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)
JM just ran the first instance of the final workshop, all the materials are available here, and there will be another showing in about a month for atlantic time zones, and then there will be a directors cut uploaded to youtube afterwards.
(General) – This is the second time we’ve really gone through a deliberate roadmap-deriving process, so this isn’t a refined process but we want to make sure everyone is included.
JC – Keep an eye open for synergies with possible BTOD grant. These are items that should build on top of Consortium developments.
Proposed major objectives slide
JC – Espaloma winning would already be an OpenFF success story. We use the datasets and infrastructure.
DM – Agree
MT (chat) – How will the “Measure” bullet point be achieved? There are several details that aren’t clear on its face
JC – Can look at handling fraction of the chemical component dictionary. Then there would be two stages - first for just technical ability to load it, second for measuring accuracy. The OpenMM folks have put a good fraction of the CCD through QCArchive so that could help on the second point.
DM – And pharma is probably going to be less concerned abou the PDB per se than “pharma-relevant biomolecular chemistry” but the PDB is kind of a good starting point to help us assess, as long as we’re willing to say “but this isn’t pharma-relevant, so we’re throwing it out” etc.
MT – Do we currently not know what chemistries we fail to cover?
DM – Hemes, platinums, etc.
JE – Have we ever done a study of what % of the PDB we can cover?
(General) – No
JC – We have done datasets of druglike small molecules from varous datasets.
DM – And it shows that we do well on druglike small moles.
Next slide
(general) – Full polarizability means “direct polarizability”
JC – Audience for electrostatics improvements is internal or external?
DM – Yes
MS – Having the infrastructure in place to test polarizability would be important.
MT – Full polarizability refit in the next year? FYI polarizability isn’t in the SMIRNOFF spec
DM – Matt: At least begin working that direction. We were trying a bit for imagining an ambitious year. Yes, indeed it’s not!
MS – Yeah, I don't think anyone things full polarizability is coming this year. But thinking about how it would fit into the spec is important to start now.
CC – Willa is already fitting a water model in ForceBalance for her direct polarizability model, so there are no infrastructure blockers there.
MS + JC – Water refit?
DM – Oh, good idea. That should be in here.
JC – Custom 1-4s would be swell too, pretty sure this would give us better accuracy to QM.
DM – We felt that if we just went for “things we absolutely certainly are going to do this year” then that wouldn’t leave us in a very good place to head towards “accomplishing ambitious things on a multi-year timeframe”.
DM – Longer term things that we can’t realistically fit in here could go in the BTOD.
JC – BTOD is more for infrastructure.
JC – May be good to ensure we continue chipping away at low-hanging fruit.
MT – Perhaps it would be useful to enumerate the improvements that can be done this year to better enable << big fancy thing >> in the future
next slide
JC – When thinking about external users, it’s a big pyramid. So we need to work people to becoming contributors. And we also need stuff to be able to measure to show the NIH. So we have direct users/contributors, but also indirect users who don’t directly call out tools/FFs (like CHARMM-GUI users and OpenMMForceFields users). So should ensure that we’re supporting and growing the bottom of the force field.
DM – This could be a great area of alignment between pharma and government funder interests. Having someone come in with a FF that uses a new functional form gives us grant visibility, and also gives industry a better FF to use.
JE – Yeah, though engagement with early-stage grad students can turn into pharma users later.
JC – So, it’s important to establish routes for outside contributions.
DM – And POSE should be expanding stuff in this area/contributing to helping people getting involved, so this doesn’t all fall on Consortium fund. The workshops Josh is running are a great contribution in this area. (And attendance at those is something we can report!)
DM – And so a goal would be for this to becomes
MT – +1 to David’s distinction, and I’d add the CHARMM-GUI probably doesn’t implement out force fields correctly and I’d wager most users don’t care much about the internals (since they don’t have to) vs. first-year grad students we can get using our tools are more familiar with the internals
MT – “Have they contributed back” is the yardstick here - CHARMM-GUI none, and novice users (some-to-many)
JC – If the goal is to sell the industry consortium partners on where we’re going with this, it’s important to have a real roadmap, even if it’s speculative. Like “pay in to get vsites”, but other guarantees like “we’ll have 4 releases this year”. And if we’re aiming at modeling the whole PDB, what specific classes will we prioritize this year and in future years?
DM – Yeah, we should make a key graphic with expected releases and such.
Q&A
DM
JC – I’d like to get everyone possible involved in the RM1 process at an early stage. No concrete expectations/obligations, but I’d love to get contributions for potential people to work with (#nih-btod-may-2024 on OMSF slack)