----- Original Message -----
From: Bernhard Knapp <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, August 12, 2010 23:28
Subject: [gmx-users] Question regarding tpr files and rmsd
To: [email protected]

> Dear users
> 
> Due to a hard disk crash we lost several md simulations. 
> Fortunalty we  have backup copies of the trajectry files 
> (xtc format) and structure files of the first frame of the 
> simulation (created via trjconv -b 0 -e  0 -f myName.md.trr 
> -o myName.md.firstframe.pdb  -s myName.md.tpr). We do  
> not have the tpr files which we usually used for example for the 
> rmsd  calculations. We found that the -s option of g_rms 
> does not only take  tpr files but also pdb files, however 
> when I compare the resulting xvg  files the values are 
> slightly different and I get a warning "Warning: if  there 
> are broken molecules in the trajectory file, they can not be 
> made  whole without a run input file".

Sure. GROMACS-written PDB files contain no connectivity data. .tpr files do.

> The average 
> difference (over 10 ns)  between the xvg file based on the 
> tpr and on the pdb is  0.01447971.

Probably quite a reasonable difference in the average RMSD (in nm), given the 
pdb approximates the floating-point numbers in the .tpr with only 3 decimal 
points (in Angstrom)

> Example for the 2 file:
> 
> [bkn...@quovadis02 test]$ sdiff rmsd.pdb.xvg rmsd.tpr.xvg | less
> # This file was created Thu Aug 12 11:23:09 
> 2010              | # This file was created Thu Aug 12 11:22:06 2010
> # by the following 
> command:                                     # by the following command:
> # g_rms -f 1mi5_A6D.md.xtc -s 1mi5_A6D.md.firstframe.pdb -o r | 
> # g_rms -f 1mi5_A6D.md.xtc -s 1mi5_A6D.md.tpr -o rmsd.tpr.xvg
> #                                                               #
> # g_rms is part of G R O M A C 
> S:                               # g_rms is part of G R O M A C S:
> #                                                               #
> # GROtesk MACabre and 
> Sinister                                | # S  C  A  M  O  R  G
> #                                                               #
> @    title 
> "RMSD"                                               @    title "RMSD"
> @    xaxis  label "Time 
> (ps)"                                   @    xaxis  label "Time (ps)"
> @    yaxis  label "RMSD 
> (nm)"                                   @    yaxis  label "RMSD (nm)"
> @TYPE 
> xy                                                        @TYPE xy
> @ subtitle "Protein after lsq fit to 
> Protein"                   @ subtitle "Protein after lsq fit to Protein"
>   0.0000000    
> 0.0005041                                     |    0.0000000    0.0005046
>   3.0000000    
> 0.1072081                                     |    3.0000000    0.0981387
>   6.0000000    
> 0.1281023                                     |    6.0000000    0.1207779
>   9.0000000    
> 0.1452615                                     |    9.0000000    0.1351306
> ...
> 
> 
> My questions are now:
> 
> - Why are the xvg files different if they are based on the tpr 
> and on the pdb file?

PDB has more limited precision than the .tpr, and if you're fitting to their 
structure, you'll get slightly different results.

> - What is the more appropriate way to calculate the rmsd?

Depends what you're trying to measure - but I'd argue there shouldn't be a 
significant difference between these two.
 
> - Just if the more appropriate way is the tpr file: Is it valid 
> to recreate the tpr file via grompp solely on the firstframe.pdb 
> and the xtc of the trajectory? eg via

It's about the best you can do. IIRC, the firstframe.pdb will have higher 
precision than the first frame of the .xtc, typically, and so produce a .tpr 
closer to the original.

The procedure below is unnecessarily regenerating water. Use pdb2gmx to 
generate the .top, and then simply use grompp to combine .mdp, .top and 
whichever source of the first frame you choose.

> pdb2gmx -f 1mi5_A6D.md.firstframe.pdb -o 
> 1mi5_A6D.md.firstframe.pdb.gro -p 1mi5_A6D.md.top
> editconf -f 1mi5_A6D.md.firstframe.pdb.gro -o 
> 1mi5_A6D.firstframe.cube.pdb -bt cubic -d 2.0
> genbox -cp 1mi5_A6D.firstframe.cube.pdb -cs spc216.gro -o 
> 1mi5_A6D.firstframe.water.pdb -p 1mi5_A6D.md.top
> grompp -f md.mdp -c 1mi5_A6D.firstframe.water.pdb -p 
> 1mi5_A6D.md.top -o 1mi5_A6D.md.RECREATED.tpr
> then the average difference between the xvg file based on the 
> tpr and the recreated tpr is 1.4865E-05 (which is much more 
> similar however still not identical)

You fitted and analyzed with respect to Protein, so the re-generation of the 
water should have no effect here. The remaining difference should be 
attributable to the difference between whatever coordinate changes pdb2gmx is 
making (I can't tell what, if any) based on the two slightly different starting 
points - but subjecting both to rounding to .gro precision. This last point 
explains why they're so similar, I expect.

Mark
  
> example:
> [bkn...@quovadis02 test]$ sdiff rmsd.tprRECREATED.xvg 
> rmsd.tpr.xvg | less
> # This file was created Thu Aug 12 11:59:23 
> 2010              | # This file was created Thu Aug 12 11:22:06 2010
> # by the following 
> command:                                     # by the following command:
> # g_rms -f 1mi5_A6D.md.xtc -s 1mi5_A6D.md.RECREATED.tpr -o rm | 
> # g_rms -f 1mi5_A6D.md.xtc -s 1mi5_A6D.md.tpr -o rmsd.tpr.xvg
> #                                                               #
> # g_rms is part of G R O M A C 
> S:                               # g_rms is part of G R O M A C S:
> #                                                               #
> # GROup of MAchos and Cynical 
> Suckers                         | # S  C  A  M  O  R  G
> #                                                               #
> @    title 
> "RMSD"                                               @    title "RMSD"
> @    xaxis  label "Time 
> (ps)"                                   @    xaxis  label "Time (ps)"
> @    yaxis  label "RMSD 
> (nm)"                                   @    yaxis  label "RMSD (nm)"
> @TYPE 
> xy                                                        @TYPE xy
> @ subtitle "Protein after lsq fit to 
> Protein"                   @ subtitle "Protein after lsq fit to Protein"
>   0.0000000    
> 0.0022253                                     |    0.0000000    0.0005046
>   3.0000000    
> 0.0981661                                     |    3.0000000    0.0981387
>   6.0000000    
> 0.1207914                                     |    6.0000000    0.1207779
>   9.0000000    
> 0.1351781                                     |    9.0000000    0.1351306
> ...
> 
> 
> cheers
> Bernhard
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> gmx-users mailing list    [email protected]
> http://lists.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://lists.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

Reply via email to