Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

User feedback on structure of GROMACS files #475

Closed
mattwthompson opened this issue Jun 27, 2022 · 6 comments
Closed

User feedback on structure of GROMACS files #475

mattwthompson opened this issue Jun 27, 2022 · 6 comments
Labels
gromacs relating to GROMACS
Milestone

Comments

@mattwthompson
Copy link
Member

mattwthompson commented Jun 27, 2022

Under construction

  • Is it safe to assume two isomorphic molecules are parametrized identically? Yes
    • Without this, each i.e. solvent molecule would need its own [ molecule ] directive, which scales poorly and is space- and time-inefficient
    • However, co-parametrizing isomorphic molecules is weird and it's sensible to force workarounds to enable that
  • Any need to have molecules exported to .itp files? Nice to have, not necessary
  • User pain points with existing workflows (ParmEd + gmx tools + AmberTools/tleap + ? + OpenMM + ?)
    • Some important parameters (1-4 scaling factors, bond constraints) are reliably mangled or get reset to default values in OpenMM -> ParmEd conversion pathways
    • Non-bonded parameters can get mangled if atom or atom types (forget which) have identical names in different molecules
@mattwthompson
Copy link
Member Author

I met briefly with @hannahbaumann who gave the following feedback and described one of her workflows:

  1. "Isomorphic molecules get the same parameters" seems like a reasonable assumption
  2. ITP file writer might be useful in same cases, i.e. a user manually manipulating a ligand (or doing various alchemical things in free energy calculations)

Her "separated topologies" workflow is as follows:

  • Construct monolithic topology files for complexes A and B
  • Use some scripts to combine ligands in each complex into a one monolithic file with A and B (one of which is probably only dummy, non-interacting atoms)
  • Use restraints to keep dummy ligand in place

The key take-away here is that topology manipulation/access (i.e. getting the index of the ligand molecule in either complex) is needed for this workflow to run smoothly. I think OpenFF's topology objects should work well for this since molecules are first-class citizens and everything's index is accessible. The dummy atoms/ligands will probably require some hacking, however.

@mattwthompson
Copy link
Member Author

#95

@mattwthompson
Copy link
Member Author

Position restraints are brought up in #1135

@mattwthompson mattwthompson added the gromacs relating to GROMACS label Jan 10, 2025
@mattwthompson
Copy link
Member Author

Reading and writing non-monolithic GROMACS files should land in 0.4.1

@mattwthompson
Copy link
Member Author

Writing split files is in 0.4.1 but reading split files won't show up until 0.4.2

@mattwthompson mattwthompson added this to the 0.4.2 milestone Jan 24, 2025
@mattwthompson
Copy link
Member Author

0.4.2 is being rolled out

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
gromacs relating to GROMACS
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant