There are several possible explanations for this apparent discrepancy. First, the differing behaviors may indeed reflect mechanistic differences between the two proteins, although their relatively high degree of sequence identity and likely structural conservation may make this unlikely. Second, the choice of parameters, in particular the force field sets, could influence the results of the two sets of simulations. Specifically, the simulations described here were carried out using AMBER (ff14SB force field for protein, lipid17 for lipids, and TIP3P for water), as opposed to GROMACS (GROMOS 54A7 for protein, lipid parameters derived from Piggot et al (as detailed ) and SPC for water) as used by Anandan et al . There are several further differences between the two sets of simulations and their setup-the current work orients the membrane using the PPM server whereas Anandan et al. trialed two different depths for their 100% DPPE membrane before finally using a position similar to that obtained with the PPM server. That same orientation was then used for the mixed membrane system (see below).