Your answer was very useful! I actually could point out where the
"confusion" came from!
Thanks,
XAvier.
On Mar 11, 2009, at 10:43 PM, [email protected] wrote:
I was either using using 3.3 or 3.3.1, certainly not 3.1.4 or 3.2.1.
It looks like the change was in 3.3.1, possibly by Erik:
[tera:~]?diff gromacs-3.3/src/tools/gmx_chi.c gromacs-3.3.1/src/
tools/gmx_chi.c
2c2
< * $Id: gmx_chi.c,v 1.3 2005/02/16 17:39:27 hess Exp $
---
* $Id: gmx_chi.c,v 1.3.2.2 2006/04/02 15:09:37 lindahl Exp $
148,172c148,170
< for(i=0; (i<nl); i++) { /* Phi */
< dl[i].j0[edPhi] = n/4;
< if (dl[i].atm.H == -1)
< id[n++]=dl[i].atm.minC;
< else
< id[n++]=dl[i].atm.H;
< id[n++]=dl[i].atm.N;
< id[n++]=dl[i].atm.Cn[1];
< id[n++]=dl[i].atm.C;
< }
< for(i=0; (i<nl); i++) { /* Psi */
< dl[i].j0[edPsi] = n/4;
< id[n++]=dl[i].atm.N;
< id[n++]=dl[i].atm.Cn[1];
< id[n++]=dl[i].atm.C;
< id[n++]=dl[i].atm.O;
< }
< for(i=0; (i<nl); i++) { /* Omega */
< if (has_dihedral(edOmega,&(dl[i]))) {
< dl[i].j0[edOmega] = n/4;
< id[n++]=dl[i].atm.minO;
< id[n++]=dl[i].atm.minC;
< id[n++]=dl[i].atm.N;
< id[n++]=dl[i].atm.Cn[1];
< }
---
for(i=0; (i<nl); i++) {
/* Phi, fake the first one */
dl[i].j0[edPhi] = n/4;
if(dl[i].atm.minC >= 0)
id[n++]=dl[i].atm.minC;
else
id[n++]=dl[i].atm.H;
id[n++]=dl[i].atm.N;
id[n++]=dl[i].atm.Cn[1];
id[n++]=dl[i].atm.C;
}
for(i=0; (i<nl); i++) { /* Psi, fake the last one */
dl[i].j0[edPsi] = n/4;
id[n++]=dl[i].atm.N;
id[n++]=dl[i].atm.Cn[1];
id[n++]=dl[i].atm.C;
if ( i< (nl-1) )
id[n++]=dl[i+1].atm.N;
else
id[n++]=dl[i].atm.O;
...
<snip>
Note that I am not sure if 3.3.1 will give you what you expect for
the terminal residues, even if they are capped. I suspect that it
will not.
In the link that I mentioned earlier, I discuss "...plot the
dih.rest. energy
output from g_energy and scatter plot this with the actual dihedral
value from
g_chi for a particular umbrella". If there is scatter from the
expected energy
function then you may suspect that g_chi is still incorrect.
I switched to g_rama for my work and never looked back, so don't
take my word for it that g_chi is correct now, I just took a really
quick look.
Chris.
-- original message --
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the link.
I then do not understand what is happening because I get the same
exact values
with g_chi and g_rama! Are you sure you were using the gmx-3.3.1? And
not an
earlier version?
Note that in the code of gmx-3.1.4 and gmx-3.2.1 the non-standard
definition is used
but in the gmx-3.3.1 the code is changed and the standard definition
is used.
Anyone would have changed the code and forgot to update the comment on
the
choice of the atoms to calculate the phi/psi angles in g_chi ?
XAvier.
---------------------
Data:
g_chi / from the phi-psi files for Ala15
10000 -112.924 42.8174
10100 -114.15 57.1768
10200 -82.0442 -11.6453
10300 -99.8691 36.5998
10400 -83.1319 -20.2397
g_rama / extracting the Ala15 data
10000 -112.924 42.8174 ALA-15
10100 -114.15 57.1768 ALA-15
10200 -82.0442 -11.6453 ALA-15
10300 -99.8691 36.5998 ALA-15
10400 -83.1319 -20.2397 ALA-15
10500 -104.275 12.6959 ALA-15
_______________________________________________
gmx-users mailing list [email protected]
http://www.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
Please search the archive at http://www.gromacs.org/search before
posting!
Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
www interface or send it to [email protected].
Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php
_______________________________________________
gmx-users mailing list [email protected]
http://www.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
Please search the archive at http://www.gromacs.org/search before posting!
Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
www interface or send it to [email protected].
Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php
