[Rdkit-discuss] Sample RD Files?

2011-05-27 Thread Greg Landrum
Dear all, I'm planning to add an RD file parser to the RDKit, but I'm having a difficult time finding a good public source of RD files to use for testing. The only thing I've managed to find so far is EBI's RHEA (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/rhea//home.xhtml). This has a large number of reactions, but the

Re: [Rdkit-discuss] MACCS SMARTS pattern definitions

2011-05-27 Thread Andrew Dalke
Hi Greg, > My reading of the SMARTS theory manual > (http://www.daylight.com/dayhtml/doc/theory/theory.smarts.html) says > that [0*] means "any atom with a mass of 0", so [!0*] would be "any > atom that doesn't have a mass of 0". What am I missing? In the Daylight, OpenEye, and OpenBabel data mod

Re: [Rdkit-discuss] MACCS SMARTS pattern definitions

2011-05-27 Thread Andrew Dalke
On May 27, 2011, at 6:01 AM, Greg Landrum wrote: > And now a more philosophical point about this. ... > The idea of the MACCS keys is simple: a limited set of structural keys > that can be used to speed up substructure searches and which have > since been (ab)used for chemical similarity. It see

Re: [Rdkit-discuss] MACCS SMARTS pattern definitions

2011-05-27 Thread Greg Landrum
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Andrew Dalke wrote: > Hi Greg, > >> My reading of the SMARTS theory manual >> (http://www.daylight.com/dayhtml/doc/theory/theory.smarts.html) says >> that [0*] means "any atom with a mass of 0", so [!0*] would be "any >> atom that doesn't have a mass of 0". What a

Re: [Rdkit-discuss] MACCS SMARTS pattern definitions

2011-05-27 Thread Andrew Dalke
On May 27, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Greg Landrum wrote: > That is definitely wrong according to the Daylight theory manual: > "Isotopic specifications are indicated by preceding the atomic symbol > with a number equal to the desired integral atomic mass. Yes, and I think they are being imprecise, but sin

Re: [Rdkit-discuss] MACCS SMARTS pattern definitions

2011-05-27 Thread Greg Landrum
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Dalke wrote: > On May 27, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Greg Landrum wrote: >> That is definitely wrong according to the Daylight theory manual: >> "Isotopic specifications are indicated by preceding the atomic symbol >> with a number equal to the desired integral atomi