Page Comparison

Updates

• JH: not much has changed; looked into Bill’s issue and have a proposed solution

  • we’re getting an export case that has undefined stereochemistry in his environment. Could allow with allow_undefined_stereochemistry=True, but question is should we? As in, do we want these flowing downstream to analysis or to MM step?

  • JW: looks like QM may have decided the molecule isn’t planar, so now it’s triggering unknown stereochemistry

    • fix could include allowing undefined stereochemistry on export, but would need to also do so on read

    • Two solutions can think of:

      • allow undefined stereo here, make appropriate allowances downstream

      • we eliminate the molecule at this point

  • JH: don’t think letting it go downstream would affect results negatively; FF doesn’t currently care about N stereochemistry

  • JW: Perhaps we should try reproducing the error and experimenting with the approach we take with these?

    • we would need to do some experimentation to decide on an appropriate path for these, but that will take longer

    • we’ve identified a point of failure, but trying to apply a quick fix may not serve us well here; we will need to deliberate on the policy we take on undefined stereo outside of the immediate issue

  • DD: [propose] drop cases like this that occur, issue a warning; make changes to codebase to allow Bill’s server export to proceed, make sure this is smooth for users of execute approach

• JW: Mirror-image conformers; not deadly but worth fixing.

  • if we have two identical, but mirror-image conformers, they pass through; we would like them deduplicated after QM export

  • DD: can we encode the logic in analysis for now?

• DH: preparing production run, discussed which molecules to include

  • OPLS3 executor:

    • openff-benchmark schrodinger ffbuilder for parameterizing from QM step

    • can take a long time to parameterize many molecules

    • openff-benchmark schrodinger optimize to run the optimizations

  • DD: is there any danger to being dependent on the set of paramters a partner may already have in ~/.opls

    • perhaps a good thing to use it, even if there is some variability or path-dependence, since this is how partners would use OPLS in practice

  • DH: would like to make it part of Season 1 if possible

Should we do a Season 2 shortly after Season 1?

David D.

• DH: would like to have some changes in, so maybe not immediately after

  • Improved conformer generation, new FFs, and torsion scans

• JH: could include RDKit forcefields, like MM99; know some partners are interested in ANI, so perhaps ANI2x; also xtb

• DH: ANI in Schrodinger also doable

  • so this speaks to the interest from partners

  • also want to get OPLS3 approach in here

• DD: Season 2 can also just be a scale up, say 5x or 10x dataset sizes; we have time to think on this, can decide over next few weeks

Reconvene on Friday 2/19Connectivity rearrangement

Jeff

• JW: need to probably filter QM outputs on really-stretched bonds

  • Existing code in openff-qcsubmit here.

  • Toolkit dev is tied up a bit right now; would need to make two PRs of the same change to 0.8.4-rc, master

  • JW: JH can we add this to openff-toolkit, and then change the usage in openff-qcsubmit to use that?

• JW: will require a change in openff-benchmark to use this detection, gracefully toss out molecules

openff-benchmark release

David D.

• New release as early as middle of next week

  • fix exporters (DD)

  • heuristic for connectivity changes

  • mirror-image deduplication

    • DD: can we make this a postprocessing step? For users using server approach, doing this between QM and MM would require surgery; would be better to avoid if possible

    • JW: if multiple conformers optimize to the same geometry in QM, we want to remove all but one

      • for MM, if multiple conformers optimize to the same geometry, we do want to keep these

      • [proposal] make step 6 deduplication of QM, analysis becomes step 7

      • JW: happy to open the PR into the analysis components and get DH review

      • DH: for match-minima, nice to only deduplicate the QM conformers, then proceed with matching

• DH: for a future season, do we want to do QM and MM (as opposed to QM then MM like we are doing here)?

  • JW: would be interested in this; starting from RDKit molecules for all could get weird for some MM cases

  • JH: Greg Landrum did a post on conformer generator; says random matrix method is more robust

    • JW: tried random matrix out; didn’t solve anything that was unsolved, created more planar cis-peptides

    • JH: haven’t tested it yet myself; omega seems quite reliable

    • JW: might be a good summer grad student project

Demo of openff-benchmark schrodinger

David H.

• JW: should we do schrodinger steps without the bespoke torsion fits?

  • DH: can choose either using custom parameters or not using with openff-benchmark schrodinger optimize; requires running the command twice with different flag

  • JW: I like that; running twice with and without --opls-dir is a clear indication that two different runs are being performed

• JW: no Schrodinger license in the Mobley Lab; will look to find a way to test from another consortium lab

  • Might be best to find someone in Janssen that can try it out on their machine

• DH: will consider how to nicely set tag for FF from optimize step; need an indicator whether pure opls3e is used, or whether opls3e-bespoke (or similar, indicating custom params) is used

• JW: this is looking great! Planning ahead, should get a second person that can run this code; will help to iterate on and spot issues quickly. Don’t want all the risk of mistakes to fall on DH

  • DH: will make a draft PR, DD will review and use Bill Swope for testing

Drop zone for results?

David D.

• JW: probably a publicly-accessible GDrive; can prepare it with a folder for each openff-benchmark release; subfolders for each company code; example directory giving e.g. burn-in equivalent files

  • dangerously-public GDrive link is a feature; partners need to know data is entering public domain

• Perhaps not ask them to upload results for a while; if we make more method changes would prefer not asking them to do multiple times

  • DH: would be good for us to have proposal for procedure/artifacts in next call

  • DD: I can draft announcement we’d make, can then discuss content next call