On 13/03/2011 8:55 PM, Yulian Gavrilov wrote:
Dear gmx users,
I just started with gromacs.
Can you help me to find my mistake? I already asked about it, but I
did not understand what to do exactly in my case.
I try to run to add a new *isopeptide bone* to connect Lys and Gly (to
make a tetramer of *ubiquitin*). I use AMBER99 force field, Gromacs 4.0.5.
What I did:
1.
I changed names of residues according to AMBER rules (LYS to LYN
etc.).
2.
Added new type of residues to ffamber.rtp (LYN -> LYQ and GLY ->
GLQ that are making a new isopeptide bond) and added a new line
to specbond.dat (LYN NZ 1 GLY C 1 0.13 LYQ GLQ) to make such a bond.
IIRC, this creates a bond between the lysine side-chain amine N and
glycine *backbone* carbonyl C. You must use the atom name for the
side-chain carbonyl carbon (see .rtp entry for GLY). If you've done this
wrong, then specbond will probably not have made a bond, because the
backbone carbonyl C was too far away. You should check your pdb2gmx
output carefully.
1.
2.
Added new bond type, angle type and dihedral type to
ffamber99bon.itp
After running of MD (I've got good minimization and equilibration –
nvt and npt) I've got such an error:
starting mdrun 'Protein in water'
600000 steps, 1200.0 ps.
step 94100, will finish Sun Mar 13 08:15:56 2011
Step 94124, time 188.248 (ps) LINCS WARNING
relative constraint deviation after LINCS:
rms 0.000796, max 0.032792 (between atoms 2454 and 2456)
bonds that rotated more than 30 degrees:
atom 1 atom 2 angle previous, current, constraint length
2454 2457 35.6 0.1522 0.1545 0.1522
And after it the same type of errors with another atoms:
2454 2456 36.1 0.1106 0.1113 0.1090 --> *Gly CA and HA1, HA2*
2454 2455 40.5 0.1114 0.1103 0.1090
.....
2454 2456 90.0 0.1078 0.1479 0.1090
771 773 48.5 0.1011 0.1012 0.1010
......
771 773 39.8 0.1012 0.1005 0.1010 --> *Gly NZ and HZ1, HZ2*
771 772 34.9 0.1012 0.1030 0.1010
.......
2454 2457 102.1 0.1490 38312886396780544.0000 0.1522
2454 2456 83.0 5.9313 39290317874135040.0000 0.1090
.......
First errors are with atoms from the residues with *new isopeptide
bond*. I suppose, that this bond is not good.
Seems like a reasonable hypothesis - but do look at 2454 and 2456 as
well. You have to get out your trajectory and a visualization package
and see what is actually going wrong. The warnings can be symptomatic of
a problem that started elsewhere.
You say you've added new interaction types, but I see no reason why you
would need to. It's chemically so similar to a backbone peptide that you
may as well keep things the same and model it the same way. Regardless,
you should probably check that the specbond.dat mechanism has created
interactions that make sense. Compare with a normal peptide bond.
Mark
Please can you advice me how yo make this isopeptide bond good?
Can I just remove this hydrogens?
--
Sincerely,
Yulian Gavrilov
--
gmx-users mailing list [email protected]
http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
Please search the archive at
http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/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/Support/Mailing_Lists
