Re: [AMBER] Nastruct vs 3DNA

From: Daniel Roe <daniel.r.roe.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 13:37:04 -0400

Hi,

Just to clarify, what version of cpptraj are you referring to exactly
(i.e. what are the results of 'cpptraj --version' and 'cpptraj
--internal-version')?

-Dan

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 1:12 PM Jason Imamoto
<jimamoto.mail.usciences.edu> wrote:
>
> Hello Users,
>
> I had a question about the nastruct command compared to x3dna. The current nastruct does not seem capable of identifying non-canonical base-pairs. Are there variables that can be changed for it to recognize non-canonical base-pairs to acquire base and base-step parameters? I know that x3dna is capable of producing those parameters and since nastruct is based on x3dna, I would think it is capable of doing the same analysis.
>
> Thank you for your time and help.
>
> Jason M. Imamoto
> Doctoral Candidate
> Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
> GH 302
> University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
> 600 S 43rd St. Philadelphia, PA 19104
>
> Email: jimamoto.mail.usciences.edu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Mon Mar 18 2019 - 11:00:01 PDT
Custom Search