JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB Archives

CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB  December 2008

CCP4BB December 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: LSQKAB, version 6.0 vs version 6.1 - reposting (Sorry!)

From:

Clemens Vonrhein <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Clemens Vonrhein <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:52:07 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (158 lines)

Hi David,

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:31:28AM -0500, Borhani, David wrote:
> Hi Clemens,
> 
> Thanks for all your tests; the scripts/keywords you used to run LSQKAB
> with these test systems would help to clarify what may be going right
> vs. going wrong.

That was just a simple run with

  lsqkab workcd work.pdb refrcd ref.pdb <<EOF
  FIT RESI ALL 1 TO 5
  MATCH 1 TO 5
  EOF

> A few points that I hope may be helpful:
> 
> 1. Atom names are 4 characters. If a true match is desired, all 4
> characters (even the first one that is often a " ") must be compared.

I agree: the 3-character test is not something I'm involved with at
all. This is what LSQKAB is doing - and I _think_ it has to do partly
with MMDB (which does some shifting as far as I can remember).
 
> 2. I think the new code is not correct, as your examples show, and as
> others have found in using the program. The logic, in those cases where
> alt coded atoms are present, seems to be either wrong, unexpected, or
> ill-defined (i.e., it matters which coord set is work vs. reference), or
> perhaps even all of the above.

Maybe my email wasn't quite clear: e.g. the problem with "which coord
set is work vs. reference" happens in the OLD code (CCP3 6.0.2) and is
fixed in the NEW code (6.1). All the unexpected behaviour is present
in the old 6.0.2 version of LSQKAB - the 6.1 version is fixed and
behaves as expected.

The original problem reported was that the output seems to suggest
that LSQKAB was using AltConf atoms in the superposition. And so it
was: but it did it wrongly (i.e. it mattered which PDB file was
defined as reference and which as work). The new code fixes that - but
if you want a feature like

  match up with AltConf "A" in case one PDB has no AltConf and the
  other has

then this needs to be newly introduced into LSQKAB: it never was in
there and the impression that it might have worked like that in the
old version was due to some wrong logic introducing this random
behaviour.

> 3. I agree that chain, residue number, and atom name do not by
> themselves specify a unique atom; insertion code must also be used. Alt
> code *may* be used, and that's where (IMHO) it gets tricky (and
> apparently the older versions of LSQKAB just used an implicit logic
> (i.e., likely matched the first found alt coded atom, without any
> checks):
> 	A. Option one, no defined logic: just ignore the alt code; use
> any (random) atom you get (first).

Yes, that is 6.0.2 behaviour.

> 	B. Option two, defined logic (what that logic should be is the
> key point to discuss, I think).

Yes, that is 6.1 behaviour: exact matching. But yes: there should be
some better message (one can deduce this from the number of atoms in
the working set compared to the number of atoms used - printed just
above the RMS message).

> Rigid potential logic:
> 	1. User must explicitly specify what will constitute a match.
> Absent such a specification, program stops with
> 		an error if alt coded atoms are found (or if they don't
> meet the specification).
> (I don't recommend this!)
> 
> Flexible ("intelligent"?) potential logic:
> 	1. Match the atom without the alt code (i.e., " "), if it
> exists; else match an atom with an altcode.
> 	2. Now matching alt codes:
> 		A. Is there an atom with alt code "A"? Use it, else look
> for "B", "C", etc., in sort order.
> 			(FYI: documentation (6.0.2-03) says: "If there
> are two or more conformations, the first (labelled A) 
> 				is chosen for comparison.")

Ah: that might have been true for pre-mmdb coordinate library use (but
even then it might have depended on the way the PDB file was
written). But with mmdb (as far as I understand) the atoms might be
stored in a different (random?) order.

> 		B. ALTERNATIVELY, use the alt coded atom with the
> highest occupancy; use sort order to 
> 			resolve ties (A > B > C... [usually, one tries,
> at least, to put the most significant 
> 			atom as the " " alt code or the "A" atom]).
> (I prefer using occupancy instead of B factor, because once one is
> modeling alt conformations, occupancy receives some conscious attention;
> the B will then just refine to where it needs to be given the
> user-assigned occupancy [unless one is refining occupancies in SHELX].
> So, in most cases, I suspect, occupancy trumps B factor. Others may
> disagree.)

That would be the nicest way.

> There also may need to be a new keyword/keyvalue to allow the user to
> specify which of several potential alternative logics to use.
> 
> 4. It appears to me that the new version (6.1.0) doesn't have any
> changes to the FIT/MATCH keywords to handle insertion codes. If the user
> specifies, for example:
> 	FIT RESIDU SIDE 155 TO 156 CHAIN A 
> 	MATCH RESIDU 155 TO 156 CHAIN A
> then IF there exists a residue 155A in the working coords, there must
> also be a residue 155A in the ref coords, else error.

Possible: I'm not sure how the sequence "155 TO 156" is interpreted
when using mmdb-based coordinate library. Is 155A stored in "155 155A
156" or are residues with insertion code stored at the end or
... something completely different?

> There are good reasons to allow users to alter this behavior, e.g.
> fitting immunoglobulin hypervariable regions, which often have (a
> variable number of) insertions. Current LSQKAB logic would appear to
> make this task difficult. To be more explicit, if I want to fit residues
> 25-40, knowing that there is a variable loop, with insertion codes after
> residue 30, i.e. I want to fit 25-30 and 31-40, it would be nice to be
> able to specify "25-40" and "SKIP INSERTIONS" or something similar.

I completely agree: insertion- and alternate conformation code
handling in LSQKAB is far from ideal and difficult. But at least
version 6.1 gives the correct answer for the limited scenarios one can
do with LSQKAB.
 
> 5. Finally, ensuring that whatever logic is chosen works no matter which
> coordinate set is specified as work or reference would be highly
> desireable, as your examples clearly point out!

Absolutely - I can't find an official author for LSQKAB, so I guess
those improvements are up for grabs to anyone ;-)

Cheers

Clemens

-- 

***************************************************************
* Clemens Vonrhein, Ph.D.     vonrhein AT GlobalPhasing DOT com
*
*  Global Phasing Ltd.
*  Sheraton House, Castle Park 
*  Cambridge CB3 0AX, UK
*--------------------------------------------------------------
* BUSTER Development Group      (http://www.globalphasing.com)
***************************************************************

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager