Atlassian uses cookies to improve your browsing experience, perform analytics and research, and conduct advertising. Accept all cookies to indicate that you agree to our use of cookies on your device. Atlassian cookies and tracking notice, (opens new window)
DM – Fig 6.2 from thesis – Is this WBO dependent? Could we check this?
JH – I’ll check into this
JH – Some systematic issue with fitting H bound to boron that caused LJ radius to get huge (like 2.9 A) and charge to get negative
DM – Refitting BCCs could maybe prevent this.
DC – These weren’t using BCCs - Chargers were derived from higher-level QM and atoms-in-molecules approach. (D-DECK? approach)
DM – There are still pathological cases from density fitting approaches. Hirschfeld? has known issues. Esteban vohringer-martinez has done some work here.
DM – 2 pharma people indicated that boron would be helpful. Nobody asked for silicon.
JW – In addition to deriving nonbonded parameters, this could lead to a multiplicative increase in number of torsions.
DM – Agree, though the initial parameters don’t have to be great. Because right now there are NO options.
JH – Especially if these are introduced first through bespokefit
DM – How should we handle the lack of AM1BCC support for this? Can we use SMARTS-based ChargeIncrementHandler?
SB – That should be possible. We can kick off some QM calculations to do this. I’m not optimistic about finding property data of silicon and boron in thermoml.
JW – We can easily avoid missing parameter errors up front by putting in all-zero wildcard chargeincrement at top of list.
DC – Where could we find more data on physical properties for these molecules? Pharma datasets?
DM – Bill Acree had done some dataset compilation work for physical properties.
15 mins
Thoughts on using XTB fitting from bespoke-fit for free energy runs
@Joshua Horton
JH – QM torsiondrives for JACS set is taking a while. xtb calcs finished quickly. So I’ll start working from xtb results, and will also do QM-based fit once it’s done.
DC – I’m interested to see how xtb results in vacuum perform in condensed calcs.
DC – Remind me which sets we’re going to run calcs on?
JH – TIG2 (or whichever one JChodera ran before). Could run calcs for all of them
SB – For free energy calcs, I think we’d been talking to OE about running these calcs through Orion. DM, can you update?
DM – OE has had schedule conflicts for regular meetings where we’d ahve talked about this. But they’re generally excited about this. However they’re quite busy right now preparing for a major software release. So this conversation may restart once they’re done with that.
DC – Would this complicate things if we wanted to use these results for the bespokefit paper? Would they expect to be coauthors?
DM – I don’t imagine that they’d object to this.
DC – So, we should go ahead and start generating FF files?
DM – Yes
SB – I wonder if we could use lilac for this? I looked over the pmx workflow and I think we could run this without Vyutas. Might need to justify use of pmx vs. perses on MSK resources. pmx results seem to be more comparable to previous results/stable so that would probably be best for now.
DC – So, among the attendees of this meeting, we don’t have people with expertise in setting up FE calcs. So this is the unknown that we’re thinking about right now.
DM – I have a postdoc (MPitman) who has run pmx locally, so she could help. Some usage tricks like hard-wired file names.
SB – DHahn should also have expertise in this. So we should have in-house expertise.
DM – We could schedule a quick chat with DHahn and MPitman on setup issues.
SB – Let’s loop in DDotson and other software folks since they’ll be interfacing with this as well.
(General) – Some strategic decisions to make with how we use/fork/fix PMX, where we get compute resources, whether we look to another FE framework
DM – One nice thing about pmx is that there’s less scope for uncertainty/implementation chagnes. Once the gromacs topology files are written, they’re written, and the simulations will agree within statistical error.
Action items:
JH will make up force field files from XTB results.
We’ll coordinate a PMX usage meeting with JH, DH, DD, MPitman, JW, SB, DM.
Torsion multiplicity results
@David Mobley
DM – Finding some cases where torsion parameters are being applied to motifs with different topological multiplicities. Eg, in figure below, the left molecule has t59 applied to a ninefold torsion, but on the right it’s a fourfold torsion.
DC – Would this affect bespokefit? I don’t think it wouldsince we expand the torsion multiplicies.
JH – Right, this shouldn’t affect us as long as we keep using specific SMRIKS. If we starter letting our SMIRKS get too general then we could hit this problem.
DM – PB, could you contact Megan and check this against QM results? Basically I’m interested in seeing if these result in higher errors.
