On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:41:10 AM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 8:55:46 AM UTC+1, Emiliano Brini wrote:
>>
>> Dear Steven, 
>>
>> On Jun 4, 2013, at 10:26 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, June 3, 2013 4:26:29 PM UTC+1, Christoph Junghans wrote:
>>>
>>> 2013/6/3  <[email protected]>: 
>>> > Dear Votca Users, 
>>> > 
>>> > I wish to reproduce my atomistic simulation angles of my protein with 
>>> CG 
>>> > between beads of residues. However I wish not to produce tables as an 
>>> input 
>>> > to gromacs mdrun but get the equilibrium value and then adjust the 
>>> spring 
>>> > constant to make it faster. 
>>> Tabulated vs functional form is at most 50% faster, but the bonded 
>>> interactions usually take 10% or less of the total simulation time, so 
>>> you will not gain much in the end. 
>>>
>>
>>
>>> > For this purpose shall I just create distributions or histograms 
>>> normalized 
>>> > over the volume? Then place my spring where the distribution is max so 
>>> set 
>>> > angle in gromacs to this value and adjust the force constant to match 
>>> this 
>>> > distribution? Please, advise whether I am right. 
>>> You will have to use the volume normalize histogram, but csg_boltzmann 
>>> can do most of the calculation for you. 
>>>
>>> Why don't you just take the table and fit k*(x-x_0)^2 to it? 
>>>
>>
>> That is what I am planning to do.But which table?  Shall I take the table 
>> with distributions of bonds (or angles?) of the potential or volume 
>> normalized histogram to fit k*(x-x_0)^2 ?
>>  
>>
>>
>> In the Gromacs topology file you write the parameters of the potential 
>> functions, therefore you need to fit the potential curve.  
>>
>>
>>> Cheers, 
>>>
>>> Christoph 
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks for your help. I got gaussian distribution for my bonds so I can 
>> fit it into k*(x-x_0)^2 and multiple gaussian distribution of my angles... 
>> Is that normal? My beads involve 7 - 22 atoms, maybe that is why? Shall I 
>> use a tables as an input to mdrun?
>>
>> Steven
>>
>>
>> It is quite normal for CG distributions to not be gaussian. Since the CG 
>> system has less degrees of freedom compared to the atomistic one, a single 
>> CG bonded interaction represent by its nature several atomistic 
>> intramolecular interactions (bonds, angles, dihedrals, and intramolecular 
>> non bonded interaction).  Even more a simple Boltzmann inversion of a 
>> distribution can cast into the potentials contributions coming from parts 
>> of the molecule (or of the system) that do not belong to the group of atoms 
>> that you are directly considering. Therefore the distributions you obtain 
>> are a sum of contributions each one with its own weight. It is extremely 
>> difficult to say a priory something about the shape of the final 
>> distribution.  
>> As it has been said the use of a table normally is not too expensive, 
>> therefore it is normally a good idea to use them. 
>> Anyhow the best thing you can do is to run two test system: one where you 
>> use tabulated potential and one where you use your "best" fitting. In this 
>> way you can see the difference between their performances and their results 
>> in your specific case. 
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Emiliano  
>>
>
>
> And the other thing: does csg_boltmann with option tab produce potentials 
> which can be an input (after extrapolation and smoothing) to straight to 
> mdrun? I mean: Is Y value of the potential plot in kJ/mol and X value of 
> radians (in case of angle)?
>
> Steven
>
> As far as I know is not possible to prepare automatically table for 
angular potentials, mainly because Gromacs needs degrees and Votca gives 
radians. Normally I use Votca to calculate the distribution and then I 
convert and invert it using the formulas in chapter 2.2 of the manual. 

Emiliano

Thanks for this. csg_boltzmann divides the distribution by sin(teta) and 
provides the normalized volume potential. I will double check the Gromacs 
input (radians or degrees) as the angular force constant is in kJ/mol rad^2.

Steven

Can anyone can comment on this please?

Steven




 

>
>>  
>>
>>> > 
>>> > Steven 
>>> > 
>>> > -- 
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups 
>>> > "votca" group. 
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an 
>>> > email to [email protected]. 
>>> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. 
>>> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/votca?hl=en. 
>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Christoph Junghans 
>>> Web: http://www.compphys.de 
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "votca" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to [email protected].
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/votca?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>  
>>  
>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"votca" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/votca?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to