Bugfix Boresch Correction #258
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Previously, the correction was implemented assuming F=kx. This lead to erroneously favourable absolute free energies of binding by 1.23 kcal mol-1.
Update the restraint function docstrings, restraints tutorial, and changelog.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This pull request closes #248. I've updated the Boresch restraint correction to be consistent with the definitions of the restraint energies and forces as
E = k * x **2andF = 2 * k * x. To make this clear to the user, I've also updated the restraints docstrings and tutorial page to make this explicit, and have referred to the "k"s as "half force constants". This isn't the cleanest vocabulary, so please let me know if there's a better way to explain this.develinto this branch before issuing this pull request (e.g. by runninggit pull origin devel): [y]Suggested reviewers:
@chryswoods, @lohedges
Thanks.