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

From:

Clemens Vonrhein <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Clemens Vonrhein <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:23:46 +0000

Content-Type:

multipart/mixed

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (246 lines) , README (75 lines) , NoAlt_NoIns.pdb (75 lines) , Alt_NoIns.pdb (75 lines) , NoAlt_Ins.pdb (75 lines) , Alt_Ins.pdb (75 lines)

Hi Dave,

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 02:58:31PM -0500, Borhani, David wrote:
> I think the LSQKAB change at Line 291(old)/Line 300(new) DOES introduce
> new and possibly incorrect logic.

Very possible, but ...
 
> I haven't looked at all the code, but this one change does seem to
> substitute a check that chain, residue number, and atom name (only 3
> characters; incorrect) match [OLD] for a check that chain, residue
> number, atom name (4 chars, correct), insertion code (correct, assuming
> that the insertion codes and residues numbers in the two proteins are
> lined up correctly), AND ALT CODE match [NEW].

I read that slightly differently:

OLD: check on the first three characters of the atom name

NEW: check on the first three characters of the atom name
      AND
     check on alternate conformation
      AND
     check on insertion code

There is no (new) check on chain or residue number - which is correct,
since the LSQKAB syntax allows to specify different chain identifiers
and different residue numbers for the work and reference PDB file.

The new code makes sense to me (but please double check and correct me
if I'm wrong): without it you get a complete mess in the match-up
(since atom name, chain and residue number are simply not enough to
pick one and _only_ one atom).

> The alt code match is, I suspect, a bug, in exactly the situation that
> Jose provided: one protein may have them, but the other may not (or may
> have different ones). One should perform the alignment such that the
> protein (residue) without alt codes aligns onto the other protein
> (residue) with the "A" alt code; to discard the residue pair is simply
> because alt codes don't match is not correct.

I'm not sure about that: LSQKAB is intended to superimposed two sets
of atoms. For that the user needs to specify exactly (!) what atoms
belong into these two sets. Your suggestion of having LSQKAB pick
AltConf "A" instead of an atom without AltConf introduces new logic
into LSQKAB that wasn't there before. So I wouldn't classify that as a
bug, since it does the right thing: making sure that one and _only_
one atom will be picked (whereas before this wasn't guaranteed).

Please note that I don't say your suggestion doesn't make sense: I
like automatic superposition programs that make sensible structural
assumptions and decisions (some LSQMAN commands or SSM in Coot). Just
that LSQKAB isn't really intended that way: it does exactly what it
says on the tin.

As a comparison, I've run a test with three PDB files:

  a) just 5 residues

  b) same 5 residues, but one side-chain has two alternate
     conformations (A and B)

  c) same 5 residues, but one residue has insertion code instead of
     residue number increment

  d) same 5 residues, but now with the alternate conformation
     side-chain and the insertion code residue

Running this against 4 LSQKAB binaries:

  A) LSQKAB sources from 6.0.2, compiled against 6.0.2 libraries

  B) LSQKAB sources from 6.0.2, compiled against 6.1.0 libraries

  C) LSQKAB sources from 6.1.0, compiled against 6.0.2 libraries

  D) LSQKAB sources from 6.1.0, compiled against 6.1.0 libraries

shows some interesting items (assuming that LSQKAB should match-up
only identical atoms, i.e. leaving your suggestion of automatic
decisions aside).

 - the 6.0.2 LSQKAB source shows non-zero RMS values in a variety of
   cases

   This makes no sense, since for any pair of the above PDB files the
   common atoms are identical.

 - the 6.0.2 LSQKAB source gives different results when swapping the
   two PDB files one superposes (i.e. superposing PDB1 onto PDB2 gives
   a different result thatn superposing PDB2 onto PDB1)

   Again, this doesn't make sense.

   Both of these points are due to the missing checks introduced into
   the latest version (which make sure that only identical atoms are
   picked).

 - the 6.0.1 LSQKAB source always gives rms values of zero and the
   order of PDB files doesn't matter.

To me the 6.1.0 sources look correct ... ?

Anyway, getting back to the original question (most people reading the
CCP4bb will be bored by now anyway):

> If I do the same superposition (with a pdb file that contains 
> alternative conformations) with LSQKAB version 6.0 and 6.1:
> 1) Version 6.0 reports 110 atoms "to be refined" and does not report any 
> error or warning. The loggraph contains data for the residues with 
> alternative conformations.
> 2) Version 6.1 reports 97 atoms "to be refined", and it reports 13 atoms 
> as "no match for workcd atom [...]". The loggraph does NOT contain data 
> for the residues with alternative conformations.
> 
> Based on that, I have assumed that version 6.0 does include atoms in 
> alternative conformations (in fact, it seems to take into account each 
> conformations independently).

I can understand that this looks like a regression in 6.1 (since it
uses more atoms and shows residues with alternate conformations in the
loggraph). But I'm fairly certain that it did the wrong thing
nevertheless, i.e. the superpostion will have been wrong and therefore
rms values, rotation/translation etc as well. If I use two PDB files

  1) 5 residues: 37 atoms

  2) 5 residues, one sidechain has alternate conformations "A"
     (original position) and alternate conformation "B" (different
     rotamer): 29 atoms + 2*8 atoms = 45 atoms

I would expect that superposing 1 onto 2 should match-up only common
atoms (i.e. leaving out the side-chain of the alternate conformation
residue completely = 29 atoms) and therefore give rms of 0.0. But
using CCP4 6.0.2:

  1 -> 2 : rms = 0.000 for 37 atoms; by chance (?) it seems to pick
           AltConf "A")

  2 -> 1 : rms = 1.590 for 45 atoms; 






> > > 
> > > Bye
> > >  Jose
> > > 
> > > On 12/22/2008 4:31 PM Tim Gruene wrote:
> > >> Not using lsqkab very often, this might be a stupid 
> > question: How do 
> > >> you know that version 6.0 _DOES_ include multiple 
> > conformations? Maybe 
> > >> it only does not report their omission?
> > >>
> > >> Tim
> > >>
> > >> -- 
> > >> Tim Gruene
> > >> Institut fuer anorganische Chemie
> > >> Tammannstr. 4
> > >> D-37077 Goettingen
> > >>
> > >> GPG Key ID = A46BEE1A
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, Jose M de Pereda wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Dear colleagues,
> > >>>
> > >>> While using LSQKAB I have encountered what it seems a different 
> > >>> behavior between version 6.1 and 6.0.
> > >>>
> > >>> If I superpose two structures with LSQKAB version 6.1 
> > (included in 
> > >>> CCP4-6.1.0), residues with alternative conformations are 
> > not included 
> > >>> for the calculations. This is an example of the message 
> > in the log file:
> > >>>
> > >>>  - NO MATCH FOR WORKCD ATOM -   995CA  A IN REFRCD FILE
> > >>>  - NO MATCH FOR WORKCD ATOM -   995CA  A IN REFRCD FILE
> > >>>  - NO MATCH FOR WORKCD ATOM -  1009CA  A IN REFRCD FILE
> > >>>  - NO MATCH FOR WORKCD ATOM -  1009CA  A IN REFRCD FILE
> > >>>
> > >>> The program completes the task normally, but it does not use the 
> > >>> residues with alternative conformations.
> > >>>
> > >>> In contrast, LSQKAB version 6.0 (included in CCP4-6.0.2) uses the 
> > >>> residues with alternative conformations.
> > >>>
> > >>> The documentation of LSQKAB does not have any reference about the 
> > >>> treatment of residues with alternative conformations.
> > >>>
> > >>> This problem is not specific to a particular coordinates 
> > file. For 
> > >>> example, I can reproduce it using PDB entry 1QG3 and superposing 
> > >>> residues 1127-1318 of molecule A onto the same range of 
> > molecule B.
> > >>>
> > >>> I would appreciate if someone could enlighten me whether 
> > this is a 
> > >>> new FEATURE of ver 6.1 or a BUG; and how can this be 
> > avoided (i.e. 
> > >>> include residues with alternative conformations for calculations).
> > >>>
> > >>> Finally, I am running CCP4 6.1.0 in a Linux box with Suse 
> > 10.2 (Linux 
> > >>> 2.6.18.8-0.10-default i686).
> > >>>
> > >>> Happy holidays and happy New Year
> > >>> Cheers
> > >>>
> > >>> Jose
> > >>>
> > >>> -- 
> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> Jose M de Pereda, PhD
> > >>> Instituto de Biologia Molecular y Celular del Cancer (IBMCC)
> > >>> Spanish National Research Council - University of Salamanca
> > >>> Campus Unamuno s/n
> > >>> E-37007 Salamanca, Spain
> > >>> Phone:  +34-923-294819
> > >>> Fax:    +34-923-294795
> > >>> http://xtal.cicancer.org/
> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>
> > > 
> > 

-- 

***************************************************************
* 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)
***************************************************************



Alt = side-chain (>=CB) of PHE in alternate conformations, i.e. 8 atoms Ins = PRO with insertion code, i.e. 7 atoms                  WORKCD REFRCD   src lib Alt Ins Alt Ins Nwrk Nuse Nref rms  --------------------------------------------------------------                                                                      6.0.2 6.0.2 NoAlt NoIns NoAlt NoIns 37 37 37 0.000 *                NoAlt NoIns NoAlt Ins 37 30 37 0.000                NoAlt NoIns Alt NoIns 37 37 45 0.000                NoAlt NoIns Alt Ins 37 30 45 0.000                NoAlt Ins NoAlt NoIns 37 35 37 1.203                NoAlt Ins NoAlt Ins 37 37 37 1.187 *                NoAlt Ins Alt NoIns 37 35 45 1.203                NoAlt Ins Alt Ins 37 37 45 1.187                  Alt NoIns NoAlt NoIns 45 45 37 1.590                  Alt NoIns NoAlt Ins 45 38 37 1.714                  Alt NoIns Alt NoIns 45 45 45 1.590 *                  Alt NoIns Alt Ins 45 38 45 1.714                  Alt Ins NoAlt NoIns 45 43 37 1.892                  Alt Ins NoAlt Ins 45 45 37 1.858                  Alt Ins Alt NoIns 45 43 45 1.892                  Alt Ins Alt Ins 45 45 45 1.858 *        6.1.0 NoAlt NoIns NoAlt NoIns 37 37 37 0.000 *                NoAlt NoIns NoAlt Ins 37 30 37 0.000                NoAlt NoIns Alt NoIns 37 37 45 0.000                NoAlt NoIns Alt Ins 37 30 45 0.000                NoAlt Ins NoAlt NoIns 37 35 37 1.203                NoAlt Ins NoAlt Ins 37 37 37 1.187 *                NoAlt Ins Alt NoIns 37 35 45 1.203                NoAlt Ins Alt Ins 37 37 45 1.187                  Alt NoIns NoAlt NoIns 45 45 37 1.590                  Alt NoIns NoAlt Ins 45 38 37 1.714                  Alt NoIns Alt NoIns 45 45 45 1.590 *                  Alt NoIns Alt Ins 45 38 45 1.714                  Alt Ins NoAlt NoIns 45 43 37 1.892                  Alt Ins NoAlt Ins 45 45 37 1.858                  Alt Ins Alt NoIns 45 43 45 1.892                  Alt Ins Alt Ins 45 45 45 1.858 *                                                                      6.1.0 6.0.2 NoAlt NoIns NoAlt NoIns 37 37 37 0.000 *                NoAlt NoIns NoAlt Ins 37 30 37 0.000                NoAlt NoIns Alt NoIns 37 29 45 0.000                NoAlt NoIns Alt Ins 37 22 45 0.000                NoAlt Ins NoAlt NoIns 37 30 37 0.000                NoAlt Ins NoAlt Ins 37 37 37 0.000 *                NoAlt Ins Alt NoIns 37 22 45 0.000                NoAlt Ins Alt Ins 37 29 45 0.000                  Alt NoIns NoAlt NoIns 45 29 37 0.000                  Alt NoIns NoAlt Ins 45 22 37 0.000                  Alt NoIns Alt NoIns 45 45 45 0.000 *                  Alt NoIns Alt Ins 45 38 45 0.000                  Alt Ins NoAlt NoIns 45 22 37 0.000                  Alt Ins NoAlt Ins 45 29 37 0.000                  Alt Ins Alt NoIns 45 38 45 0.000                  Alt Ins Alt Ins 45 45 45 0.000 *        6.1.0 NoAlt NoIns NoAlt NoIns 37 37 37 0.000 *                NoAlt NoIns NoAlt Ins 37 30 37 0.000                NoAlt NoIns Alt NoIns 37 29 45 0.000                NoAlt NoIns Alt Ins 37 22 45 0.000                NoAlt Ins NoAlt NoIns 37 30 37 0.000                NoAlt Ins NoAlt Ins 37 37 37 0.000 *                NoAlt Ins Alt NoIns 37 22 45 0.000                NoAlt Ins Alt Ins 37 29 45 0.000                  Alt NoIns NoAlt NoIns 45 29 37 0.000                  Alt NoIns NoAlt Ins 45 22 37 0.000                  Alt NoIns Alt NoIns 45 45 45 0.000 *                  Alt NoIns Alt Ins 45 38 45 0.000                  Alt Ins NoAlt NoIns 45 22 37 0.000                  Alt Ins NoAlt Ins 45 29 37 0.000                  Alt Ins Alt NoIns 45 38 45 0.000                  Alt Ins Alt Ins 45 45 45 0.000 *

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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