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

Incorrect resonance structures in presence of dative bonds #3349

Closed
IvanChernyshov opened this issue Aug 20, 2020 · 4 comments · Fixed by #3354
Closed

Incorrect resonance structures in presence of dative bonds #3349

IvanChernyshov opened this issue Aug 20, 2020 · 4 comments · Fixed by #3354
Assignees
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@IvanChernyshov
Copy link

If an atom which is a part of a conjugated system forms a dative bond, it drops out of the resonance:

from rdkit import Chem
mol = Chem.MolFromSmiles('CC(=O)[O-]')
print(len(Chem.ResonanceMolSupplier(mol)))
> 2
mol = Chem.MolFromSmiles('CC(=O)[O-]->[*]')
print(len(Chem.ResonanceMolSupplier(mol)))
> 1

I think, if an atom forms a dative bond as a donor, then such dative bonds must be ignored.

@greglandrum
Copy link
Member

I agree.
@ptosco : seem right to you too?

@ptosco ptosco self-assigned this Aug 20, 2020
@ptosco
Copy link
Contributor

ptosco commented Aug 20, 2020

Sure. At the moment the algorithm does not account for dative bonds. I'll look into fixing this over the weekend.
@IvanChernyshov Thanks for reporting this!

ptosco added a commit to ptosco/rdkit that referenced this issue Aug 22, 2020
- fixed a few typos
- removed const from operator(), which should be allowed to modify the owning object
- added missing const to some getters
@ptosco ptosco mentioned this issue Aug 22, 2020
greglandrum pushed a commit that referenced this issue Sep 2, 2020
- fixed a few typos
- removed const from operator(), which should be allowed to modify the owning object
- added missing const to some getters
@greglandrum greglandrum added this to the 2020_03_6 milestone Sep 2, 2020
@greglandrum greglandrum modified the milestones: 2020_03_6, 2020_09_1 Sep 18, 2020
@greglandrum
Copy link
Member

I'm changing the milestone on this one because the merge to the release branch is non-trivial

@ptosco
Copy link
Contributor

ptosco commented Sep 18, 2020

@greglandrum may I help? I guess the release branch misses some dative bond awareness that this requires?

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants