I know that there are lots of topics about high RMSD value, sudden jumps or fluctuations. I’ve been scrolling through the topics and trying to apply several trjconv commands into my system but could not even get a smooth RMSD value and I am not sure if my system has crashed. I have carried out protein+ligand MD simulation and I had smooth RMSD values so far except the last system I set up for my simulation. I couldn’t fix my RMSD result even though I have tried several commands that I have listed out of order.
Sadly, these commands did not work, I think I am missing some points since I’m new to GROMACS. Sorry for bringing this topic up again but I got quite confused.
What happens when you watch the trajectory? It looks like there is a legitimate, steady increase but with a few dips. What is happening in the frames with the sudden dips?
Both frames appear to be simple PBC issues. What group are you choosing for the trjconv selections related to centering and fitting? You should be choosing the protein, or perhaps just the backbone. If you do, the ligand will wrap to the protein.
You can take a look at some code we developed to fix these problems by ensuring assemblies are whole. (GitHub - BartBruininks/mdvwhole: Density based object completion over PBC.). The selection you would need would be a selection which includes both the protein and the ligand. If you try it and you have any issues feel free to get in contact with me.
Hi, @jalemkul
I have same type of issues with my all simulations.
Ligand/peptide shows a lot of movement. Rather vibrating at the docked site, it dances outside the protein periphery.
Is it normal in MD simulations? or there is something wrong in MDP files? or Ligand didn’t bind strongly/close enough in the docked complex?
After
gmx mdrun -deffnm md_0_10
I have recentered and performed rotational and translational fitting
Your ligand clearly dissociates and it isn’t an artifact. What is the ligand and how did you parametrize it? It looks rather small and very flexible, so it will be extremely sensitive to the quality of the topology you generate for it.
I used SwissParam Server (https://www.swissparam.ch/) to generate its PDB from mol2 file and then used gmx editconf -f LIG.pdb -o LIG.gro to generate it’s gro file.
out of the scope question:
PDB must be renumbered before MD simulation? Also, chain must not have any missing residues
That topology makes no sense at all. The charges are totally wrong, with most of the C and H atoms bearing zero charge. The charged amino and carboxy groups are over-polarized with respect to typical CHARMM groups so altogether it probably renders the molecule wildly imbalanced and prone to dissociation.
You can generate a topology for this species very easily by analogy from existing CHARMM parameters (by analogy to LYS and GLU, from CHARMM36):
[ atoms ]
; nr type resnr resid atom cgnr charge mass
1 NH3 1 LIG N 1 -0.3000 14.0067
2 CT2 1 LIG CA 2 0.2100 12.0110
3 CT2 1 LIG CB 3 -0.1800 12.0110
4 CT2 1 LIG CG 4 -0.2800 12.0110
5 CC 1 LIG CD 5 0.6200 12.0110
6 OC 1 LIG OE1 6 -0.7600 15.9994
7 OC 1 LIG OE2 7 -0.7600 15.9994
8 HA2 1 LIG HA2 8 0.0500 1.0079
9 HA2 1 LIG HA3 9 0.0500 1.0079
10 HA2 1 LIG HB2 10 0.0900 1.0079
11 HA2 1 LIG HB3 11 0.0900 1.0079
12 HA2 1 LIG HG2 12 0.0900 1.0079
13 HA2 1 LIG HG3 13 0.0900 1.0079
14 HC 1 LIG H1 14 0.3300 1.0079
15 HC 1 LIG H2 15 0.3300 1.0079
16 HC 1 LIG H3 16 0.3300 1.0079
Thanks for your kind consideration. I did it as a part of molecular docking protocol where I have to add hydrogen. Not sure though if I can avoid protonation of terminal carboxylate while adding polar hydrogen.
Please guide me over it.
Thanks