Re: [AMBER] Average structure vs Individual frames

From: Bill Ross <ross.cgl.ucsf.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 18:50:15 -0700

Have you given pymol any topology info, e.g. in a prmtop, or pdb with
CONECT records? If not, poor pymol is just doing the best it can based
on distance, I suspect.

Bill

On 5/13/19 6:16 PM, Yin, Guowei wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> My protein contains GDP and Mg2+. After the simulation, I look up the individual frames and the average structure over the 50 ns. I found in the individual frames the Mg2+ stays close to the phosophates of GDP and leads to the artificial bonds recognized by the PyMol. But in the average structure, the distance looks fine and no artificial bonds by PyMol. I attached the screenshot below. This is something with the processing?
>
> The parameters used for Mg is:
> Oelschlaeger et al JMB 2007 Mg dummy and MD6.
>
> When I generate the final trajectory, I used the unwrap as:
>
> unwrap :1-169
>
> center :1-169 mass origin
>
> image origin center familiar
>
> and the way I generate the average structure is:
>
> cpptraj ../proteinA.top <<eof
>
> trajin ./proteinA.mdcrd 25000 50000 1
>
> rms first
>
> average proteinA.avg.pdb pdb
>
>
> =====
>
> The average structure
> [image.png]
>
> individual frames:
>
> [cid:a43a94a8-7a83-41c2-ba22-e46fdddcbf82]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 May 13 2019 - 19:00:02 PDT
Custom Search