Implementing ELF1 for the past two weeks, trying to see if we got more consistent partial charges.
Broke this up into two datasets:
RDKit-generated conformers
OpenEye-generated conformers
CD – I noticed that OE generated way more conformers than RDKit
JW – Could either be that OE conformer generator is better, or that they’re using a different definition of RMS in their RMS cutoffs (all-atom vs. heavy-atom)
JW – May also generate more conformers by setting useRandomCoords=True in EmbedMultipleConfs
LW – Or setting useExpTorsionAnglePrefs=False, useBasicKnowledge=False
Tested whether Simon’s RDKit-based ELF implementation selects the same conformer as OE’s ELF conformer selection. In the 36 test molecules I tried, both methods selected the same conformer every time.
JW – I don’t think the difference between these is super significant. The MSE would be the best metric here, but it’s not that dramatically different.
CD also calculated RMSE – got 3.5e-2 vs 3.7e-2
CD – I may try doing OE AM1 calcs for both conformers.
JW – It seems like the problem must be that OE and RDKit are coming up with substantially different conformers to pick from. Maybe we should have RDKit make more conformers? It could eb that there’s an in-built energy window in RDKit that we could expand.
OM –
CD – I’d like to compare conformer RMSD to partial charge deviation to become more sure that the difference is due to conformers