From cletner-!at!-remcure.bmb.wright.edu  Thu Nov  3 13:23:29 1994
Received: from remcure.bmb.wright.edu  for cletner "-at-" remcure.bmb.wright.edu
	by www.ccl.net (8.6.9/930601.1506) id NAA04997; Thu, 3 Nov 1994 13:04:46 -0500
Received: by remcure.bmb.wright.edu (931110.SGI/921111.SGI.AUTO)
	for CHEMISTRY: at :ccl.net id AA01750; Thu, 3 Nov 94 12:55:25 -0800
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 12:44:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Charles Letner <cletner # - at - # remcure.bmb.wright.edu>
Subject: More AMBER atom types
To: Computational Chemistry List <CHEMISTRY _-at-_)ccl.net>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.07.9411031210.A1737-a100000 #at# remcure.bmb.wright.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


Hello,
	I just finished reading the summary of kd7;at;tower.york.ac.uk about
atom types in AMBER.  It seems that this approach of taking a atom type
from the AMBER force field and using this as an atom type in a non-protein
molecule is OK.  However, I'm wondering how general this is.  I'm planning
on including substrates in some of my upcoming MDs.  As these only contain
C, H, N, and O,  I can probably find similar atoms among the standard atoms
of AMBER.  So, is this reasonable or should I still think about creating
new parameters (ala tha Hopfinger & Pearlstein, 1984 article)?  I'd be
very interested in opinions as well as aspects that should be considered
when making this decision.
Thanks for your time,
Chuck

Charles Letner
Wright State University
Department of Biochemistry
Dayton, OH 45435
e-mail: cletner |-at-| remcure.bmb.wright.edu