On 10/4/12 8:40 AM, rama david wrote:
Thank you justin and franscisco,
I have practical data that claim that only a particular residue that is c
terminal residue is
involve in binding.
but when I generate the docking data other residues most of the time
comes to play.
I know the binding of natural ligand ( peptide ) and the position.
so I think if I mutate only these residue and simulate the system I will
get the
structure that is more active. In natural ligand the C terminal is playing
important role.
With simulation i will find interaction energy.
"Interaction energy" is a very vague term that people often use fairly
erroneously to justify their findings. Force fields are not necessarily
guaranteed to produce anything meaningful from the sum of nonbonded terms.
That will tell me about binding affinity ( Hope so )
More sophisticated free energy calculations would be necessary to determine
binding affinity or free energy of binding.
-Justin
--
========================================
Justin A. Lemkul, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
Department of Biochemistry
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA
jalemkul[at]vt.edu | (540) 231-9080
http://www.bevanlab.biochem.vt.edu/Pages/Personal/justin
========================================
--
gmx-users mailing list gmx-users@gromacs.org
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 gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.
* Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
