Re: Minimization Question

From: McGuire, Kelly (mcg05004_at_byui.edu)
Date: Mon Nov 12 2018 - 15:37:01 CST

Hey Brian, I will go ahead and try running minimization again without restraints on the atoms in the QM region and let you know if I see a difference.

Kelly L. McGuire

PhD Scholar

Biophysics

Department of Physiology and Developmental Biology

Brigham Young University

LSB 3050

Provo, UT 84602

________________________________
From: Brian Radak <brian.radak_at_gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 12:45:43 PM
To: namd-l; McGuire, Kelly
Subject: Re: namd-l: Minimization Question

If this kind of minimization uses the regular NAMD steepest descent/conjugate gradient minimizer (which I think it does) then you almost certainly should use fewer steps. I would rarely recommend more than 200 steps.

Cartesian restraints (ala the horrendously misnamed "constraints" keyword) are very probably recommended, but maybe not on the QM region?

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 8:47 PM McGuire, Kelly <mcg05004_at_byui.edu<mailto:mcg05004_at_byui.edu>> wrote:

  Usually, during a normal MM simulation, I run the minimization for 1,000 to 2,000 steps. Now, with a QM/MM simulation, using PM7, MOPAC, and GPUs, I can minimize for 1,000 steps in 25 minutes. However, looking at the minimization trajectory, in the QM region some of the sidechain atoms move drastically, causing their bond to stretch really far. I tried restraining the whole sidechain, but the it still happens.

1) Should I not use restraints on the atoms in the QM region?

2) Should I use fewer steps during minimization?

3) Could it be PM7, maybe use a non-semi-empirical theory for minimization?

Same questions for the annealing and equilibration steps...

Kelly L. McGuire

PhD Scholar

Biophysics

Department of Physiology and Developmental Biology

Brigham Young University

LSB 3050

Provo, UT 84602

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Dec 07 2019 - 23:20:17 CST