On Fri, Jan 09, 2015, mmaestre.gate.sinica.edu.tw wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions. What I meant by "nothing happens" is
> that the simulation with or without the EMAP constraints resulted in
> secondary structure being completely destroyed. When I checked my
> trajectory output, the emap energies were given as 0.
> Since then, I've checked the test files, and have used the input file
> from the emap2 test as a basis for mine (see below). This results in
> EMAP values of around -4500, which sounds much better.
Correct.
> The main difference between the two systems, I think, is that
> I wasn't originally using SG-langevin dynamics (only langevin
> thermostatization).
Are you sure that the only difference between getting EMAP of 0 and -4500
is the presence of isgld=1, and the everything else is absolutely identical?
I don't have easy accss to your earlier email, but I think you used a blank
for mapfile, and maybe had some other changes from what you have here.
The use of self-guided dynamics should be indenpendent of emap constraints.
...dac
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Fri Jan 09 2015 - 05:30:02 PST
