Your question can be easily answered by comparing with experimental
data, i.e. the deltaG's or relative delta G's.
In general, we always need to compare with experiment when using
mmpbsa/gbsa in a project, at least at the initial phase, to establish
the validity of the approximations in the computational models.
Ray
--
Ray Luo, Ph.D.
Professor,
Biochemistry, Molecular Biophysics, Chemical Physics,
Chemical and Biomedical Engineering
University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-3900
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:26 AM, asdda asa <nadaafiva.gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Prof. Jason,
> What you suppose is exatly accurate, that the nonpolar free energy
> contribution were very different between PBSA and GBSA.
> I already performed the free energy calculation using inp=1 for &pb section,
> and it works.
> Thanks so much for your help.
>
> best regards,
> Nafiva
>
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Jason Swails <jason.swails.gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 10:55 PM, asdda asa <nadaafiva.gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Amber users,
>> > I have problem with the result of MMPBSA and MMGBSA calculation.
>> > Previously, I performed three md simulations, each consisted of a ligand
>> > bound to the same protein. The three systems differ in ligand structures
>> > only.
>> > I noticed that there were significantly different results of binding
>> > energies calculated by MMPBSA and those by MMGBSA.
>> > The final binding energies calculated by GB were about -50 kcal/mol for
>> > each system, while those are from PB were about +10 kcal/mol for each
>> > system.
>> > Please anyhelp how could these difference occured?
>> >
>>
>> Look at the breakdown of the binding free energy contributions. I suspect
>> that the nonpolar free energy contribution (ENPOLAR+EDISPER for PB and
>> ESURF for GB) are very different from each other. They use different
>> models by default. I suspect that you can account for almost the entire 60
>> kcal/mol difference between PB and GB binding energies simply through this
>> contribution.
>>
>> It's unclear to me which is "better", but in this case I would probably go
>> with the simple model used by GB. You can use this model in the PB code by
>> setting inp=1 in the &pb section of the input file.
>>
>> Also make sure you are using the most up-to-date version of AmberTools.
>>
>> HTH,
>> Jason
>>
>> --
>> Jason M. Swails
>> BioMaPS,
>> Rutgers University
>> Postdoctoral Researcher
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 Sun Jan 11 2015 - 16:30:03 PST