Re: [GaMD-discuss] error with amber24 GaMD-PPI Too many TI atoms--current limit: 500 atoms

[Christian S. <cgs...@gm...>]

Hi Victor,

Thanks, I can include the restart file and gamd-restart.dat file for the
next batch of the equilibration. After each segment of the equilibration
run, I will need to subtract that amount of steps from the next segment I
run, otherwise I will keep running the same steps over and over. For
example, my equilibration is set to 1 ns MD equilibration (ntcmdprep), 1 ns
equilibration with boost potentials (ntebprep), 4 ns normal MD (ntcmd), and
80 ns biasing MD (nteb). From the output file it appears that the ntcmd is
run first. Is this correct, and thus I would subtract some number of steps
from ntcmd when I restart the equilibration? After ntcmd, is the biasing MD
run next?

Best,
Christian

On Tue, Dec 9, 2025 at 8:56 AM Adediwura, Victor Ayo <vad...@em...>
wrote:

> Hi Christian,
>
> Thanks for your email. I haven't run GaMD equilibration in batches, but I
> think you can segment it by taking the restart file and gamd-restart.dat
> file of the completed files for the next batch. Please let me know if you
> have more questions.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Victor
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Christian Seitz <cgs...@gm...>
> *Sent:* Monday, December 8, 2025 2:36 PM
> *To:* Miao, Yinglong <Yin...@me...>
> *Cc:* gamd-discuss <gam...@li...>; Davis, James J. <
> jj...@an...>; Adediwura, Victor Ayo <vad...@em...>;
> Ramanathan, Arvind <ram...@an...>
> *Subject:* Re: [GaMD-discuss] error with amber24 GaMD-PPI Too many TI
> atoms--current limit: 500 atoms
>
> Hi Yinglong,
>
> Good to know that anything in ambmask format should work. Victor, do you
> have recommendations on how to segment a GaMD equilibration run into
> multiple parts?
>
> best,
> Christian
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 6:48 PM Miao, Yinglong <Yin...@me...>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> Great that your system runs with PPI-GaMD by “only modifying the
> MaxNumberTIAtom”. Thanks for confirming that!
>
> Note that timask1 and scmask1 use atom masks. Anything in the *ambmask
> format* should work; it doesn’t have to be defined by residues.
> You can find detailed descriptions of PPI-GaMD simulation parameters in
> the paper SI: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00974.
>
> Victor can probably comment more on your questions as well.
>
> Best,
> Yinglong
>
>
> On Nov 24, 2025, at 7:06 PM, Christian Seitz <cgs...@gm...> wrote:
>
> Hi Victor and Yinglong,
>
> Victor, thanks for this information. I have a few more questions. For
> clarity, let's say that protein 1 is a small antibody, protein 2 is a large
> glycoprotein, and I want to see association/dissociation between the two.
>
> 1) You are saying that I should select the interfacial residues of protein
> 1, and then all the atoms of protein 2? I was under the impression that I
> should select all residues of protein 1, because the GaMD-AMBER manual
> defines "timask1" as "Specifies atoms of the first (bound) ligand or
> peptide in ambmask format...". A similar definition is given for "scmask1".
> But this should be just the interfacial residues, not the entire antibody?
> And they should be given as residues, not atoms? If so, perhaps the manual
> could be revised for clarity.
> 2) I ran x ns of a GaMD equilibration, and am ready to run another part.
> Thus I should subtract x ns from the overall GaMD equilibration run, as
> that is already complete. Do I subtract x ns from the normal MD
> equilibration (ntcmdprep)? Or the biasing MD equilibration (ntebprep), or
> perhaps something else? Overall, does the equilibration go from
> ntcmdprep -> ntebprep -> ntcmd -> nteb, or what order of steps does the
> equilibration run through? This will let me know how to modify my
> equilibration input files for restarted equilibration runs.
>
> Yinglong, good catch from Jinan. I recompiled amber24, only modifying the
> MaxNumberTIAtom = 750 -> 5250, and my system runs with this. Contrary to
> answers I've seen elsewhere, I can leave MaxNumberTIPair and
> MaxNumberREAFAtom at their default values and my system will run GaMD-PPI.
> In my GaMD equilibration run, at least, my system does not run any faster
> by leaving MaxNumberTIPair and MaxNumberREAFAtom at their default values.
>
> Thanks for your help!
>
> Best,
> Christian
>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2025 at 9:11 AM Miao, Yinglong <Yin...@me...>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> I’m glad that your new simulation works. Jinan mentioned that the
> “essential" code change in Amber for running PPI-GaMD would be increase in “
> MaxNumberTIAtom", in your case:
>
> MaxNumberTIAtom = 750 -> 5250
>
>
> Could you do us a favor to double check if that’s “sufficient", and other
> changes are not necessary?
>
> Thanks,
> Yinglong
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2025, at 9:25 AM, Adediwura, Victor Ayo <vad...@em...>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> Glad to hear that the code works!
>
> A few comments, the timask1 and scmask1 should be residue number rather
> than atom numbers. timask1 and scmask1 are the region you would like to see
> boosted (e.g for protein-protein dissociation, this could be the
> interfacial residues of the first protein).  The bgpro2atm and edpro2atm
> should be the first atom number of the second protein, and edpro2atm is the
> last atom of the second protein (which is also boosted). Thus, for the
> first protein, you will have to select interface residues for boosting
> while for the second protein, you would have to select from the first to
> the last atom for boosting. In essence, you might want to renumber your PDB
> such that the first protein where you are selecting some part of the
> protein (i.e interfacial residues) should come last and the second protein
> would come first
>
>
> For the second part, I would suggest to run longer equilibration
> considering size of your system which is quite large. For how it will play
> out in this case, I think this is a good idea " If I were to break up one
> long GaMD equilibration, how would I do so? Just change restart parameters,
> i.e. irest=1, ntx=5, as if I were restarting a normal, production MD?"
>
> I hope this helps!
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Victor
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Christian Seitz <cgs...@gm...>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2025 6:18 PM
> *To:* Adediwura, Victor Ayo <vad...@em...>
> *Cc:* Miao, Yinglong <Yin...@me...>; gamd-discuss <
> gam...@li...>; Davis, James J. <jj...@an...>;
> Ramanathan, Arvind <ram...@an...>
> *Subject:* Re: [GaMD-discuss] error with amber24 GaMD-PPI Too many TI
> atoms--current limit: 500 atoms
>
> Hi Victor,
>
> Fantastic, this works! The key change was involving all atoms in the TI
> mask, not excluding hydrogens:
>
> timask1 = ':1870-2126!@H' -> timask1 = ':1870-2126'
> scmask1 = ':1870-2126!@H' -> scmask1 = ':1870-2126'
>
> I would have thought that including the hydrogens in the TI mask would
> increase the atom limit of the system, and thus push it closer to amber24's
> TI atom limit. For my own understanding, do you know why including
> hydrogens in the TI mask allowed the system to run?
>
> Separately, I do not think I can finish a full GaMD equilibration for each
> of my systems within my computing resource's wallclock limit. Would it be
> better to run multiple short GaMD equilibrations until the k0P and k0D
> stabilize at 1.0, or should I run one longer GaMD equilibration and break
> it up into multiple runs? If I were to break up one long GaMD
> equilibration, how would I do so? Just change restart parameters, i.e.
> irest=1, ntx=5, as if I were restarting a normal, production MD?
>
> Many thanks for your help in this.
>
> Best,
> Christian
>
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 12:00 PM Adediwura, Victor Ayo <
> vad...@em...> wrote:
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> I just checked the files and noticed there is an issue with the
> equil_gamd.in file. I have modified this file, and it should work. Pls
> find attached the modify file.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Victor
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Miao, Yinglong via GaMD-discuss <
> gam...@li...>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 10, 2025 8:48 PM
> *To:* Christian Seitz <cgs...@gm...>
> *Cc:* gamd-discuss <gam...@li...>; Davis, James J. <
> jj...@an...>; Ramanathan, Arvind <ram...@an...>
> *Subject:* Re: [GaMD-discuss] error with amber24 GaMD-PPI Too many TI
> atoms--current limit: 500 atoms
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> It might be better to select all atoms in the protein 1 for timask1 and
> scmask1.
>
> Other than that, what you changed especially under 2) should have resolved
> the issue. Could you possibly share your simulation input files and the
> mdout file? We’d like to run it with our local Amber and see how it works.
>
> Best,
> Yinglong
>
>
> On Nov 10, 2025, at 4:07 PM, Christian Seitz <cgs...@gm...> wrote:
>
> Hi Yinglong,
>
> Thanks for the suggestions. I have tried several things so far, let me
> recap them. My system contains 1,951 heavy atoms (3,814 atoms total) in the
> TI region, which I am calling through timask1 = ':1870-2126!@H' and scmask1
> = ':1870-2126!@H' in an input file to run GaMD-PPI.
>
> 1) I compiled a standard, unmodified build of amber24. When I put a large
> system into that build to run GaMD-PPI, I get an error saying that the TI
> atom limit is 500 atoms. Thus I need to expand the TI atom limit.
>
> 2) I tried changing the "MaxNumberTIAtom", "MaxNumberTIPair", and
> "MaxNumberREAFAtom"
> within $AMBERHOME/amber/pmemd24_src/src/pmemd/src/gti_controlVariable.i. I
> increased these atom limits as shown below, recompiled a fresh version of
> amber24, and still found the same error, saying the atom limit in TI was
> 500.
>
> MaxNumberTIAtom = 750 -> 5250
> MaxNumberTIPair = 300 -> 3000
> MaxNumberREAFAtom = 500 -> 4000
>
> 3) The "MaxNumberTIAtom2"
> within $AMBERHOME/amber/pmemd24_src/src/pmemd/src//cuda/gti_NBList_kernels.cu
> comes with a limit of 4000, which should be enough for this system.
>
> static const int MaxNumberTIAtom2 = 4000
>
> I did not try increasing that.
>
> Do you have any idea what might be overwriting these other variables to
> enforce a smaller TI atom limit? I'm thinking the error message, stating
> there's a TI atom limit of 500, is probably not tied to the actual TI atom
> limit - I'm guessing that if one made the TI atom limit to be 2 atoms, the
> error message would still say the TI atom limit is 500. But I cannot figure
> out what variable is actually controlling the TI atom limit, or how to
> increase that. Or perhaps there's some issue with how I'm telling GaMD-PPI
> to select my TI atoms, and it's selecting more than I want? I can send my
> input files or system files if that helps, or can try any other ideas you
> have to get this to run. Thanks for your help!
>
> Best,
> Christian
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 6:11 AM Miao, Yinglong <Yin...@me...>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> The related parameters should be defined in file
> *$AMBERHOME/src/pmemd/src/gti_controlVariable.i*. I compared this file in
> our "gamd" branch with master branch in the Amber git repository:
>
> *# AMBER “gamd"*
>
> *  STATIC_CONST_INT MaxNumberTIAtom **=* *4000**;*
> *  STATIC_CONST_INT MaxNumberTIPair **=* *3000**;*
>   STATIC_CONST_INT MaxNumberNBPerAtom = 3072;
>
> *  STATIC_CONST_INT MaxNumberREAFAtom **=* *5000**;*
>   STATIC_CONST_INT MaxNumberRMSDAtom = 200;
>   STATIC_CONST_INT MaxNumberRMSDRegion = 5;
>
>
> *# AMBER master*
>
>   STATIC_CONST_INT MaxNumberTIAtom = 750;
>   STATIC_CONST_INT MaxNumberTIPair = 300;
>   STATIC_CONST_INT MaxNumberNBPerAtom = 3072;
>
>   STATIC_CONST_INT MaxNumberREAFAtom = 500;
>   STATIC_CONST_INT MaxNumberRMSDAtom = 200;
>   STATIC_CONST_INT MaxNumberRMSDRegion = 5;
>
> Three parameters “*MaxNumberTIAtom*”, “*MaxNumberTIPair*” and “
> *MaxNumberREAFAtom*” are modified. Could you help to try those values as
> used in the “gamd” branch to see if that resolves the issue?
