Re: [AMBER] AMBER Digest, Vol 1220, Issue 1

From: Jason Swails <>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 23:51:44 -0600

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Huang <> wrote:

> Thanks for the reply.
> I used cut=22.0 for saving conputer time, while I forget if I read
> somewhere that cut=20.0 is used for such a simulation (and I choose a
> better one, like cut=22.0). Will this setting introduce manifacts?
> ​

​Hard to tell. The issue is that electrostatic interactions are *very*
long-range. Have you compared the performance of using a 22 A cutoff
compared to a 1000 A cutoff? Unless the latter is prohibitively expensive,
using 1000 A is better for implicit solvent calculations.

> Jason said that "Seems like a good idea to me." I guess you didn't
> think it is necessary to keep using LCPO and surften=0.00500. Am I
> correct?

​I honestly don't remember the original context. But given what I see
below, I said that it seemed like a good idea to keep using LCPO with a
surften of 0.005 in the run. But then Carlos pointed out that
you didn't set gbsa=1, which means that you didn't use LCPO in the original

The default values for the non-polar solvation free energy with GB is
usually decent, so if you are unsure of what to do, that is a good starting


Jason M. Swails
Rutgers University
Postdoctoral Researcher
AMBER mailing list
Received on Mon Jun 15 2015 - 23:00:02 PDT
Custom Search