Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Participants

Discussion topics

Item

Presenter

Notes

Notes

General updates

  • JW –

    • Thanks for reaching out to OE about packaging issue

    • I’m preparing a live demo for the annual workshop. The plan is roughly to take a OpenFold output, add a ligand, (show off OpenFF stuff), and then pass it to OpenFE to do a bunch of free energy calcs. Are there any particularly cool interchange capabilities I should show off here?

      • Interchange.minimize

      • Interchange.visualize

      • Export to GROMACS, AMBER, OpenMM + run? (take caution re system size → runtime)

      • Serialize to/from json, emphasize implications for portability

      • Interchange.combine?

      • Interchange.from_openmm?

      • Big picture: In-place ligand evolution example?

        • MT – Seems possible on a technical level. Not sure how useful/accurate zero-point energy evals would be. If you just have a ligand in vacuum, the physics would be lickity split, but the repeated exports to OpenMM could be slow. The sketchiest part would be modifying ligand in place- Could be possible with advanced interchange stuff but we probably don’t want to show that publicly.

        • JW – Would make a new interchange for each ligand

        • MT – That makes sense, you should still be cautious with runtime.

        • JW – If you have any code handy to visualize a minimization trajectory, LMK.

          • MT – I know this was newly added. Lexie would know more and has been using it in her work. Breadcrumbs here.

    • OMMFFs - Thanks for guiding meeting. I’m pushing lead team to work with OpenFE+JC lab on long term plan.

      • MT – PE merged my PR into OpenMM, haven’t manually tested yet. No word on release timeline.

      • MT – OMMFFs repo has everything in that I wanted (lots of old PRs merged, including the change discussed from yesterday where GAFFTemplateGenerator raises an error). MH will tag the release today. Not sure about ETA for conda packages.

      • MT – Not sure about package splitting plans (having a base package without ambertools). Advocating for packaging constraints being Py3.10-12 and AT22+23.

        • JW – Those sound good, should line up well with OpenFF needs.

      • MT – so that should handle us well. Things should be workable early next week. Then everything will get clean once the OpenMM PR is in a release.

      • JW – My next step is to nudge PE to make a bugfix release of OpenMM. Anything you see that would indicate I shouldn’t do that?

        • MT – Nothing from my perspective, though there’s a lot going on with OpenMM that might affect PE’s decisionmaking.

      • MT – Re: Long term planning - …

        • JW – We basically want to feed all the information into JE+DM (costs, alternatives, feelings, etc) and have them make a call that binds OpenFF and OpenFE to a single coordinated course of action (possibly involving agreements with JC lab as well).

Trello

https://trello.com/b/dzvFZnv4/infrastructure

Tutorial collection

Action items

  •  

Decisions