[gmx-users] to gro or not to gro
David van der Spoel
spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se
Sun Nov 27 12:26:16 CET 2011
On 2011-11-27 12:15, Igor Druz wrote:
> write to gro in angstroms, read from gro in angstroms, convert into nm
> in grompp.
>
once more you don't have to use gro, use g96 if precision is important.
if we'd introduce a gro format in angstrom it couldn't be called .gro
anyway since that would confuse tons of programs using it.
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Tsjerk Wassenaar <tsjerkw at gmail.com
> <mailto:tsjerkw at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Igor,
>
> Please do read the manual. The GRO file format is a fixed-width format
> with %8.3f for coordinates, velocities and forces. Changing the format
> to %9.4f will break everything written in fortran. And, yes, people
> still use fortran. So which point did I miss? :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tsjerk
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Igor Druz <idruz512 at gmail.com
> <mailto:idruz512 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > You are missing the point. Quoting my response to David:
> >
> > I appreciate the history of the matter, but it would save a lot
> of headache
> > to store coordinates in angstroms in gro files, i.e., not to omit
> "2" in
> > 4.172 A in the pdb file by converting it to 0.417 nm in the gro
> file. What
> > is the point in dropping useful "2" by introducing useless "0"?
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Tsjerk Wassenaar
> <tsjerkw at gmail.com <mailto:tsjerkw at gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> My my. Why is it a fault to adhere to ISO units (nm) over
> non-standard
> >> (A)? It's a choice, but a choice is not faulty. The consequences may
> >> be undesirable. But shouldn't a user, certainly a computation
> >> scientist, understand the file formats, as an experimentalist should
> >> know its solvent? And know the consequences of using one over
> another?
> >> Mark is correct to state that a picometer uncertainty at the
> start has
> >> no consequences for molecular dynamics simulations. For single point
> >> eneriges they will have. But no one ever forced anyone to use GRO
> >> rather than PDB format. That's the choice the researcher makes. And,
> >> at least in my tutorial, that difference between GRO and PDB
> format is
> >> stressed. The choice to use standard units is historical, and lies
> >> decades back in time. Could we now change it to A, because a
> 'faulty'
> >> choice was made?
> >>
> >> I'm terribly sorry that you need to do a lot of work again,
> Igor. But
> >> you can't shove the blame in another's shoes. You overlooked
> >> something, lead by presumptions about standardization in units and
> >> file formats. May I wonder why you only found out now, after all the
> >> work has been done? This difference would have showed up with the
> >> first test, right? But again, it's not us against you, and I'm sorry
> >> you have to go through this. Trust me, most of us have had such
> >> moments, although with a different aspect.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Tsjerk
> >>
> >> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Igor Druz <idruz512 at gmail.com
> <mailto:idruz512 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> > You can put whichever spin you like into what is said,
> but there is a
> >> > clear
> >> > (and unnecessary) fault with the way coordinates are stored in
> gro files
> >> > when made from pdb using pdb2gmx.
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Mark Abraham
> <Mark.Abraham at anu.edu.au <mailto:Mark.Abraham at anu.edu.au>>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 27/11/2011 5:07 AM, Igor Druz wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 5:35 PM, <chris.neale at utoronto.ca
> <mailto:chris.neale at utoronto.ca>> wrote
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 1. why repeat the calculations? If you're talking about
> simulations
> >> >>> then
> >> >>> there is no need to repeat them due to this. You will get
> different
> >> >>> answers
> >> >>> with the same starting coordinates if you simply change the
> initial
> >> >>> velocities. If you're talking about instantaneous energy
> calculations
> >> >>> then I
> >> >>> suppose you might need to redo it, but they should be very
> quick,
> >> >>> right?
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> The calculations must be repeated. You are making irrelevant
> >> >> assumptions
> >> >> without knowing what the calculations are for.
> >> >>
> >> >> You asserted that there should have been a warning without
> explaining
> >> >> why
> >> >> this loss of precision was material. Chris knew that many uses of
> >> >> pdb2gmx
> >> >> change the atomic configuration considerably, e.g. new hydrogen
> >> >> positions,
> >> >> building termini, etc. so that any change of precision of
> coordinates
> >> >> is not
> >> >> a big deal, and even less important once a simulation has run
> >> >> afterwards. If
> >> >> you want to engage in constructive dialogue, please explain
> why the
> >> >> loss of
> >> >> precision was material, in order to clarify the reason for
> your request
> >> >> for
> >> >> a warning message. If you wish to blow off steam, please do it
> >> >> elsewhere.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2. The .gro files do not carry useless zeroes. you have it
> >> >>> backwards...
> >> >>> the gro files end up with fewer digits.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> 0.417 or 4.172. Shall I continue? I know which one I prefer.
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 3. it's a little annoying to find out that you already knew the
> >> >>> answer.
> >> >>> Why not state that at the outset? Unless I misunderstand
> this point,
> >> >>> this
> >> >>> will mark the end of my comments since holding back
> information on
> >> >>> purpose
> >> >>> just wastes people's time.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> Check my 1st e-mail, please. It is NOT asking for
> clarification. It is
> >> >> requesting an explicit warning message.
> >> >>
> >> >> There's nothing to warn about. You thought that "switching from
> >> >> Angstrom
> >> >> to nanometers" was significant somehow, and then assumed that
> different
> >> >> file
> >> >> formats would definitely contain identical information, and
> didn't
> >> >> check
> >> >> their contents.
> >> >>
> >> >> Mark
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Chris.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -- original message --
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I already knew the reason. But I had to find this out hard
> way. Now
> >> >>> facing
> >> >>> a dreading prospect of repeating tons of calculations!
> Hence the
> >> >>> request
> >> >>> for the "bad for the health" sign. Btw, gromacs issues a lot of
> >> >>> warnings,
> >> >>> but not this one :D
> >> >>>
> >> >>> What a bright idea to switch from angstroms to nanometers!
> Now the gro
> >> >>> files carry a lot of useless zeros.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> gmx-users mailing list gmx-users at gromacs.org
> <mailto:gmx-users at gromacs.org>
> >> >>> http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
> >> >>> Please search the archive at
> >> >>> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/Search before
> posting!
> >> >>> Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use thewww
> >> >>> interface or send it to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org
> <mailto:gmx-users-request at gromacs.org>.
> >> >>> Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> gmx-users mailing list gmx-users at gromacs.org
> <mailto:gmx-users at gromacs.org>
> >> >> http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
> >> >> Please search the archive at
> >> >> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/Search before
> posting!
> >> >> Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
> >> >> www interface or send it to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org
> <mailto:gmx-users-request at gromacs.org>.
> >> >> Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > gmx-users mailing list gmx-users at gromacs.org
> <mailto:gmx-users at gromacs.org>
> >> > http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
> >> > Please search the archive at
> >> > http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/Search before
> posting!
> >> > Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
> >> > www interface or send it to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org
> <mailto:gmx-users-request at gromacs.org>.
> >> > Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tsjerk A. Wassenaar, Ph.D.
> >>
> >> post-doctoral researcher
> >> Molecular Dynamics Group
> >> * Groningen Institute for Biomolecular Research and Biotechnology
> >> * Zernike Institute for Advanced Materials
> >> University of Groningen
> >> The Netherlands
> >> --
> >> gmx-users mailing list gmx-users at gromacs.org
> <mailto:gmx-users at gromacs.org>
> >> http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
> >> Please search the archive at
> >> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/Search before posting!
> >> Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
> >> www interface or send it to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org
> <mailto:gmx-users-request at gromacs.org>.
> >> Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
> >
> >
> > --
> > gmx-users mailing list gmx-users at gromacs.org
> <mailto:gmx-users at gromacs.org>
> > http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
> > Please search the archive at
> > http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/Search before posting!
> > Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
> > www interface or send it to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org
> <mailto:gmx-users-request at gromacs.org>.
> > Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Tsjerk A. Wassenaar, Ph.D.
>
> post-doctoral researcher
> Molecular Dynamics Group
> * Groningen Institute for Biomolecular Research and Biotechnology
> * Zernike Institute for Advanced Materials
> University of Groningen
> The Netherlands
> --
> gmx-users mailing list gmx-users at gromacs.org
> <mailto:gmx-users at gromacs.org>
> http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
> Please search the archive at
> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/Search before posting!
> Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
> www interface or send it to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org
> <mailto:gmx-users-request at gromacs.org>.
> Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
>
>
>
>
--
David van der Spoel, Ph.D., Professor of Biology
Dept. of Cell & Molec. Biol., Uppsala University.
Box 596, 75124 Uppsala, Sweden. Phone: +46184714205.
spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se http://folding.bmc.uu.se
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users
mailing list