Item | Presenter | Notes |
|---|
QM parameter fits | View file |
|---|
| name | 2024-01-25-qm-fits.pdf |
|---|
|
| Chapin Cavender | Slides go here Issue with small molecules dominating objective--fixed by changing weights MS--What parameters are iteration 0 starting from? Null-0.0.2 is starting from Sage 2.0, others starting from MSM for valence terms, anything not covered by that gets Sage 2.1 MS – MSM valence terms are expected to be better than Sage 2.0? Or are they very different but not clearly better/worse? CC – Brings more in line with small molecule fitting pipeline CC--will look into basin depths as next step for benchmarking
DM--excited to see results MS--grad student from UCSF reached out, very excited about Rosemary
|
LiveCOMS review discussion | | CC – Re livecoms review - I’m just about done with my edits, then MG will look over those, then they’ll go out to coauthors. MG – Issue of ShiftX vs. other methods - We’re going to write that up. Feel weird about including new results in a review paper. MS – Yes, very interesting finding. And it’s a best practices paper, so it’s fine to include results. MG – CC, could you email and ask for references on ShiftX being insufficient and the need for SPARTA+? CC – Yes, will do
|
Nucleic acid project | | DM – Also, it’s looking likely that we can attract industry money for NA+lipids. Moderna is likely to add money, OE may add person-time. We obviously can’t tell you to be involved in this but we think that you’d be very relevant and we’d appreciate your being as involved as you’re willing to be.
|