Re: [gmx-users] Atom positions change between topology generation and NVT equilibration

2020-04-29 Thread Justin Lemkul




On 4/29/20 7:49 AM, Max Winokan wrote:

My apologies for the missing images. Hopefully they are available along with 
the MDP in the following link: 
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dnqz7c049f4tvw3/AAAGGZ8AF-ddQpBjD-QVf0OAa?dl=0

  


If anyone knows what could be going on, please let me know. Essentially the 
atom positions in the first NVT step are very different to the input topology, 
see my original email below.

  


Was there an intervening energy minimization step? The output of pdb2gmx 
looks fine, though providing the actual coordinate files and topologies 
themselves would be more useful for diagnosing the issue.


Note that if you are applying constraints, that operation is done before 
the first step so the coordinates can change. The distortion in the 
coordinates suggests and incorrect bonded topology.


-Justin

--
==

Justin A. Lemkul, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Office: 301 Fralin Hall
Lab: 303 Engel Hall

Virginia Tech Department of Biochemistry
340 West Campus Dr.
Blacksburg, VA 24061

jalem...@vt.edu | (540) 231-3129
http://www.thelemkullab.com

==

--
Gromacs Users mailing list

* Please search the archive at 
http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List before posting!

* Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists

* For (un)subscribe requests visit
https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users or send a 
mail to gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.


Re: [gmx-users] Atom positions change between topology generation and NVT equilibration

2020-04-29 Thread Christian Blau

Hi Max,

In the .mdp file that you uploaded you are using

constraints = h-bonds   ; bonds involving H are constrained

Is that the right file? Otherwise running without these constraints 
might help.



On the off-chance that happened: not using -ignh in grompp avoids 
re-placement of hydrogens.


Best,

Christian


On 2020-04-29 13:49, Max Winokan wrote:

My apologies for the missing images. Hopefully they are available along with 
the MDP in the following link: 
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dnqz7c049f4tvw3/AAAGGZ8AF-ddQpBjD-QVf0OAa?dl=0

  


If anyone knows what could be going on, please let me know. Essentially the 
atom positions in the first NVT step are very different to the input topology, 
see my original email below.

  


Best,

  


Max

  


From:  on behalf of Max Winokan 

Reply to: 
Date: Wednesday, 29 April 2020 at 1:36 PM
To: 
Subject: [gmx-users] Atom positions change between topology generation and NVT 
equilibration

  


Dear GMX-Users,

  


I am running some simulations of unsolvated DNA base pair dimers, with a 
topology generated from a structure previously optimised with quantum 
mechanical models. Because these structures have been highly-optimised it is 
important that Gromacs begins the MD with these atom positions.

  


After generating the topology with pdb2gmx I get the structure file (gc.gro) 
with the configuration seen below (after_pdb2gmx.jpg):

  

  


This configuration matches the optimised input structure. However, when I 
examine the trajectory (.trr) produced by running my NVT simulation (the MDP 
file for which is attached), the first timestep is very different from the 
input gc.gro structure, as seen below (first_nvt_frame.jpg):

  

  


The discrepancy is largest with the hydrogen atoms (which are not constrained 
of course), but all the atoms have been slightly shifted from the input 
configuration. Please could someone fill me in on the source of these position 
changes, and how I can modify my methods to avoid these.

  


Thank you and best regards,

  


Max Winokan

  


PhD Candidate in Theoretical Physics

Leverhulme Quantum Biology Doctoral Training Centre University of Surrey

GU2 7XH Guildford

United Kingdom

Office: 03AZ04

Email: m.wino...@surrey.ac.uk

  

  


-- Gromacs Users mailing list * Please search the archive at 
http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List before posting! * 
Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists * For 
(un)subscribe requests visit 
https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users or send a 
mail to gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.


--
Gromacs Users mailing list

* Please search the archive at 
http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List before posting!

* Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists

* For (un)subscribe requests visit
https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users or send a 
mail to gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.

Re: [gmx-users] Atom positions change between topology generation and NVT equilibration

2020-04-29 Thread Max Winokan
My apologies for the missing images. Hopefully they are available along with 
the MDP in the following link: 
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dnqz7c049f4tvw3/AAAGGZ8AF-ddQpBjD-QVf0OAa?dl=0

 

If anyone knows what could be going on, please let me know. Essentially the 
atom positions in the first NVT step are very different to the input topology, 
see my original email below.

 

Best,

 

Max

 

From:  on behalf of Max 
Winokan 
Reply to: 
Date: Wednesday, 29 April 2020 at 1:36 PM
To: 
Subject: [gmx-users] Atom positions change between topology generation and NVT 
equilibration

 

Dear GMX-Users,

 

I am running some simulations of unsolvated DNA base pair dimers, with a 
topology generated from a structure previously optimised with quantum 
mechanical models. Because these structures have been highly-optimised it is 
important that Gromacs begins the MD with these atom positions.

 

After generating the topology with pdb2gmx I get the structure file (gc.gro) 
with the configuration seen below (after_pdb2gmx.jpg):

 

 

This configuration matches the optimised input structure. However, when I 
examine the trajectory (.trr) produced by running my NVT simulation (the MDP 
file for which is attached), the first timestep is very different from the 
input gc.gro structure, as seen below (first_nvt_frame.jpg):

 

 

The discrepancy is largest with the hydrogen atoms (which are not constrained 
of course), but all the atoms have been slightly shifted from the input 
configuration. Please could someone fill me in on the source of these position 
changes, and how I can modify my methods to avoid these.

 

Thank you and best regards,

 

Max Winokan

 

PhD Candidate in Theoretical Physics

Leverhulme Quantum Biology Doctoral Training Centre University of Surrey

GU2 7XH Guildford

United Kingdom

Office: 03AZ04

Email: m.wino...@surrey.ac.uk

 

 

-- Gromacs Users mailing list * Please search the archive at 
http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List before posting! * 
Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists * For 
(un)subscribe requests visit 
https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users or send a 
mail to gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.

-- 
Gromacs Users mailing list

* Please search the archive at 
http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List before posting!

* Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists

* For (un)subscribe requests visit
https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users or send a 
mail to gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.