Re: [gmx-users] Significant smaller area per lipid in bilayer simulations using CHARMM force field

2016-09-20 Thread Justin Lemkul
On 9/20/16 4:03 PM, 凌未风 wrote: Hi Justin, I am using a temperature of 323 K, but I am using SSM instead of PSM. Does this make difference? No, but there is no reason why PSM should work and SSM wouldn't. PS: not sure this is the best way to reply in a mailing list It works like any

Re: [gmx-users] Significant smaller area per lipid in bilayer simulations using CHARMM force field

2016-09-20 Thread ??????
Hi Justin, I am using a temperature of 323 K, but I am using SSM instead of PSM. Does this make difference? Cheers, RXG PS: not sure this is the best way to reply in a mailing list On 9/20/16 1:17 PM, ??? wrote: > Hello: > > > I am simulating a stearol sphingomyelin bilayer with 81

Re: [gmx-users] Significant smaller area per lipid in bilayer simulations using CHARMM force field

2016-09-20 Thread Justin Lemkul
On 9/20/16 1:17 PM, 凌未风 wrote: Hello: I am simulating a stearol sphingomyelin bilayer with 81 lipids in each leaflet using the CHARMM force field. I used the CHARMM-GUI to generate the initial conformation, as well as the parameters for mdp file. I conducted the simulation by gmx5.0.4. I

[gmx-users] Significant smaller area per lipid in bilayer simulations using CHARMM force field

2016-09-20 Thread ??????
Hello: I am simulating a stearol sphingomyelin bilayer with 81 lipids in each leaflet using the CHARMM force field. I used the CHARMM-GUI to generate the initial conformation, as well as the parameters for mdp file. I conducted the simulation by gmx5.0.4. I found a significant smaller area