TIG* Coverage
Comparing the coverage between “Whole QCA TD datasets” Vs “Gen 1 + Gen 2 TD datasets”, without any overlap with the Lim-Mobley Benchmark molecules.
On top of Gen 1 + Gen 2 datasets, the following datasets seems to provide good coverage for TIG* parameters
Fragment stability benchmark
OpenFF-benchmark-ligand-fragments-v1.0
OpenFF Substituted Phenyl Set 1
Questions to answer:
What would be a good number of points to have for each interpolated torsion parameter ?
Do the slope changes we see with addition of data really matter ?
Is it okay if there is gap between the transitions from single bond to double bond, like in TIG3 plot below ?
Is this the right way to check for coverage?
| Fragment Stability Benchmark
OpenFF Fragmenter Validation 1.0
OpenFF Full TorsionDrive Benchmark 1
OpenFF Gen 2 Torsion Set 1 Roche 2
OpenFF Gen 2 Torsion Set 2 Coverage 2
OpenFF Gen 2 Torsion Set 3 Pfizer Discrepancy 2
OpenFF Gen 2 Torsion Set 4 eMolecules Discrepancy 2
OpenFF Gen 2 Torsion Set 5 Bayer 2
OpenFF Gen 2 Torsion Set 6 Supplemental 2
OpenFF Group1 Torsions
OpenFF Group1 Torsions 2
OpenFF Group1 Torsions 3
OpenFF Primary Benchmark 1 Torsion Set
OpenFF Primary Benchmark 2 Torsion Set
OpenFF Primary TorsionDrive Benchmark 1
OpenFF Rowley Biaryl v1.0
OpenFF Substituted Phenyl Set 1
OpenFF-benchmark-ligand-fragments-v1.0
Pfizer Discrepancy Torsion Dataset 1
SMIRNOFF Coverage Torsion Set 1
TorsionDrive Paper |
|
---|---|---|
TIG1c [*:1]~[#6X3:2](=[#8X1])~[#7X3,#7X2-1:3]~[*:4] |
|
|
TIG1d [*:1]~[#6X3:2](~[#7X2])~[#7X3,#7X2-1,#7X2,#7X3+1:3]~[*:4] |
|
|
TIG2 [*:1]~[#6X3:2]~[#7X2, #7X3+1:3]~[*:4] |
|
|
TIG3 [#6X3:1]~[#6X3:2]~[#6X3:3]~[*:4] |
|
|
TIG4 [#7X2:1]@[#6X3:2]~[#6X3:3]@[*:4] |
|
|
TIG5a [#7X3,#8X2,#16X2:1]~[#6X3:2]~[#6X3:3](=[#8X1])~[*:4] |
|
|
TIG5b [#7X3,#8X2,#16X2:1]@[#6X3:2]~[#6X3:3]@[*:4] |
|
|
TIG6 [#6X3:1]~[#6X3:2]~[#7X3,#7X2-1:3]~[*:4] |
|
|
TIG7 [#7X2:1]~[#6X3:2]~[#7X3,#7X2-1:3]~[*:4] |
|
|
TIG8 [#7X3,#8X2,#16X2:1]@[#6X3:2]~[#7X3,#7X2-1:3]~[*:4] |
|
|
|
|
|