On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 4:54 PM, I Lőrincz <lorizoli.gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I've been constant pressure (1 bar) simulations with both AMBER 11 and
> GROMACS. At the end of the simulation water is much more densely packed
> near the protein when using GROMACS, then AMBER.
> For example, at the end of a simulation with GROMACS I found 4232 water
> molecules within a 5 Angstrom radius of my protein, whereas running a
> simulation with the same parameters with AMBER I only found 3054 water
> molecules within 5 Angstroms of the same protein (72.2% of the waters in
> GROMACS). Moreover, there were 2528 water molecules within a 3 Angstrom
> radius of the protein after the GROMACS simulation, but only 1570 water
> molecules after the AMBER simulation (62.1% of the GROMACS waters).
>
> What could be the reason for the difference and why does AMBER - apparently
> - cause a local decrease in water density close to the protein?
>
>
Hi,
what do you mean about "At the end"?
- Did you do your calculation for whole trajectory?
- Did you run two runs in either GROMACS or AMBER and the "observation" are
the same?
PS: AMBER 11 is quite old.
Hai
> Any advice, comment or explanation on this would be much appreciated.
>
> István Lőrincz
> Department of Biochemistry,
> Eötvös Lorand University, Hungary
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Tue Dec 27 2016 - 14:30:03 PST
