Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Force field transformation from Gromacs to Charmm
#36087 12/18/16 05:23 PM
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 12
D
Dawid Offline OP
Forum Member
OP Offline
Forum Member
D
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 12
Dear All,

Have you ever seen a script/tool that allows for transformation of the Gromacs force field files
into CHARMM force field files? I can see that there is a Pythons script that does the other
way around.

Also I could use a tool that creates *.psf file from *.top file. I googled for that and found this

http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/vmd/script_library/scripts/top2psf/top2psf.pl

Would you recommend anything else?

Best regards,
Dawid Grabarek

Re: Force field transformation from Gromacs to Charmm
Dawid #36088 12/18/16 09:11 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,778
Likes: 2
Forum Member
Online Content
Forum Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,778
Likes: 2
This seems a bit backward - Gromacs does not have a forcefield, it just can use some publicly available forcefields. CHARMM can of course handle its own forcefield (Gromacs has a translation of part of the extensive CHARMM forcefield, but not all of it). Some of the many Amber force fields are also available in a CHARMM readable format.
You can create PSFs with CHARMM, either directly or via eg the CHARMM-GUI web interface; I would recommend starting with CHARMM since in this way you learn what is going on - there are examples in the Script Archive forum.


Lennart Nilsson
Karolinska Institutet
Stockholm, Sweden
Re: Force field transformation from Gromacs to Charmm
lennart #36108 12/30/16 06:18 PM
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 12
D
Dawid Offline OP
Forum Member
OP Offline
Forum Member
D
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 12
Originally Posted By: lennart

You can create PSFs with CHARMM, either directly or via eg the CHARMM-GUI web interface; I would recommend starting with CHARMM since in this way you learn what is going on - there are examples in the Script Archive forum.



Yes, that's what I have decided to do after all.
I guess I have successfully created the PSF file but
I encountered something strange. Namely while the
number of bonds in CHARMM PSF and Gromacs TOP files is
the same for my protein, the number of angles and
dihedrals is by merely 1 lower in the former case.
Besides, number of CMAP and improper dihedrals is in
agreement according to both packages. I have
checked the protonation state of all residues and
terminating residues and they are exactly the same
when I use either of the packages.

Could you give me a clue on where this discrepancy may
come from, please? My PSF generation does not finish
with either warning or error.

Re: Force field transformation from Gromacs to Charmm
Dawid #36109 12/30/16 06:27 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,778
Likes: 2
Forum Member
Online Content
Forum Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,778
Likes: 2
If you use the CHARMM forcefield, CHARMM should generate a correct PSF; I have no idea why GROMAC is off. It may of course be that your setups are identical. CHARMM (normally) generates all possible angles and dihedral from the bonded topoogy.

I would assume that CHARMM is correct, but without knowning exactly what you are doing it is difficult to tell.


Lennart Nilsson
Karolinska Institutet
Stockholm, Sweden

Moderated by  lennart, rmv 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4
(Release build 20200307)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 5.6.33-0+deb8u1 Page Time: 0.009s Queries: 22 (0.005s) Memory: 0.9136 MB (Peak: 0.9957 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2020-07-12 19:10:29 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS