used and
>> Therefore I disagree with changing the default to inp=1. In fact I
>> argue MMPBSA should not run with any defaults as users need to
>> every single parameter.
>‚ÄčThank you for the feedback. Obviously, bad experiences with inp=2
>over-expressed here, so it's good to hear the other side as well.
>I think eliminating the default for inp is probably the best way to go
>here. And while I agree users should know all of the relevant
>it's too much of a change to rip out all of the defaults, in my
>opinion. I
>think we've learned that silently changing them is a bad thing, so in
>where no clear "best practice" or "most common" choice exists, that
>should be specified explicitly.
>Jason M. Swails
>Rutgers University
>Postdoctoral Researcher
>AMBER mailing list

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
AMBER mailing list
Received on Wed Aug 20 2014 - 15:00:04 PDT
Custom Search