Sorry I forgot to ask in each lambda reheating and equilibration, I should use ig = -1, correct?
Or this is neccessary only during production?
best regards,
Fabian
Dr. Fabian Glaser
Head of the Structural Bioinformatics section
Bioinformatics Knowledge Unit - BKU
The Lorry I. Lokey Interdisciplinary Center for Life Sciences and Engineering
Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, ISRAEL
fglaser at technion dot ac dot il
Tel: +972 4 8293701
http://bku.technion.ac.il
> On 2 Dec 2015, at 3:42 PM, Jason Swails <jason.swails.gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Fabian gmail <fabian.glaser.gmail.com <mailto:fabian.glaser.gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Hannes,
>>
>> I bother you again….
>>
>> According to the Kaus paper, it’s clear that only one minimization of the
>> ligand it’s necessary to calculate the solvation free energy, but it’s not
>> clear to me if each lambda value requires a heating and pressure
>> equilibration, and then production, or only one initial heating + equil is
>> necessary and then production continues from the last .rst7 file…. of the
>> last lambda (as in a regular long MD).
>>
>
> In principle, you will always need to do an equilibration. You cannot
> assume that the phase space of different lambda values are the same (in
> fact, they are NOT the same), which means that a snapshot from one lambda
> value will not be an equilibrium structure for another lambda value in
> general. So you will need to perform some amount of MD in order to relax
> the structure to its "new" lambda value and throw out the non-equilibrium
> structures generated on the way to the actual free energy surface.
>
> The more similar these lambda surfaces are (which you can usually guarantee
> by taking small increments of lambda), the less re-equilibration time will
> be needed. The surface similarity can be a lot worse if all you want to do
> is avoid reminimizing and reheating (which means that even if you have to
> re-do the equilibration when moving to an adjacent lambda value, you can
> usually re-use the minimization/heating results from the previous step).
>
> That said, heating and minimization are the cheapest parts of the
> simulation (by far). So there's not really much harm in just redoing it if
> you were concerned about it.
>
> HTH,
> Jason
>
> --
> Jason M. Swails
> BioMaPS,
> Rutgers University
> Postdoctoral Researcher
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER mailing list
> AMBER.ambermd.org <mailto:AMBER.ambermd.org>
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber <http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber>
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Wed Dec 02 2015 - 07:00:06 PST
