P.S. just a quick update:
so I renamed 'lig' to 'lih' in the lib file and eventually tleap created
the correct topology with two different residues lig and lih.
Should everything work fine from this point ?
I would like to specify also that in the second tleap script I did not use
a .frcmod file for the second ligand since I have only lig.frcmod produced
by antechamber for the first ligand. :-)
Il giorno mar 28 mar 2023 alle ore 11:52 Enrico Martinez <
jmsstarlight.gmail.com> ha scritto:
> Thank you very much, Thomas !
> Actually, the lih.lib file (created for the second ligand via the first
> tleap script) contains the following string
> !!index array str
> "lih"
>
> ... but then
> !entry.lih.unit.name single str
> "lig"
>
> that indeed could rename it back since the created lih.parmtop contains
> %FORMAT
> lig
>
> indicating that in any topology this residue would be still considered as
> 'lig' :-)
>
>
> Just a minor question:
> do I need mandatory a lib file for my case (dealing with the replicas of
> the same residues that should have different name) or alternatively I may
> use some trick in the second tleap script related to the parametrization of
> the complex ?
>
> Many thanks in advance!
>
> Enrico
>
> Il giorno mar 28 mar 2023 alle ore 10:56 Steinbrecher, Thomas <
> thomas.steinbrecher.roche.com> ha scritto:
>
>> Hi Enrico,
>>
>> switching between .mol2 and .lib formats may be the issue, the later
>> keeps track of the residue name on its own, so the lih = ... assignment
>> wont work maybe. My quick solution would be, open lih.lib (it is text),
>> replace all instances of "lig" with "lih" and rerun your second script.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 6:58 PM Enrico Martinez <jmsstarlight.gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you very much, Thomas !
>>>
>>> Actually, I've already searched for the answer but ... :-)
>>>
>>> Here is my first tleap script made according to your suggestions that
>>> load the first lig, copy it to the second (lih) and creates parm files for
>>> the ligands to check whether everything was OK. The script works perfectly
>>> fine but in the lih.prmtop I see that it's defined as "lig" (so the residue
>>> was automatically renamed during the copy ) .
>>>
>>> source leaprc.gaff
>>> lig = loadmol2 lig.mol2
>>> lih = copy lig
>>> check lig
>>> check lih
>>> loadamberparams lig.frcmod
>>> saveoff lig lig.lib
>>> saveoff lih lih.lib
>>> saveamberparm lig lig.prmtop
>>> saveamberparm lih lih.prmtop
>>> quit
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is the second script, which parametrize the whole complex. It works
>>> OK but in the protein.parmtop I see the 'lig' two times so the 'lih'
>>> disappears :-)
>>>
>>> source leaprc.protein.ff19SB
>>> source leaprc.water.opc
>>> source leaprc.gaff
>>> loadamberparams lig.frcmod
>>> loadoff lig.lib
>>> loadoff lih.lib
>>> prot = loadpdb complex_for_amber.pdb
>>> addIons prot Cl- 0
>>> addIons prot Na+ 0
>>> setbox prot centers
>>> solvateoct prot TIP3PBOX 20.0
>>> savepdb prot complex_300K.pdb
>>> saveamberparm prot protein.prmtop protein.prmcrd
>>> quit
>>>
>>> So the question: how to copy lig to lig (assuming that the both are the
>>> same unit) but keep the initial names in the final parmtop for these two
>>> residues as :lig and :lih ?
>>>
>>> Many thanks for the help !
>>>
>>> Enrico
>>>
>>>
>>> Il giorno lun 27 mar 2023 alle ore 18:19 Steinbrecher, Thomas <
>>> thomas.steinbrecher.roche.com> ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> Hi Enrico,
>>>>
>>>> Im sorry but I think there is no way around you looking through the
>>>> leap manual and checking how leap handles and recognizes residues and
>>>> assigns parameters. I'm happy to have a look at your leap input file if you
>>>> like, but this kind of troubleshooting is tricky to do remotely...
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 6:13 PM Enrico Martinez <jmsstarlight.gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> just a quick remark to add:
>>>>>
>>>>> in the case when I save lih.lib file on the first step (when I added
>>>>> lih = copy lig) and then use it during the second tleap execution (to
>>>>> parametrize whole complex), it creates the protein.parmtop that contains 2
>>>>> residues lig (so the lih is automatically renamed to lig). I believe that
>>>>> something should be added in the second tleap execution .
>>>>>
>>>>> Il giorno lun 27 mar 2023 alle ore 18:01 Enrico Martinez <
>>>>> jmsstarlight.gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you very much Thomas!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually in this case I have a problem on the last step for the
>>>>>> parametrization of the complex.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically, according to the tutorial, I call tleap two times
>>>>>> 1) when I consider only the ligand to create lib.lib, lig.pdb,
>>>>>> lig.prmtop and lig.rst7. On this step I copy lig to lih as you indicated
>>>>>> and everything works well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Then I load the complex containing protein + the both ligands in
>>>>>> order to create protein.parmtop. Here I need to load also parameters for
>>>>>> ligand (lig.frcmod and lig.lib). Since there are no parameters for the
>>>>>> second replica (lih), this produces error. Do I need to specify somehow on
>>>>>> this step that the lih is equal to the lig ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many thanks in advance
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Enrico
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Il giorno lun 27 mar 2023 alle ore 15:52 Steinbrecher, Thomas <
>>>>>> thomas.steinbrecher.roche.com> ha scritto:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Enrico,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you need to specify that lig and lih are the same in your leap input
>>>>>>> file, as suggested in the first mail I wrote :-) Depending on how you load
>>>>>>> your parameters, you could for example have these lines here in your
>>>>>>> leap.in:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LIG = loadmol2 <file.mol2>
>>>>>>> LIH = copy LIG
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then leap would recognize residues called LIG and LIH and apply the
>>>>>>> same parameters to them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 3:28 PM Enrico Martinez <
>>>>>>> jmsstarlight.gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Thomas,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I hope you are doing well !
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have a small question regarding the protocol of the
>>>>>>>> parametrization of the system with two identical ligands. Here are three
>>>>>>>> possibilities for the parametrization:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (1) if I specify the two replicas of the same ligands in the
>>>>>>>> initial pdb as "lig" and "lih" and subsequently grep each unit from the
>>>>>>>> complex for the parametrization using antechamber (so totally I run it two
>>>>>>>> times, which could not be correct according to your previous message)
>>>>>>>> everything works fine. In the protein.prmtop I have two units for lig and
>>>>>>>> lih and it looks OK.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (2) if I try to name the both units as "lig" and parametrize only
>>>>>>>> one of them and then apply new parameters on the both replicas (in the
>>>>>>>> initial pdb) it works also OK. In the parmtop file I have two identical
>>>>>>>> units: lig, lig. But as I talked before the presence of two identical
>>>>>>>> units would complicate analysis.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (3) Finally in the case when I still keep in the model two
>>>>>>>> different names "lig" and "lih" but run parametrization only one time (e.g.
>>>>>>>> using only "lig"), obviously parmtop for the complex could not be created
>>>>>>>> and tleap sent an error message that all atoms of "lih" did not have
>>>>>>>> parameters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How could I fix the (3) in order that I could have two
>>>>>>>> different names for the same unit in the model ? Or alternatively should I
>>>>>>>> rename one of the "lig" in the case of the (2) after its parametrization ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many thanks in advance !
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Enrico
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Il giorno ven 24 mar 2023 alle ore 10:11 Steinbrecher, Thomas <
>>>>>>>> thomas.steinbrecher.roche.com> ha scritto:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Enrico,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Im not sure parameterizing twice is a good idea, your parameters
>>>>>>>>> may be slightly different due to input structure bias, so you have two
>>>>>>>>> subtly different 'identical' ligands in your system. What's wrong with
>>>>>>>>> parameterizing the molecule once and using those parameters for both
>>>>>>>>> residues? You can specify them later with e.g. ":lig,lih" but I'd really
>>>>>>>>> recommend the ambmask chapter 23.1.1 of the Amber manual for more details
>>>>>>>>> and examples, masks can be tricky to write and you need to make sure they
>>>>>>>>> match what you really want to be selected, especially if you are aiming for
>>>>>>>>> some semi-automated analysis later.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you sure you want both molecules as the "ligand" in MMPBSA?
>>>>>>>>> Then you'd be neglecting entropy effects twice leading to scores that are
>>>>>>>>> hard to interpret. I'm not saying this is wrong, depending on what you aim
>>>>>>>>> for, but it sounds like you are planning some pretty non-standard MMPBSA
>>>>>>>>> calculations here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 5:35 PM Enrico Martinez <
>>>>>>>>> jmsstarlight.gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Okay, thank you very much Thomas!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To introduce more flexibility in the analysis routine, I decided
>>>>>>>>>> to use two different names for identical molecules and reparametrize each
>>>>>>>>>> twisely via antechamber using identical parameters .. So imagine that if I
>>>>>>>>>> have :lig and :lih what should be amber mask to use with anti-MMPBSA.py to
>>>>>>>>>> check and select the both of them at once as a ligand ? :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks in advance
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Enrico
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Il giorno gio 23 mar 2023 alle ore 15:53 Steinbrecher, Thomas <
>>>>>>>>>> thomas.steinbrecher.roche.com> ha scritto:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Enrico,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> identical molecules need only be parameterized once. So you
>>>>>>>>>>> would use antechamber (and parmchk/parmfit ?) to create ligand.mol2 (or
>>>>>>>>>>> .lib) files describing your compound. Normally, identical molecules would
>>>>>>>>>>> then have the same residue name in your system, but that is not mandatory,
>>>>>>>>>>> just convention. So in your case, when building your system from a pdb
>>>>>>>>>>> file, you need to tell leap what parameters to use for each residue name,
>>>>>>>>>>> so if your ligands are called LIG and LI2, then these two entries need to
>>>>>>>>>>> be defined in your leap input file, for example by the two commands I
>>>>>>>>>>> posted above.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 3:27 PM Enrico Martinez via AMBER <
>>>>>>>>>>> amber.ambermd.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, thank you !
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the renaming, should it be in principle possible to
>>>>>>>>>>>> parametrize
>>>>>>>>>>>> the complex with two identical residues having different names
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> initial complex e.g. lig1 and lig2 or for such case I need to
>>>>>>>>>>>> parametrize
>>>>>>>>>>>> each ligand separately using antechamber ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, I've just executed mmgbsa using :lig mask and it seems
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's summarized
>>>>>>>>>>>> all the values resulting from from the calculations for both
>>>>>>>>>>>> residues, so
>>>>>>>>>>>> .. :- )
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Enrico
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Il giorno gio 23 mar 2023 alle ore 15:08 Carlos Simmerling <
>>>>>>>>>>>> carlos.simmerling.gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> > but if you want it for mmgbsa then this won't work... maybe
>>>>>>>>>>>> renaming the
>>>>>>>>>>>> > second ligand is better
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 10:06 AM Carlos Simmerling <
>>>>>>>>>>>> > carlos.simmerling.gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> you can try making a for loop in cpptraj, you can loop over
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> occurrences of the ligand and write the analysis separately
>>>>>>>>>>>> for each ligand
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> instance, then only use the data file that you want. you
>>>>>>>>>>>> could also modify
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> the script to only analyze the first occurrence, but that
>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a little
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> more work in the script.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> try something like this, where you find matching residues,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and then write
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> the outputs using the residue number so you know later which
>>>>>>>>>>>> is first.:
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> parm prmtop.parm7
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> trajin mdcrd.nc
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> for residues A0 inmask :LIG
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> rms \$A0 out rms.\$A0.dat nofit
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> done
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 9:58 AM Enrico Martinez <
>>>>>>>>>>>> jmsstarlight.gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Thanks a lot, Carlos !
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Are there any other possibilities to select the ligand
>>>>>>>>>>>> without residue
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> number ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> E.g. I have two systems with two different proteins bound
>>>>>>>>>>>> twisely to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> same ligand in chain A and chain B.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> I need to use an atom mask, which would select the first
>>>>>>>>>>>> occurrence of
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> the residue lig in the complex w/o specification of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> residue number
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> which could differ in various systems..
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Many thanks in advance
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Enrico
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Il giorno gio 23 mar 2023 alle ore 13:19 Carlos Simmerling <
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> carlos.simmerling.gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> You can also use the residue number.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 8:17 AM Enrico Martinez via AMBER <
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> amber.ambermd.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> Dear Friends,
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> Thank you very much for your kind suggestions!
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> Indeed this was an issue in my preparation setup using
>>>>>>>>>>>> antechamber,
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> took both residues at the same time.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> BTW, I have a question related to the analysis of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> containing two
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> identical ligands (the both named as LIG) bound in two
>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> monomers
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> of the complex. How could it be better to specify the
>>>>>>>>>>>> atom mask
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> corresponding to a specific ligand (e.g. for mmgbsa) ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> The only one
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> solution could be based only on the residue name in this
>>>>>>>>>>>> case ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> Many thanks in advance !
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> Yours sincerely
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> Enrico
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> Il giorno mar 21 mar 2023 alle ore 17:27 Dr. Anselm Horn
>>>>>>>>>>>> via AMBER <
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> amber.ambermd.org> ha scritto:
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > Dear Enrico,
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > it is not clear to me what you are doing:
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > If you already have the parameters for your ligand,
>>>>>>>>>>>> then you need to
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > load them only once into leap; the programs identifies
>>>>>>>>>>>> the ligand
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > according to its residue name, and thus it can deal
>>>>>>>>>>>> with several
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > identical residues in your (pdb) input, as long as the
>>>>>>>>>>>> residue names
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > your input and the parameter files do match.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > If you are still in the parameterization phase, then
>>>>>>>>>>>> you also need
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > one instance of your ligand.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > Anselm
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > Bioinformatik | NHR.FAU
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU)
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > Germany
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > Am 21.03.2023 um 17:00 schrieb Enrico Martinez via
>>>>>>>>>>>> AMBER:
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > > Dear Amber Users !
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > > I have an issue related to the preparation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> containing two
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > > identical ligands present in two different binding
>>>>>>>>>>>> sites. Actually
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> when I
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > > try to copy the both units for the parametrization
>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> Antechamber it
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > > says that it could not process two residues at the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same time.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > > Is there any preparation trick for such a case
>>>>>>>>>>>> assuming that
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > > works fine with the same system containing only one
>>>>>>>>>>>> ligand ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > > Many thanks in advance
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > > Enrico
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > > AMBER mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > > AMBER.ambermd.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > > http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > AMBER mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > AMBER.ambermd.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> AMBER mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> AMBER.ambermd.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> AMBER mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> AMBER.ambermd.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> *Dr. Thomas Steinbrecher*
>>>>>>>>>>> Principal Scientist CADD
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Roche Pharma Research and Early Development
>>>>>>>>>>> Roche Innovation Center Basel
>>>>>>>>>>> F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd
>>>>>>>>>>> Bldg. 092/3.92
>>>>>>>>>>> Grenzacherstrasse 124
>>>>>>>>>>> 4070 Basel
>>>>>>>>>>> Switzerland
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Phone +41 61 682 1319
>>>>>>>>>>> mailto: thomas.steinbrecher.roche.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> *Dr. Thomas Steinbrecher*
>>>>>>>>> Principal Scientist CADD
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Roche Pharma Research and Early Development
>>>>>>>>> Roche Innovation Center Basel
>>>>>>>>> F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd
>>>>>>>>> Bldg. 092/3.92
>>>>>>>>> Grenzacherstrasse 124
>>>>>>>>> 4070 Basel
>>>>>>>>> Switzerland
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Phone +41 61 682 1319
>>>>>>>>> mailto: thomas.steinbrecher.roche.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> *Dr. Thomas Steinbrecher*
>>>>>>> Principal Scientist CADD
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roche Pharma Research and Early Development
>>>>>>> Roche Innovation Center Basel
>>>>>>> F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd
>>>>>>> Bldg. 092/3.92
>>>>>>> Grenzacherstrasse 124
>>>>>>> 4070 Basel
>>>>>>> Switzerland
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phone +41 61 682 1319
>>>>>>> mailto: thomas.steinbrecher.roche.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Dr. Thomas Steinbrecher*
>>>> Principal Scientist CADD
>>>>
>>>> Roche Pharma Research and Early Development
>>>> Roche Innovation Center Basel
>>>> F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd
>>>> Bldg. 092/3.92
>>>> Grenzacherstrasse 124
>>>> 4070 Basel
>>>> Switzerland
>>>>
>>>> Phone +41 61 682 1319
>>>> mailto: thomas.steinbrecher.roche.com
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> *Dr. Thomas Steinbrecher*
>> Principal Scientist CADD
>>
>> Roche Pharma Research and Early Development
>> Roche Innovation Center Basel
>> F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd
>> Bldg. 092/3.92
>> Grenzacherstrasse 124
>> 4070 Basel
>> Switzerland
>>
>> Phone +41 61 682 1319
>> mailto: thomas.steinbrecher.roche.com
>>
>
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Tue Mar 28 2023 - 03:30:03 PDT
