-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 78
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
double bonds #196
Comments
I guess UA systems are the case in which this is relevant? In atomistic systems we implicitly do this based on hybridization (3 vs 4 bonds to a carbon, etc.) and don't really have the concept of single vs double vs etc. bonds. In the example of a UA carbonyl, a string like Do you need different atomtyping rules for double and single bonds, apply different bond parameters, or both? We don't support it yet (#63) but SMARTS has the concept of bond types. Something else to think about is that the input |
Yeah I’m playing with ua. I think I can get away without for now if I
always specify number of bonds, but the smarts are less intuitive imho.
More just wanted to start the discussion and roadmap what would need doing.
…On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Matt Thompson ***@***.***> wrote:
I guess UA systems are the case in which this is relevant? In atomistic
systems we implicitly do this based on hybridization (3 vs 4 bonds to a
carbon, etc.) and don't really have the concept of single vs double vs etc.
bonds. In the example of a UA carbonyl, a string like [O;X1]C would be
able to type it but would have trouble deciding if it's a carbonyl or an
alcohol.
Do you need different atomtyping rules for double and single bonds, apply
different bond parameters, or both? We don't support it yet (#63
<#63>) but SMARTS has the
concept of bond types.
Something else to think about is that the input parmed.Structure/
mb.Compound/OpenMM equivalent would needs its bonds to be labelled as
double bonds. I think ParmEd and OpenMM support this but mBuild may not.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#196 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AI0jByVrJFtZTc31Ol87f2GycvuCydblks5u5Bz9gaJpZM4ZUTSX>
.
|
So adding double bonds (ie
C=O
)I guess this is low priority because by defining the coordination of atoms this is implicit?
If we wanted to add this, from what I can see:
And I'm guessing these rules might have to be "soft" so that molecules with single bonds everywhere (even where double is appropriate) still get typed. So something like how
type
s give higher precedence, bondedness should do similar?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: