Re: [AMBER] Significantly different results between MMPBSA and MMGBSA

From: Ray Luo, Ph.D. <ray.luo.uci.edu>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 16:08:59 -0800

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
Custom Search