Different Energies between Gromacs and OpenMM

The functionality of OpenMM will (eventually) include everything that one would need to run modern molecular simulation.
POST REPLY
User avatar
Ali Eltareb
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:46 am

Different Energies between Gromacs and OpenMM

Post by Ali Eltareb » Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:21 pm

Hi,

I have been doing tests between Gromacs and OpenMM. I minimized a peptide using Gromacs (charmm36 forcefield). The energies that gromacs gave at the end of the minimization is

Code: Select all


   Energies (kJ/mol)
           Bond            U-B    Proper Dih.  Improper Dih.      CMAP Dih.
    1.67638e+01    2.25811e+01    1.28747e+02    2.69536e+00   -8.16862e-01
          LJ-14     Coulomb-14        LJ (SR)   Coulomb (SR)   Coul. recip.
    1.12933e+02    8.92176e+02   -4.19556e+01   -1.36340e+03    2.40821e+02
      Potential Pressure (bar)
    1.05456e+01    0.00000e+00

Steepest Descents converged to Fmax < 1000 in 4 steps
Potential Energy  =  1.0545593e+01
I took this minimized configuration and read it into OpenMM using GromacsGroFile and GromacsTopFile. I checked and OpenMM is reading the configuration correctly (its not adding or removing any bonds).

Code: Select all

Potential Energy:  10.345707164397743 kJ/mol
NonbondedForce -160.00702402028134 kJ/mol
HarmonicBondForce 17.842723235913645 kJ/mol
HarmonicAngleForce 21.15079444793464 kJ/mol
PeriodicTorsionForce 129.0225362249678 kJ/mol
CustomTorsionForce 3.157813891993246 kJ/mol
CMAPTorsionForce -0.8211366161302591 kJ/mol
The energies from OpenMM are slightly different than Gromacs (they do have the same order of magnitude). The differences are about 0.2-1 kJ/mol. I want to know why the HarmonicBondForce and HarmonicAngleForce from OpenMM doesn't add up to equal Gromacs Bond and U-B term. Is there something that I am missing? Could this be a platform issue?

Ali

User avatar
Peter Eastman
Posts: 2564
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:25 pm

Re: Different Energies between Gromacs and OpenMM

Post by Peter Eastman » Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:50 pm

I suspect you're evaluating them for a slightly different conformation. Here are some things to check.
  • What precision are the coordinates specified to? If it's low precision, that could lead to slight differences in the energy.
  • Do you change the coordinates in any way after you set them? For example, minimizing the energy again or enforcing constraints.
  • Are the periodic box dimensions set correctly?

User avatar
Ali Eltareb
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:46 am

Re: Different Energies between Gromacs and OpenMM

Post by Ali Eltareb » Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:51 am

You were right, the precision of the coordinates was too low (only 3 decimal places). I used a configuration from Gromacs with more precision and the energies are in great agreement. Thanks for the help.

POST REPLY