# Mdp parameters for non-bonded interaction using the AMBER force field

**URL:** <https://gromacs.bioexcel.eu/t/mdp-parameters-for-non-bonded-interaction-using-the-amber-force-field/6458>\
**Category:** User discussions\
**Tags:** forcefield, mdp-parameters, simulation-setup\
**Created:** [May 20, 2023, 3:40pm UTC](https://gromacs.bioexcel.eu/t/mdp-parameters-for-non-bonded-interaction-using-the-amber-force-field/6458 "2023-05-20T15:40:40Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![fatemeh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9de053/32.png) [@fatemeh](https://gromacs.bioexcel.eu/u/fatemeh)\
**Post date:** [December 14, 2023, 12:42pm UTC](https://gromacs.bioexcel.eu/t/mdp-parameters-for-non-bonded-interaction-using-the-amber-force-field/6458/6 "2023-12-14T12:42:31Z")

</div>

@alevilla @milosz.wieczor  
I am interested in conducting DNA simulations using the bsc0 and bsc1 force fields. However, I have encountered a challenge related to the nonbonded parameters, and I find the information somewhat unclear.  
In articles 1 and 2, a cutoff of 10 angstroms is mentioned.I also refer to another article 3 (which serves as a reference for amberparm99) stating that the cutoff is 9 angstroms. Given that bsc0 is developed based on the amberparm99 force field, I am unsure which cutoff value I should choose for my simulations.  
Could you kindly provide clarification on this matter? Additionally, can I use these parameters (expect rcoulomb = 1.0 and rvdw = 1 that should be different) for both bsc0 and bsc1 force fields?

- constraints = h-bonds
- rcoulomb = 1.0
- rvdw = 1.0
- Potential-shift-Verlet (vdw-modifier = Potential-shift-Verlet)
- EnerPres (DispCorr = EnerPres)
- coulombtype = PME
- fourierspacing = 0.125

I greatly appreciate your time and assistance in resolving these queries.  
Thank you and best regards,

Ref:

1. Galindo-Murillo, R., Robertson, J. C., Zgarbova, M., Sponer, J., Otyepka, M., Jurecka, P., & Cheatham III, T. E. (2016). Assessing the current state of amber force field modifications for DNA. _Journal of chemical theory and computation_ , _12_ (8), 4114-4127.
2. Love, O., Galindo-Murillo, R., Zgarbová, M., Šponer, J., Jurečka, P., & Cheatham III, T. E. (2023). Assessing the Current State of Amber Force Field Modifications for DNA─ 2023 Edition. _Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation_ .
3. Wang, J., Cieplak, P., & Kollman, P. A. (2000). How well does a restrained electrostatic potential (RESP) model perform in calculating conformational energies of organic and biological molecules?. _Journal of computational chemistry_ , _21_ (12), 1049-1074

---

_[View the full topic](https://gromacs.bioexcel.eu/t/mdp-parameters-for-non-bonded-interaction-using-the-amber-force-field/6458)._