Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Contribute PVA OPLS-AA/LigParGen .ff file #324

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ricalessandri
Copy link
Collaborator

@ricalessandri ricalessandri commented May 24, 2023

This is a self-sufficient PVA ff file. Usage example to obtain a 10-mer:

polyply gen_params -f PVA.ff  -name PVA -seq CH3a:1 PVA:10 CH3b:1 -o PVA_n10_oplsLigParGen.itp

This is currently for this discussion.

This PR also brings up a "philosophical" question IMO. Should we try to have a "generic" -CH3 termini for OPLS polymers or should we have multiple custom "-CH3" termini for PS, PVA, PEO, etc. (in which case, how do we name them given that, if one wants to use the library, each block must have a different name)?

Copy link
Member

@fgrunewald fgrunewald left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In principle I think both input files are alright. However, one of the problems that I see is that there are two PVA blocks of which the atoms have actually a different charge. That's more problematic in my opinion than having the terminii specific to the monomers.

I also was finally able to complete the itp-to-ff code except for some small issues with charges, which in fact are quite asymmetric still. I wonder if we first should tackle the itp-to-ff and then update this PR? What do you think

@ricalessandri
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Very good point. Looking at the charges, the changes in the PVA block charges are not really significant. But indeed we should think about how to have a unique PVA block. Or, more generally, how to deal with this in general.

I agree that tackling itp_to_ff first and the fixing this PR is the way to go. I actually wanted to talk to you about itp_to_ff (also in relation with the latest GH discussion that involved this PR). I will write you an email so perhaps we can have a Zoom chat about it soon.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants