Live CEOing Ep 802: Design Review of BioMolecule and BioMoleculePlot3D continued

Okay. Hello, everyone. Welcome to our third design review of the day. And we're in biomolecule land here, so try and run this. Okay. Quick molecule update.

Right?

Yeah. I added this feature a while ago just because it's really useful, but have not documented it yet because I need to run it past you.

What is it?

Right, so when constructing a molecule, you can in the atom list, put in another fully formed molecule object and form a bond to it in the bonds list using.

That's in this nested structure?

Yep.

Have we used such a nested structure before in bond?

Yes, with a bio sequence.

So it's following. We've got the two bio sequences and we. We. We're indexing into a bio sequence.

Yep.

Yeah. Okay, fine, then that's probably fine. Yep.

Jason, from the molecule that you're inserting there, do the coordinates come through or just the connectivity, the bonds and atoms?

Just the connectivity at the moment. If we want to, we could talk about coordinates at some point.

Where am I going for Biomolecule?

We can just talk about it here. Let's see. So there is a notebook in that folder.

Okay. Right. I can open it.

It's not very filled out. Moment.

Okay, so a molecule of a bio sequence will have every single atom, but a biomolecule of a biosequence will have more structured things with whole amino acids. That correct?

Yes.

Oh, boy. This is percent monetization.

Wow.

That's exciting. So if I feed into biomolecule just a raw amino acid sequence, is it going to work or not? No.

At the moment, the only strings that it takes are a file path or a four digit. What do you call it? PDB id? As a fallback, it could do that. I mean, at the moment we can only.

Well, okay. Do we really want it to take a PDB id? I mean, that's really obscure. As opposed to an external identifier, pdb and then whatever the identifier is.

So I think the. The external identifier is the. The most. The best documentable thing, but just in use, like it's very convenient for us when we. When we do these things to just.

Put in the formula identifies a mnemonic. Or are they numeric?

Let's see, they. They usually contain two letters and two numbers. Do they mean something? Heard your question.

Or not?

No, not to my knowledge.

I don't like it very much. I mean, I. It seems to me that we should have, you know, PDB arrow or something like this to indicate that, because imagine what. I mean, the analog or smile String for a biomolecule. If I were to guess what will be in there, I would guess that it will be an amino acid sequence or maybe even a base pair sequence. You see what I'm saying? Because that's the analog of molecule taking.

Yeah, I see. I see your point. Yeah. If it's a raw string, then it encodes literally the thing. Not a database, an external one.

That Right. So the only. The question is whether it's external identifier, would that work? A PDB comma, the id. Or it could be just be PDB arrow and then the id. Right.

So, I mean, the external identifier definitely works. And let's see, when you type external identifier, PDB ID is one of the. The autocompletes for the first argument. So it's convenient. It is more typing, which is why.

I understand, I think the PDB arrow. I like it. It is nicely inline without too many boxes.

Yeah, fine. So I mean, it would be biomolecule. So I will be able to say, you know, I need to learn my. My abbreviations for residues. I don't know my residue abbreviation. So I'm just going to guess them to. Totally random here, but I think it should also work. And is it. Is it identifiable? Okay, naive question. The letters for residues, are they distinct from the letters for nucleotides? For base pairs. Bases. Let's see.

I'm wishing that Jan were here.

But there is overlap.

Yeah, there's overlap.

Biosequence does try. Like if you give bio sequence a string, it will. What do you. It will guess.

Or.

I mean, it gets it wrong. Right?

If it gets it wrong, then you.

No, then you have to data type.

No, I understand that. I understand that, but I mean. But it seems like the kind of thing where somebody's got a program, they're looping over lots of different molecules and suddenly they discover the magic drug that they've been.

It gives a message.

No, but how can it give a message if it thinks it's. If it's expecting A biomolecule can take either residues or bases. See what I'm saying? How can it get messages?

At the moment, Biomolecule won't be able to do anything with base pairs.

I see. But in some cases, anyway. Yeah, okay, well, fine. I mean, proteins are the stuff of life. They're the thing to use, I think, here. So I think the default should be the string. Means that. And if you've given, you know, PDB arrow, is that reasonable? And then whatever the id. Is that the right thing?

That can definitely work. Yeah, I always. It always strikes me as odd when something that isn't an option is presented as a rule.

But this is relatively obvious what it means.

Yes, I agree. All right. So now let's talk about biomolecule. Otherwise, I mean, biomolecule plot 3D. Lovely. What should molecule plot 3D do when given a biomolecule? Right.

Other. Other interesting ones are like connected molecule components. Something that generally returns a list of molecules which wanted to return a list of. So I think ideally it would return a heterogeneous list of biomolecules and molecules, but it's. It's not entirely clear what is what.

Which function are we talking about?

So connected molecule components, if that is called on a. On a biomolecule, would it return probably a list of molecules? So probably most of the functions that were molecules.

The conversion from biomolecule to molecule could be absurdly expensive. True or not true?

True.

How many? Okay, naive question. This is another one of these. I'm so embarrassed. I'm clueless. Residues. Which one has the largest number of atoms in it? How would I compute that? I can just say atom count, right? I could say atom count of. How do I get a list of residues?

So hopefully control equals amino acids would work.

Oh, no. Oh, come on, guys. Yeah, well, make it. That should be made to work. Yeah. Oh, look at that. I need to learn all of these.

Crypto fan might be the largest.

All right, well, let's find out. What the heck? What's all that about?

Okay, so let's go. Let's quit the kernel and re. Evaluate the. The packlet directory load command up at the top.

What? Could I do this? Or is this going to fail?

No, no, I. So I. That's definitely packlet loading issues. But. Then the. Yeah. Packlet directory load. You don't need to do the packlet uninstall. Okay.

Do I need to do atom counter molecule of that?

You shouldn't have to.

Ah, there we go. Oh, look at that. You might be right. It's kind of interesting. I should know this stuff. Okay, so let's say. Could almost be in a textbook. Smallest one hour need now kleis. Which is presumably symmetrical, which is why it doesn't have an L in front of it. Is that right? Yes. Okay, cool. Okay. So anyway, so you could end up with. On the order of 20 times the. The number of elements after you've atomized these things. Correct.

Yes, it can definitely. It definitely blows things up. And then it also has to compute bonds, and each of them gets a.

Lot of polygons in its realization.

Well, what do you guys think we should do with molecule plot 3D? I do think that it, for consistency, it has to plot the atoms, but.

I don't know whether I think so, too. It has to do it, but it's at your risk.

Yes.

This is like typing two to the power two to the power three, power four.

Right.

I mean, one out of memories.

Well, so if we were nice, we would have something in modern times, which is some kind of progress monitor that would give people an idea why the thing is taking so long. And it would say something like converting to atomic form or something. Use Biomolecule Plot 3D to make a plot of biomolecules.

Also, I think the real trouble only starts in the moment the thing gets sent to the front end before the kernel is still. Probably still happy.

Yeah.

Okay.

It's a bit annoying that people can blow themselves up this easily. Maybe. Maybe the front end has to have a way of dealing with. Look, look, maybe what the front end does is feed it into a. A too big. You know, what are those things called? The. Oh, my gosh. What are they called? The things where you have, you know, range of a million large output. Right.

Also, this is. Yeah, this is done by the box maker. Yeah. Which is currently never invoked for graphics.

That particular thing. But I think that that's the thing we should probably raise in the user assistance meeting as a thing of some kind of protection. Because I think if. That. If that. If it did that, it will be fine. It would just say, this is a thing with 10 million atoms. You know, do you want to render it? And the answer would usually be, no, I made a mistake. So let's raise that in the user assistance meeting, please.

But it would then work for every 3D graphics that has more than, say, two minutes.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right, right. Which is a good idea, I think, to avoid things blowing up. Okay. Plotting options needs an option to control the styling of each chain. Okay. How do you label the chains?

They're usually so strings. So they're usually A, B, C, D is the traditional.

So that's how they're named in biomolecule. Yeah. But now, I mean, is this guy. Is that one chain there? Oh, yes, that. That one has many chains. Okay, again, naive question from the. These are things which are essentially clusters with hydrogen bonds or something between them. Is that true or what's going on in this case? What? These differently colored things These are what's holding them together.

Right?

Yeah.

So they're disconnected components. The differently colored things are.

Yeah, but what do you mean, disconnected? They're held together by something by.

By. By. Go ahead.

Vanderl forces.

Yeah. Not. Not hydrogen. Hydrogen.

I see. I see. By pure van der Waals. Yeah.

Yeah. I guess it's nice to point out disconnected in this case means not covalent bond.

Yes, absolutely. That is what I've been meaning.

Yeah. Right. But. So. Okay, okay, just a minute. My. My chemistry moment. Okay. The so what kinds of things get naive. Chemistry moment. What kinds of things get bound by van der Waals for.

So usually large. The more large. And spread out. You are right. It's the. These things get close to each other and they. They induce a polarization in each. In each other's electron clouds and.

Right. I mean, it's like an R to the sixth or R to the seventh one over. R to the sixth or one or seventh Force law.

Yeah.

That doesn't. What's that?

Yeah, it's an exponential. 6. There is 612 potential. One's attractive, the other is repulsive.

No, I understand. That's a standard Leonard Jones potential or something like that.

Right.

But I'm just trying to understand of things that you make a picture of as a single chemical. Under what circumstances is that? Like this thing. Where else? Like, if we were dealing with polymers, would there be a kind of a van der Waals story with polymers or. This is something.

Yes. Yeah, that could be. It also happens here. Usually. It's the hydra, what's called hydrophobic attraction. One greasy, you know, essentially hydrocarbon side chain sticking near another hydrocarbon side chain, typically aromatic rings.

But this is independent of a. Of some random water molecules flapping around. Pure.

Yeah, yeah, it's.

It's. But, but. So what's the. Okay, another naive question. I mean, covalent bonding is usually exponential in its force law. Is that true?

No. It's essentially like a Morse function. Mostly quadratic. Near the minimum, it rises very steeply. When you compress too much, if you stretch it, it will eventually dissociate. So it asymptotes at infinity.

No, I think Stephen is right. Technically, literally, the quantum mechanical force is exponential if you're far.

Far exponentially. Yeah, okay, but. So, so then just again, naive questions. The distance scale. I mean, covalent bonding. The distance scale is on the order of sizes of atoms For. For van der Waals forces. What's the typical distance scale for things that are bound together by van der Waals forces?

Just a Little bit above the van der Waals radii, basically, is where it's attractive. And then after that.

Radii is. Is. Is a completely different sense of van der Waals. That's the. That's the excluded volume in the van der Waals equation of state or something. Or what? Or something completely different. What do you mean by van der Waals radius?

Essentially, contact radii of atoms that you'll.

See in a crystal, which is the V minus B thing in the van der Waals equation of state, I believe.

Okay. I'm not familiar with that.

The. I don't know. Anybody here know? Michael, do you know?

I don't think so.

Okay. It's yet a different concept. Yeah, Yeah. I should say the.

The B in the.

The. Yeah.

No, I don't.

Let me look it up.

But it's not distance.

I mean, some of them can be interpreted as geometrical things, but I don't think they're related to V forces.

No, no, no, they're not. No, they're absolutely not. That was the thing I was confused by because you were saying the Vanderbols. Is the Vanderbilt radius related to van der Waals forces or not?

I do not know.

I don't think it is.

I don't think it is either.

I mean, it relates to the Vanderbilt equation of state rather than the. Okay, but. But so in. When things are bound by van der Waals forces with one over. As I recall, it's one of R to the sixth, except it was relat. Correction. That makes it one over R to the seventh, if I remember correctly. But some combination of those. But what's the typical distance scale for things that are sort of bound together by that. By those kinds of forces?

I would think it's relatively large because geckos use it, too. Walk up a vertical wall and.

It is. It is, yes. That. That's how they. They stick or flies. Why they get to stick to glass.

Yeah, right.

Probably.

Yeah, right. Which is much larger than the distance between these chains. Yeah. Okay. I'm just trying to understand. And. And so what we have here in a picture like this is each chain has its absolute coordinates. Well, coordinates relative to the, you know, coordinate system of this rendering of this biomolecule cluster, effectively. Is that right? I mean, is. Would this normally be considered a single biomolecule? I guess, when you talk about. I don't know, what are these things? I mean, anything. I don't know, insulin or something. Right. That's some kind of pentamer thingy. Dinghy Is that right?

Is this a viral protein coat? Jason?

I don't know. I tend to pick them for their aesthetic qualities.

No, but like the capsid of a virus.

Yeah.

Is that an example of something. I mean, that's a bunch of proteins assembled in. You know, somebody sent me this cute thing recently of a. I think it's bacteriophage. That makes a sipinski gasket thing interesting. And. But I think that it does that by presumably this kind of binding of several proteins. But am I correct that the capsid of a virus is represented? If I were to draw a picture of that, it would have a whole bunch of differently colored things in your representation. Is that true?

Yes, it would be.

I think so.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

And this is the structure of ferritin. Actually, I just looked it up.

Yeah.

Okay.

Those are generally called the structural proteins for the capsid.

Okay.

Yeah.

With the stuff in the middle. Yeah.

It binds. This one binds to iron. So that's why the cage is there and the iron should be at the center of the protein.

Okay.

Or inside the sphere.

It's awfully big to fit one iron atom. That's confusing to me. But anyway, never mind that. Okay. So in any case, for our purposes. By the way, please don't use this notation for the. I mean in. In documentation we should just say brackets, whatever. Right. To make it less obscure. Make sense. Noted.

Yeah.

I was just looking. Funder wise can go up to a couple of 10 nanometer.

Okay.

So if you look in the notebook on the left, you can see I've made some plot themes since then, so.

Okay.

Ribbons. Gaussian service surface solvent Accessible surface backbone. Lovely. That's beautiful. Okay, now what are the questions here about. About these colors? I mean I don't understand why you're not just putting style wrapped around. I mean it's what we would do in like geographics or something. Just put. Just wrap another plotting functions. Just wrap style around the list of. I mean in this biomolecule. Oh, I see.

But then we would have to go the route what we do with the anatomy plot 3D where we have an extra set of rules. Who gets colored?

Who.

I don't think we want to go into biomolecule and stick in styles.

No, I understand, but then what if this chains. Do they have named chains in here?

Yes, and you can query. You could query like for polymer chain labels or just. Or chain labels which would give the all the chain labels and then you. So then either color rules or chain cells could be. Take a list of rules. A goes to blue.

B goes. How does that relate to what we've done in Anatomy Plot?

Similar. We partially modeled it after it.

So in Anatomy Plot, what's the name of the option? Anatomy styles, I think Styling. Anatomy Skin style. There. Anatomy styling of directives. So that's a. Directives that you put into anatomy plot 3D of hand and this and that and the other in a list. Is that right?

Yes. Or an association. Yes. Yeah. But the interesting use case is the one if you go to the ref page of Anatomy Styling, it's clearer because you can name the things that you want to be styled.

I see. I think we should have a biomolecule styling. I think if we don't do that, it's going to get horribly.

Well, then what's the first. Like, what are the arguments to biomolecules?

I mean, here's an implied background thing.

Which we have which thing in another human itself. Yes, I understand. Okay, so you're saying. When do we ever call these chains? How do you get. Okay, naive question. Okay. If I look at a biomolecule and I want to split it into many separate biomolecules for each chain, how do I do that?

So I haven't got this hooked up yet, but the. My thought was to just give the subvalue chains would spit back a list of biomolecules with the chains which.

With one chain, some values are there on. On biomolecule.

So that list isn't completely filled out yet.

Right?

No, it's.

What do we do for molecule? What? What's this list of sub values for molecule?

It's long.

You could ask for its properties.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay. So all kinds of properties. And it's atom list and all kinds of things, right? Where is it? Where is it?

No. So let's see. There are so many that they're not even on that page. They're on the molecule value page.

Okay, you know what? You can never do that. Don't send people to another freaking wild goose to, you know, chase the geese to another page. We should also list them on that page. There's a way of doing that by giving. There's a way of doing that that we have for listing all options for a given function, even when some of them are indirect. Opt. There's a documentation issue. We can. We can solve it, but we should put them on that page. So you're not goosing.

Well, I guess my thought is. I mean, it's just. It's a huge list.

So what so that. That's what we do. If you look at a page, like, for example, if you look at something like. Well, actually, I'm sure if I look at anatomy, plot 3D. Better be the case that. Here. There we go. List of all options. See? Ah.

Okay.

And then it goes on and on and on.

So there. There's a subsection to the details and options section.

Okay, that's correct. Now, I don't think we quite have a style for doing that here, but we probably should. Okay. So there'll be a whole thing for Biomolecule, for all these different kinds of things. Yes. That surely is not a percentage. It's surely not multiplied by a hundred. And they're corresponding mass fractions. Surely it's not a freaking percentage. Percentage means multiplied by 100. And it's not. Do you see what I'm saying? Right. It's just wrong. Sorry. Look. Better be wrong, at least. Oh, gosh.

Better be right.

Really? What's that?

But this is, I think, what we want to see for student homeworks.

What's incorrect with that?

Well, a fraction isn't a percentage.

Yeah.

I think we talked about having two properties at one point.

Yeah.

I don't think it should have been said. Element mass percentages and element mass fractions.

We can always.

And it could have an S on the end so that it could disambiguate that. Okay. In any case, doesn't matter the. All right. Did this autocomplete in a nice way? No, it does not autocomplete. Come on, guys. It should autocomplete there. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Yeah.

Let's see. So that one could possibly autocomplete if the molecule was evaluated and it made its own box at that point.

Why. Why can't this autocomplete?

Well, I'm not familiar with any.

Okay, you can find a mechanism for that. There's a way to do this. Okay. Many other functions do this.

We can discuss. Richard. Food.

Okay. But back up to this. So you have the concept of chains that will be a subvalue of biomolecule.

Yes.

So chain styles, I guess. Color rules.

It's a molecule plot. Uses color rules. And it works. So you do. H goes to green, C goes to red.

Then why isn't this doing the same thing?

Yeah. So that was a.

With the. With the chain names.

Yeah, that would be easy.

Okay. Sounds good. All right. What's next?

Okay, so if we want to look at.

How much more is that, by the way? I'm just trying to paste some things.

I think if we just answer a question, like nail down what we got hung up on for biomolecule value next time. That will be enough for now. And then we can meet again next week possibly to go over the documentation one last time.

What's the issue here? So, biomolecule value is the function that also is supported with sub values. Is that correct?

Yes. And so actually this. This was not.

So I strongly think that the way the chain and residue and atom and all that kind of thing should be. Biomolecule, arrow or something, chain, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Not putting them as later arguments.

Right. So if you go back to the. The agenda, there's a subsection that I have for biomolecule value where I propose the syntax.

Let's see.

Yeah. So wrap it in a list and give an association as the second thing to represent part.

Why aren't you just having the whole thing be an association and just say biomolecule arrow, blah, chains, arrow, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I had not thought of that.

I mean, is that a reasonable thing to do? I. I think. Where do we have one more time.

I did. I did not quite.

I'm just suggesting that you pull the biomolecule itself into the association and say biomolecule, arrow, list, you know, string, biomolecule, arrow, the biomolecule and then chains, arrow, whatever. Maybe it's not a good idea.

I don't know. So I still don't get it.

Okay, I'm just saying.

So the first argument would just be an association.

Yeah.

Rather than this kind of biomolecule would be biomol.

Yeah, I see.

Okay. Okay, sorry. Now I get it.

Is that a sensible idea or is that not a sensible idea? I mean, it's kind of what we do to give the full.

But if you ask for the value of something, it is very natural the first argue argument to be the thing you want the value of, rather than hiding it one level deep.

Well, no. So here you're specifically saying I want like the atom coordinates for a part of the biomolecule.

Yeah. And so still you start with a certain biomolecule.

Yeah.

All right.

Okay. But do we have a precedent for that? Or alternatively. See, I'm wondering whether we could do something where we say where the first argument is biomol arrow. And then if it's just a chain, you say this. If that's a common thing you want. It's just a particular chain, you say that and if you want to fully qualify it, you say biomolecule arrow and then the association that gives the full detail.

Would you be able to give it a list of chains in. In, you know, say biomall goes to.

No. Why not?

Okay.

I mean, I'm just not that keen on the sub casing of the biomolecule by having that list. We have done things like that before, but I'm not just super keen on it.

Okay.

Michael, do you have a comment on this?

I think what you are suggesting right now is not bad.

Okay. I think it'll look fairly natural.

So say you want residual 1 to 5 from chain A and residual 5 to 10 from chain B.

Then I think you go a fully qualified form, which is biomol arrow list.

Okay. So then the outer layer becomes a list. That was my question. Everything clear? Yeah.

Yeah. I don't know. So, yeah, I guess, I mean, in my code I could just have it mapped. This one seems like this doesn't make any sense.

Right? This doesn't make sense. This is residues 10 through 30 in both chains A and B. That seems very unlikely to make sense.

Yes, but. But I agree, it makes no sense. But it's. Yeah, this is what it is.

But maybe what we should do then is say chain, singular, arrow, whatever. And if you want to give multiple chains, you can. But if you also give residues, you're making a nonsense of it. See what I'm saying? Yeah.

Also say you might want the first 5 residue of each chain.

Really?

For some lookup table.

Yeah, okay. For some fingerprint maybe. Or for some. Just exploration.

You just have to thread that over the list of chains then. And have multiple associations.

Yeah, well, yes, you can do that way as well. But the specification, if you go down to the level of an individual atom. I don't even know how you do that. How do you number the atoms within its residue? There are numbered atoms, presumably.

Yes, but they're not numbered canonically.

Well, I mean, yeah, they're just numbered by their index in the list.

Yeah, but they also have standard names for proteins. C Alpha, C Beta, C Gamma.

Yeah, yeah. What do those mean?

Like the role of that atom in the residue?

Well, the carbonyl biology chemistry moment. What. What does that mean? The role?

It's not really a role, it's a. Numbering using Greek letters is the way they do it. The C alpha is. Is the. The co is the carbonyl carbon. The next one out, the chain is the C alpha that bears the amino group. And then there's C beta. So with Alanine, it would stop at C, beta, and then, you know, gamma, delta, etc, and when the branched ones. I'm not that familiar with the notation for them.

Okay, okay.

But there are standard names for all of them, including the rings.

Okay. All right. Okay, fine. Okay. Anything else we need to figure out here?

No. I mean, if you want to look quickly at molecular assembly, we talked about. Let's see. So the. The input forms, how you might input a molecular assembly. And so the. The ones that you requested will be working. So you could do just a geometric transformation. You could give it a list of geometric transformations. In that last example, I use the.

What's this?

Right.

So when you import, like, biomolecule, like A1H, V4 above, it already has information inside it about two different assemblies.

Assembly.

1 and Assembly 2.

I don't think this should work. I think if you say biomolecule of and then a number, maybe it extracts one of the pieces or something. If the biomolecule has multiple chains, is that the same thing as multiple assemblies? Or there's even more.

It's. Yeah, it's different. So that. So the. The biomolecule itself might have. So in this case, I think the biomolecule has 16 chains.

Oh, yeah. I don't think that thing should work. Molecular assembly is a thing that assembles stuff. It doesn't disassemble stuff. Right.

So in this case, it evaluates.

It doesn't assemble.

But I don't understand why that is subcasing the biomolecule. Right. Why is that an N in molecular assembly? It seems like the molecular assembly is a collector, not a subcaser of biomolecule. Like, if I had four biomolecules that I wanted to put in, as you have later on. What the heck does the N refer to?

No, no, no. I think that's. Yeah, I think that's a good.

You wouldn't have an N in that case?

No, I.

So in the first example.

Hold on.

The first example of the biomolecule comma N evaluates to. To a form like all the other ones do.

Right?

It just goes into the assembly to the biomolecule and pulls out the data about the assemblies and uses them to construct it.

Sorry, just one. Say that again. I'm sorry, please. What were you saying?

Right, so the first example, like biomolecule, the assembly of a biomolecule comma N. Grant, like, evaluates to the canonical form, where you have the biomolecule and then the geometric transformations. Alternatively, you could just do part like. So you have your biomolecule. You do the assemblies sub value.

Yeah. And then you do.

And then take part n a bit.

I think that will be better for now. I, I. This doesn't seem right to me. Maybe there's a way of doing. I mean, it just seems like it's the wrong. You know, maybe we can do it with an arrow notation or something here. I just don't think it's quite right.

Then, then let's do it through parts. It's not a big inconvenience.

Fine. Right.

And again, so this case, that could instead go to an arrow.

Yeah, with an arrow thing. And that's geometric transformation. Yeah. I have no idea whether this is going to be convenient. I mean, whether you can have. And I. And I also have a question. Yeah. All right. I think we should wrap up because I need to run off here. But this looks wonderful. I mean, it's, it's. I don't know what happened that there are a bunch of other WFR functions that you guys have developed those are not making it into this version. Or are we going to review those separately?

They're not coming in. Let's see. A lot of the plotting functions for the. The protein visualization will be either still work in the packlet or be plot themes for the biomolecule.

Plot. 3D plot themes. Makes sense. All right. I look forward to this. This is wonderful. Excellent.

Thank you.

Okay. See you all.