>
> Thanks,
> Yinglong
>
>
>
> On Nov 9, 2025, at 11:44 AM, Miao, Yinglong <Yin...@me...>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> Seems you are changing these variables in the wrong direction. You need to
>  *increase* *MaxNumberTIAtom *and *MaxNumberTIAtom2 *to a number greater
> than 500, like 4000 or the number of atoms in your protein 1 for simulation.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Yinglong
>
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2025, at 5:16 PM, Christian Seitz <cgs...@gm...> wrote:
>
> Hi Yinglong,
>
> Thanks, as a test I reduced the limit in
> $AMBERHOME/amber/pmemd24_src/src/pmemd/src//cuda/gti_NBList_kernels.cu from
> 4000 to 400:
>
> static const int MaxNumberTIAtom2 = 4000 -> 400
>
> After building a fresh install of amber24 with this reduced atom limit, I
> found that the TI atom limit remained at 500. If it helps, inside
> $AMBERHOME/amber/pmemd24_src/src/pmemd/src/cuda/gti_gpuContext.cpp one can
> find this snippet:
>
>  if (TISize > gti_simulationConst::MaxNumberTIAtom) {
>           std::string e("Too many TI atoms--current limit: 500 atoms");
>           throw std::runtime_error(e);
>
> I can only find TISize
> in $AMBERHOME/amber/pmemd24_src/src/pmemd/src/cuda/gti_gpuContext.cpp. I
> have tried grepping a variety of terms
> within $AMBERHOME/amber/pmemd24_src/src/pmemd/src, such as "500",
> "TIAtoms", and "TISize", but nothing amongst these stand out to my
> non-expert eyes to change. When I ask chatgpt or claude how to solve this,
> they simply refer to the forum posts in my initial email, including this
> post, and suggest searching through non-existent files. Do you have any
> other ideas on where to search or what to look for? Thanks for your help!
>
> Best,
> Christian
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 7:57 PM Miao, Yinglong <Yin...@me...>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> This is what I found for “MaxNumberTIAtom” in the pmemd src code:
>
> *~/amber-git/src/pmemd/src*$ grep -iR "MaxNumberTIAtom" *
> cuda/gti_NBList_kernels.cu:  __shared__ volatile float
> coordTI[gti_simulationConst::*MaxNumberTIAtom*][3];
> cuda/gti_NBList_kernels.cu:  __shared__ float
> coordTI[gti_simulationConst::*MaxNumberTIAtom*][3];
> cuda/gti_NBList_kernels.cu:  __shared__ volatile float
> coordTI[gti_simulationConst::*MaxNumberTIAtom*][3];
> *cuda/gti_NBList_kernels.cu:  static const int MaxNumberTIAtom2 = 4000;*
> cuda/gti_NBList_kernels.cu://  __shared__ volatile bool
> bondMask[(gti_simulationConst::*MaxNumberTIAtom*2 + 1) *
> cuda/gti_NBList_kernels.cu://
> gti_simulationConst::*MaxNumberTIAtom*2];
> cuda/gti_NBList_kernels.cu://  __shared__ volatile float
> coordTI[gti_simulationConst::*MaxNumberTIAtom*2][3];
> cuda/gti_NBList_kernels.cu:    __shared__ volatile bool bondMask[(
> *MaxNumberTIAtom*2 + 1) *
> cuda/gti_NBList_kernels.cu:
> *MaxNumberTIAtom*2];
> cuda/gti_NBList_kernels.cu:    __shared__ volatile float coordTI[
> *MaxNumberTIAtom*2][3];
> cuda/gti_gpuContext.cpp:  uint4 *temp = new uint4[gti_simulationConst::
> *MaxNumberTIAtom*];
> cuda/gti_gpuContext.cpp:  unsigned* tempSC = new
> unsigned[gti_simulationConst::*MaxNumberTIAtom**2];
> cuda/gti_gpuContext.cpp:  unsigned tempShift = gti_simulationConst::
> *MaxNumberTIAtom*;
> cuda/gti_gpuContext.cpp:        if (TISize > gti_simulationConst::
> *MaxNumberTIAtom*) {
> cuda/gti_gpuContext.cpp:  int tempList[gti_simulationConst::
> *MaxNumberTIAtom*];
> *gti_controlVariable.i:  STATIC_CONST_INT MaxNumberTIAtom = 4000;*
> ti.F90:  !!integer, parameter::*MaxNumberTIAtom*=500 !! this must be
> consistent w/ gti_controlVariable.i
>
> Maybe you can check *MaxNumberTIAtom2 in **cuda/gti_NBList_kernels.cu *as
> well?
