Hello Matthew,
You should take a look at the fractions of protonated species as a function of pH for these residues. This will give you an idea on why you are getting these fitted values.
One possibility is that you are having a conformational change and then your fractions of protonated species vs pH will not have a nice sigmoidal shape, what could explain the fitted values you got.
Also, I would not exclude the possibility that you need to add more pH values, as you pointed out. Notice that the plots I am suggesting will tell you if this is what you need to do.
I hope this helps,
Vinícius Wilian D. Cruzeiro, PhD
Postdoctoral Researcher
Department of Chemistry
Stanford University
Twitter: .vwcruzeiro
________________________________
From: Matthew Guberman-Pfeffer via AMBER <amber.ambermd.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 9:08 PM
To: amber.ambermd.org <amber.ambermd.org>
Subject: [AMBER] Suspicious pKas from CpHMD
Dear AMBER Community,
I’m getting some really strange pKas for CpHMD simulations performed at pHs from 5 to 10. For example,
LYS 8: pKa = 564.07106 (+- 9292.89711 ) ; Hill coefficient = 0.004 (+- 0.060 )
AS4 114: pKa = -52.65171 (+- 144.03991 ) ; Hill coefficient = 0.046 (+- 0.112 )
Each simulation was propagated for 40 ns. My CpH-relevant settings were icnstph=2, ntcnstph=100, ntrelax=100, and solvph = 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10.
Is there anything besides running the simulations for longer that I should try? Should I expand the range of considered pHs? What else can I try to get more reasonable pKas for these residues? Or, what should I inspect to see if something is going wrong?
Best,
Matthew
_______________________________________________
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 Wed Feb 08 2023 - 22:00:03 PST
