GROMACS version: 2022.4
GROMACS modification: No
Here is an issue I’ve had with Gromacs for almost 15 years. Running two ligands with a protein, simultaneously, is an absolutely miserable experience. Normally I bounce and use NAMD, which makes this a cakewalk. To parameterize the small molecules I use acpype, which for a single ligand works beautifully.
I’m aware of how fussy Gromacs is about the order that it receives its instructions, but the following error has never made any sense to me. Why would something work for a single ligand that fails when you add a second ligand?
– complex.top –
; Include forcefield parameters
#include “amber99.ff/forcefield.itp”
; Include ligand parameters
#include “FAD.itp”
#include “LIG.itp”
; Include ligand parameters
; Include chain topologies
#include “protein_Protein_chain_B.itp”
#include “protein_Ion_chain_B2.itp”
; Include water topology
#include “amber99.ff/tip4p.itp”
#ifdef POSRES_WATER
; Position restraint for each water oxygen
[ position_restraints ]
; i funct fcx fcy fcz
1 1 1000 1000 1000
#endif
; Include topology for ions
#include “amber99.ff/ions.itp”
[ system ]
; Name
Protein in water
[ molecules ]
; Compound #mols
Protein_chain_B 1
Ion_chain_B2 1
FAD 1
LIG 1
SOL 9740
Here is the error I get:
Program: gmx grompp, version 2022.4
Source file: src/gromacs/gmxpreprocess/topio.cpp (line 577)
Fatal error:
Syntax error - File FAD.itp, line 3
Last line read:
‘[ atomtypes ]’
Invalid order for directive atomtypes
For more information and tips for troubleshooting, please check the GROMACS
website at Common Errors — GROMACS webpage https://www.gromacs.org documentation
The structure of the itp files for both ligands look the same. I can get this to run, if I hand change the atom typing from one of the two ligands. That’s crazy to do at scale. Is there something I am just missing, or am I doomed to use NAMD?
FYI- I’ve noticed people talking about a “prm” file. Never heard of that before, but if that works I am all ears!
Thanks in advance!
Matt