>
> Best,
> Yinglong
>
>
> On Oct 31, 2025, at 6:28 PM, Christian Seitz <cgs...@gm...> wrote:
>
> Hi Yinglong,
>
> Thanks for the helpful example, I tried a couple more things:
> 1) I tried compiling amber24 in several different places, all while
> editing the
> $AMBERHOME/amber/pmemd24_src/src/pmemd/src/gti_controlVariable.i file to
> match what you sent. Each time I tried a run, I found the error saying the
> TI atom limit is 500.
> 2) I tried compiling amber24 without editing any files. This means the
> default MaxNumberTIAtom is 750 inside
> $AMBERHOME/amber/pmemd24_src/src/pmemd/src/gti_controlVariable.i. When I
> try to run GaMD-PPI with this version, my system still crashes with a TI
> atom limit of 500.
>
> Am I missing something? In amber24 is there another variable that
> overrides the limits set inside the gti_controlVariable.i file? If so, that
> would explain why running GaMP-PPI shows an atom limit of 500 even though
> the default amber24 TI atom limit inside gti_controlVariable.i is 750. In
> 2) the only file I edited was the
> $AMBERHOME/amber/pmemd24_src/build/run_cmake file, where I edited the linux
> section to be
>
>   cmake $AMBER_PREFIX/pmemd24_src \
>     -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=$AMBER_PREFIX/pmemd24 \
>     -DCOMPILER=MANUAL  \
>     -DMPI=TRUE -DCUDA=TRUE -DINSTALL_TESTS=TRUE \
>     -DDOWNLOAD_MINICONDA=FALSE -DBUILD_PYTHON=FALSE \
>     -DBUILD_PERL=FALSE -DBUILD_GUI=FALSE \
>     -DPMEMD_ONLY=TRUE -DCHECK_UPDATES=FALSE \
>     -DDISABLE_TOOLS=FEW -DCMAKE_C_COMPILER=gcc-12 \
>     -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER=g++-12 -DCMAKE_Fortran_COMPILER=gfortran-12 \
>     2>&1 | tee  cmake.log
>
> to compile on the resource I am using. Let me know if there are any files
> I can send to help diagnose this~
>
> Best,
> Christian
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 10:56 AM Miao, Yinglong <Yin...@me...>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> Sorry for the issue with running PPI-GaMD. To perhaps follow up with the
> post by Dr. Fabian Glaser as you mentioned in your email, I’m attaching
> more detailed discussion he had later on with Jinan to resolve the issue.
>
> Hope the example “gti_controlVariable.i” and the idea of using “only the
> interfacial atoms of the first protein in TIMASK1/SCMASK1, and then the
> second FULL protein first and last atoms in bgpro2atm and edprod2atm” could
> help.
>
> For “bgpro2atm and edpro2atm”, it would make sense to include ALL atoms
> associated with the second protein, including the PTMs.
>
> Best,
> Yinglong
>
>
>
> Yinglong Miao, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> Department of Pharmacology and
> Computational Medicine Program
> University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
> Tel: 1-919-962-5696
> http://miaolab.org
>
> Editor-in-Chief
> *npj Drug Discovery*
> https://www.nature.com/npjdrugdiscov
>
> On Oct 29, 2025, at 5:03 PM, Christian Seitz <cgs...@gm...> wrote:
>
> You don't often get email from cgs...@gm.... Learn why this is
> important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
> Hello Yinglong + co,
>
> I am trying to equilibrate a system for use in GaMD-PPI using amber24. I
> ran it through normal equilibration for MD (heating, minimizing,
> equilibration) already. I tried to start a GaMD equilibration, but
> immediately the system fails with a segfault:
>
> terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::runtime_error'
>   what():  Too many TI atoms--current limit: 500 atoms
>
> I went
> into $AMBERHOME/amber/pmemd24_src/src/pmemd/src/gti_controlVariable.i and
> changed the following parameters:
>
> MaxNumberTIAtom = 750 -> 5250
> MaxNumberTIPair = 300 -> 3000
> MaxNumberREAFAtom = 500 -> 4000
>
> I can make a fresh build of amber24 and compile with these adjusted
> parameters, but running it still results in a TI atom limit of 500 atoms.
> This issue was seen previously here
> <http://archive.ambermd.org/202412/0029.html>, here
> <https://sourceforge.net/p/gamd/mailman/gamd-discuss/thread/SA1PR03MB6450A4FB3834171AE436C154B85F2%40SA1PR03MB6450.namprd03.prod.outlook.com/#msg58743189>
> , here <http://archive.ambermd.org/202206/0050.html>, and here
> <http://archive.ambermd.org/202307/0086.html>. It appears one person
> <https://sourceforge.net/p/gamd/mailman/gamd-discuss/thread/36223A2E-0AC1-4D6B-8F42-E1B5C996FE4F%40uconn.edu/>
>  was able to fix this issue in a previous version of amber, but not
> amber24. Do you have any ideas on what other parameters I would need to
> modify to increase the TI atom limit? Thank you!
>
> I also have a question about the atom masks. When I select the atom mask
> bgpro2atm and edpro2atm, should this mask only include protein atoms or
> also PTMs, such as glycans, attached to the protein?
>
> Thanks for your help!
>
> Best,
> Christian
>
> --
> *Christian Seitz*
> PhD, Biochemistry & Biophysics | UCSD
> Postdoc, Computer Science | UChicago
> cgs...@gm... <cg...@uc...>
> [image: www.linkedin.com/in/christianseitz21]
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/christianseitz21>
> _______________________________________________
> GaMD-discuss mailing list
> GaM...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamd-discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Christian Seitz*
> PhD, Biochemistry & Biophysics | UCSD
> Postdoc, Computer Science | UChicago
> cgs...@gm... <cg...@uc...>
> [image: www.linkedin.com/in/christianseitz21]
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/christianseitz21>
> _______________________________________________
> GaMD-discuss mailing list
> GaM...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamd-discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Christian Seitz*
> PhD, Biochemistry & Biophysics | UCSD
> Postdoc, Computer Science | UChicago
> cgs...@gm... <cg...@uc...>
> [image: www.linkedin.com/in/christianseitz21]
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/christianseitz21>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Christian Seitz*
> PhD, Biochemistry & Biophysics | UCSD
> Postdoc, Computer Science | UChicago
> cgs...@gm... <cg...@uc...>
> [image: www.linkedin.com/in/christianseitz21]
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/christianseitz21>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Christian Seitz*
> PhD, Biochemistry & Biophysics | UCSD
> Postdoc, Computer Science | UChicago
> cgs...@gm... <cg...@uc...>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Christian Seitz*
> PhD, Biochemistry & Biophysics | UCSD
> Postdoc, Computer Science | UChicago
> cgs...@gm... <cg...@uc...>
> [image: www.linkedin.com/in/christianseitz21]
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/christianseitz21>
> _______________________________________________
> GaMD-discuss mailing list
> GaM...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamd-discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Christian Seitz*
> PhD, Biochemistry & Biophysics | UCSD
> Postdoc, Computer Science | UChicago
> cgs...@gm... <cg...@uc...>
> [image: www.linkedin.com/in/christianseitz21]
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/christianseitz21>
>


-- 
*Christian Seitz*
PhD, Biochemistry & Biophysics | UCSD
Postdoc, Computer Science | UChicago
cgs...@gm... <cg...@uc...>
[image: www.linkedin.com/in/christianseitz21]
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/christianseitz21>