Re: [AMBER] Small Cutoffs Not Supported for Implicit Solvent GPU Simulation Runs

From: David A Case <david.case.rutgers.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 13:13:02 -0700

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022, Nathan Black wrote:

>I also see mention of the *makeDIST_RST *program in this chapter,
>which can take in a seven-column input (-upb) that looks something like:
>
>23 ALA HA 52 VAL H 3.8 # comments go here (as given in the manual).
>
>I did not see a direct interpretation of these constraints (other than HA
>and H are atom types, and that 3.8 is an "upper bound" in Angstroms). Am I

This is not correct: the first three numbers give the residue number,
residue name, and atom *name* for the first site; next three give the same
info for the second site; final number is the upper bound.

>If my understanding is correct, how can I implement this to my large system
>so as to enforce the 60 mM concentration?

As Carlos sugggested, I don't see how you can do this in the context of a
non-periodic simulation.

....good luck...dac


_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Tue Mar 22 2022 - 13:30:02 PDT
Custom Search